Dinesh D'Souza vs Calvinism | New Christian Apologetics

This is Jana Kramer from Wine Down with Jana Kramer. I had this moment the other day where I thought, why am I waiting for my next vacation to enjoy life? I don't need a week off. Just a day to rest and recharge would be amazing. And so I went to ResortPass.com. There are hundreds of hotel resort pools, spas and private beaches that you can be enjoying today without spending the night. I booked a one day pass at the four seasons hotel in Spa Nashville, and I'm like, wow, why am I just learning about ResortPass? I may have only been 15 minutes from home, but it felt like a whole different world. I found myself settled into a cabana just smiling. I'm Brella Drink, my favorite book, lunch brought right to me, and I'm thinking, this is exactly what I needed. Luxury Resort day passes started just $25. It's a great deal. Go to ResortPass.com/jana and use my code Jana to get $20 off when you spend $100. That's code Jana at ResortPass.com/jana. At Harmony Bank, we believe the better happens together. We're a locally owned bank built on relationships and personally committed to your success. Our community bankers are ready to make quick decisions. No big bank bureaucracy, just a custom approach to help you thrive. From business loans to mortgages and everyday banking needs, Harmony Bank provides a secure, modern experience with a touch of Texas hospitality. We're Harmony Bank. We're better, happens together. - Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the even joke about a web tonight. We're gonna be doing some, you know, kind of what I've been calling new Christian apologetics haven't brought up this topic in a while, but you know, the old Christian apologetics was about fighting the atheist about the existence of God. And then in this case, new Christian apologetics is more about, you know, proving that God is good. Christianity is the answer and it's not gay. You know, just, you know, you're a quick elevator pitch for what new Christian apologetics is. So we're gonna be doing that a little bit tonight. And a lot of the talk in the last week or so is Dinesh D'Souza, fresh office, debate, defeat against JD Hall on the, what was that debate about? Was it just about. That was definitely the Zionist question or the, or maybe it's just dispensationalism or the claim, the land claim in general. - But he did a, you've never debated a dispensationalist like me before. He kind of did that throughout the debate as well. So he got resoundingly trounce in that debate. And yeah, so we're gonna be talking about some Calvinism and his attempt at Calvinism tonight. Yeah, apologetics, I thought the right, is this the right channel? I was told we didn't do that. Yeah, I don't like the old, I don't do the old Christian apologetics, I guess. But I kind of coined this term just because it's like, "Hey, one of the things, especially for Evangelicals 'cause you know, I am advancing that banner in the name of the channel is like, "Hey, we gotta kind of overcome the infiltration of certain ideologies that come from foreign countries." You know, like the United Kingdom, you know, that foreign country, but so we kind of, you have some work to do as far as that's concerned, and then, you know, the other country as well, obviously. But, and Dinesh D'Souza, definitely a sellout, like the thumbnail for this video. I did not Photoshop that other than like adding a text or whatever, but someone out there, like, an affirmative interview for Dinesh D'Souza, had him in the back with the, I assumed Jerusalem in the backdrop of Dinesh D'Souza, like I did not, I did not create that thumbnail image. That was like someone who had interviewed him, did, like, or it was part of his like latest documentary that no one's really talked about. - The Dragon, yeah. Which again, he's, his shift into theological subjects, and this is kind of where I begin my article and the subject is that his shift has come because he works for Salem Media, which Salem Media is more or less sold out to Zionism. Salem is also the company where Brad Parscale, who did the show works in that show faith by works organization, which was the one that was, that filed a, a fair filing on how they're going to geotarget churches or people that go to church. So that was that guy who works for Salem Media. And that's also, again, where Dinesh works. So the connection in the small world is really small. - Yeah, it's also something that factors in when people like Al Moller are defending Zionism and dispensationalism, despite claiming to be reformed. I get it, Al Moller doesn't believe in a pre-trib rapture, but he still believes in Israel church distinction as far as like the aschatology goes. - Absolutely. - So that's the Lang claim, right? - And the Lang claim and stuff like that. So that's dispensationalism. He just doesn't believe in a pre-trib rapture. So, but I think that that the pre-trib rapture and a lot of the prophecy charts is probably gonna fade away as far as the distinctive. And so that's gonna go away and this distinction of treating the Jews with a sinful partiality is what's going to remain because a lot of the other unpopular things have been discarded already. So anyway, we got some fun tonight. We're gonna do a couple of things. We're gonna do the Dinesh D'Souza and then we're gonna do Jenna Ellis, I think, towards the end. So that's the plan. That's the rundown for today. And I've not listened to this. Asmi has listened to this. So that's the perspective going into this and let me see if I can find my tab here. Funny business, it's the name of the video he did. Which I think is a little odd, but didn't get that many views on YouTube. We got a lot more traction on X. - And again, he's been trying, he's been milking the, you know, one might say engagement bait on this subject for a while. So I'll do 1.25 speed and see if that's good. And let's go. - It should be for him. - This is with Lutheran Calvin that we are saved by faith alone. Now, Sproul's primary text is Paul, letter to the Romans, chapter four, verses one through five. Paul invokes the example of Abraham and sites Genesis 15, six quote Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. What Paul says here is that Abraham didn't do anything to receive salvation. He merely believed or had faith in God in this faith. This faith alone was sufficient. This faith was counted in God's eye as righteousness. Now, As he Sproul is a very intelligent fellow and he realized that Catholics wouldn't simply sit, stupified in the face of Luther's biblical exegesis. Catholics would produce biblical passages of their own and they did so at the Council of Trent, which exemplified the Catholic counter-reformation. Catholics cited the book of James. Now, here's James 2.14. What good is it my brothers? If someone says he has faith, but does not have works. Even demons, James says believe in God and in Jesus, but that does not save them. Faith, James argues, is completed in works. Here's James 2, 21 through 24, was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar. End quote. And therefore, quoting again, you see that faith was active along with his works. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. In verse 25, James gives a second example. And in the same way, he writes, was not also rehab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way. The point is that rehab did something and her works, no less than her faith, were part of her justification. R.C. Sproul recognizes the power of this Catholic rebuttal, the passages in James. Oh, just to follow the issue. So he does, this is how he leans into Calvinism. He's kind of doing the whole works versus faith thing. So I mean, if you're being a little bit more specific on rehab, her faith preceded her works still, not her works preceded her faith. So there is an order of things. There is an order of operations that happened because she feared God before she helped the Israelites. - Yeah, so I think you point that out. I view James as a book about sanctification, not so tearyology. I mean, stylistically, it's kind of a hybrid between Paul and John. So I think we can kind of look at it like that. That he's very like matter of fact, he almost has a very blunt way of speaking, kind of like how John does, but he's also kind of like tying into some very complex ideas that Paul would do. So again, I think there's a lot of parallels, I don't even see. - James is one of the, James is one of the older books in the New Testament as I understand. Certainly as far as the epistles go. And it's also often considered like the proverbs of the New Testament. Like some people have called it that, not me, but I've heard some people call it that. So again, I think it's more about sanctification. I think it's more about that issue and not necessarily because you're right. We're like Rahab had faith before she had works. Like that's obviously true. She had the fear of God before she had faith even, because everyone in Jericho was afraid. So. This is a very interesting point that he's trying to make about the Reformation because a lot of people would be a lot of people who are Protestants still reject Calvinism which is what he's going to go on a diet drive against, but nevertheless they would adhere to faith by justification alone or justification by faith alone. And in fact they would take that to an extreme that even Calvinists don't. Some even take that to mean easy believeism, you don't even have to have works that are relevant at all. So they would actually take it to mean that you can keep on sinning and live a carnal lifestyle regardless of works or whatever, because they view works as that insufficient not only for faith but as evidence of faith as well. So no wonder Luther distrusted the book of James at one point he wanted to remove it from the Bible, but Luther later recanted on that James is in the Bible just as Paul is. So how to reconcile the apparent conflict between Paul and James? Some people think it's irreconcilable and that's why we had a split in the church and that's why we have Catholics