Calvinism: put that in your pipe and smoke it

Opening Lyrics and Show Intro

You can say what you want, but you won't around me. Sheep among misfits, a misfit in the trailer park at night. A misprint with the sixth sense, been sick ever since my brother died of an O .D. My two cents never made sense, either to me or anyone else inside of the sheep fence.

My 9th Smith on my right side, why you staring at your cop dot sign and my John Hancock on the dotted line? Tell me what's the bottom line? The bottom line is I'm not right. I'm not left, but this elephant won't fight.

There's nothing left but the spotlight, hold my spear, you can find me in the moonlight. You can say what you want, you can say what you want, but you won't around me. You can say what you want, you can say what you...

I'm with sin, the deep end, and I can't find my assigned seat to sit in. My theology don't fit in, black sheep of the Reformation sheep pen. To the Reformed, I'm just another Baptist, baptized again. The bastard child of Anabaptist, host to child of Reformation society.

We don't need your education. Give me a Bible and a bookshelf of dead men, cigars, bourbons, and beer cans. Bow ties, tattoos, and bearded men making Reformation great again. You can say what you want, you can say what you want, but you won't around me.

You can say what you want, you can say what you...

Welcome to Open Air Theology

All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Open Air Theology Show. My name is Jeff, and I am one of the elders of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church here in Tallahoma, Tennessee. If you're ever in the area, please stop by, say hello, smoke a cigar.

It's all good in our hood. And I'm going to pass it over to my co-host, Brayden Patterson. Introduce yourself, brother.

I'm Pastor Brayden of Valley Baptist Church in Southern Idaho. If you live around the area of Hagerman, Idaho, it would be a blessing to have you come worship God with us. Sundays at 11 in the morning.

I also have a YouTube channel called Reformed Ex-Mormon. I make pipes on Donner's Oak Company. It's a blessing to be a part of Open Air Theology and be a co-host here. I will pass the mic, not this way, but this way to my co-elder, Rick, over here.

I'm Rick Emerson. As Brayden said, I am co-elder at Valley Baptist. And that's pretty much everything about me.

John, introduce yourself, brother.

Sure. Well, there's not much for me to say. My name is John. And I'm a co-host of a podcast called Rick to Reformed. And I'm here to hopefully fill in for Haps Addison to God's glory.

Yeah, so Haps wasn't feeling well. He's dealing with some blood pressure issues. So y 'all be in prayer for him. Of course, I was giving him a hard time about it because that's just what we do. Yeah, so tonight's episode is Calvinism.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Brayden, what are you smoking right now?

You know, I'm smoking some predestination right here. No, I was just smoking some jolly good tobacco. I don't know the name off of it off the top of my head. It's from a local cigar shop in Boise. So it's good stuff.

Very delicious.

Sweet, sweet.

Why We Are Talking About Calvinism

So I was going to have Haps to kind of bring us in right here. And so since Haps isn't here to kind of catch people up to speed, I don't feel like I am exactly up to speed. So I'm going to let Brayden fill us in.

What's going on, Brayden? Yeah, so the reason why are we doing this episode?

Right, the reason we definitely want to talk about Calvinism is because of a series of events. So last week Haps was invited or I don't know exactly the details of how he got plugged in with these guys.

But with JP Uncut and Truth Cartel, I can't remember exactly the name of the YouTube channel. But these two individuals on YouTube, he and Tim Jones were supposed to be getting on and talking about Calvinism.

And so Haps last week wasn't feeling very good because of a headache. And so he just asked Jeff and I about an hour before the show if any of us could get on and fill in for him. I said yes. And so I immediately ran over to my church, started grabbing just some books just to do a quick brush up on things, thinking that we were going to be talking about regeneration preceding faith and predestination regarding salvation specifically.

However, I'll just keep on going and tell them what this whole event was. So we joined in on this debate with this JP Uncut gentleman. No one was in on the show until right when the time started. And so typically right here in this atmosphere with Brother Rice, John and Rick here, we got on beforehand, we were able to talk about what we were wanting to discuss, all those kind of things.

