On The Free Will of Man, II

I have chosen to respond to the comments left by ElShaddai Edwards by starting a new post rather than reply in the combox. Hopefully we can both be edified by this.

The understanding I've come to is that God knowingly created man with the natural inclination to sin and desire to choose to be selfish over selfless [Genesis 8:21].

21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse [1] the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. The context of the passage is not dealing with man's free will. Noah has just finished building an altar to the Lord and offered up a sacrifice v.20. Of all the people on the planet only Noah and his family found grace in the eyes of God, Gen. 6:8, the rest perished in the flood. After the flood, Noah was being obedient to offer a sacrifice and the aroma of the sacrifice is what was pleasing to the Lord. God then states that man's heart is evil from his youth that would include Noah's heart as well. The doctrine of Total Depravity is not that all men are as evil as they can possibly be but that every aspect of them has suffered due to the fall, no one can come to the Father unless the father first draws him, John 6:44. The topic of Genesis 8 is not about mans free will or his choosing to be selfless and even if you wanted to use it in such a manner you would have a hard time demonstrating that from just that verse since it never mentions that Noah, of his own free will did these things.

From the start, God also created the framework of redemption whereby sinful man could be reconciled to God: through the blood of Christ, the perfect form or pattern of redemption [Revelation 13:8], which was first revealed through the Law.

Redemption has always been through grace and not by the law. As I mentioned earlier, Noah found favor with God (Gen 6:8), Abraham's faith was accounted to him as righteousness (Gen 15:6), and Moses as well (Exo 33:12,13). God's redemption through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was not a framework but rather it was a perfect work. Jesus did not make salvation possible, he made it a finished work on the cross. Jesus' salvation of the elect was accomplished on the cross and not when man of his free will chooses to be saved. Hebrews 7:25 tells us that Jesus saves to the uttermost and is even now interceding for us with the father. Not just that, it was God who chose His people before the foundation of the world, Eph 1:4 v.5 tells us that he predestined us to adoption. Man is incapable of predestining himself to salvation. Read John 6, salvation is the work of God, not of mans free will choice.

God's will exists on a sovereign level and a moral level, but not on an individual level [cf. Garry Friesen]. We can choose to make choices based on the wisdom of God's moral will, i.e. the Bible, or continue in a selfish manner without his guidance.

God's will is personal. He call us his sheep, he knows us by name, he chose us and predestined us to salvation. He works all things according tot he council of His will (Eph 1:11), surely his will is individual and personal. Of course we are free to make choices but that does not mean that we can freely choose God since we are spiritually dead and enslaved to our sin. ElShaddai, can you unpack this premise in your second sentence?

God has given us the moral wisdom to accept his unmerited gift of salvation, but we still have to choose to accept that gift. Our salvation is not secure until we confess our innate sinfulness and ask to be expiated by the blood of Christ, accepting him as Lord.

If then the final say on salvation is man's choice it follows that salvation is not based grace but rather works. It takes the completed work of Christ and makes it void and meaningless until man exercises his freewill to be the final piece of this puzzle called salvation, it is not a complete work until man acts upon it. Christ then died for no one in particular only making it salvation possible. But then is not God that called us, foreknew us, predestined us, conforms us to the image of Christ, justified us and will glorify us? Romans 8:28-30

With this acceptance in mind, we begin to be transformed so that our thoughts and actions are not guided by reaction and impulse and human pretension, however well intentioned, but by the discipline of obeying God [Romans 12:2].

Romans 12:2 is not addressed to the world in general but to the elect in Rome. Paul is speaking to the believers, telling them not to be conformed to the world but transformed by the renewing of the their mind. The non-believer is not subject to this appeal because he is dead in his sin.

Finally, the free will of a Christian is not the freedom to make any choice that we care to, but the freedom to make the only choice of forcing every thought to be a captive prisoner of Christ and subject to His sovereign will.

Once again, the validity of mans free will is assumed but never demonstrated. The natural man is at enmity with the Lord, the sinner hates God and God hates the sinner. Psalm 5:5, Romans 8:7-8

ElSheddai, thanks for commenting on my blog!