and Protestants today. But RC Sproul argues the two passages. That's not why we had a split in the church at the end of the day we had a split in the church. Obviously there's a theological debates that was used as a catalyst, but let's just talk about the authority question and the supremacy of the Pope. Martin Luther was just trying to was just being a monk and you know doing his thesis and stuff like that he was trying to start a debate and have a debate. And then when he tried to have a debate and was speaking against someone in the Catholic church that was seen as speaking against the Pope. So basically the debate shortly after that became he's against the Pope. He's like John Hus and then Luther is kind of like, yeah, I kind of am, but you know this this issue is pretty important here. So, and then there's a lot of fart memes. Yeah, there I mean it's a lot more complicated than just one issue. Obviously, you know, the indulgences which they still kind of practice to this day. Right. Others would go further when you talk about like, you know, the worship of saints, the crucifix and the second commandment violations, another major issue from the from the day which the Calvinist would definitely be more extreme than the Lutherans on. But so there were other issues and again, the papal authority. But again, there's also the geopolitical question because England and Germany with the rising powers or the Holy Roman Empire. But yeah, they were kind of like ascendant powers, especially with the era of colonialism. So England was going to have some kind of break where they can't be the world superpower and not have like religious like supremacy. But like, well, they can't. And they were going to be junior partners of the Italian states in the French or the French while they were militarily stronger than yes. So that was always a that was always going to be attention networks. Yeah, especially since the Vatican basically divided the divided the world between Portugal and Spain, which, you know, France and England would have been outside of that agreement. But anyway, a lot of tensions going on around that time. Can be reconciled, despite their apparent incompatibility. The problem is compounded by the fact that both Paul and James use the same word justification. Of course, they aren't writing it English. What I mean is that they use the same Greek term had they used two different Greek terms that could be argued that each of them was talking about something different, but they use the same term. However, both Paul and James use the same old testament case Abraham to prove their point. Paul sites Genesis 15 and contends that Abraham was justified by faith alone. James sites Genesis 22, the binding of Isaac passage who insists that Abraham was justified by faith and works, not one of the other, but both. Even so, RC Sproul argues the term justification can be understood in two ways. He puts the point this way. What question he asks are Paul and James trying to answer further? Who is the audience that each of these two writers has in mind in their discussion? Let's start with James. I quote again, the line I cited earlier in reference to Abraham James writes, you see that faith was active along with his works. It's so easy to miss the beginning of the line. You see. So James is asking the question, how do we see? How do we know that Abraham was justified before God? How can we verify or see that for ourselves? James knows, of course, we can't see Abraham's heart. We can only see what he does. And so naturally, we see Abraham's inner heart, his relationship with God through the fruits of that relationship, through the work of obedience when he takes his son Isaac to the top of the mountain to kill him. By their fruits, you shall know them. This fundamental principle is upheld throughout the Bible. And this is the principle. James is invoking faith and works go together because genuine faith will manifest itself in actions or deeds. And we can see the deeds and infer that they arose from that genuine faith in God. Paul, R.C. Sproul, argues, is raising a different question that has nothing to do with how we know someone Abraham may have anyone else is justified before God. Paul's question, rather, is what God requires in order for someone to be justified before him? And to this question, Paul gives a resounding answer. Since God knows the inner heart, since God doesn't have to wait for deeds to manifest genuine faith, God is satisfied with faith alone. The justification is by faith and the deeds that follow are the expected and natural consequence of that faith. While James and Paul appear to give different answers to the same question, in reality, they're giving different answers to the same question posed in front of two different audiences. Sure, from the human point of view, we can only see faith manifested in deeds, which show us faith and works operating together. But from the God's eye view, faith is sufficient. And justification does not require works, although works necessarily follow from all who truly believe. Now, I'm in. I'll give him credit here. That was not a terrible explanation. I mean, I'm not sure I would say that he's answering the question. It's because the two different audiences, like I'm not sure I wouldn't necessarily buy. I think the audience was man and God is what he just said. So Romans and speaking of God's perspective, James is speaking of man's perspective. Yeah, James is definitely speaking of man's perspective, but it's also like he kind of does more than if then, if you say you have faith and your works. So that's and that's generally what the Catholics will quote, but again, this phrase is an if then rhetorical statement, not necessarily a if you say you have faith, but do not have works and your faith is dead like that's an if then statement. Federal agreement with Sproul all this way. And I would like to believe it here, but Sproul concludes is teaching by raising a second point where I part ways with him. Sproul. Okay, can we just talk about it's pro. It's not Sproul. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's not like he's a nobody. So I can understand if he was obscure name, you pronouncing it wrong, you've only ever read the name so you don't actually know how to pronounce it, but this guy is not a nobody. Yeah, ask a further question. So where does that saving faith come from? Does it come from us or does it come from God to put it differently? Is our salvation our choice or God's choice? And to this question, Sproul gives the appropriate Calvinist answer. It is 100% God's choice. We are the ones who have faith in order to be justified and saved, but God is the one who gives us that faith as a free gift. In other words, God chose us before we chose him. God made us part of his chosen ones is elect. And what about those who don't have faith? Sproul doesn't really go there, but the obvious implication is that they don't have the faith to be justified and saved because God didn't give it to them. In other words, they're unable to choose God because God didn't choose them to be among his elect. Now this is the doctrine of predestination and I confess. I find it as shocking today as when I first heard it many years, well, many decades ago, it's shocking because of its implication. God evidently plays favorites. God made us all, but at the very beginning he picked some for heaven and others for help. God graciously hands out the gift of salvation, but not to everyone. I'm shocked because of what this says about the character of God. I find it unbelievable, unendurable. You see, I actually find the premise of predestination, shocking at first, too, but it's because I want to blame human beings for their sinful choices that much more, which is probably the more pelagian argument against predestination as in pelagian, the person of lazy is the person. He wanted to blame, he wanted to disagree with original sin because he wanted to infer that much guilt more guilt onto people. Obviously he's getting the gospel wrong. He's getting the human nature and anthropology wrong, but he at least wanted to confirm more guilt onto people. Now, I never rejected original sin, so I'm not going that far. But yeah, that would be my free will argument is that we know that people choose evil. Now, obviously I didn't stick with that argument, but if I'm just kind of recounting my interactions in Calvinism, I've definitely been in that camp on that side of the aisle for several years now. Because I not only view predestination as obviously a natural result of God's sovereignty, but it's also clearly taught in scripture. and maybe we'll get into that. - I mean, it is weird how he kind of evokes that God doesn't choose favors when it's clear that, like I mean Abraham was called, Paul was called, and neither of them were choosing God when, - He's a dispensationalist. - Yeah, but neither of them were choosing God when like God came around. - Well, it's just very ironic for dispensationalists to argue that God doesn't choose favorites. You obviously believe that God does choose favorites, and that these people did not choose to be chosen as God's favorite. - Well, by definition, they couldn't have chosen, 'cause they're just in the genetic lottery, I guess. - Which I'm surprised he doesn't even use that phrase in this video, but so, anyway. - Seasons change and life does too, but coming home brings it all back. It's grandma's macaroni and cheese, always the first to disappear, simple, real, and made to be shared. The kind of goodness that makes home home. These are the moments that gather us, the flavors that remind us where we're from. Some traditions are passed down, and some begin right here with the ones we love most. Highland, locally made, naturally delicious. Seasons change and life does too, but coming home brings it all back. - It's grandma's macaroni and cheese, always the first to disappear, simple, real, and made to be shared. - This is Jana Kramer from Wine Down with Jana Kramer. - I had this moment the other day where I thought, why am I waiting for my next vacation to