There was no intro whatsoever when it came to this dialogue with JP Uncut. And so we just jumped on, almost immediately went live once he got on. And it was immediate out of the gate that it seemed like this was not going to be a debate.

It was going to be more of a, I don't even know what to discuss, like what it would be classified as. But I was expecting to have something of the event of, hey, you will have 10 minutes to do this and we'll have 10 minutes and we'll have a rebuttal and rebuttal and questions.

And we'll let each other talk and be a little bit more respectful. It came out of the gate just not being that. It was definitely far different than that. And so I think tonight what we're going to be wanting to talk about is Calvinism.

We're going to want to talk about some of the arguments that they were bringing up on the show. And also discuss about just maybe some of the dangers of Christians doing some of these YouTube shows, because I think that that was very not great behavior demonstrated as far as what a Christian ought to be behaving as.

And that's coming from a gentleman that I know that I know I need to work on this area. And so it's just something that we want to definitely say these things in love and hopefully help help help other brothers in Christ reflect the image of Christ that much better today.

So.

What JP Uncut Believes About Salvation and Determinism

Yes. So, John, you might know a little more than I do on their theological standpoint. I was told that they are provisionist, but from listening to them, I really didn't get that vibe. Do you know more than I know?

Yeah, well, I'm not entirely sure what they would classify themselves as. JP himself has said he's like almost Molinist, but not completely in the sense that he he doesn't believe in middle knowledge the way that most Molinists would, but he does affirm a type of Molinism.

But in terms of our disagreements, he affirms conditional salvation. That is, you're saved so long as you are continuing to believe, and he believes you can forfeit that faith and lose your salvation as a consequence.

And so that's that's one area. And his other perspective is he believes that some things have been determined, but he doesn't believe that all things have been determined. And so those were the core disagreements between him and I.

But that just branches off into a bunch of other categories as well. But the specific topic in that discussion was whether or not God determined all things, it sounded like.

Right, right, right.

Rick, I know that you said that you watched a little bit of it. I would like to for everyone that's listening to hear your perspective and and as as Brayden's co-elder. What were your immediate thoughts?

How do you think Brayden was treated on that episode?

Well, yeah, I just I thought it was kind of just a mess. It seemed like there was very much organization to it. And I understand that you have debates that are not formal, but you have to have some respect and not just talking over.

And so I didn't hear the whole thing. I listened to maybe 20, 25 minutes straight, and then I listened to another five or 10 minutes in addition to that. And so there is a lot of talking over and some mocking.

And I can understand that to a degree where I'm OK with that. But from my little glimpse, it seemed like it was past that point of being OK. It wasn't appropriate. And for me, just popping in for a little bit mid debate, it was kind of like, what's going on here?

Like this seemed like something among brothers, but it was right. It was kind of a mess.

Did you feel like Brayden was given the right hand of fellowship, let's say?

Well, I don't. From the 25, 30 minutes, Brayden only has little bits and pieces that I was able to hear him talk. He wasn't given much opportunity in the time that I was listening for him to be able to share his views on it.

Right, right, right.

Christian Charity in Theological Disagreement

Yeah, so one thing. So Brayden mentioned earlier that we jump on a few minutes beforehand and just kind of, you know, chat a little bit. And so. Each one of us don't, you know, all four of us together, we don't have the same theological perspective.

We're all Reformed Baptists, but there's things here and there that we wish the other person would believe. Like I wished all three of these brothers would believe like me. Right, because there's going to be future episodes where I'm going to have to put them in their place.

Right.

I say that tongue in cheek because, you know, they are professing believers in Christ. Brayden, I know super well. Rick, I'm getting to know. John, I just met tonight. And I can say wholeheartedly, I love these brothers and I want them to walk away thinking, you know, just a little crazy.

But he showed me Christian love, fellowship.

Right.

And if I had if I had something that I would say, I was able to say it, even if it's in disagreement.

Yes.