On The Free Will of Man

Several days ago I was having dinner with a couple of friends.  During conversation the topic of mans free will came up.  They are not Reformed in their theology thus they hold fast to mans free will.  It is interesting to try and speak with someone regarding this topic because in my opinion, those that proclaim the validity of it are demonstrating their sinful, humanistic nature in that they deny the sovereign will of God and hold their will as an equal to that of the Lord and creator.  Ultimately, if the final decision regarding salvation is mans and not God's then man has usurped the will of God, the election and predestination of God, the atoning, propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

If the free will of man is so apparent as a doctrine, can it be as fully explained through scripture as the Trinity?  With many of the people I have discussed this with, free will is always assumed and never even demonstrated through scripture, at most they only offer verses that deal with an individual making choices but never demonstrate free will.  Sadly,  most equivocate when using the term or they do not understand that a denial of free will is not a denial of an ability to make choices.  The apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans tells us that God's mercy and compassion on man is not based on the will or exertion of man but rather on God, Rom. 9:16.  This follows right after the demonstration of God's purpose of election in verse 11.  Here, Paul establishes that God's election of Jacob over Esau was not based on the works of either since the election was before either had done anything good or bad.  This verse too follows after Ch.3 v 11-12,  where Paul tells us that there are none righteous, none seek after God and that none do good... not even one.

Who then is sovereign?  Is man? Is God?  Are they both sovereign or do they both work together to secure salvation?  If then God alone is sovereign then His election to salvation is not based on anything outside of God including mans choices.  If salvation is based on the free will choices of man then God is no longer sovereign since His election to salvation is now dependent upon man's free will choice.  If then salvation is wholly dependent upon man choosing then the work of Christ on the cross has been made void and empty until that very day that man decided to choose.  The propitiatory sacrifice is no longer a perfect work that saves to the uttermost rather it only makes salvation a possibility which is only effective when and if man so chooses.  

You Dropped a Bomb On Me

How often do you hear of a Christian using the word Heretic?  Hopefully, not often and if it is used, hopefully it is being used properly and not being thrown around unnecessarily.  Dropping an H-Bomb can at times be more hurtful to the bomber than the one being bombed.  I began to think about the use of the word and how I've heard (or read) its use in the past.  Too often though, it is used improperly and out of context, this may me due to the fact that in the past heretics were burned at the stake but not any more.  Maybe we need to re-introduce this practice but also apply that if the person accused of heresy is not found to be one then the accuser should be treated as a false witness and given the same punishment.  I think this will stem the tide of the word being thrown around so much.

On Sunday, October 14, 60 Minutes ran a piece on Joel Osteen, the personable pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston who is on national television espousing his brand of the Wealth and Prosperity gospel.  He is not a big showman with gaudy suits and lots on jewelry.  He is very charming, good looking and has a great smile but not once have I heard him say anything about sin, hell, repentance or heaven for that matter.  His brand of "gospel" is for temporal benefits, sadly since he never mentions hell or mans sinfulness, he doesn't preach that man needs to be saved from his transgressions.  If I could ask Joel Osteen one question it would be, why then do we need Jesus?  The reason I bring this up is because in the piece, Dr. Michael Horton of Westminster Theological Seminary, California was also interviewed.  He was asked what he thought of Joel Osteen, he replied by saying that he was a heretic.  I am not expert on Joel Osteen, but I think that Dr. Horton is right in calling him  a heretic.  

There is much divisiveness in the Church these days where there should be unity.  Many times there are issues that shouldn't keep us apart, keeping us apart.  Something even as trivial as what Bible translation one reads is enough to have one labeled a heretic.  There are people who claim that the only true word of God is the King James Bible, the rest are merely perversions and those that read anything but the KJV are heretics.  Before his passing, Dr. Jerry Falwell called those who hold to particular redemption, heretics.  Chuck Smith, founding pastor of Calvary Chapel called Calvinists, blasphemous and even said that the teaching of the Doctrines of Grace are satanic.  Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries, on his webcast The Dividing Line, rebutted the comments made by Pastor Chuck on his radio show.  Dr. White begins the portion with Pastor Chuck about 15 minutes into the show.  Even when I attempted to have a dialogue with Mr. Scott Berner over his YouTube videos regarding Calvinism, he merely resorted to name calling.