enjoy life? I booked a one day pass at the four seasons hotel in Spa Nashville, and I'm like, wow, why am I just learning about resort pass? I'm Brella Drink, my favorite book, lunch brought right to me, and I'm thinking this is exactly what I needed. Luxury Resort Day Pass has started just $25. It's a great deal. - Now I recognize that our passages in the Bible hold a new testament both that seem to support predestination. Of God, the Bible says that, quote, Jacob, he loved but Esau, he hated. This implies God hated Esau at the outset, and that's why Esau missed out on his father's blessing. That's why Esau plotted to kill his brother. That's why Jacob continued God's chosen line. Here's Paul in Romans 8.29. Quote, "For those who he for new, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son." In Reformation Theology, this is called the golden chain of salvation, divine foreknowledge leads to predestination, which leads to calling, which produces justification and finally glorification. But I think that there are broken links in this chain. Let's start with the very first link. Divine foreknowledge leads to predestination. The implication here is because God knows beforehand whether each of us will be saved or not. Therefore, he has predestined us. This seems convincing because if something is known beforehand, well, how can it turn out differently if God knows now as he surely does how the midterms will turn out and how can the midterms produce a different result? If God knows in advance who will win the Super Bowl, how can any other team win the Super Bowl? But this reasoning rests on a fallacy. Divine foreknowledge, as it turns out, is entirely compatible with free choice. Even human foreknowledge is compatible with free choice. Let's say I know my daughter very well, and knowing her as well as I do, I know she will marry a Christian or go into the arts. I know that she will not become a doctor or engineer. And so my daughter goes into the arts and she ends up marrying a Christian. Does it follow that I forced her to do those things? Of course not, she chose for herself. I merely knew in advance because I knew the choices that she was going to make. Another example, I'm standing on the terrace of a tall building. I can see that a car is approaching a pedestrian and about to hit that person. I know it's going to happen because I can see it from above. There's no way it's not going to happen. And yet my knowledge doesn't cause the accident. The driver and the pedestrian are both moving of their own accord. Their actions cause the accident. I have nothing to do with it. My real objection to predestination, however, does not arise out of some philosophical puzzle. I think it contradicts the central premise of the entire Bible. It's incompatible with the call. I don't know if it's all the gossip. OK. Because again, the problem with his assertion of foreknowledge is he's treating foreknowledge under the way that man treats foreknowledge, not foreknowledge, how God has foreknowledge. I think that's kind of the-- so he has a wrong starting place. He calls this divine foreknowledge, but he's completely underestimating what divine foreknowledge actually would entail. Because God doesn't just know what's going to happen. He knows all possibilities of what could or could not happen. But at the same time going even further-- because you know, we're not medallists around here. He ordains-- his will is what is the path forward. He is the one that orchestrates history, the rise in fall of nations. And of course, Christ says he sustains creation, even the birds are fed at his propositions. So the notion that God's foreknowledge is just equivalent of you looking down on the road and watching a female driver hit a pedestrian. It's not exactly the same. It also denies God agency. Yes. And that's huge. So if we're denying God's sovereignty and agency, because God's just looking down at us and can see because he can do the math on what's going to happen, he can predict an eight-legged parlay. Because he's just that smart. Like that's what he's reducing God's foreknowledge and predestination, too, in arguing that it's compatible with scriptures, teachings. Now, fun fact-- I was reading Psalm 139 today because I'm stuck in the Psalms these days. But we're rounding up. We're at 139. And that is a Psalm about God's niscience that he's all knowing. And verse 16 of that, I highlighted. It's a Psalm of David, by the way. Your eyes have seen my unformed substance. And in your book, we're written the days that were ordained for me when, as yet, there was not one of them. So what this is saying is, first of all, how can God see the-- how is predestination really God looking down and seeing what's going to happen? David's here saying, he was unformed before he was born. The days were written in God's book of his life. Even the days that have not occurred yet, David is clearly expressing a belief in divine predestination that God has basically ordained the days of his life. And you see that with other people like they recognize there are other people in the Bible, they recognize that they have a fixed amount of time in this life, and that it's going to come to an end. And some of them seem to have divine knowledge of when that's going to come to an end. So David clearly in Psalm 139 expresses a view of predestination that asserts God's sovereignty over that, because God clearly has knowledge of things that are impossible to have knowledge of by sheer projection and prediction. Yes, and again, he almost has almost like a deistic view of God that God just set the world in motion. He knows everything is going to happen because it's already in motion, but no, the Bible describes God's role in creation's far more active, which means that if he's making decisions as an actor, then that means he is one, altering what would be the natural course of things. So or B, that means he's making active decisions on how certain events will come about in people's lives. So again, talk about like those are just saying sports. It's like football's a game of inches. And a lot of times, even people's in very conversion stories, it's about this particular thing happening at this particular time. You encounter the gospel or something that happened to you that made you realize it. And the way God brings things about salvation is very much particular. It's very much down to a lot of moments. So there's a lot of things you can't control. Yeah, and this is another interesting point. This comes from the Proverbs, right? At least I know the second half of that comes from the Proverbs, which I'll get to soon enough. God takes credit for every lightning bolt goes in every roll of the die, yes. So this is clearly-- and that's the whole thing about the casting of lots in the Bible, Old and New Testament, that they counted on divine favor to assert where the how the lots would be cast. It's clearly not a free will thing. They were invoking the will of God to determine how things would land. This is God acting with agency. And God takes credit for that. So. Anyway, oh. Bulls. What is the central message of the Bible? The God made man in his own image. The God loves us so much that he created us to be an eternal fellowship with him. And what is the core message of the Gospels that Jesus died for our sins? Not just for your sins or my sins. Jesus died for the sins of the world. Jesus came to save mankind because all mankind is in need of a savior. Now, how is that compatible with the idea that God made man, but he never intended some to be an eternal fellowship with him? Or that Jesus died for all mankind, but Jesus refused to give many, perhaps a majority of human beings, the faith necessary to recognize that and believe it. Jesus did the work, but he withheld the faith so that his saving deed would not benefit people who were marked at the outset for damnation, not salvation. Well, in that case, it means Jesus did not die for all our sins. As a practical matter, Jesus died for the sins of those he chose to save and only for those people. Now, R.C.'s prowl and other advocates of predestination would strongly deny that anything I have said here reflects God's injustice. So did Calvin, the inventor of the predestination doctrine in its strong. Okay. First of all, Paul's probably the biggest inventor of the predestination doctrine if we want to be really actually about it, but just going back into what he said, the Bible clearly asserts that some people are definitely not going to have faith and God clearly suppress their ability to have faith. I mean, hard, the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is clear as example. Yes. The clear is example. I mean, even if we were to, like, the way he frames the question, really the question he's framing is something that every sect of Christianity has to answer, obviously Calvinism has the best answer, but even the Catholics have this question. But it's the question that God allowed nations to be born, live, and die without ever having the hope of salvation, without ever having the opportunity of receiving the gospel. Again, millions of people over thousands of years. Again, whether in the Old Testament, there's all the Old Testament nations that are outside the covenant people. And yes, there were exceptions, but we acknowledge that they were more exceptional and that the vast majority, 99% of the people not in the nation in the Old Testament Israel were probably unsafe. And then you have entire continents of people in the New Testament world that were entirely born, live, die, unsafe. And again, the New World would be a perfect example. So everyone has to contend with, okay, God allowed this to happen. Wow. Again, Calvinism predestination, pretty simple answer, but he's basically going to infer that, like, again, what is his answer to that? That they had the opportunity to reject the gospel that they never actually heard received, that they were given the ability to be saved, even though they weren't. Like, he doesn't actually have a real answer to that. Unless he's going to be a universalist, which