Speaker A
My topic is predestination, but I want to get into it via a strange pathway.
Dinesh D'Souza explores predestination, faith vs works, and critiques Calvinist doctrine on salvation and God's choice.
Key Takeaways
- Faith alone versus faith plus works is a central theological debate with scriptural backing on both sides.
- Paul and James use the same term 'justification' but address different audiences and questions.
- Saving faith is presented by Calvinists as a divine gift, leading to the doctrine of predestination.
- Predestination implies God chooses some for salvation and others for damnation, raising moral and theological concerns.
- Divine foreknowledge does not necessarily negate free will, challenging strict predestinarian views.
What the video covers
- The video begins with the historical debate between Catholics and Protestants on salvation by faith alone versus faith plus works.
- R.C. Sproul's interpretation of Paul's letter to Romans supports salvation by faith alone, citing Abraham's faith as righteousness.
- Catholics counter with the book of James, emphasizing that faith without works is dead, using Abraham and Rahab as examples.
- Sproul reconciles Paul and James by explaining they address different questions: God's requirement for justification vs. human evidence of faith.
- Sproul argues saving faith is a gift from God, implying predestination where God chooses who receives faith and salvation.
- D'Souza expresses discomfort with predestination, highlighting its implication that God predetermines some for heaven and others for hell.
- Biblical passages like Romans 8 and the story of Jacob and Esau are cited to support predestination, but D'Souza challenges this interpretation.
- D'Souza critiques the idea that divine foreknowledge necessitates predestination, asserting foreknowledge is compatible with free will.
- The video discusses the theological tension between God's sovereignty and human free will in the context of salvation.
- D'Souza concludes that the doctrine of predestination is flawed and potentially heretical, emphasizing human responsibility and free choice.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction to Predestination and Faith vs Works Debate
- 01:27Catholic Counter-Reformation and the Book of James
- 02:38R.C. Sproul’s Reconciliation of Paul and James
- 04:38Different Questions of Justification by Paul and James
- 05:57Sproul’s Calvinist View on Saving Faith and Predestination
- 07:18Biblical Support and Challenges to Predestination
- 09:30Divine Foreknowledge and Free Will Compatibility
- 11:19Critique of Predestination and Final Thoughts
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
The old debate between Catholics and Protestants over whether we are saved by faith or by faith and works both. The connection between predestination and the faith-works debate might not seem clear, but I'll try and show how these
Speaker A
topics are related. I recently watched a teaching by the great Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul who insists with Luther and Calvin that we are saved by faith alone. Now Sproul's primary text is Paul's letter to the Romans 4:1-5.
Speaker A
Paul invokes the example of Abraham and cites Genesis 15:6. 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. And this
Speaker A
faith, this faith alone was sufficient. This faith was counted in God's eye as righteousness. Now, R.C. Sproul is a very intelligent fellow and he realized that Catholics wouldn't simply sit stupefied in the face of Luther's biblical exegesis. Catholics would produce
Speaker A
biblical passages of their own and they did so at the Council of Trent which exemplified the Catholic Counter-Reformation.
Speaker A
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?
Speaker A
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 2:21-24. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
writes, "Was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?" The point is that Rahab did something and her works, no less than her faith, were part of her
Speaker A
justification. R.C. Sproul recognizes the power of this Catholic rebuttal. The passages in James seemed to settle the issue. No wonder Luther distrusted the book of James. At one point, he wanted to remove it from the Bible. But Luther later recanted on
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
Protestants today. But R.C. Sproul argues the two passages can be reconciled despite their apparent incompatibility.
Speaker A
The problem is compounded by the fact that both Paul and James use the same word justification. Of course, they aren't writing it in English. What I mean is that they use the same Greek term.
Speaker A
Had they used two different Greek terms, it could be argued that each of them was talking about something different, but they use the same term. Moreover, both Paul and James use the same Old Testament case, Abraham, to prove their
Speaker A
point. Paul cites Genesis 15 and contends that Abraham was justified by faith alone. James cites Genesis 22, the binding of Isaac passage, to insist that Abraham was justified by faith and works, not one or the other, but both.
Speaker A
Even so, R.C. 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
Speaker A
has in mind in their discussion? Let's start with James. I quote again the line I cited earlier in reference to Abraham.