What is happening here?  Why are we being so quick to denounce other Christians?  I think my non-Calvinists brothers are still my brothers.  I can, hopefully, by the grace of God take my non-Calvinists brothers to scripture and show them that they are wrong for believing what they do.   What I can't do is take them to scripture and show them that their belief is sinful and will take them to hell and if I were to tell them so without showing them, then I am in the wrong and in need of forgiveness for such an accusation.  

I borrowed this following portion from The Assembling of The Church Blog.

In 2 Peter 2:1, Peter warns that false prophets and false teachers will bring "destructive heresies" with them. These false prophets and false teachers will not be known for disagreeing with other believers, but instead they will be known for "denying the Lord" (2 Pet 2:1), "sensuality" (2 Pet 2:2), "covetousness" (2 Pet 2:3). Thus, these false prophets and false teachers are not ones who simply disagree with other Christians, but those who deny that Christ is Lord, and live a life that demonstrates that they are not children of God.

Perhaps, from this connection of "heresy" with false prophets and false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1, we should also recognize why these people are called "false prophets" and "false teachers". Perhaps one of the most important passages to help us understand what it means to be a "false teacher" is 1 Timothy 1:3-11. Here, those who teach "other doctrines" are those who teach contrary to the gospel (1 Tim 1:11). In many other passages, the authors of Scripture encourage their readers to teach and live in accordance to the gospel of Jesus Christ - that is, the good news that God has provided a way for all people to accepted as his children.

So, according to Scripture, who are the true "heretics"? Heretics are those who deny the gospel of Jesus Christ. Heretics are also those who live in a manner contrary to the gospel - that is, according to the flesh, not according to the Spirit. Similarly, heretics are those who cause and encourage divisions and dissensions among the followers of Jesus Christ.

When Person A calls Person B a "heretic" for a teaching that Person A disagrees with, but which is not contrary to the gospel, and when Person A refuses to fellowship with Person B because of that teaching, then, according to Scripture, Person A is actually the "heretic". Person A is the one causing division among the followers of Christ and is thus promoting true heresy.

So, let's be careful, thoughtful, and prayerful before we drop the "H" Bomb. It could be that we are the true "heretics", not necessarily because our opinion is "wrong", but because our words and actions are divisive - and this is the type of heresy that Scripture warns us about

We need to think twice before dropping an H-Bomb on another Christian.

Misrepresenting Calvinism Part III

This is the final video of the series.  This is the shortest of the three at a little more than 5 minutes and like the other two, Mr. Berner doesn't offer anything more than an emotional appeal against Calvinism.  Mr. Berner does nothing to properly exegete any of the few Bible versus he uses, the only argument he presents is that of free will without properly fleshing it out.  

In this final part of the series, he has lost what little steam he had in the first video.  He again uses 2 Peter 3:9 out of context  and has had to repeat the same arguments from the first video.  This only goes to show that Mr. Berner does not understand Reformed Theology or the Doctrines of Grace.  Not once does he take scripture to prove ANY of his assertions nor does he ever give an expositional support for his beliefs.   Sadly, Mr. Berner has refused to reply to anything I have written here.  I really want to know what he has to say about what I wrote regarding Romans 9 and 2 Peter 3, because the first time I asked him about it, he didn't have an answer then either.

Misrepresenting Calvinism Part II

Here is part two of Mr. Berner's attempted refutation of the Doctrines of Grace or Calvinism. Things do not improve as far as being able to properly present a Biblical refutation rather than having to rely on emotional appeals and misrepresentations of Calvinism. Rather than point out every single one of Mr. Berner's mistakes I will try and make two or three major points to show how Mr. Berner has fallen short of his goal.

This video follows directly after video one so there is no introduction and the video starts where the first one left off. His continuation goes on with an argument made by many atheist to try and refute Christianity. The problem of evil. Before I continue I want to be sure to point out that Mr. Berner does not escape this problem of evil, but he never addresses how he explains the evil in the world. His problem of evil is greater than that of the Calvinist.