I think along with that, that you want to if you disagree with someone, but OK, they're my brother. I want them to come to my understand. I want to be able to have understanding. I want to see my point.

I don't want them just to. And that's what I felt like watching that debate. It was just dismissal, like you're an idiot, like for believing that which among us where we know each other, you can have some more of that, that joking and more of that kind of language.

But if you don't know, like Brayden, you know, those guys, they didn't know him just to jump in the middle of something and begin mocking right away. Like, OK, are we are we brothers? Are we on the same side here or not?

Which and I think that was even shown even more in the map for just also said it in the second show. He was definitely not created, treated with Christian love. And I think one of the greatest, like the most clear example of this is and I think it shows the presuppositional and vindictive attitude that they have towards Calvinism and reform theology in this regard was they had a Muslim join on in the second show on the truth cartel, I think is what it's called.

And there was far more respect from the parts that I've seen, the parts that I witnessed when I was in there talking with these guys, far more respect shown towards the Muslim rather than towards the Calvinist, which is, I think, remarkable to even think about.

And even when they were discussing this with the Muslim, they thought the Muslim was going to have a stance on Allah that was similar to that of a Calvinist and predestination in God's decree. But when he spoke on it and it came out to being that it was more Muslim, there are more Molinistic in his description of how Allah worked.

They were totally different. It was actually really remarkable when I watched that and how their tones changed, their acceptance of him changed, the letting him talk and read from the Quran. It blows my mind compared to that versus when the Calvinists, the reformed individuals were on and were trying to read Bible verses and were being interrupted and not being able to discuss on full length of what their opinion was on something.

It was very interesting. Never had that experience before.

Right, right.

Compatibilism and Incompatibilism

Hey, John, let me ask you, you know them a little. Well, you know them. We don't.

Yeah.

Would they consider Calvinist brothers? Would they consider us Christians?

I think they would say yes. But their attitude says otherwise. To me, it's really hard to tell because they say, I think they would say that they're my brothers, but the way they act, it's almost like they wouldn't let me in their house.

I was dialoguing with JP the other night on compatibilism, and it was the exact same thing from the predestination debate, but like 8v1 because I was the one Calvinist there. And I was just like, wait, what?

We're brothers here. Why is this happening?

Hey, would you mind explaining compatibilism? Just since you brought up the word, you know, there could be someone watching that doesn't know what that means.

Compatibilism is basically the thesis that if determinism or the idea that all things were determined were true, then there would be no mutual contradiction between freedom and determinism. And so basically it's this idea that they can coexist, whereas incompatibilism is the opposite idea, that if it were true, determinism wouldn't negate freedom in such a way that you could be morally responsible.

So those are the two views. And he's an incompatibilist, but we are compatibilists. And so that was basically the discussion. Is determinism and freedom compatible with things? Can they work together?

And his view is no. And so it would be his burden to show that they are mutually exclusive. And the only thing he could give me was, well, if you're determined, then you're not free. And I was like, well, now you're just assuming the thing we're disagreeing about.

Right, right, right.

So we'll get into that. That's a good point. Excuse my stutter. For those that watch normally, they know I have a stutter. Something I can't help. So HAPS, after the show, was in the process of trying to set up a debate.

So we were offering them two versus Brayden and myself, and HAPS was going to moderate the debate. And we thought it was going to happen, right, Brayden? We thought it was a go, and then all of a sudden, they did not want the debate.

And I'm not sure if they watched this or not, but on air, I want to issue a challenge. I want to issue a challenge to them, myself and Brayden Patterson. Look at that dog. Challenges you guys to a public moderated debate on Calvinism.

Proposition, does regeneration precede faith? Because that's where the argument stands and falls. And we challenge you. Pick up the mantle. If you're really about that life, pick up the mantle. Let's do this.

But other than that….

Do you mind if I say something on that real quick too, Jeff?

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, so that would be a debate issue out to JP Uncut and the Truth Cartel gentleman as well. And part of this is that HAPS, I reached out to JP, and it sounded like he was saying no to it. However, this is again the issue with how they were treating the Muslim.