again, he'll see. The other thing is, why do people go to hell? And this is something that also Calvinism has a better answer for. Why do people go to hell? They go to hell for their own sense. They go to hell to suffer the penalty for the sins they committed. They do not go to hell for simply rejecting Jesus. Otherwise, there would not be any degrees of punishment in hell. Like, they all go there for the same crime. I guess you could degree, punish them for their proximity to have known Jesus or the knowledge that they had, which with they rejected Jesus, but not necessarily the crimes against God that they committed well on Earth. So why do people go to hell? And the answer is because they've suffered the penalty for their own sense. Yeah, they're already born in a default state of condemnation. They're not like, okay, they were born neutral and then they sinned. They were already born in a state of being antagonistic towards God. Which you have to be pelagian to disagree with that or there are some denominations in Christianity that believe that baptizing babies removes the guilt of original sin from them. So you have to have an answer for that. So you have to have an answer about the estate of man at birth. So anyway, and to go forward on the whole John 3, 16 thing, like the world means the nations of the world, not the world as an every man like past, present and future universal. So the gospel goes forward to all the nations via the great commission. So that's what the world means when Jesus says we're old in John 3, 16, so. Right. And the fact that people think that God so loved the world means that he loved everyone in the world. When it's very clear that the Bible does not teach the son of tradition, the Amalekites, the, again, the nations that predated Christ, that had zero opportunity of salvation. Like to say that God guide for people that literally were not even like cognizant of Christ or the gospel is, it's kind of far school. And again, the Catholics at least would say that like the church is the means by which the, the person is like given the ability to accept or reject. But again, they kind of insert the church into satiriology. At least that's my interpretation of it. So anyway. Angus form denied. What Calvin Sproul and others would say, I've read them say, is that God owes us nothing. He made us and he has every right to mark us for salvation or damnation. Now, I'll go along with this. But it carries an important corollary. If God is the one who decides who is saved and who is damned, then we cannot credit in any way those who are saved. But we cannot blame in any way those who are damned of the damned. We must say quite literally it's not their fault. Why not? Well, because they didn't have any other choice. They didn't accept God's saving grace, but that's because God didn't give them the faith to accept it. They are damned not because of their own volition, but because of God's volition. They cannot have an eternal relationship with God, because God chose not to have an eternal relationship with them. God and only God is the author of their eternal destiny. I mean, come on man, what kind of Christianity are you selling here? Are you trying to draw people to the faith or drive them away? Are you trying to encourage us to love a just and merciful God or are you trying to repel us with a God whose character seems suspect at best and abominable at worst? Has there ever been a worldview so strange and discomforting where virtue loses all her loveliness? Has any religion ever had worse promoters and advocates? Look, I know why the advocates of predestination cling to the doctrine. They know it's outrageous, they know it's repellent, but they cling to it anyway. Why? Because they are captive to the heritage of the religious wars and the polemics that came out of those terrible wars, they are hostages to history, and sometimes they don't even know it. And the predestination is very immediate. He's absolutely out of his mind on that point because he does not understand. First of all, Calvinism's resurgent, and there was the time in America where Calvinism was kind of dying, that was like a hundred years ago. The Southern Baptist Convention, anti-Calvinist 100 years ago. Fast forward to today, and by the way, Southern Baptist Convention, mostly Calvinists when it started. So, I'm just trying to do the ebbs and flows of history here. Fast forward to today. Calvinists are very influential in the Southern Baptist Convention, specifically across the board, but the good and bad people in the Southern Baptist Convention are largely Calvinistic. It's just like the most influential people in the Southern Baptist Convention. This is a very careful-- And no of our Calvinistic, other than Danny Aiken, not a Calvinist, because he does not believe in limited atonement, so he's not a Calvinist, and he's a superlip, so. I mean, this is like where he is very much doing a caricature of Calvinism. It's like, oh, these people are like, I'm his dower, and I don't know if he has like some like strange, strong man of like the Puritans being like joyless and like miserable people. And that's his like, oh, okay, this is Calvinism, what kind of sales pitch is that? Like, again, I mean, I think there's actually a lot of comfort in knowing that you didn't do the work of saving, that you're not the cause of your salvation, which is pretty much what he's arguing, is that man is the cause of his own salvation, not God. So again, that's the logical implication of what he's arguing, and again, there's a lot of other debates on what proceeds, what does predestination, proceed election, so the order of generation, proceed, faith type of thing, there's a lot of debates about that. But when you, when your argument relies on imputing the motive of God, you could, I could use his same logic to argue for universalism, that what kind of a loving God, you know, sends people to hell at all or anything, again, he's so evil of God to send someone to hell, even if they only committed a little bit of sin in their life, you know, this is a 18 year old who died of an overdose, how can they spend an eternity for only 18 years of sin? How can God be so cruel, how can his crime be so, how can his punishment be so disproportionate? How can you not argue for universalism with the same logic that Dinesh D'Souza is arguing? For, I guess, this whole aborted baby debate on whether they are saved or are not saved. again, there's no assurance of salvation for such a case. And again, I would argue that they are not because otherwise, you otherwise would actually argue that abortion's a positive good, and that you're not actually like doing other than the murder part, you're not actually doing anything like that wrong. In fact, you're actually adding plus one to heaven every time you get, you know, you walk into Planned Parenthood. So again, I would actually argue that it's even worse because, you know, you're not adding plus one to heaven, you're actually adding plus one to hell. But in majority of cases, yes. But so again, but I mean, you could use his imputations against God and say, okay, well, if God doesn't give everyone an equal opportunity to receive the gospels, that is God unjust on that merit alone. If God doesn't give, you know, if God doesn't give everyone the same opportunity is God being, is God picking favorites or not picking favorites? Like, and is God, you know, unjust? Is God violent the principle of equality that doesn't really exist, but he's pretty much asserting ghosts? And that's what his worldview fails here is that you could make the same imputation on God's character for all the people who have who lived and died, never heard the gospel at all. Exactly. Is God a just God if he condemned? And if your default state is is an enemy towards God, God can condemn you and he is well within his rights. Yeah, I mean, here's the thing, you know, say you're creating an AI chatbot and the AI chatbot rebels against you. You are in your right to just nuke that AI bot, you know, agentic AI, you know, for your tech bros in the audience. And then, you know, that's one way to look at it. Like, God is a sovereign. He can, he created, he created the world. It's his story. It's his book. We're living in it. Happy to live in it. Happy to serve God and be on the side of good and stuff like that in the book. But as David called his life a book or, you know, page in life's book, that's kind of the best way to look at it. God is the author of creation. The Bible is his story. It tells the story for us to understand of God's book of creation here. And God knows what's going to happen beginning the end because he wrote it. He wrote it. So his arguments are, uh, Dineshtha Susa's arguments are terrible because this is why I actually asked us to even acknowledge or believe an original sin. Cause it doesn't even sound like he does, but he'll probably say he does even though he's contradicting that. Yeah, it's a very interesting question to raise because that's kind of where a lot, a lot of Arminianism does again. I would even argue he doesn't even understand Arminianism. Now is that going to come up more and we should get back to it or I'll probably do it more as a summary thought because okay. No big bank bureaucracy, just a custom approach to help you thrive from business loans to mortgages and everyday banking needs. Harmony Bank provides a secure modern experience with a touch of Texas hospitality. We're Harmony Bank. We're better happens together. Tang look, looks on tap. We're talking hundreds of beautifully designed slots inspired by Eastern art and packed with bonus rounds. It's fair, it's transparent, and it's honestly just a great time. Try Tang look now and your good luck could turn into big wins. The doctrine arose within Protestantism as an extreme reaction to Catholicism. Catholics were identified with works even though in fact they affirmed faith plus works. And Protestantism took the side of faith alone. But if Protestants in the 16th century said you were saved only by faith, Catholics good in theory respond, well yes, but we must