I accept the Canons of Dort, which is the 5 points of Calvinism but Dutch. I prefer the term "doctrines of grace" over 5 points of Calvinism. Don't spread hate!
@@loaded5150 I don’t consider Calvinism terrible theology, I like most of it, just not there predestination theology. I’m aware of Romans 9 and Ephesians 1.
@@loaded5150 I went in the same path Augustine did, it was clear to me the sovereignty of God, based on passages like that. It was also clearly to me based on passages like 1 Timothy 2 that there is a semblance of human cooperation in our salvation. I was at some point Calvinist in my thinking, at another I was Arminian, at another Molinist, at another Thomist. Eventually I got to the same point Augustine did. I know of the supremacy of God, and I know of the cooperation of man, but I do not know, and I am unable to know how they correlate. I could make a valid argument for any of the views I listed above. And I can make a valid refutation as well. Because so much of predestination has to do with the foreknowledge of God, and how he views the world, it is impossible for us to ever truly understand what that relationship is. However, when I ask myself, what is the point of those passages, something is made very clear to me. The take away from these passages in every sense, is to make clear that at the end of the day, it is God who saves, and God who chooses. And our efforts are not contributors to that. You can be Arminian and still understand that truth. I think when you try too hard to intellectually analyze things we can know, that’s when you get the dangers of Calvinism. Things like Limited atonement, and irresistible grace. Those concepts are simply unbiblical. But too often I see Calvinists look at the Bible through their intellectual theological lens rather than the other way around. Of course, this is true of every denomination. But I think I’ve made my point.
Unfortunately, this line of thinking DOES necessitate that God is the progenitor of all sin. If I understand your belief about predestination correctly, you are saying that when God creates you, He also creates every step of your life and all the events that happen to you for your ultimate benefit and for His glory. Every step of your life is according to His plan, but He is not responsible for your sin because He allows your sin, not causes it. However, this is a contradiction because your life is affected by the choices you make. If I murder someone, get sent to jail, find redemption in jail, and then live my life as a redeemed example of God's grace even to murderers, then (by your logic) that means that God meant for me to go to jail so that He could bless me and others through me. However, I would not have gone to jail had I not sinned which would have thwarted God's plan. If God is the sole author of my story, then he must have authored my sin as well in order to make me fit into his plan. It is only by allowing us to affect our own lives that He avoids causing sin. A brilliant strategist plans for contingencies and God is the perfect, omniscient strategist. God's glory would have been shown if Adam and Eve never sinned and He never needed to sacrifice Jesus. And if every single human throughout history had rejected Jesus, then God would have called witnesses out of the stones. His gift to us is the ability to be the vehicle through which His glory is portrayed, but His glory will be portrayed regardless. Furthermore, predestination is unbiblical. 1 John 2:2 says that "[Jesus] is the sacrifice that atones for our sins--and not only our sins but the sins of all the world". If God predestined some and not others, then Jesus did not atone for the sins of the whole world, but just the predestined few. I think of predestination as a form of mini-blasphemy. We limited beings are trying to understand a Being who exists beyond and above time, and so we stubbornly cling to an interpretation that conforms to our own limited logic, even (sometimes) at the cost of alienating potential believers. While it doesn't hurt to speculate, we have to be humble enough to know we don't understand His fullness.
It's not form of "mini-blasphemy" it's outright heretical. RZ is still huffing that intellectual BS majority of Protestants do, which is that they can uncover some perfect and ultimate truth just by reading, thinking and philosophizing about it. Which is also known as sin of pride. And because of this pride, there's 10.000 denominations of protestants, and why they alienated common man from religion so much almost every single historical protestant country has major issues with rampant atheism. Majority of things councils deemed heretical hundreds of years after Christ was usually dividing Christ's human and divine nature. You can also see it in Qu'ran too, and it's clear that Muhammad had contact with Nestorian Christians. All these things when taken to next step (and it is always taken to the next step because every new generation thinks they can outthink the last one) leads to relationship akin to Allah, where you can only hope for Master-Servant relationship, and nothing else. His talk about God writing story starting around 25:00 is not only unbiblical but is describing an outright malicious God. This is why so many protestants end up becoming atheists or convert to Orthodoxy later down the line. This type of predestination is completely same as it is in Qu'ran and it's disgusting, because it means if you got, let's say, r*ped, God wrote all that for what? Character development meme? And what if someone get's r*ped and then commits s*icide because of it, by all Christian theology such person would end up in Hell, so it either means Christian theology is wrong on that part or God wrote that whole life just to condemn a soul to Hell. Crickets from Calvinists at this point, not to mention if everything is written and predestined, then there is NO free will. Sure, they'll say some BS like "you have free will in accepting Lord or denying him" bla bla, that's semantics and hairsplitting. Believing in predestination of any form=Believing in no free will There's no fancy intellectual ways to by-pass that fact.
