Consistent Calvinism Podcast: Recent Episodes
consistentcalvinism
The Consistent Calvinism Podcast seeks to defend the theological position known as Calvinism or Reformed Theology with an approach grounded firmly in both scripture and logic. Calvinism vs Arminianism is becoming one of the most heated debate arenas in modern theology, with topics such as free will, divine determinism, predestination, TULIP, and understanding God‘s role in salvation and topics of soteriology. This podcast seeks to not only provide a solid and consistent Calvinistic position but also to launch an all-out assault on all non-Calvinistic positions to demonstrate their inability to be biblically and logically consistent.
Continuing our series on the Vagueness of Provisionism, Part 6 dealing with Election. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
Continuing our series on the Vagueness of Provisionism, Part 5 dealing with Regeneration. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
Responding to Leighton Flowers on Romans 8:5-13 and the topic of Total Depravity. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
We continue responding to Leighton Flower's very long response to our episode with Tyler Vela going over the Provisionist statement of faith. This is Part 4. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
Reviewing a casual interview of Leighton Flowers covering topics such as infant damnation, original sin, Molinism and determinism. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
We put a nail in the coffin of #BaalGate with some final responses. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
We cover the recent controversial comments from Warren McGrew regarding "a spirit of child sacrifice" and related topics. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
We cover a wide range of topics from my recent interaction on Twitter. Topics include Tyler Vela's recent deconversion, God's control of all things, means to ends, and natural and moral ability. This is Episode 2 of Twitter Fun. Subscribe on YouTube and follow @CCalvinism.
We cover a wide range of topics from my recent interaction on Twitter. Topics include the "power" of the Gospel, God's intentions in the gospel preaching, the Lord's prayer and Calvinism, Total Depravity and Degrees of Hardening, and Slavery to sin. This is Episode 1 of Twitter Fun. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
We continue responding to Leighton Flower's very long response to our episode with Tyler Vela going over the Provisionist statement of faith. This is Part 3. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
We respond to Drew from Provisionist Perspective on the topic of Determinism. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
We continue responding to Leighton Flower's very long response to our episode with Tyler Vela going over the Provisionist statement of faith. This is Part 2. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
We begin responding to Leighton Flower's very long response to our episode with Tyler Vela going over the Provisionist statement of faith. This is Part 1. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
We answer the question of God being the Author of Sin and Evil with an in-depth look at what the Bible says about God's control over all categories of creation. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
I join Tyler Vela of the Freed Thinker Podcast to discuss Provisionism and their statement of faith. Subscribe on Youtube and follow @CCalvinism.
We respond to an article quoted by Leighton Flowers which attempts to paint determinism as being circular in its logic. We demonstrate once again how it is the free will position which is being circular. Subscribe on Youtube and follow on twitter @CCalvinism.
How do influences relate to our decision making in a deterministic worldview? Does Free Will give a better account for the idea of influences? Subscribe on Youtube and follow on twitter @CCalvinism.
The free will side doesn't seem to realize that ANY Christian worldview is forced to recognize God in the ultimate position and therefore the determiner of whatsoever comes to pass. Subscribe on Youtube and follow on Twitter @CCalvinism.
Leighton Flowers seems to have misunderstood my episode on the differences between Fatalism and Determinism. In this episode, I seek to clarify this misunderstanding. Subscribe on Youtube and follow on Twitter @CCalvinism.
This is the first of 3 responses to Leighton Flowers. This first topic is about properly understanding the difference between Moral Ability and Natural Ability and how it relates to our ontological existence. The next episode will cover the relationship between "influences" and our choices. Subscribe on Youtube and follow on Twitter @CCalvinism.
We respond to Leighton Flower's episode titled "Calvinism's Burden of Proof" by demonstrating how we should be testing our intuitions in light of scripture and the reality that surrounds us. Subscribe on Youtube and follow on Twitter @CCalvinism.
