This man seems to have a divine appointment—some might even say a decree—to expose the central fallacy of Calvinism. My role is simply to be an online herald shouting, “Check out Oloyede” and “what he said.”
He asked for food. The man cooked. Then he came out from behind the cart and held him.
Hungry, then fed, then held. Nobody dragged him to the stall. He came. Someone met him.
The Father still runs while the son is a great way off. Come is a real word. So is the hug.
https://t.co/y4CYlQpmgH
Here's a challenge-
Read the NT with the idea that every mention of the elect/chosen is a reference to a unique group of 1st C. ppl who were:
1. divinely enabled to be super-receptive to the gospel
2. supernaturally gifted to ensure the successful launch of the early church.
In Romans 9 the "o man" in the "who are you o man?" question is contextually a judicially hardened Jew, who doesn't like that God is expanding His mercy to the Gentiles.
Ironically, Calvinists limit God's mercy and align themselves with the objector in Romans 9.
This is such an ugly and arrogant view of Christ: “He died for ME, but not for you.”
There are many people who preach a false Christ. This is one of them.
Two leading Calvinists, Phil Johnson and Al Mohler, have both independently predicted, based on similar trends throughout history, that this generation’s rise in Calvinism’s popularity will eventually die out due to the rise of “hyper-Calvinism” and the “eating of their own.”
To which I reply: Why do you believe God would decree for His own truth to produce these fruits and that result?
“This is why I cannot make the Gospel fundamentally about a God reluctant to save sinners who must somehow discover whether they are among those for whom mercy was actually intended.”
Zechariah 1:15 presents an interesting picture of human freedom and seems to challenge divine determinism.
God says concerning the nations that had afflicted Judah:
“I am exceedingly angry with the nations who are at ease; for I was only a little angry, but they furthered the disaster.”
God had permitted judgment against His people, yet the nations went beyond what God intended. They did not merely carry out God's purpose exactly as He had determined it. They “furthered the disaster.”
The distinction is important:
God intended one thing. They chose to do more.
God remained sovereign over the situation, but the nations were still responsible for how they exercised their own will.
This is exactly the kind of distinction libertarian free will makes room for. A person's action can be genuinely their own, rather than the inevitable result of a prior divine determination, while God can still sovereignly accomplish His purposes through and even despite that choice.
Biblically, divine sovereignty does not require every human decision to be determined by God. God is powerful enough to still accomplish His purposes through the free will decisions of people.
“Insisting on a ‘well-meant offer’ while at the same time insisting that not all are able to respond is not the affirmation of a ‘mystery’; it is stubborn fidelity to a logical contradiction.”
—Eric Hankins, “Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism”
The original documents of Calvinist theology are a mess! Calvinists start at one end with a false idea of God’s sovereignty and come up with all kinds of evil and ridiculous results, so they then work back to unwind, or at least camouflage, what their own bad reasoning produced.