this is how ive always viewed the predestination issue too. the way i explained it to by brother was "you know your wife. if you asked her right now if she wanted pizza for dinner you already know what her answer will be. are you still gonna ask her regardless? yes, because it shows your respect and love for her. same thing with God except He has the benefit of knowing everything past present and future too."
But that right there, the idea that God has to allow us to affect our own lives - God didn't take that away from us. Adam did, when he disobeyed God. Then the Fall occurred, and humanity lost its free will to not sin. Even if God structures His plan around your sins, that does not mean He is responsible for them. Adam is responsible for them. Adam could've simply not sinned. God can still structure his plan around our sin, however, because He has the knowledge of what Adam will do, and thus what we all will do. Also, 1st John 2:2 can very easily be interpreted - and it has been by Reformed theologians for centuries - as referring to the people (who will believe, hence the elect) from all over the Earth - that is, for Jews and Gentiles, not just the Jews. It is not necessarily saying that it's for every single human being to ever walk on the face of the Earth.
If you let a dog off of a leash knowing good and well it will dig a hole in the yard, are you the progenitor of the hole? Are you the progenitor of the temptation to dig a hole? Are you the progenitor of the temptation to dig a hole when you attempted to train the dog to not dig a hole? God does not interfere with you digging holes for yourself, even though He knows full and well you will do it. This is hardly a free will issue until it comes to the point of salvation, at which point all Christians can agree on the fact that your salvation is NOT of your free will and is at the will of whom your salvation comes from. It is a gift that He will choose to give to souls, a gift He has known who He will give it to before He created time and space. You are to live your life to the glory of God just as you said, but He has known the holes you will dig before He even spoke the light into existence.
@@SSJacksWolfRomans 9:22 isn’t about God predestining someone for hell. It’s God showing his mercy upon someone who currently disbelieves. It describes God **having patience** with the “objects of his wrath prepared for destruction”, and literally one verse later it talks about God doing this so he can show “his glory to the objects of his mercy”. 2 Peter 3:9 supports this. In Ephesians 2, Paul describes how we were all once “children of wrath” but then became saved through faith in Christ. So the objects of God’s wrath can become the objects of God’s mercy. Free will is necessary to be a logical Christian, because without it the entirety of the Book of Jonah makes no sense. It’s literally Jonah **choosing** to run away from God (irresistible grace? Jonah seems able to resist it.), and then choosing to obey and preach to Nineveh. And then it’s Nineveh **choosing** to repent. God did not force them to repent, it was their choice.
@@SSJacksWolfLet me guess, you’re Calvinist? If there is no such thing as “free will” in your opinion, how do we answer to the problem of evil in a universe controlled by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God? If God wills that everyone comes to him, and his grace is “irresistible” why then does he not grace everybody so they can all come to him? Is that not what he wants? If you believe in total depravity, then *we have no choice but to sin* . *If we are incapable of doing anything but sin, then it is in fact God’s fault if we do not go to heaven* . God having the ability to give us something we cannot resist so we can enter heaven and not doing it is like a lifeguard choosing to not save a drowning person. The solution? God’s grace is *not* irresistible (because if it were then God is forcing us to love him, and love without free will is not love at all) and all are given this grace, but not all cooperate with it. It’s like a person sending out invitations to his birthday party. He sends out invitations to *all people* , but it’s still completely *their choice* if they decide to go to the party or not.
@@jim3769 The Book of Romans and the Book of Life: (Where God writes the names of people before creation), as an Armininan I say to you that you need a lot more than one verse to stand on a theological position.
The problem is you can't just take one verse or one section of verses. You have to have ways to interpret all the judgement verses that declare that some will be condemned and consigned to hell. Admittedly, I am also reformed but enjoy Karl Barth's theology the most. Having studied the Greek, I am more convinced than he was in universal salvation (Barth thinks that he can be a "hopeful universalist," but he does not think that there is enough Biblical evidence to go one or the other definitively). However, you must recognize that the three premises 1 God is omnipotent, 2 God is omnibenevolent (God loves everyone totally and equally), and 3 people are consigned to hell forever are not reconcilable. All three premises come from verses that prima facie indicate their veracity.