Like many atheists, he has to put aside reality and go to a hypothetical to try and disprove the truth. God is a loving God, He is all knowing, all powerful and He is a personal God. Mr. Berner's god is none of the above. Did Mr. Berner's god know that something bad was going to happen? If he didn't, then he is not the God of the Bible. Mr. Berner needs to explain why these bad things happen as well. His god either, didn't know it was going to happen, never planned for it to happen and was surprised when it did, knew it was going to happen but was either powerless to do anything or chose not to do anything.

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good..." Mr. Berner never addresses passages like Genesis 50 or Romans 9. Mr. Berner has yet to exegete ANY verse to make his claim. There is no purpose for the evil that occurs according Mr. Berner. The Bible tells us that all things happen for the glory of God, he works all things according to the council of His will, Eph. 1:11. Mr. Berner, since he has a misunderstanding of the depravity of man and he seeks to place human will above that of the Triune God of the Bible. All men are sinners and are thus under the righteous judgment of God. Romans 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory... It is Gods power that is demonstrated in the destruction of the sinner and ultimately His Glory. God will judge the sinner and save the righteous.

At around 2 min. plus, he again talks about Gods love, and sinners. He again asserts that God doesn't hate sinners. Mr. Berner, the Bible teaches that God hates sinners. Proverbs 6:16-19, Psalms 5:5, Malachi 1:1-3. Does not the Bible teach of the destruction of the sinners? Mr. Berner maybe doesn't know that God doesn't hear the prayers of the sinner, Isa. 1:15, John 9:31. It is becoming more and more apparent that Mr. berner is the one guilty of what he is accusing Calvinists of being, he is blind, sick, foolish. It is him that is in the ditch!

Beginning at about 3:50 into the video, Mr. Berner once again attempts to deal with election and predestination according to Romans 9. In the first video he tried to make the claim that Romans 9 was of national election, now he is attempting to show that God's election and foreknowledge is based upon God looking into the future to see who would love him. This is what Dr. Ergun Caner calls "elected, because I selected" theology and is not supported by scripture. I exegeted Romans 9 in my first rebuttal to Mr. Berner. Romans 9:11 clearly shows where Mr. Berner is wrong. So, it's not because of anything the twins had done, either good or bad but to demonstrate God's purpose. Then Paul, again asserts, just in case you didn't get it in the first part of the verse that election is not based on ANYTHING the individual does, Paul states later in the same verse "not because of works, but because of him who calls". Paul clearly writes in this verse that election is not based on anything the person does.

How fitting that he closes with Daniel 12:10. Mr. Berner doesn't seem able to understand the verses I have cited, based on Mr. Berner's own criteria, is he one of the wicked?

Offline 111 contacted

Last night I contacted the maker of the anti-Calvinism videos. I invited Mr. Scott Berner to respond to my rebuttal of his refutation of Calvinism. Sadly, he declined. He sent me five messages through YouTube, none of which actually dealt with anything I had written in any scriptural way.

Scott,

I have listened to your 3 part refutation of Calvinism. You have misrepresented Calvinism and the Bible to support your man made system. I invite you to read my blog at http://souldesaenz.blogspot.com/ where I have gone through your first video and shown it's errors. I would hope you would post any and all explanations to my rebuttal on my blog.

I look forward to your replies.

Until then, may God bless the study of His word.

Jesus Saenz

Hello Jesus Saenz,

I have been over this a great many times with Calvinists in the past two decades. When men put men up as idols, they become mad on their idols. This applies to Catholics as well. It does no good to argue with those who cannot see, because God is able to give them sight, but because of their froward hearts they are not given such a gift from God.

Jesus said it like this, "Let them alone, if the blind lead the blind they shall both fall into the ditch."

That is why I call Calvinism a DEEP DITCH. You may have noticed the title?

You will serve your idols until God opens your eyes. It does no good to play games with you. You cannot hear the truth, nor see wisdom. You are just like your teachers.