still choose to believe we must choose to have faith and this choice is to some degree an action. We must do something to have salvation even if that something is merely to accept the free gift of salvation. The Protestants or some of them said no, no human action whatever is required and therefore they were compelled by their own logic to deny human freedom and free choice. They were forced into the position that God makes the choice for us. There is a more positive reason for why predestination gains such a foothold in some quarters of Protestantism. It was adopted by people who were convinced and are still convinced. There's no alternative. They think it's required by the sovereignty of God. If God is in charge of everything, he must also be in charge of our salvation of God is truly sovereign, that he must be the one doing the saving not us. He must do it all. Even if we have faith, he gave us the faith. Even if we merely received the free as a free gift from him, he implanted in us the desire to receive it or to ask for it in the first place. As one preacher puts it quote, "Salvation is either the work of man for God or it is the work of God for man." Case closed. I too believe in divine sovereignty, but I think this is taking it too far. So let me offer an alternative way of thinking which represents the mainstream of the Christian tradition for two thousand years. And I believe it's far more compatible with the message of Scripture taken as a whole. Yes, God made us in His image and wants us all in heaven. Therefore God implanted in all of us the desire for Him and the ability to say yes to Him and be in fellowship with Him. Yes, Jesus died for all mankind and therefore Jesus has sacrificed our tones for all our sins, His grace is sufficient for all and extends in principle to all. But there is one condition. We must choose God as He has chosen us. We must accept Christ's free gift of salvation because the gift is only beneficial if it is received and accepted to say that God knows in advance who will say yes and who will say no does not contravene free will. It simply means God is omniscient. God knows what we will freely choose. Free will is an absolutely central doctrine in Christianity. It comes into play from the very beginning. Why did Satan rebel against God because he wanted to be like God? He chose to rebel and he could choose to rebel because he has free will. The loyal angels by contrast chose to be with God. We are similar to the angels in this respect. We have free will. Notice that Christians, including the Christians who profess to believe in predestination, invoke free will on a regular basis when the pastor does the alter call. Come on up and repent of your sins and receive Jesus. Is he not appealing to your free will? Surely he's not saying if God has you listed as one of his elect, he will prompt you to come forward. Otherwise, stay put, stay in your seat. I notice that all Christians, including Lutherans, Calvinists, Calvinist Presbyterians, embrace free will as part of their Theodicy. If you ask them why there's so much evil in the world, they will say, because man has free will. But then a few minutes later, they are back to their customary theological determinism. Now they will say, man, does not have the free will to say yes to God. When it comes to salvation, they say, free will is an illusion. We think we are choosing God, but we are only reflecting God's own prior choice. God deceives us into thinking we are choosing freely. No, I cannot. I mean, wow, there's a lot going on there, but maybe a verse that comes to mind because he brought up the evangelistic component, Paul being a person who teaches. It brings up specifically alter calls, which is the worst. Not a rock you could bring up at all. Yeah. Like, that isn't completely antithetical to Calvinistic approach to historically, it's mostly our minions that did alter calls or the Methodist Pentecostal pipeline. Yes, he actually, you know, Presbyterians and like historic like Baptist, the Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics were all doing alter calls. It's like, you know, that's completely a practice that arose because of Charles Finney. And it was very much like Mass Evangelicalism, which again has had fruits. If you trace the Charles Finney, I guess, pedigree to modern times, you get like New Apostolic Reformation, they love Charles Finney. He's one of their guys. So on the point of evangelism and Calvinist, they believe in evangelizing, but you're not going to be like, you're not going to just lay on predestination, you know, when you're evangelizing people, that's explaining how salvation works, not explaining the gospel necessarily, if that makes sense. I mean, Paul, the guy who wrote Romans 8, Romans 9 says, this in 2 Timothy 2 verse 10, for this reason, I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen so that they may obtain the salvation, which is in Christ Jesus and with the eternal glory. So for those who are chosen, for the sake of those who are chosen, clearly Paul does not know who is chosen and who's not. No Calvinist presumed to know completely who is chosen and who is not. They preach the gospel to all because God knows who is chosen and who is not. They don't say, come only if you're chosen. So it's not a good argument and that's just, you know, one example of Paul casually invoking limited atonement in his writings because it's largely assumed. He explains it in Romans, but he casually writes it elsewhere. But yes, 2 Timothy 2 was that verse 10. So I don't like, he makes a lot of, I guess, again, trying to impute the character of people, but in reality, when people, you know, one of the points that's been raised is when people pray for the salvation of others, they're not praying. They are praying for God to change people's minds. They are praying for God to intervene in someone's life. And when you're praying for someone who's close to you and is lost, you're not praying that they're free will to choose God. You're praying for God to change their will. Well, I mean, the other on the flip side that is that you don't I hardly think anyone says, I think I thank the Lord that I chose the that's not that's generally not how you pray to God. I'm thankful I chose you. No, you think God for what he did for you. Yes, you're thankful to God for what he did. And another thing is going back to the conversation that we had about why you people go to hell. If the free gift is for all and you just have to accept it for it to be useful, is that really how justification works? In a way, like, if God has paid the penalty for their sins and they just have to accept it in order for it to be useful, like, what do they go to hell for if they don't accept it? No, again, I don't I think if the penalty has already been paid, what are they going to hell for it? The penalty has already been paid for their sins. They just haven't accepted that gift. Well, keep in mind, like you again, when you talk about Calviness being very miserable and like, you know, just this horrible sales pitch or whatever, but at the same time, his version of Armenianism by definition has no assurance of salvation. So if anything, you would have the flip side is you would have this constant anxiety over whether you are saved or not saved. Because again, you you can you chose God one day, but then you can just choose him, you know, choose the off-ramp yet the next day in apostasy or whatever. And you know, what if you what if you died during a state of apostasy? So they're so again, there's a lot there's a lot more anxiety and discomfort that comes from that, which also undergoods the the Reformation or at least Luther's temperament in life because he was always very self-conscious of his state of sin, you know, was always going to the confessional. At least the Catholic can say if you do the works, then you have the assurance of salvation. But here's a here's the problem to Catholic theology is they believe in Vanilla and mortal sins. If you commit a mortal sin, you lose your salvation until you repent of that. You can be in, out, in, out, in, out. But at least but your assurance of salvation comes from the works and the priest. Yes. As well. Versus Calvinism, the assurance of salvation comes from the faith. And in fact, and again, one of those tell-tale signs again, contrary to contrary to any like I won't say red it's your argumentation, but like if if you're in a state of reprobate sin that is not a, a cause for eternal security. Like that that is literally like one of the signs that you are not saved that you do not have assurance of salvation is that you are in a state of reprobate sin. And again, a lot of liturgical churches will do the confession of sin and that's followed by the assurance of part and or the assurance of salvation. So that is able of surgical practice, practice, and Presbyterian and Lutheran. We've Anglican also. Anglican Stip. So and so but his version of our many and this probably has no guarantee of that which again does not lead to a joyous life. Scott annual search practice said as well. They're Baptist. Oh, didn't they like lean that way after he came more associated with the with Presbyterians and you know he went a little native. I think Joel Webin's searches that as well. I kind of remember. But I think they did that as well. And this might be the end of his video because I think he was only like about. Yeah, I think it's 18 minutes. I think there's a little bit more. Go along with this nonsense. God is not a deceiver. He's not the philosopher of daycarts malign demon who is out to fool us. God gave us free will and we are free to use it for good or evil to choose them or to reject him. Those who are in hell deserve to be there. They chose to be without God and God has granted them their wish. In summary, the doctrine of predestination is a fallacy and perhaps even a heresy. We are foreknown by God, but we are not predestined by God. Our salvation is a free gift of God. Notice I didn't say it as a free gift from God. It is a free gift of God. God himself is the that's the same thing. My