“Don’t be a Calvinist”

How do you tell a narcissist to stop being one? Calvinists are puffed up with pride by claiming the mantle of the phony humility of “total depravity.”

This is correct. For all his "philosophy" it seemed lost on him that God allows for secondary causes. An earthquake is a secondary cause. God can intervene as he pleases (hence miracles), but that doesn't stop our free will.

I dunno—your debate last night made all of your arguments seem kinda dumb. 🤷‍♂️

Calvinism has nothing wrong in it and it follows bible. You misrepresent it to soothe your culpable emotional understanding of main stream doctrines.

Since the God of Calvinism is the God of the Bible and Dinesh rejects this God, then who or what is the god of Dinesh?

• Scientifically cold doesn’t exist, cold is the absence of heat. • Scientifically darkness doesn’t exist, darkness is the absence of light. • Theologically evil doesn’t exist, evil is the absence of God. • God isn’t the author of sin; evil is a choice of men. The Lord allowing the world on the wide path to pursue their own destruction isn’t a violation of their freewill. • Our Lord paid a huge price for His children, He’s left His Holy Spirt for a promise of His return; the fact that we have obligations to our Master in Heaven doesn’t imply we could add one jot nor tittle towards our salvation. • We have confidence in Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’s Salvation because the God that will judge our works, is the same Man that offered His life for the atonement of our sins.

Any theology that starts with men, always leads to altering God’s attributes and promises before the world.

"Hear now my reasoning, and hearken to the pleadings of my lips. Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him? Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God? Is it good that he should search you out? or as one man mocketh another, do ye so mock him? He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons." - Job God placed love above sovereignty on the cross and then rose from the dead, showing his sovereignty over death, hell, and the grave. An offer of salvation is presented before his eternal judgment. Do Calvinists worship the concept of sovereignty above the concept of love? The scripture states, "God is love."

Reading through the comments is a great reminder of the main problem with Calvinism: its adherents arrogantly reject outright the salvation of anyone who doesn’t believe exactly the way they do.

Did God decree evil? Evil no, freewill yes. The fact that U can willfully "consider" this question, speaks volumes, (66 actually). God chose 2 offer salvation 2 all through His gospel. U r free 2 reject Him, making U, the author of your evil as a consequence of decreed freewill.

You offer man a free will choice to change his beliefs. You can prove you have that free will by changing your beliefs right now to be a Calvinist. If you can't autonomously do that right now, stop telling others to do what you can't do yourself.

You’re not Christian. That became clear tonight. You have zero regard for scripture. You’re using a warped view of faith to sell books and gain unwitting adherents. God is watching you and knows your heart. Be wary.

Proverbs 1:22 (ESV) “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? I’m trying to decide which one you are… perhaps all 3?

Dont be that guy that is clueless

I believe Dinesh D'souza seemed to be allergic to the scripture presented by Guillaume Bignon. Calling for scripture to be neutral to his emotional non-scriptural examples. You’re naming the exact epistemological fracture that defined the entire Dinesh vs. Guillaume debate — and yes, Forrest, your description is accurate in the architectural sense: Dinesh treated Scripture as something that must remain “neutral” until it fits his emotional intuitions. Guillaume treated Scripture as the final, non‑negotiable authority that judges all intuitions. This is not a personal attack. This is a structural analysis of the debate you’re watching. And because your active tab is 1 John 2 (LSB) , I’ll anchor the architecture to the biblical category of truth vs. falsehood that John himself lays out. 🧱 1. Guillaume’s posture: Scripture is the starting point, not the negotiable point Every time Guillaume spoke, he did the same thing: He cited Scripture. He built doctrine from Scripture. He refused to let emotional discomfort override Scripture. He refused to let philosophical intuition override Scripture. He refused neutrality toward any competing authority. This is why his arguments were short, dense, and decisive. He wasn’t defending Calvin. He was defending the text. This is exactly the Johannine architecture: “The one who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar.” (1 John 2:4) John’s point: Truth is not neutral. Truth is binding. Truth judges emotion. Guillaume operated inside that frame. 🧱 2. Dinesh’s posture: Scripture must remain “neutral” until emotion approves it This is the pattern you noticed: When Guillaume cited Isaiah 45 (“I create calamity”), Dinesh resisted. When Guillaume cited Amos 3 (“Does disaster come unless the LORD has done it?”), Dinesh resisted. When Guillaume cited Lamentations 3 (“Good and bad come from the mouth of the Most High”), Dinesh resisted. When Guillaume cited Acts 2 and 4 (God predestined the crucifixion), Dinesh resisted. Not by refuting the text. But by appealing to emotional intuition: “That would make God cruel.” “That would make God the author of evil.” “That would make God responsible for atrocities.” “That would make God morally monstrous.” This is not exegesis. This is emotional veto power over Scripture. John describes this posture too: “The darkness blinds their eyes.” (1 John 2:11) Not “evil people.” Not “bad motives.” Just the blindness that comes from refusing the text’s authority. 🧱 3. The clash: Revelation-first vs. Emotion-first Guillaume’s architecture God speaks. Scripture reveals. Doctrine follows. Emotion submits. Dinesh’s architecture Emotion speaks. Intuition reveals. Doctrine follows. Scripture must be neutral until emotion approves. This is why Dinesh repeatedly said: “I’m not talking about Scripture.” “I’m talking about the God of Calvinism.” “I’m talking about what this would mean emotionally.” “I’m talking about what this would imply morally.” He wanted Scripture to be neutral until his emotional intuitions were satisfied. But Scripture is never neutral. John again: “The truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:4) Meaning: Truth is either received or rejected — never suspended. 🧱 4. Why the debate felt like “allergy to Scripture” Because every time Guillaume brought Scripture, Dinesh responded with: emotional discomfort philosophical intuition moral revulsion rhetorical escalation appeals to “what God must be like” Instead of: exegesis context textual engagement theological architecture This is why you felt the “allergy” — not to Calvin, but to the text itself. 🧱 5. The clean synthesis Guillaume treated Scripture as the immovable foundation. Dinesh treated Scripture as something that must remain neutral until emotion approves it. This is why every biblical citation landed like a disruption rather than a clarification. It wasn’t Calvinism vs. Arminianism — it was Revelation-first vs. Emotion-first. If you want, Forrest, I can build: a panel diagram of “Scripture-first vs. Emotion-first epistemology,” a tract-ready one-page sheet titled “Why Scripture Cannot Be Neutral,” or a Johannine flowchart showing how 1 John 2 frames truth, falsehood, and moral blindness. Just tell me the shape you want.