Plus pull is talking About sigle predestination in which God is like an elevator that only turns on for those who it knows will board it. If the elevator just denied people it would be evil. Some people like to sat God is bound by the law but he is above it
For me true biblical predestination isn’t getting chosen to not roast forever. It’s getting chosen for a sacred mission to act as his hands and feet on this earth. It’s about being a soldier for Christ. The enemy isn’t sinners. Sinners are hostages in need of rescue. Satan is the enemy.
I'd say that's Election. Predestination is for adoption to sonship (Ef. 1) which is the redemption of our body (Rm 8:23) to be conformed to the image of His Son (Rm 8:29). That's my view on it.
You are an anarcho christian? If yes could you explain it? Im a roman chatolic so I've always been used to hierarchy and statehood but im qurious about other ideologies and interpretations of christianity.
And how do you find that sinners are just prisoners in need of rescue..? That seems like a very low view of sin. What makes the difference of a murderer killing 5 kids and a person who was told once to murder and then went on killing kids for the rest of their lives?
So what I'm learning is that God controls everything, I control nothing, and free will exists somehow. If God creates all of me, including how i react and my experiences, how do I have free will?
@@kuafer3687 (regretting not bringing my study Bible home right now 😅) Imagine that you're in prison. You have the freedom to choose to do or not to do certain things. But you're still in prison, there's still someone making certain decisions about your life. Getting this from a chapter of a devotional on the doctrines of grace that I read last year. Sorry if this doesn't make this 🤷♀️ You can't change your nature, and that's what I would mean when I say that we have no free will. We had free will once, but we lost it because of the fall.
They say you can choose different things, but you’ll never love God and choose things in true love of him. We naturally do things with selfish motive, but God enlightens some to have their corrupt eyes open, so they then choose things out of love for God, viewing him above ourselves. So they believe free will, just that we never choose to love God, and especially couldn’t in our heart love him first eternally by our own. Cause obviously we don’t just see God and eventually walk perfectly in his will, no matter what you’d have to believe the Spirit assist our will in some way, or that the new body given takes our evil pursuits away.
Which is why Calvinists are mocked by even other heretical and misguided Protestants. They'll always use fancy terminology and word plays such as "you have free will of accepting or denying Lord" within, let's say, the "story" he wrote for you. And let me tell you, this is more akin to Islam than to Christianity. Simply put: Believing in ANY form of predestination=denying free will If you read more of Calvinist theology you'd see clearly parables between it and Islam, where we're far more akin to stinking unworthy maggots on the ground which God picks and chooses and not His children. They are committing the same sins Arians and Nestorians committed 1600 years ago, but back then we had councils to condemn such heresies, now we don't. Protestants and their Catholic counterparts (the very same people he mentioned in the video who gave birth to intellectual theology) just look like Charlie from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia to me, going absolutely unhinged and mad thinking if they just connect two right dots they'll somehow uncover the ultimate truth. Just stop trying, your monkey brain is never going to wrap around the idea of God, and to even staunchly attempt it is in itself, a sin of pride. You can't "think your way out" of damnation. Quite the contrary, the moment you start thinking "I've figured it all out" and start applying karmic equations you are bound to do more harm than good in life and your surroundings.
Calvinists try not to intellectually explain everything instead of just believe in what scripture says in a literal sense at face value challenge: IMPOSSIBLE
@gigahorse1475 Lutherans do this. We take it at face value first, then discover parts of creation(science) / history / etc that enforce what scripture says. Hence, Sola Scruptura.
Even better, read what the early church fathers wrote and their commentaries. No PSA until 1200s, no calvinism until John Calvin St. Agustine (the Protestants favorite father) was a devout believer and most definitely saved but his theological knowledge was lacking because he could not read greek and that is shown in how his systematic theology differed massively from everyone before him (he was very isolated living in western north Africa from the rest of his fellow church fathers) Eastern orthodoxy gets doctrine the best because they read the church father's. I say this as a protestant with theology very similar to EO bcs I read them as well and it's obvious all his "reformed" doctrine was invented 400, 1200, 1500 years after Jesus
Scripture is very clear in explaining the reason for which Christ came. It was *for sin* and *for sinners.* In saying that Christ’s incarnation is necessary in another, wholly hypothetical instance without any sin whatsoever, you are doing nothing but lofty, extra-biblical speculation.