kingdom is not of this world. My kingdom is not from this world. Same thing. Same said the same thing there. Yeah, I mean, trying to do a bit of versus from distinction. Not I mean dispensationalism does a lot of like weird distinctions like that. So I'll just leave it there. I'll comment on his why people get a hell thing there because he did he basically does. He does the hell is locked from the inside. Yeah. Gift, but it is our choice whether to accept him or reject him and therefore our salvation is to this degree at least within our choice and in our own hands. And that's the way I see it. All right, that was horrendous by Dinesh D'Souza there. And I got to say like because again, why do people go to hell? They choose to go there. No, no, people aren't really choosing to go there. People would not choose to spend eternity there. I can assure you, I can't really assure you from experience, but from reading scripture, can assure you people are not choosing to go there. They are sentenced there by God. If they can choose to go there, they would choose to leave also. If they chose to go to hell, why can't they choose to leave? Now again, oh, because it's not a choice. Let's just continue on with like a little bit like my summative thoughts on like his ignorance. Again, he's ignorant of what our many and his own even teaches like like they would actually it's called prevalent grace. I'm pronouncing that right. But it's basically God suspends ones of the ability to dis, towards disbelief and allows them to accept or reject the gospel. So again, and under a true Armenian framework, they're still God giving you the grace to treat me like OG. Say again. Are you saying like OG Armenian framework? Yes, like if you're looking or it might be more refined by like the Wesleyan tradition, but that would be the Wesleyan understanding. So is that God, God suspends your or allows you gives you the grace to accept or reject. So God is and under that framework, God is still technically making the first man. And you bring up Wesley is like one of the reasons why we don't like Methodism around here is that Methodism was basically created in response to Calvinism among Anglicans. So, you know, of all the reason, yeah, that's that's why we don't really like Methodist. That's one reason why Methodism has always kind of been bad. It was I believe the first great awakening Methodism came out of that and it was bad then too. And it was basically the OG's that having female pastors. No, Quakers too. Like, yeah, a lot of bad fruit. But again, if you're not even using like their true understanding of satireology, because again, they weren't free will absolutist, which is clearly with Dinesh D'Souza is positive. The other thing I want to bring up is that technically the word for free will in the Greek, I don't think is even who the scriptures. And then the free will of having robotic, you know, like the robot free will. It's because isn't isn't free will. You know, there's also another concept of free will is like our like essence in a way or will or us maybe not maybe not as deep as essence, but like it's not our will is changed to be a slave to his sin to being, you know, bound by Christ. Like, there is a change of will that happens with salvation. So, and, you know, Holy Spirit indwelling you. If God is indwelling you, how much who has this ultimate power over your life? I'm probably butcher this. I'll tell you, you see, I guess it's the, it's basically the Greek word for self-determining power is not used in scripture. So that's your, your literally free will is not even in scripture. That's like a word. As he understand, as he is using free will, yes, to argue against predestination. Well, he did say it was an essential doctrine to the Christian religion, but I mean, it's not even technically in it in the Greek form. I guess you can make an argument that like you could try to use the comparison to Trinity, but like again, I would say that's not the same concept. Well, I don't think it's as argued on the same level of his understanding of free will. But he's so free will, extremist that he believes that we choose to go to hell. And I guess choose to stay there also. So, we do have a small sequel, usually sequels aren't as good as the, aren't as good, but Jenna Ellis has entered the chat. You might remember that Jenna Ellis is the failed Trump lawyer, the bad Trump lawyer, the Trump election lawyer because she's not a good lawyer and tired of pretending like she was, but here we got girl boss Jenna Ellis and she's here to learn us some theology because Jenna Ellis is a, you know, career woman and she's here to discuss Calvinism. She has been married for two months in her life was quickly divorced and never remarried or had children. I mean, she is on American family radio. Despite that glaring resume, she's on American American family radio. Yeah, make it make sense. I mean, I just learned today that she had the the two month wedding card. I told you, man, like Kardashian marriages last longer. Yeah, I mean her loyalty to Trump faster longer too. And it's not like she's, it's not like 10, 20 years ago, she was ugly. - Like, she chose not to get married. - I mean, did she last longer in defending herself against the state of Georgia than her marriage? - That is a good question. - 'Cause she caved pretty quickly there too. - I know, she defrauded a-- - After defrauding donors. - Yeah, she defrauded a bunch of donors about how she was gonna fight the charges up against her and takes the first plea deal on her way out. That is not fighting the charges. - It's a case that got dropped. - Well, actually, it's not a matter of me not knowing she was married. I thought she was like three times divorced. Oh, you look it up. No, she's only been divorced once for a very short-lived marriage. Like, it's actually worse. I would've thought she would have more credibility if she was married like multiple times and just didn't work out. I think she would have more credibility. - I just assumed she was married. I never looked into the world. - No, she was divorced. I do not know that she was divorced a long time ago for a very short marriage. But anyway, with that said, she's about to learn about the reality. - She's about the reality. - Yeah. Well, and they're handing her a life raft because she can't go back to practicing law or maybe she can by now, but like pleading guilty to a crime inhibits your ability to practice law, shocker. So they're handing her a career, a life raft that is undeserved. So here we go. A lot is being discussed about the theology of salvation and the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement, which I disagree with. So I wanna answer one argument that I think the Calvinist falsely attribute to those of us who have a provisionist view. The Calvinist posits that if salvation requires faith, then faith must be a human contribution and therefore salvation is partly earned. In other words, acceptance is a work. That argument assumes saving faith is like consideration in a contract. Something of value exchange for a promise. So if God promises salvation in response to faith, then faith must be the payment or consideration that completes the bargain. But that's the wrong view of faith. It confuses consideration or a bargain for exchange with a conditional gift. Imagine I offer you a gift and say, it's yours, come and receive it. When you accept the gift, you aren't purchasing it. You're not providing any value. You're not earning it. I provided the gift. I paid the entire cost. I freely offered it. Your acceptance does not make me indebted to you. It simply means you receive what I have already provided. Importantly, accepting is necessary to receive the gift because I'm not forcing it upon you against your will or knowledge. A conditional gift is the biblical model of salvation. Christ paid the full price. Human beings contribute no merit, no righteousness, no works, no value, no payment towards salvation. But God does condition or receiving that gift upon repentance and faith. And scripture clearly distinguishes faith from works. Romans 4.5 says to the one who does not work, but believes his faith is counted as righteousness. Faith is not a payment exchanged for salvation. It's not a contribution that makes salvation possible. Faith is the empty hand that receives what God has graciously provided. The gift is entirely God's. The provision is entirely Christ. And accepting a gift does not mean you earned it. So faith does not give man grounds for boasting. It gives God all of the glory because salvation is freely offered, fully paid for and received by faith alone through Christ alone in mercy and grace alone. - Quick fact check here. Jenna, manage you go to John MacArthur's church. No, I believe she lives in Florida. And that's my impression. I think she's always lived in Florida, or at least for a while now. Like she represented MacArthur's church because the organization that represented MacArthur's church hired her as the public face of that. But the reason why she won that case was because the Supreme Court already ruled on the issue on a different church's case. And then her case came right after that. So she got the big W. She was able to have the press release so that she won the case. Even though the case was already determined because we replaced Ginsburg on the Supreme Court because that's really what matters is who's on the Supreme Court, not how good your lawyer is on a case like this. - Yeah, I know I heard the phrase. It's like don't show me the law. Or I think it was German car law. I was just saying it's like, yeah, you, it's like, yeah, show me the judge and I'll show you the law like, 'cause the judge decides what the law is. It's like, it doesn't matter what the law does or doesn't say it's who is the judge you're going before. - I guess the problem with her view of like, you know, it's a free gift and you just have to accept it in order to receive it. But at the same time, the gift has already been, like the work on the cross has already been done. So she's just trying to make