May God grant you repentance unto life,
Amen.
SDB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Jesus Saenz,

My name is Scott Berner. That is the "name I go by." Ok? I have given scritpure to back up my "pre-supposition", time and again. Yes, "if the Bible teaches this type of free will, then man is a moreal free agent. His will is free to choose to do good or to do evil." You certainly have that much right, though you don't believe it. The Bible does teach it, from beginning to end.

I thought I would go and look at what sort of merry-go-round you had constructed. It is so typical it I can hardly say the words.

The blindness Calvin has laid upon his followers is so utterly consistent, so hopelessy indidious, and always the same.

You have my sympathy, Jesus Saenz. Truly and sincerely.

If you hate these on Calvin, you may hate as well those on the truth of conditional salvation in the series on Hebrews 6,10,12, Eph 5, Gal 5, 2 Pet 1-2, 1 Cor 5. There is a tremendous amount of the Bible there for you to trod under Calvin's blind boot. You could rant for months on just that material alone. Good hunting.

In the Blessed Grace of God,

(quite conditionally and gratefully)
SDB
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Berner,

I will go back and input your name, Sir, rather than your YouTube user name. When I first wrote my blog I was ignorant as to what your name is.

I want to thank you very much for taking the time to read my blog as well as to reply to me, I am sure your time is valuable and you would rather not spend it dealing with someone whom you disagree wholeheartedly with.

Yes Sir, you did provide scripture to back up your presuppositions, as did I. The thing is, Sir, I took the scripture you provided and within the context of the verse, paragraph, chapter, book and the entire Bible, demonstrated how your use of those scriptures was incorrect. You merely used one proof text to support your view of free will, I took passages that show that man's nature is sinful and thus makes choices based on that sin nature.

Since you did not address my exegesis of your use of Romans 9 as well as your use of 2 Peter 3:9 and moved on to Hebrews, Ephesians, Galatians, 2 Peter and 1 Chorinthians then you agree with my interpretation? In your video you appeal to logic, reason and truth. If we are to discuss these matters of truth then it is logical and reasonable to expect that we demonstrate, using scripture, how we arrive at the conclusions we have. Sir, I addressed your issues with Calvinism presented in the first video as well as the scripture you used. It is reasonable to expect for you to do the same with what I have presented before moving on to other passages.

I thank you for your sympathy and do not doubt the truth fo your sincerity.

Continued blessings,

Jesus Saenz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Saenz,

I do not doubt your sincerity either, by the way.

I mentioned in the beginning of our discourse that I did not intend to debate these issues and gave you the reason for such a decision.

I do not want to offend you unnecessarily, but must tell you that I do not intend to read all of your oppositions to the work the Lord has called me to do on His behalf.
I read the first portion of your rebuttal and responded to you on that part only, as it is the crux of the issue. Free will to choose. The Bible tells us that man is a "free agent" as you provide the term.

Foreknowledge is the key to understanding election. God's foreknowledge. He foreknows all He will bring into this world and makes elect those He foreknows will love Him with a pure heart. Those who will choose Him if given the opportunity to do so. He makes provisions of grace and blessing for, intercedes on behalf of, and gives ears to hear to those He so foreknows and elects. He enables them to choose Him and does not hinder them from doing so. Such election takes place only after His divine determination and foreknowledge of their choice to love Him and commit their hearts to Him wholly. From before the foundation of the earth He knows every one of His elect that will come into this world.

Only after such a Divine Determination of Grace, based upon Foreknowledge, may He begin to intercede on behalf of His chosen and elect children. He does so with complete and perfect righteousness and supreme holy justice. His grace is upon His elect based upon this determination.
(continued)

-------------------------

He cannot choose some to be elect and others to not be, based upon anything other than a just determination. He is always just and can be nothing else but righteous.

Making some elect without basing such a determination upon a righteous judgment is impossible. God is never arbitrary and always judges according to His expressed will, the Word of God declares it. He magnifies His Word even above His own Name.

This is my position today, and ever will be my position. It is the position of the Holy Scriptures and accordingly reveals the holiness and righteousness of God and is the only position that truly shows Him to be completely consistent with His own Law and Word. It justifies God, it confirms Him as faithful to His every declaration of truth and righteousness. It is the only position that truly brings glory to God. It is completely consistent with the scriptures.
(continued)
-----------------------------------------------------
After over twenty years of study and prayer and after holding different positions, based upon the understanding I had in those times, to the best of my ability, I have come to this conclusion and for me it is most unshakable.