Sin can’t enter the world unless God allows it to enter the world. Proverbs 16:4 states that God made the wicked for the day of destruction. Romans 9 Confirms this. What is first to be decreed will be the last to be executed. If I plan to build a house to live in the last to be executed is living in the house.
How is it 😂 Everyone who says “predestination is evil” just doesn’t understand it at all and are brainwashed into believing that God is some hippie who is obligated to love everyone equally 😂
Paul was not the OG calvinist. This reminds me of james white making an assertion that the Bible teaches calvinism and simply waves the bible in the air saying to all who oppose him, "do you even believe the bible" ? This is hard to not see it the same as mormons reading out of context "yee are gods" and say if you don't believe we become gods then you don't believe your bible. I would love to see redeemed zoomed debate a person who opposes calvinism. As a non calvinist I do like 3 main calvinists today. I like when a calvinist can debate a provisionist and not engage as if non calvinists have leprosy.
@@jahnvantuttlesma8215 no, he was not. Maby if you read scripture without the man centered lens of calvin. Paul warns about man made traditions people will conflate as equal to scripture. Like when someone is reading 1 timothy 2:12 with an egalitarian lens, or some catholics read passages their church/tradition told them teaches purgatory. But if you want to support your bias views by being non historic then welcome to the 21st century of how most people say wrong things and if it's said enough it must be true. Historically an established form of calvinism was 4th-5th century augustinianism. It's like looking at 1.400 years of historic islam and deciding islam is the religion of peace. Remember the gnostic heresies claimed their made up teachings came from jesus own mouth. In a sense most calvinists are worse (time wise not heresy wise) gnostic around 2nd century forgery and calvinism is a 4th century invention that people claim was from Jesus himself to seem the most accurate.
@@joshuawoodin I should say Reformed rather than Calvinist. Calvin himself didn't like naming to movement after himself, and most in the tradition agree.
that’s simply not true. The West in general is suffering from the plague of atheism in varying degrees depending on country. The stats also seem really unreliable. I’ve met a lot of mexican “catholics” that still claim to be catholic despite never going to church. Would they be counted as catholic or not? They claim to be but yet don’t actually do any of the things that make a catholic catholic.
Disagree with it all you want, but what is depressing about God being ultimately in control? Wouldn’t you rather have God run the world and be responsible for human salvation than human beings?
@@gigahorse1475 I don't mind choosing us for salvation. But I don't see a God in Jesus Christ that would damn most people forever before they were even born.
As a Lutheran, I believe the elect are predestined but the damned are damned by their own doing. In other words, for those who aren’t saved, it’s their own damn fault.
And to me it's totally logical in every way. Believing in God's only or man's only choice doesn't make any sense what so ever. But supralapsarian is hole other level of being ignorant. I say let's leave it to God for our sake.
@@iceblaze3043Can the people who aren’t predestined to heaven go to heaven by their own choice? If so, then they can have faith outside of God giving mercy, if not then that means they are predestined not to go to heaven. You can still say they chose to sin though, as a Calvinist I believe God doesn’t cause evil.
Calvinism is the definition of a self refuting idea. It says we have free will, but were judged before were born. It says God loves everyone equally, but He has to choose you to be saved.
1. It doesn't say we have free will 2. It doesn't say we were judged before we were born 3. It does not say that God loves everyone equally 4. It does say that God has to choose you for you to be saved. 1/4
Aquinas disagrees n Summa Theologiae, part 1, Chapter 23, article 3: "Whether God reprobates any man? I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article 1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (I:22:2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (I:22:1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin. Objection 1. It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wisdom 11:25): "Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the things Thou hast made." Therefore God reprobates no man. Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good-namely, eternal life-He is said to hate or reprobated them."
God says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
Honest question, if we do not have the free will to follow God, and all aspects of salvation is done by God's sovereignty, why does he not just give everyone saving grace? If God is all powerful, desires all men be saved, is the only cause in salvation, but willfully does not provide the means for salvation to some, I do not understand how we could call God good under that definition. This is one of the main reasons, I reject Calvinism and believe the problem of evil is due to human free will in choosing or not choosing God.