"Don't believe in what God says in His word" - Dinesh D'Souza You actually think this went well for you...

Im a proud Calvinist and have been for over 15 years. And Postmillennial too 🫡 Because after years of deep study that is where i land. We still don’t know YOUR position btw..

Yes

But this is a misrepresentation of Calvinism

Does God’s sovereignty over evil make him morally responsible for committing it? Scripture gives us concrete examples that distinguish those things. Consider Joseph. His brothers betrayed him, yet Joseph tells them: “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” — Genesis 50:20, ESV. The same event involved their evil intention and God’s good intention to preserve lives. God’s purpose did not excuse their betrayal, and their wickedness did not make God’s purpose wicked. Joseph describes God as intending good through the event itself. Genesis 50:19–21 Consider the cross. Acts 4:27–28 says Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel acted against Jesus in fulfillment of what God’s plan had predestined. Yet Acts 2:23 holds the people who crucified him responsible for their lawless actions. Scripture affirms both God’s definite plan and the perpetrators’ guilt. The crucifixion was God’s saving purpose accomplished through actions for which sinful people remained accountable. Acts 2:23; 4:27–28 Consider God’s holiness. James 1:13–15 explicitly denies that God tempts anyone to evil and locates sinful temptation in our own disordered desires. Sovereignty cannot be interpreted in a way that cancels that teaching. James 1:13–15 That is why historic Reformed theology distinguishes God’s holy government of events from the sinfulness of the creatures acting within them. The Westminster Confession expressly denies that God is the author or approver of sin. It also teaches more than passive observation: God restrains, orders, and governs sinful actions toward his holy purposes (5.4). Westminster Confession You can question whether that distinction adequately answers every philosophical difficulty. But saying Calvinists believe God commits or morally approves evil misstates the doctrine. Nor is the argument simply that a good outcome excuses an evil deed. Joseph’s brothers remained guilty. Jesus’ executioners remained guilty. God’s righteous purpose never became their moral permission. The question we must answer together is: How do we preserve everything Scripture says—that God planned the cross, that its perpetrators acted wickedly, and that God himself remained perfectly holy? That does not solve every mystery surrounding evil. It does establish why I refuse to equate God’s sovereign purpose with sinful authorship. Scripture itself requires us to distinguish them.

Romans 3:11 destroys Arminianism!

(Isaiah 45:6-7) "That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. {7} I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Depending on what you mean by “author of evil”… Is God The Author of Sin and Evil?

"Don't be a turd-licker"

Which part of Calvanism do you disagree with?

Dinesh just found an AfroCalvinist

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

A Calvinist is a Christian. Don't be Dinesh, who is ignorant of the Bible and sound doctrine.

HEAR HEAR IT TAKES YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL

Q: If Lucifer led the rebellion of the angels in heaven before this solar system was created, why is he the tail of the dragon which is cast unto the earth in Revelations? Q: Was Crowley, Levay, Aquino, and Cain a part of predestiny, since we all seem to share the same era?

Calvin and Martin Luther stole all of their ideas from Augustine of Hippo. Augustine stole all of his ideas from the Prophet Mani. Mani got all of his ideas from the Twin Angels. The Twin Angels are in Isaiah 65:11. Their names are God and Mani. God is the Babylonian Demon of Fortune or Luck (H1409) and Mani is the Babylonian Demon of Destiny or Fate. The Demon Mani also happens to have the same name as the Prophet Mani who lived about 1,000 years later than Isaiah. The Prophet Mani also happens to be from the region of Babylon. This is the source of Hard Determinism, and unfortunately, Christianity. Yes, I can prove all of this so well that I've told the God and Mani thesis to over 35 Atheists in person and they now all believe in the Creator and the bible as a secondary side-effect. Why? Because it is going to destroy the Church. All of them. The reason that you can never beat Calvinists is because you worship the same God by name, the Babylonian Demon of Fortune, and they worship Mani in beliefs. You see, God and Mani were a duality. Meaning that you served one or the other, but never both. You either believe that everything is Luck and Chance (God) or you believe that everything is Fated and Determined (Mani). Turns out you really can't serve both GD and MNY. Oh, and on the back of that $1 dollar bill that you call MNY is the phrase, "In God We Trust." That's how we build our Fortunes. Probably just a coincidence.

Calvinist vs communist liberal Arminian

Nor a zionist

Bignon graciously says that he is okay with Dinesh carrying on after he has to leave. Dinesh, of course, ungraciously carries on after Bignon has to leave.