They're saying no to having a moderated official debate with a Calvinist. But in the second video that Matt reminded us of in the comments, they asked for an actual debate with the Muslim. And so they're willing to dialogue with the Muslim.

They're willing to have these things, but they're not with the Calvinist. Again, this is, I think, truly problematic when we consider them coming out of the gate in the first video and in the second video saying, oh, we're going to barbecue you.

We're going to throw smoke your way. And it's OK. Well, then again, it's getting really cold. I don't know. I can breathe. I can smell the flowers out here right now. There's no smoke. Let's have a formal actual debate where people can actually discuss, have rebuttal, have questioning, all those kind of things.

I think it would be good dialogue for everyone involved in those ways.

The Calvinism Killer and God's Foreknowledge

Yeah. Yeah, I absolutely agree. And if you ask me and I do say this with Christian charity, but I don't believe they have enough smoke to blow up a child's balloon. Anyways, I want to bring up. I mean, I do say that in Christian charity.

You know, I talk worse. So their argument. Well, one of the I believe it was JP. He called it the Calvinism killer, the book, the book. And correct me if I'm wrong, because I might get it wrong. But he said he said, if you know for sure that I was going to open this book, you had perfect knowledge that I was going to open this book.

Does that mean that you caused me to open the book? Something like that. If you know what he said better than the way I just explained it, please enlighten the audience. You've got to have a book in your hand to explain it.

OK.

I have to go back there to get one.

No, I'm just playing. I'll hold the book.

OK.

Well, there was two forms of it. The first one is basically he picks up a book and says, well, could I have not picked up the book? Basically, there could I have done otherwise argument. And if you say no, then he's going to say you're not free.

You know, and if you say yes, then he's going to say you're not determined. That's everything. So that's his first argument. And the second one was the one you're referring to, which is, is knowledge the same thing as determination?

And all of us here would say, no, they're not the same thing. But we just believe that at least as far as I understand it, God creating with his knowledge of what will happen from his creation is a creative decree.

And so it's his creation that based on his knowledge of what's going to happen, that produces everything in time, which is why it's a decree and not just knowledge. And so everything flows from that creative decree.

And so if you guys want my response, I would just say. You didn't create the book. You have no relation to it, whereas God is the creator of all things. So the only way for that to be a coherent argument is if God has nothing to do with anything, if God was not the creator.

Because it is true if I know what the results of a football game would be and I go back and watch the football game, I know what's going to happen, but I didn't determine them to do it. That's a true statement.

But I was not involved at all with any of the events in it, whereas God is the creator of the world and everything in it. And so that's just a blurring of the creator-creature distinction there.

And I tried to press him on that analogy. So first of all, any analogy.

I want you to give the answer that you said that night, and then if you want to go deeper, please do. But I thought you did well with that answer.

Thank you. So the question of did God predestine or did God know that I picked up this book? Could I have done something different or not? Is it all those kind of things? When he asked me the question, he said, if you were a prophet and you knew you had a prophecy that I was going to pick up this book, did your knowledge of it make it happen?

And I said, well, absolutely not. I'm a prophet. I'm not God. That was my first answer to it. So first of all, we need to have that different classification of human and God. If it's a prophet saying something, it's not that the prophet is making it happen.

He's foretelling of something that is God's decree, God's foretelling of a future event that demonstrates that he is the creator and sustainer and decreeer of all things. However, then when the question was again asked later on about did you, if you were God in that way, by knowing that this book was picked up, did you make it happen?

And the answer is yes. God did decree for you to pick up that book. However, then I responded and said, you can't just ask a one-way question on this. Did you want to pick up that book?

Yes.

Did you have the choice when you chose to pick up that book to pick up that book? And the answer is yes, that you did choose these things. And so it comes down to, and I started to press him back on this question and it stopped because he knew where it was going.