Calvinists will only give u 2 possible answers to this concern: 1) we don't know, God must have a good reason which is unknown to us in this life 2) for God's glory. God is more gloryfied in not only saving people but also in punishing evil (sin -> sinful humans). Is this evil? I'm afraid yes. Is this biblical? Again, I'm afraid yes.
I don't think it's that simple. It's not that God doesn't provide the means of salvation to everyone, He gives everyone that choice. But God being all-knowing as He is means that He already knows who will accept/reject the choice before they're even born. Since we're not omnipotent beings with infinite minds, we can't understand God's perspective because He has the infinite understanding that we lack in our finite minds. Much like the Trinity, this is one of those aspects of God that is impossible to fully grasp. Besides, if our free will to follow God is what saved us, then WE would be the reason for our salvation, not God. The only reason we can be saved is because of God, so God must be in full control of our ability to be saved.
You're asking the wrong question. But that is because you do not really believe that evil exists. And that all humans are evil. And that evil must be punished by death. If you understood those things, and you truly understood how corrupt your nature is, you would be asking instead "Why am I not in hell right now? I am a sinful and evil man. I don't deserve God's mercy or love. Why did God choose to save me?"
Why does He not just give everyone saving grace? You do realize the great cost of that salvation? The blood of his only begotten Son. Does not God have a right to choose to whom he will extend his mercy? If God has no right to choose who will receive his mercy, then it is not really mercy. It is not even a gift. It is an entitlement.
@@marcingryko6872And this is why I reject Calvinism. My view of predestination is God looking at someone who doesn’t believe, and saying “Well, I knew this would happen” rather than, “ *evil villain laugh* just as I wanted!”
Honestly this concept makes it really hard for me to have faith and it scares me, the mental gymnastics in this is probably what would push me to become atheist, if ever
Don't allow your fear to push you away from your faith in God. Just because other schools of thought exist about certain aspects of theology, that doesn't change the fact that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. The most important thing to know is that Christ died for our sins, and it is through believing on him that we are saved. I don't think it matters what view you hold in regard to predestination because regardless of which viewpoint is correct, salvation is still about faith. If you think faith was a free choice then thank God for giving you the choice. If you think it was simply predestined, thank God that he let you have faith.
Well, not all Christians believe in predestination, I don’t. And atheists also have to struggle with questions of free will. If our mind is nothing but chemical reactions causing neurons to fire, how can free will exist? This topic has scary implications no matter what you believe. I take solace in the notion that God bestowed upon us free will. So even if it’s hard to understand exactly how it works, we know through Him all things are possible, so have faith.
Well you don't have to believe in it. We do because we understand the Bible. Also, being an athiest would take more mental gymnastics than trying to understand the Bible.
Well you have to believe in predestination because it’s in the Bible. You don’t have to agree with Calvin’s view of predestination or Aquines view but predestination is something we all have to wrestle with its meaning in the Bible.
@@Via-Media2024Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:5, I think every church denom I've heard of believes in single predestination, double predestination is where things get controversial though.
Hey man. Absolutely. I totally get you on this. I have something that can totally reconcile this whole debate. Andrew Farley on Predestination: Part 1: czcams.com/video/RxSeHTXr3dw/video.htmlsi=EYYn1FiTiSoIQSYf Part 2: czcams.com/video/zQoVWdo-UvU/video.htmlsi=yurqK6CvkwIHljbF I am confident that this series will completely settle this issue for you. And I reccomend everyone else to also watch this stellar two part series as well.
Hey man, I was browsing the commnets section and noticed your very kind comment. I know this isn't my video and you weren't talking to me, but I'm a Christian who really enjoys this stuff like Zoomer does, and your comment really resonated with me. Just wanted to pop by and say thank you for leaving your kindness here. As the other gentleman here says, I also Pray blessing over you, your life, and your family. ANd I hope you can come to Christ one day an really dive into all of thsi fun stuff with us. I don't personally agree with Zoomer on this topic, but I deeply believe in treating other people's views within the body of Christ with great respect as fellow bretheren, and came into this vodeo to gether knowledge about this subject in the mindset of trying to be as honest as I can about this entire subject. All of that being said; I do feel ashamed at times at how people within The Body of Christ historically have acted towards each other in regards ot discussing and debating issues, and I think it gives us a bad wrap to many unbeliebvers. So I wanted to state that, to say an additional thank you to you for seeing past that and still being very kind. God Bless, man! Not sure why I felt like typing this whole thing lol. Idk, maybe God was calling me to you rcomment. Who knows? God works in mysterious ways. Peace!✌
I'm glad that you shared your opinions, even if I don't agree with them. My view on all of this (and I'm not sure at all of what I'm saying) is that salvation is offered to everyone through Christ. However, being the all-knowing God he is, God already knows if we're gonna reject his gift or not. In that sense, you could say that you're "predestined" to be saved because God already knows the end, but at the same time, it is up to you to accept Jesus' gift of salvation or not.