We respond to accusations of inconsistency within Calvinism from Leighton Flowers once again. We use several Biblical examples to demonstrate that Calvinism is fully consistent with itself. A proper understanding and recognition of God as the transcendent creator and sustainer is absolutely critical for any Christian worldview. Subscribe on Youtube and follow on Twitter @CCalvinism.
We cover the topic of fatalism by going over several definitions and showing that being a fatalist involves much more than the recognition that things are determined. We contrast fatalism with determinism to show that the mindset people have in light of things being determined is also extremely important. My conclusion is that the accusation of fatalism against Calvinism is misleading and dishonest. Subscribe on Youtube and follow on Twitter @CCalvinism.
We address Leighton Flower's response to a very common Calvinistic argument: Why did you believe and your neighbor did not? Were you better? Smarter? In a better mood? More spiritually sensitive? We counter his attempts to flip this argument around on Calvinists by explaining the difference between natural faculty ability and moral ability based upon dispositions. We also demonstrate the illogic behind the free will answer to this question and show that at the end of the day the question remains unanswered. Subscribe on Youtube and follow on Twitter @CCalvinism.
We cover the differences between Personal, Individual Election in Ephesians 1 and the view of "Corporate Election." We respond to a short presentation of this view by Leighton Flowers of Soteriology 101. Corporate Election seeks to get away from God choosing individuals in eternity past and instead puts forth the idea that God is choosing a plan. God is choosing THAT those who believe will be saved, but God is not choosing PEOPLE specifically. We show how Ephesians 1 does not allow for anything other than God choosing individual people in Christ before the foundation of the world. Subscribe on Youtube and follow on Twitter @CCalvinism.
We cover recent drama over a meme put out by Leighton Flowers of Soteriology 101. We also attempt to properly explain Unconditional Election from a consistent Calvinist perspective.
Episode 3 is a response to a recent episode of Soteriology 101 where Leighton Flowers presents Human responsibility as a "great conundrum" within Calvinism. We demonstrate why it is not by placing human responsibility into its proper context as being part of creation rather than something to be viewed on the ultimate level as many people mistakingly see it.
In episode 2 we respond to a recent episode of Soteriology 101 where Leighton Flowers and Eric Hernandez discuss whether or not God can foreknow future free will choices. Our answer as Calvinists is "No, he cannot."
Episode 1 starts with one of the most hotly debated topics: Free Will. What is free will? Do we have it? CAN we have it? Is it logically possible for us to have it? My answer is NO!
I start off by defining what free will is by using the only definition that matters in this theological discussion: freedom from God. I then lay the foundation for the Calvinistic position with 3 key bible verses demonstrating the unavoidable reality that we are never metaphysically free from God. I explain why these 3 verses deny all forms of the ancient heresy known as deism and therefore leave no room for any degree of deism or dualism. The only possible worldview remaining is a worldview where God is in absolute control of everything that He has created at all times from start to finish.
I then delve into a long-winded section on the idea of "choice" and the nature of what it means for us to make choices in a finite realm. "Free Will" is not something we ever utilize in daily life when answering the question of why we did something, because it is actually not an answer at all. Instead, we always give deterministic, reality-based answers. Since choice for us in a finite realm is always a reaction to the situations we find ourselves in, we can conclude that God is the only truly free and autonomous being in existence.
I then refute the false assumptions that if Calvinism is true, and God controls all things, that we are then being forced by God to do things or are nothing more than puppets or robots. These false assumptions stem from ignoring that God not only controls what you do but also the fact that you want to do it. The idea of "force" is not strong enough to describe the level of control that God has over us.
I then explain why God can be the author and cause of all things, including sin, and yet not be a sinner Himself. I provide the Calvinistic answer (the only possible answer) to the problem of evil and address how God can be in control of what we do and still hold is responsible.
I follow this with a brief series of questions for the free will position to demonstrate that they do not have an actual answer to the problem of evil. To the free will position, it is a "mystery."
I then transition into a very long list of interesting questions that the free position needs to provide answers to. These questions are questions that need to be answered regardless of whether or not Calvinism is true or false. None of the questions should be answered by pointing at the Calvinist position.