Regarding Ad Hominem:

It is perfectly consistent with scripture to judge a man by his fruit. The Lord called them "scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites." You have declared the ungodliness of the pedophile priesthood of Rome, correct? Is that not their fruit? Also regarding the inquisitions? No? Calvin's burning people at the stake is no different. The Lord Jesus said, "no bad fruit comes from a good tree." It is action that is breaking God's law and denying the example and testimony of Jesus Christ. This is not ad hominem, it is judging the fruit of a tree. That tree is not faithful to Christ, he justified himself in all he did with his private interpretation of scritpure. This proves him to be an unreliable sourse of Biblical exegesis. His doctrines prove the unscriptural nature of his doctrine. A lost man, masquerading as a servant of Christ cannot possible rightly divide the Word of truth. All his work must be rejected. Christ said, "why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say." If a man does not follow Christ and has not the Spirit of Christ, "he is none of His." We must choose Jesus if we will follow Jesus. We must choose the Word if we will follow God. Amen.

May God Continue To Lead You To More Perfect Understanding,

SDB

PS> I have not loaded this communication with scritpure for the simple reason that you have seen them all before, but to no avail. Only when the Lord opens your understanding will they all become clear to you. Judging from my experience, this is a gradual process that can take years. I cannot do that for you. He must. There is no profit in strife.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sadly, as is usually the case with people trying to refute the Doctrines of Grace, their arguments degrade to an emotional appeal. They wish to concentrate only on God's love but say very little about his righteousness, sovereignty, holiness or omnipotence. Once you begin to understand God's righteousness and holiness, how much he hates sin and cannot abide with it, not even a little. Only then can you begin to understand what grace is, it cannot be demanded nor worked for otherwise it is no longer grace, then maybe passages like Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated, will be seen for what it is. When one reads this verse from Romans, the surprising thing shouldn't be that God hates but rather, that he loves us, the filthy sinner. Oh, how humbling it is to know that I can't take credit for my salvation, all the glory goes to God.

Misrepresenting Calvinism

Here is a video series I found on YouTube. This is part one of three from a user whom goes by the name of offline 111. He doesn't like Calvinism and was nice enough to post this three part refutation of this theological system. He does not seem to be familiar with what Calvinists actually believe nor with his Bible. I will go through his videos, one at a time and show where he is mistaken.


In his introduction, offline 111 who's name is Scott Berner, begins his refutation of Calvinism by first making light of it. He says that he will talk very little about it, that he doesn't need to say much. He poisons the well and makes a genetic fallacy in his argumentation. Since he does not believe that Calvinism can be true, therefore nothing they say is correct. That is an example of using flawed reasoning to come to your conclusion. This is the thesis he carries forward to refute Calvinism. He never attempts to deal with any scripture used by Calvinists to defend their views nor does he attempt to portray the views of any Calvinists fairly. His attack is reduced to straw man arguments.

At @ 45 seconds he then uses the argument of free will to refute the Calvinists view of monergistic soteriology. He uses Joshua 24:15 as proof text.

15^(A) And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD,^(B) choose this day whom you will serve, whether^(C) the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or^(D) the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell.^(E) But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Mr. Berner never establishes what he means by free will. He merely asserts, and presupposes it's validity. If the Bible truly teaches this type of free will, then man is a moral free agent. His will is free to choose to do good or to do evil. Man has as much right to not accept Gods grace as much as he can not accept sin. If mans will is free, then he is not bound by sin, thus he is morally neutral. He is neither good nor bad and not bound by either. This is contrary to what the Bible teaches us about the the condition of man since the fall of Adam.