That is my view of it as well. God knows who is and isn't going to be saved, yet he still gave us that choice. So from Gods POV it is predestined, but from ours, it is to be determined.
I think predestination says exactly that. From your perspective there is always a free will. It is just from the perspective of the all-knowing above-time-and-space God can be seen as predestined.
On the surface it makes no sense. Once you understand human nature, and the limitations of our free will, everything makes so much more sense. I grew up in an anti-Calvinist church… I mean very hateful of Calvinism. Yet I became a Reformed Baptist after questioning things for years.
@DR_Sam_CZcams it does cause if God is beyond space and time then he knew how your life would go the time you were created. So predestination actually makes perfect sense unless you believe God isn't all knowing?
Yes Aquinas believed in predestination but not Calvinist predestination. Calvinist predestination requires all 5 points to be true since they are logically connected. But Aquinas rejected perseverance of the saints/eternal security. If someone can lose salvation then humans do have some say in salvation, which doesn't really match with Calvinism.
@@littlefishbigmountain ?????? I don't know if my unsaved family is elect or not, if they are, they will come to faith in Christ eventually. But if you die unfaithful (meaning that you're a reprobate) than you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Do you really believe that someone can be saved after death? And of course it's hard on me, knowing that not all family will be there in heaven, but that's just simply the life of a Christian. Not everyone will be saved.
"Turns out I'm an idiot. I've been completely wrong about an important theological thing for several years." Great to hear that you're converting to Catholicism zoomer
Maybe I missed something but this was just a whole lot of words used to try and go around the fact you think God creates people so he can send them to Hell, you can cope and say whatever you want to try and make it seem like it's not that way but you have still failed to convince me that you don't believe God creates people that are meant to go to Hell
I mean if you take the view that Romans 9 is about salvation as Augustine/Aquinas/Calvinists do, “before they had done anything good or bad” seems to imply Supralapsarianism. Apparently infralapsarians like RC Sproul, despite being Calvinists are skeptical of that reading of Roman’s 9 for that reason
You denied God is the author of evil, but you ended the video by arguing that God created all of our lives as a whole when He made us??? So every sin was literally CREATED by God when He created us! Bro this is wild.
@@wesleydahar7797 No, he said that God created our entire lives from start to finish. That includes every sin. Go back and listen to what he said again.
@@littlefishbigmountain that’s wild😂 ultimately I will never understand the notion of God creating some for hell and others for heaven. I honestly find it prideful to say “well we all deserve hell and some are just destined for hell” because u only find it moral since ur one of the saved
@@Commandosoap777its very proud to say we can understand Gods ways. And blaim God for thing that are not revealed to us. Deut 29:29 Shows us that God knows more than us. And we dont have to know everything. And we cant know everthing. Because we are weak creatures. But what God revealed to us is His love in Jesus Christ. That even though we are as grass, even though we are evil, even though we are enemies of God. God did not forsake us. But showed his everlasting grace. In the dead and resurrection, of our lord Jesus Christ. Dont call God a monster. He is righteous and gracious
One problem I have with the predestination model is that it relies on two logical assumptions. First, it assumes a classical view of time, seeing it as linear, with God's interaction following this straight-flowing line. Second, it presupposes that God makes decisions within our perceived conception of time, based on our understanding of chronology. However, God, being the ultimate "is," the divine being from which all concepts flow, including time, existed before the creation of space and time as we know it, and exists outside of it in divine lordship. Therefore, it logically follows that if God is making a decision, subjecting it to chronology is meaningless, as His will transcends time. His decisions act perpetually outside our perceived notion of linear time, which He holds in His hand. it becomes apparent that trying to comprehend the nature of divinity within our limited human capacity is a futile endeavor. This realization is akin to the main character's experience in "Flatland" by Edwin Abbott Abbott, who exists in a 2-dimensional space and struggles to grasp the concept of an additional dimension when suddenly transported to a world of 3 dimensions.How can we, beings trapped in time, truly understand the workings of a timeless God? Especially considering that a lot of speculation on the nature of God and His decisions was made in the past, based on a classical linear view of time and matter, which we now know to be an assumption? Just as classical church philosophers once had a geocentric view of the world, only to be proven wrong, our classical assumption of time and space may also be flawed. We are discovering how finicky such concepts are in the quantum realm and in the presence of extreme gravity. For all we know, God's interaction with time is as mysterious as the concept of quantum superposition is to our understanding of classical Newtonian physics.I am more than confident that we can be wrong about our assumptions, and as such, I see this as a meaningless venture. This realization gives me a greater appreciation for our Lutheran brothers who focus on the points of the Bible that truly matter, such as the salvation of souls through baptism, the sacraments, preaching the gospel, and leading a godly life. God revealed His truth to us and commanded us to come to Him like children, without needing to fully understand the complexities of His nature. For an eternal God to choose to love the sinner is an inconceivable concept, and I am satisfied with accepting it without needing to fully comprehend it.
