…So just because we argue that God does love everyone in the world and provides for everyone in the world, therefore we are somehow saying that God must love everyone in the world and provide salvation to everyone in the world—that’s just a fallacy. Okay? You’ll see these kinds of fallacies repeated over and over and over again.

Once you do this long enough, like I have, you start spotting it immediately. It takes a little while sometimes to see through the smoke screens and the fallacies, but they’re basically the same things repeated ad nauseam by the different Calvinists online again and again and again. And the more you engage it, the more you’ll begin to recognize it and be able to call it out for what it is.

And so basically what he’s saying is, because Dinesh argues that God does provide salvation for all people, therefore God owes salvation to all people. And that’s never what Dinesh argues. Okay?

What he’s ultimately arguing is that if mankind can’t respond positively, then why are they held responsible for not responding positively? And Calvinists don’t have an answer to that. That’s where they appeal to mystery. That’s where they just say, “Hmm, we don’t know.”

At least that’s what Calvin said, as we’ve quoted here many times. Let me put it back up on the screen for you, just for those that are tuning in for the first time, because I know this stuff with Dinesh is bringing in a lot of new audience.

So let me read from John Calvin what he says about this:

“How it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was, without God being implicated as an associate in the fault, as the approver or author of transgressions, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind that I’m not ashamed to confess ignorance. Daily I so meditate on these mysteries of his judgments that curiosity to know anything more does not attract me.”

What is John Calvin saying?

• “I don’t know how God is not implicated as the associate in the fault. I don’t know how he’s not the author and the approver of transgression.”

In other words, I don’t know how God’s good. I really don’t know how God’s good.

Really, that’s what he’s saying.

I, guys, would much rather appeal to the mystery of man’s capriciousness than to the character of God. For goodness’ sake, folks, we cannot appeal to mystery as to whether God’s good or not.

This is why C. S. Lewis argued that you can make God ultimately an all-powerful demon by saying his black is our white and our white is his black, and making these kinds of arguments that say, “Well, I don’t know how he’s good. We just believe that he is,” even though he’s responsible for sin and rape and the Holocaust and all these horrible, bad things by decreeing them to come to pass.

And this is the fault line of the entire Calvinistic system: that God’s holding men responsible for things they have ultimately no control over.

That’s the basic fault line of the entire Calvinistic system. And Dinesh is poking them in the sore spot. What’s that? How does God justly hold people responsible for things they have absolutely no control over? And they have absolutely no control over whether they’re elect or reprobate.

No control over that. They have absolutely no control over whether they can believe the gospel or not.

Absolutely no control over that. They have absolutely no control over whether they are born guilty of sin or not. They’re just born guilty of sin because Adam fell, representing them in the garden.

Universal guilt for the sin of Adam is the instead of the imputed guilt through your actual choice to sin, and imputed righteousness through faith, as we would understand Romans 5—imputation of guilt and righteousness based upon your actual choices, and the age of accountability, and all the things that we argue from the text of Scripture. Look at Soteriology 101 if you want to look for those defenses.

Instead of arguing that, they just argue basically, “You’re born guilty for what Adam did. You cannot choose to believe and follow the provisions of God and come when He calls you and acts like He really wants you to come,” at least because He sends the gospel to all people, calling all people. You can’t want to do that because of the nature you were born with.

You didn’t have any control of the nature you were born with. You’re born a reprobate if you’re on the covenant system. And what Dinesh is going, “How can you possibly blame these people for that?”

This is something that I wasn’t able to share this screen, but this is something I wrote on Twitter a long time ago. I said, according to Calvinism, everyone who ends up in hell is one born rejected by God. They’re non-elect.

That’s what rejected. They’re basically passed over. So on Calvinism, they’re all born rejected by God, unable to believe. Everyone who ends up in hell, born rejected by God, not elect, born unable to believe the gospel—total inability—born guilty for someone else’s sins, that Adam’s sin. They’re born original—that’s original guilt—and they are born without any means of atonement, limited atonement. That’s just true.

Everyone who ends up in hell, those four facts are just truisms on Calvinism: they’re born non-elect, rejected by God, passed over by God, with total inability; unable to believe the gospel because of a nature they were born with; guilty for someone else’s sin, original guilt; and without an atonement provided for them.

How are they not merely pitied as helpless victims rather than justly rebuked and punished as if they had any control of the way they were born?

If Calvinism is true, there is no good reason to not just feel sorry for the unbelievers and the reprobates.

And there certainly doesn’t seem to be any justification for punishing them for all of eternity for something they had absolutely no control over.

That’s what Dinesh keeps pushing on….