It seems as though Mr. Berner has confused a denial of free will by Calvinists with a denial of an ability to choose. This is wrong. He never cites any writers, theologians, preachers, pastors or lay people to establish this straw man argumentation. Mans will and thus his choices are bound by his sin. Although man can choose to do good in the eyes of men, he can't will to do what is good in the eyes of the Lord. Natural man is a slave to his sin. John 8:34, 2 Tim. 2:25-26 , Romans 6. Freedom of the will is in clear contradiction to what the Bible teaches about sin and it's power over the natural man. Man is not capable to do what is good, Romans 8:7. Therefore, there is no freedom of the will since it is a slave to sin.

@ 1:24 there is an ad hominem attack against John Calvin. This becomes an emotional appeal to try and refute Calvinism, ignoring logic and reason, more importantly he never cites scripture. @ 1:30, he claims that Calvin was lost and there is no way he was saved. It is doubtful Mr. Berner has ever read anything written by Calvin, for if he had he never would have used the "by their fruits you shall know them" card.

At @ 1:50, Mr. Berner begins talking about election. It does not seem as though he understands what election is. God does not make one elect, rather God of His own will elects from all of humanity whom the elect will be. Election occurred before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1:4. @ 2:05, Yes, God chooses! It has nothing to do with mans "free will".

Starting at @ 2:35, he uses another straw man argument. "The elect will be saved, in spite of themselves". He makes assertions that it is contradictory to scripture yet doesn't provide any scripture to prove it. He places a higher importance to man's reason and intellect to that of God as if man knew better than God. This sort of belief system is humanistic. It is the arrogance and pride of the fallen humanity that finds monergistic salvation so unpalatable. It is mans sinful pride that wants to take credit for choosing or demanding Grace from God.

@ 3:40 he makes more assertions about how Calvinism perverts and makes a mockery of God and scripture. Not once does he show how.

@3:55 he uses 2 Peter 3:9 to show that God wants all men to be saved. If you look at this verse within it's context, it clearly becomes a proof test for the Calvinist. In the middle of the verse, "is patient toward you", the "you" is the pronoun and the subject of the sentence. If you go back one verse and follow the pronoun, "8But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The word "beloved" is the pronoun and the subject. If you go to verse 1, Peter is telling the subjects of this letter that this is the second time he has written to them. Now, to find out who this letter is addressed to, we go to 1 Peter 1:1. Peter is addressing this letter to the elect, not to all of mankind. If you follow the pronouns, Peter is writing to the elect, he calls them beloved and it is the elect whom God is not wishing that any should perish but that all(elect) come to repentance.

@4:10, again more assertions he goes on for about a minute of mere assertions. At about 4:50, in light of his misuse of 2 Peter 3:9, should we hold him to his own standards by which he judges Calvinism? Is he then "without light", is he "cut off from the light of God" and that is why he takes scripture out of context?

@5.25, more ad hominem attacks. He denies the Protestant Reformation, calling them fools.

@7:07, if we do not need any man's opinion, then why are presenting your opinion on Calvinism and the Bible?

@7:20 he is asking if it is scriptural that God hates sinners. Psalm 5:5 sure seems to show that God hates sinners. This then leads into Romans 9, specifically verse 13. Mr. Berner states that election is according to foreknowledge, that God looked into the future and saw who would love God and who wouldn't. This is NOT what scripture teaches. He has taken that passage in Romans clearly out of context. Within the context, I will start with Romans 8 verses 26-30. There are some whom claim that Romans 9 is dealing with nations and not people, that is just wrong when you look at what is happening in the previous chapter. Verse 26 shows a personal and not a national appeal, in v.27 Paul writes of a personal intercession of the Holy Spirit according to the will of God, v.28 it is those who are called according to Gods purpose. Again, this is a personal calling not a national calling, since God only worked nationally through Israel but never worked through any nation again. V. 29 begins the golden chain of redemption. It begins with God "doing" all. It is God who is foreknowing, predestining, conforming, justifying and it is God whom is glorifying.

Mr. Berner needs to read past v. 13 to v. 16. Paul clearly wrote that election does not depend on "human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." If according to Mr. Berner, God elects, according to foreknowledge(as Mr. Berner uses the word) he is verging on the heresy of open theism. If then, it is God that is foreknowing, electing, justifying, sanctifying... not to make salvation possible according to mans choice but to save to the uttermost according to God's purpose DOES NOT make God evil but sovereign.