Speaker A
James writes, "You see that faith was active along with his works." It's so easy to miss the beginning of the line.
Speaker A
You see, so James is asking the question, how do we see? How do we know that Abraham was justified before God?
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
nothing to do with how we know someone, Abraham, Rahab, or 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
Speaker 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.
Speaker A
Now, 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
Speaker A
only see faith manifested in deeds which show us faith and works operating together. But from 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 general agreement
Speaker A
with Sproul all this way, and I would like to leave it here, but Sproul concludes his teaching by raising a second point where I part ways with him.
Speaker A
Sproul asks 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?
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
words, God chose us before we chose him. God made us part of his chosen ones, his 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
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
picked some for heaven and others for hell. 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.
Speaker A
Now, I recognize there are passages in the Bible, Old and New Testaments, 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.
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
Here's Paul in Romans 8:29. Quote, "For those whom he foreknew, 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
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
Therefore, he has predestined us. This seems convincing because if something i
Speaker A
different result? If God knows in advance who will win the Super Bowl, how can any other team win the Super Bowl?
Speaker A
But this reasoning rests on a fallacy. Divine fornowledge, as it turns out, is entirely compatible with free choice.
Speaker A
Even human fornowledge 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
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
She chose for herself. I merely knew in advance because I knew the choices that she was going to make. Another example.
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
I think it contradicts the central premise of the entire Bible. It's incompatible with the core message of the Gospels. What is the central message of the Bible? that God made man in his own image. That God loves us so much
Speaker A
that he created us to be in 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
Speaker A
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 in eternal fellowship with him? Or that Jesus died for all mankind, but Jesus refused to
Speaker A
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,
Speaker A
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, RC Sprout and other advocates of
Speaker A
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 strongest form, deny it. What Calvin Sprout and others would say, I've read them say, is that God owes us nothing.
Speaker A
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 correlary. If God is the one who decides who is saved and who is
Speaker A
damned, that 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
Speaker A
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 valition, but because of God's volition. They cannot have an eternal relationship with God because God chose not to have an eternal
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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?
Speaker A
Because they are captive to the heritage of the religious wars and the pmics that came out of those terrible wars. They are hostages to history and sometimes they don't even know it. Predestination as a doctrine arose within Protestantism
Speaker A
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 are saved only by faith, Catholics could in theory
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
the choice for us. There is a more positive reason for why predestination gained 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
Speaker A
of God. If God is in charge of everything, he must also be in charge of our salvation. If God is truly sovereign, then he must be the one doing the saving, not us. He must do it all.
Speaker A
Even if we have faith, he gave us the faith. Even if we merely receive the faith 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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
alternative way of thinking which represents the mainstream of the Christian tradition for 2,000 years and I believe is 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
Speaker A
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's sacrifice atones for all our sins. His grace is sufficient for all
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
knows in advance who will say yes and who will say no does not contravene free will. It simply means God is omnisient.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
We have free will. Notice that Christians, including the Christians who profess to believe in predestination, invoke free will on a regular basis.
Speaker A
When the pastor does the altar 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
Speaker A
forward. Otherwise, stay put, stay in your seat. I noticed that all Christians, including Lutherans, Calvinists Calvinist Presbyterians embrace free will as part of their theodysy. If you ask them why there's so much evil in the world, they will say
Speaker A
because man has free will. But then a few minutes later, they are back to their customary theological determinism.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
own prior choice. God deceives us into thinking we are choosing freely. No, I cannot go along with this nonsense. God is not a deceiver. He's not the philosopher daycart's malign demon who is out to fool us. God gave us free will
Speaker A
and we are free to use it for good or evil to choose him or to reject him.
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
We are fornown by God, but we are not predestined by God. Our salvation is a free gift of God. Notice I didn't say it is a free gift from God. It is a free gift of God. God himself is the gift.
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
And that's the way I see it.
Topics:predestinationfaith and worksjustificationR.C. SproulCalvinismCatholic Counter-Reformationsalvationfree willBible interpretationDinesh D'Souza
![[YTP] Jordan Peterson: Rat King — Transcript](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0qUoznGIe1M/maxresdefault.jpg)
![Nick & Charlie ‣ their story [+heartstopper forever] — Transcript](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/p4TiW1TZM3w/maxresdefault.jpg)