He didn't have the answers for it. And then Colin in the second show pressed him more on it, didn't have great answers for it. And it ended up coming about that Matt even put in the comments that he asked the question when we were talking about God's foreknowledge, he said, is that what y 'all want?

You want me to answer? How can God know everything? And we all said, yes. How can God know everything, but not be the decreeer of those things? And he said, I don't know. So he didn't have an answer to these issues either.

And so the, the, the part that I was pressing him on was, could you do something other than pick up that book? If God's knowledge was that you were going to pick up that book. And he said, no. And then it immediately went somewhere else because you don't want to keep on going on on that.

Because the issue with that is, is that God's foreknowledge does not rest or depend upon him, us first doing the action for him to know that we are going to do that action. Because that would mean God's foreknowledge and attribute of God is dependent upon the creature rather than him being independent, having a satiety, him being God outside of his creation.

His foreknowledge and what John was just describing there, his foreknowledge rests in his decree. That's why he has foreknowledge and therefore he can be dependent. He can be independent. He can be dependent upon himself, a satiety in that.

Foreknowledge, Decree, and the Book of Isaiah

Yeah. Yeah.

So what I want to touch on really tonight is foreknowledge and foreknowing. You know, the individual and how the two are not the same. And I think that they were conflating the two. So how does God know?

Right.

So in their view.

So. So.

So, John, you mentioned that they were. I guess we could say semi-Molinism.

It's hard.

Can we make up terms here?

Yeah.

So I would just say, probably just say Molinist.

Yeah.

That would be fine.

So a Molinist, correct me if I'm wrong, would say that God, when I think about Molinism, I think about Dr. Strange for some reason. He sees all these different ways that things could happen. And, you know, and he picks the best one.

Right.

And so God sees all the different events of, you know, of worlds that he could create. And he creates the one that has the best turnout for maybe less violence, which I hate to see the one that was more violent.

Right.

Less evil, more people worshiping him type of a thing.

So.

So basically, God has to learn something. So God's knowledge is dependent upon outside information.

Right.

Do you agree with that?

Yeah.

Well, on Molinism, it would be that middle knowledge. It's that knowledge in between his natural and free knowledge. That middle knowledge is something that doesn't come from him. It's not from him, because if it was, then it wouldn't be middle.

It would be his, you know, his free knowledge of what he decrees.

Yeah.

But still, basically, God learns.

Right.

And it's the same thing, basically, that I see taking place with open theism and Arminianism. And I usually give a little illustration using a book when it comes to God's knowledge. You know, like my wife loves to read novels.

And so like there's three ways, in my opinion, that you can have the information in a book. One is you can open it and read word for word, page for page. If you're like my wife, she gets so upset as she's reading it.

She'll skip to the very back of the book and read how it ends. And then she'll go back and read. And now that she knows how it ends, her anxiety level isn't so high.

Right.

And so she learns something and then she goes back and she reads. Or you could be the author of the book.

Right.

So word for word, page for page. God doesn't know what's going to happen until it happens. Open theism. Starting something and then looking in the tunnels of time to see how things are going to end. And going back and covering things that way.

Arminianism. And Calvinism is, well, God wrote the book. And and so I think Calvinism gives God the highest level of knowledge.

Right.

Because we're not saying that that God is the inventor. I mean, the what's the word that I'm looking for now? I know some of y 'all may have a problem with this, but I don't have a problem with saying that God authors this author sin.

I don't think he is the initiator or the creator of sin.

Right.

You just deny the 1689 confession of faith in chapter three, paragraph one, where it says God is not the author of sin.

Well.

I think it would be how you want to.

Yeah.

How you define it.

Because those those individuals.

Yeah.

Yeah.

There's a lot in the confession that I would have said different because if you say that God didn't author it, then then I think you're you're putting yourself in a boat that that open theism.

Yeah.

And also Arminianism are in the same boat with you. God ordains all things. And he done so in eternity past. And my argument is, is he's not so he's not a puppet master, you know, moving my arms now. So he's not actively right now causing me to do things.