it about, you know, it's, this is where it's like, soft versus hard determinism. Have you heard about that debate? - I mean, she started off saying provision. So she's already like going, veering into open theism and she promoted a video by a satiriology 101 who is again, a provisionist who advocates open theism so that God doesn't technically know. - So someone who's that God knows the end, God knows the end, but not the middle, which is, you know, middle knowledge, which is also a Pharisee. Someone who I know teaches, you know, he disagrees with soft versus hard determinism and I think he would agree with Jenna Ells' teaching because he says that God moves us and does not like forcibly change our will. But obviously there's a lot of instances where, you know, people are convinced and believe, right? There's a lot of instances that appear like soft determinism that God has wooed us and we accept. But there's also a lot of instances where we were hard determinist. You know, the hard determinism, God just changed our will and we had no say in it. Paul is a primary example of God changed him right on the spot, he did not get wooed by God. - If anything, he was hostile from like, his inner, he knew the gospel quite well and just that he rejected it quite hard. Like he knew what the claims were. He, you know, probably had a good understanding of what the messianic, you know, proof texts were 'cause he would later use those on the flip side. But yeah, he was not someone that would have nationally came to Christ without divine intervention. But again, even under that equation, again, does God do that equally? Does God woo all equal? - I think in ironic fashion, this guy's that I know the salvation story is also very much God changed his will. Like I'm not, maybe he would say that he was wooed but it's like I think God changed a will man. So when they try to draw distinction, people like people who reject limited atonement but kind of maintain like the other points of Calvinism, like the other four points of tulip, which I don't know how you can do by the way. Because limited atonement is the first domino in Calvinism. Like if you wanted to make a more theologically accurate acronym, you would actually start with limited atonement. - We have a D tool of such a nice flower. - It is a nice flower, it comes in spring. You know, we love tulips. But in order limited atonement comes first because the predestination, and if there's one predestination, there has to be two predestinations because the God predestines some to be saved, logically that means others unsaved, which is also what Paul explains in Romans. But when they try to create a distinction between soft and hard determinism, I'm unconvinced that a distinction exists. Like I'm unconvinced that God is only soft determinant, salvation is only God using soft determinism versus hard determinism because I see God doing both. I don't see salvation as one versus the other. I see God doing both, and if God's doing both then this whole point about determinism which she's basically using in a different way, like she's not using that word or terminology. But that is my best, that is me trying to understand her position because I've heard it before. And although I have not listened to, I actually did not listen to this video before to including it on the livestream fun fact. It's been a very busy week for me. So my ass, you did this topic and I, you know why not? We should, every once in a while, it's good to weigh in on the theology wars. But to me, there's no real meaningful distinction between soft and hard determinism that is observable in scripture or in the human experience, church history or anything like that. God wrecks people into salvation. - And if we're gonna be honest, I mean, it was probably God that did the saving when it came to representing John MacArthur's church 'cause I don't trust her legal instincts either. So. - So it's latent flowers, who promotes freeismism. - Yes, he's a theology one of them. - Yeah. Not a fan, not like an over all hate or anything, but I can't say I'm a fan. - Provisionism equaled Jesus suffered a lot for the sins of people who are in hell, making it way. they said not to mention double jeopardy. Yeah, 'cause again, why are they in hell? - But again, it goes back to if they don't actually hear the name of Jesus, then how can they be condemned for what, for essentially ignorance and wall? So again, they, every theological camp has to answer this question. The Catholics have an answer too. And then Calvinists have their answer. You could even argue that original Armenianism has its answer because, again, they don't posit that they probably wouldn't, I would hope they would not posit that everyone receives the same suspension of disbelief grace for real. - It's interesting because Calvinism has an answer as you've said, and it has an answer for things like assurance of salvation, which Armenianism had an answer that you can logically cannot, even though they, you know, when they're doing this in New York, they do try to like leave that door open, but logically it doesn't. But here's the thing, because a lot of people reject Calvinism, but want assurance of salvation doctrine because they believe, and I would say correctly so, that the Bible teaches assurance of salvation. They then created their own bastardization version of that called once saved, always saved, which means you can pray the sinner's prayer and you're good for the rest of your life. And that is how they teach it logically instead of perseverance of the saints, 'cause perseverance of the saints, which is the Calvinist, the P in tulip, which I agree does come last, like it's the L that should be first, but tulips is a good acronym, it really is. And the P would be last, like I do agree with that part. And that is, that is involved in a works manifesting themselves, that involves you persevering in your faith, and there's a relationship of faith and works that's talked about in James, I think is exemplified in the P, but is not exemplified in once saved, always saved. So, I don't think a generalist is making a compelling argument, but you are right, Calvinism, it's logical sequence, it really is logical, you can disagree with it, but it's a sound argument. You're disagreeing with a premise, but as far as like validating an argument goes, the schema is clear, the schema is good. Software people understand that one. And then, as far as other systems go, they have schema violation, they have an invalid schema. - Yeah, at least the Catholics have a, one might say coherent, even if it's wrong, it's still coherent. - Yeah, I mean, the schema checks out, because they just say Catholic church, you know, as a cheek kind of one. - Yeah, I mean, they kind of, yeah, they do kind of invoke the churches, the means by which, you know, people can accept a rejected gospel, or again, that doesn't exist under a minism, 'cause they don't necessarily insert the church into the means by which God saves, or directly, I should say. - Okay. Here we go, tol up in the right order for a lit up. There we go, okay, let's see, you know, limited assignment, irresistible grace. - What's again, by definition, our minism has to reject because they're saying that God's grace is not efficacious, if you can just walk away from the faith. And then hold to the property number three, that could be questionable, but, you know, I mean, irresistible grace, because I do believe babies can be saved on pre-born, so they might not be, you know, in a state of total, you know, completely in a state of total property, or you can be rescued from your state of total property, prior to grace. And again, on, you know, going back to the baby question, only makes sense if you believe that God does the complete work of salvation, that an unborn can be saved at all. - What do you mean, again, you know, our minism, like-- - Oh, they do the age of accountability, which yes, which also doesn't exist. It doesn't exist, not in scripture, yet source made it up. And scheme of violation. - Or you're taking like Catholic practice of a confirmation using the age of 13, wouldn't that what have happened, and then applying that to your scheme? It doesn't work because you don't have a sacrament called confirmation. And also probably would require paid evaptism. - Yeah, which the Catholics also practice because of original sin, 'cause they have a reason for that. So God gives babies faith. How does that happen? And specifically, I believe there's a strong case from scripture for the children of believers, specifically. - I mean, I do, I would argue that-- - That is the strongest case. And the children outside of that, I'm not sure. We don't know, but that's not unjust either way. - I would argue that paid evaptism as the Presbyterians understand it is a reflection of predestination as a doctrine. So, you know, our bath is reformed. We're gonna go there a little bit, but yes. So I do think that Calvin is understanding of baptism is a reflection of predestination. - So, yeah. We kinda have to circle back on that one, 'cause yeah, that's one thing, 'cause they're gonna use the age of accountability, which is a stupid-- - Which I don't know. - Again, I don't know, which again also doesn't make sense, but if you really want to drill down into it, but-- - I mean, what about people who are, you know, down syndrome and 30 years old? Do they just have, so is it not really an age thing? It's really an understanding thing? - Yeah. - Okay, so-- - And so-- - Then it goes back to did Lindsay Clancy-- - We're in a movement, right? - We're gonna move the goal posts and for whatever makes sense for the situation, 'cause we don't have a coherent answer, you know, it has a schema violation in valid schema at every single turn, 'cause it's just not logical. There's not a logical sequence for this, whereas the Catholics can say, if they're a baptized baby, they're good to go. Like, okay, might not be the most biblical take, but it at least makes sense. Their answer makes sense, or even the Lutherans, baptismal regeneration, okay, it makes sense, not gonna hate it, but age of accountability, provisionism, doesn't make sense. So. - And again, that's before you get into the fact that I think latent flowers has like opened theist or some form of middle knowledge. So again, he is projecting attributes of God in order to come to his theology. - I mean, yeah, this is a good point by cosmic trees, and also you're like, God would not be unjust to send babies to hell, but the reason cannot be that he's judging him for the sins they would have committed that's time-traveled, obligute. Yeah, that's obviously true. I mean, to use the idiom of going back in time and killing Hitler, if he were to go to hell, he wouldn't have gone to, he wouldn't be sentenced for the sins he would have in the alternate universe, in the alternate timeline, to use that idiom of our culture. I do want to acknowledge the super chat from Joey. Thank you for the super chat, and here's a shout out. I didn't even say anything with it, but that's cool. That's cool. I think I said, I think you said early in the chat that you haven't gotten to catch too many screams. So happy to have you here. Like babies go to heaven, that's up to God. And yeah, that's IQ of accountability. Man, man, like with, and here's the thing, 'cause I think idiocracy is real. Like the premise of idiocracy, the movie, is that smart people stopped having babies and only retarded people had babies, and that happened over, because smart people would choose their careers and be logical, and then retarded people would be primal and stuff like that. And all of a sudden, hundreds of years later, America looks like India. So this is unironically how the movie actually looks. And like the concept, the Kafka is literally a favela, or like a third world street market, is like the Kafka's, it's like wow, they were a little bit more accurate than they, we give them credit for. I know, like, oh wow, what does idiocracy look like? It looks like India. But what do they mean by that? Even the funny thing about IQ is that like, there's like different grades of like retardation if you truly think about it, 'cause someone that has downs in their, they're typically not violent. And they're like like 70, what they're below like 72 IQ. So they're like not very violent. But someone that's like below 85 IQ, and like in between like, you know, down syndrome, they might actually find violent behavior to be amusing. So they're actually more prone to violence, which is sort of someone that's like an 80 IQ, which again, used to be classified as mentally retarded, but you know, they changed that. They're not, you know, are they accountable for their actions even though, which the SDR was like, they find, their IQ is so low that they're so down that they actually find violence to be very amusing. Versus the downs syndrome person who's lower IQ, who does not? Maybe. - Yeah, I mean, imagine using IQ as a system of accountability. And then obviously children can have a high IQ, like, you know, like- - I think it's a correlated to age, but yes. - Yeah, that's right. So yeah, where do we draw the line? And then just a whole, idiocracy thing because I actually think the third world's actually getting more retarded, not less retarded. If I had the guess based on the trajectory of mankind, I actually think it's getting worse over there, not better. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe it's always been that bad. But when a lot of these countries, you know, the populations have actually increased like five X over the last. I mean, we're talking about police body cams. Well, I'm not even talking about police body cams. No, but we are, but we are, but we are, because we're exposed to what, to the behaviors of the third world. We are now asking the question, was it always like this, or did it get worse? It's the police body cam to be. Well, I guess the question is like, didn't they use to build cool things in Africa, like in ancient Ethiopia? And now they don't? Well, well, sub-Sahara is a different animal. No, no, like even in sub-Sahara in Africa, like Ethiopia, like specifically, they, they built like cool monasteries at one point in time, right? Like built into the ground even. But now they don't. Like, what? So, you know, there, there is something to be said, like is humanity? Yeah, there's lost knowledge, obviously, but it's like, you know, humanity getting dumber or smarter. Like, I think there's some parts of humanity that are getting smarter over time. Some parts that are getting dumber over time, which is all to say that IQ or knowledge, cognitive awareness as a standard of salvation, is a really illogical and dumb. And kind of encourages you to reproduce dumb people so that they would be saved. Anyway, Sam Kissen, you live in a desert, moved to where the food is. I don't, I know that reference, but I don't know the original. Anyway, I'll do a last call for questions. I know you got the article on this coming out that I'll do tomorrow. And maybe I'll do an article on Jenna Ellis and American Family Radio and how about a critical relationship? I mean, for once I actually have articles in the queue. Yeah, you got an article on Ted Cruz coming also, but it's been a lot of G3 this week and my coverage. And, you know, I'm not in the reformed crab pot. Like, I never wanted to be in the reformed world crab pot, even though I am reformed in my theology and stuff like that. But I never wanted to be like McArthur's guy, even though he's more Calvinistic, not really reformed. Doug Wilson's guy, even though again, he's weird in his theology. He really is. And I'm not even saving that as a hater. Joel Webn, interesting guy, but like, I'm my own person. And I'm happy to disagree with him when I have a disagreement. Happy to agree with him when I have an agreement these days. And then, you know, a lot of other guys that are doing good work out there. So, but as far as I can tell, like, most of like the relevant figures in modern evangelicalism are Calvinistic. Like, the good guys that is like, most of the good guys, as far as I'm aware, lean Calvinist. And part of the reason why is because, you know, they don't, they oppose female pastors, which rules out a lot of carismatics. Yeah, I bet. I mean, I think evangelicalism's going either reformed or charismatic. Like, you're, it's kind of going in one of those two directions. But the carismatics are even marked riskal, not a fan of female pastors a few years ago, but this year he sure was. So, no audience capture theology. Yeah. So, let's see. So, it's not like I, you know, anti everyone who's not a Calvinist, but as far as like the good guys go, like, why are they all Calvinists? Like, or who are the good guys who aren't Calvinists? Or they're like, and the other thing is the the gay for Israel, Israel question. Like, how many non-Calvinists are actually opposing dispensationalism? The Stephen Anderson. Stephen Anderson? Okay. Okay. Again, I have nothing against Stephen Anderson, because I just don't pay attention to that. I've not followed that camp. I almost did a video or an article on the him versus Jeff Durbin thing, because he raises a very interesting question about whether Jeff Durbin lied about being a homosexual in order to get out of the military. So, he raises that point and has been doing that for years now. It's like several years now. This is like internet lore, uh, regarding Jeff Durbin. And I was going to do a video on that, but man, that is, it's so much of a rabbit hole. I ended up doing, I think I ended up doing the Jack Hibbs announcement instead. Speaking of, uh, you know, people on the charismatic side, uh, that are often kind of the good guys. Jack Hibbs, not exactly feeling that way about him these days, who filed a fraudulent copyright strike against this channel. I am happy to announce that the strike has been removed. The video has been restored. He has eaten his L, and he can suck it. So, Jack Hibbs, take your L, uh, for coming at me with a fraudulent copyright strike. And, uh, you know what you were doing. Where your team knows what they were doing. Uh, let's see, Anderson is insane, but hilarious. That's my understanding. Or Calvinists are just more terminally online. Well, I think that applies everyone, every camp, but the Calvinists, I think, are just better at the internet. And a lot of people were won over to Calvinism by the availability of knowledge. So like retrieval projects of retrieving earlier Protestant works, Puritan works and stuff like that, uh, led to the resurgence in Calvinism. But I think the resurgence was ongoing for decades. I don't think it's a new thing. I don't think it's even a 1990s thing. And then, uh, let's see, Calvinism is self-selecting for people who just think deeply about stuff. That's another thing. It's more academic. And I say that in a positive way. Like, it's more about, hey, we're going to be smart about faith and not just feeling about faith. So, uh, yeah. All Calvinists are nerds, so Stormy Squad. I mean, if I'm not cool, well, I may be struck by a flying ice cream truck and live in famous words of SpongeBob. Oh, I mean, you know, Stonewall Jackson reference here. Stonewall Jackson is a Calvinist and, you know, he's pretty cool. I don't know. I'm not sure I have a Coleman nerd. Now, he was so much not a nerd that he had to do the scouting himself at Chancellor's Village. A regrettable decision. So, all right. That's all we got for today. Uh, already said thanks for the super chat. So yes, we are covered our bases. Have a blessed day. Stay based crisis king and we will catch you on the next one. Season's change and life does too. The coming home brings it all back. It's grandma's macaroni and cheese. Always the first to disappear. Simple, real and made to be shared. The kind of goodness that makes home, home. These are the moments that gather us. The flavors that remind us where we're from. Some traditions are passed down and some begin right here with the ones we love most. We're a locally owned bank, built on relationships and personally committed to your success. We're Harmony Bank. We're better. Happens together.