But he ordained everything that I did that I'm doing in eternity past. He doesn't have to have me on a string to make sure that I'm doing these things. But he has means put into place. You see what I'm saying?

And so to say that he doesn't author sin is saying that he didn't author the book. But what I'm saying is he's not what you would call morally culpable.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

He's not making me do. These things are like the Bible when it talks about sin, it's breaking God's law.

Right.

Have you ever told a lie? You're a liar. You're stealing something.

You're a thief.

You have a little less. You're an adulterer.

Right.

So. So.

So when we do these things, we're sinning.

Right.

And so God gave a law.

Right.

And so and I usually give this illustration in my house, like, like, I don't want my kids running through the house. And so there's a law in my house. Don't run. And you know what? I know they're going to run.

I know they're going to run. They're going to catch me out looking and run through the house. And when they do, they're breaking my law.

Right.

And so God gave a law. When we break it, we sin. And so how can we say, you know, actually agree with that part of the paragraph whenever it's clear that God gave a law? It's clear that Satan is God's devil.

Read Job.

Yeah.

Right.

God is the first cause. So, yeah, he, he, he caused he, he, he laid down the law. He established the law. The law is a reflection of his character. And so then to go against his law is sin. But he doesn't cause us to go against the law.

Right.

He can't cause us. He can't do something against his nature.

Right.

And that's where the or the predetermining all things come into place. Because he's not actively like I'm not actively. I don't actively tell my child, ready, set, go. They take off running and I punish them.

Right.

I don't know. So anyways, so for knowledge, how does God know? And so I would argue he knows because he's the author. He authored all things. Would you have any other feedback on for knowledge? How does God know?

Yeah.

Well, I would just say for for our view, like you said, it's it's according to his decree. And so his knowledge would flow from his decree. Whereas on their view, they just take it as a given. Right. He just knows all things.

And they don't really give an explanation as to how he can know that. And so that's where I think the grounding objection comes in. How can God know those things without a creative decree? Right. Like and that just doesn't seem to work.

And so for me, they just seem to take it as a given. It's just true. God just knows all things. But they wouldn't accept that from us.

Right.

They wouldn't accept us saying God just determines all things. They're expecting us to explain it. And so I think it's only fair of them to do the same thing. Explain how God can know what's ever to come to pass outside of a creative decree.

That's just my thoughts on it.

Right. Right.

Scripture, Mystery, and the Sovereignty of God

No, yeah, that was absolutely right. They didn't have an answer for the questions that they were asking. But they were thinking that they were not satisfied with the answers that the Calvinists are giving.

And in my opinion, then they're not satisfied with what Scripture is teaching. We have to remember that God has sufficiently revealed himself to us. And he teaches in there that he decrees all things, that he's sovereign over all things.

And he doesn't need, and I think I said this on the show the other night, that he doesn't need us to defend who he is. We just get it. Tell me, can any of us in here tell the intimate relationship on how the virgin birth took place?

Right.

It's a miracle. I don't know.

Right.

It's a mystery. How could Christ impute us with his righteousness and also have my sin imputed to him? Tell me the intimate relationship of those things.

I don't know.

It's a miracle. It's a mystery.

Right.

Tell me how God has decreed all things, yet we are responsible for our actions and our sins that we freely choose to do.

I don't know.

It's a miracle. But the Bible teaches such a thing. And that's where we just have to draw clear lines in the sand. Not in the sand. We need to go to the rock and see the clear lines that have been laid out there for us, that this is the truth.

And stand there, not trying to make new lines in sand.

Yeah.

And I think that's what we—everyone, we need to go to Scripture. Like, we can dismiss whatever labels, whatever, and we need to have our starting point in Scripture. And we see very clearly that God determines all things.

And see very clearly that God has—requires obedience of us. And that, like, choose to say who you're going to serve. Or, like, repent. Like, there's a call for people to do things. And so we're responsible for our own decisions and for our own actions.

But God is still sovereign over everything. So we have these two things. How do they go together? I don't know. But they go together, because that's what Scripture says. And that has to be our starting point.