@@SSJacksWolf This is the paradox I face with the language we use to describe the nature of God's will "God determined" implies that God was in time, and in a past and subjects him to chronology. This implies that God was within time when he made his will known thus making him within the flow of time instead of the outside of it. How do you describe the will of an eternal God without making assumptions? that was I guess on of my major issues I brought up. On the nature of evil I subscribe more to a Neoplatonist view especially one subscribed by Plotinus. Evil characterized by lack, or in a more defined sense a shadow of non-being all sense-objects and their passive modifications. I do not believe God created evil, evil is a consequence of lack in a created world. I am worshiping the God of the bible who is one in the trinity, not your implied "demiurge".
@@koko00083 I believe God created the angels with free will, which I view as a moral "creativity". God created the angels, Lucifer created evil through his free will. That is not the same as God creating evil. He allowed it to happen, but didn't create it.
@@SSJacksWolf 1. I was quoting Plotinus, not Plato, and I claimed that the definition of evil provided was an approximation to my understanding of the metaphysics of evil and God. I was not approving any of Plato's pagan beliefs. 2.I did not say evil was nothingness, nor did I claim anything diminishing the will of God. I made sure to be deliberate and careful with my words in the definition I provided because nuances of words matter. 3. You have not provided any appropriate response to any of my criticisms of the problem of Calvinists' overreach in their assumptions of natural and metaphysics in their theology, and as a result, the unnecessary over complication and jargon they introduced in the message of the Gospel. 4. The whole back-and-forth I have had with you was boiled down to you calling me a "dualist" even though I made sure to be clear in my belief in a Trinity timeless God, and the whole "demiurge" ordeal. I can already tell this is going to be an exhausting and fruitless exchange because I have had many similar conversations before, so I’ll choose to end it here. Wish you the best in all that you do, and God be with you.
I generally disagree with the reformed view of predestination but half of the people disagreeing aren’t even attempting to understand what they’re disagreeing with
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires *all men* to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" 1 Timothy 2:3-6, NKJV
@@philc.2504 True, but it'd be really stupid for God to hope or desire for everyone to be saved if he KNEW it wasn't going to happen because of what he had done and decrees he had already made. If he made a system by which some were guaranteed to be lost and some were guaranteed to be saved, then his desire is foolish. God wouldn't waste his energy on that foolishness and he wouldn't have allowed that word to be put in the Bible because it would be incorrect. God is not stupid and not foolish. He is wise and all-knowing.
Hmmm; although God desires all would be saved and no one should perish; he still has to show his justice against sin. If we took the text very literal we would arrive to your conclusion but questions like why should we believe in Christ to enter heaven if eventually all are saved? How would everyone be saved and also what happens to all the people who have died already? How would they be saved? We see another example in Ezekiel that God doesnt take pleasure in people dying and would rather want them to repent of their sins, does that mean that they did because God said thats what he would rather have? Maybe some but not everyone. Its clear in Revelation that whoever takes the mark of the beast and follow the beast go into the lake of fire with satan and his angels; so how is everyone saved then as well when we see that? Also cant forget Christ warning of the outer darkness, where they'll be "wailing and gnashing of teeth" that he taught to the multitudes I highly encourage you to research what the reformers taught on 1 Timothy 2:3-6; they probably explain it in an understandable way. You can search for a Calvin commentary on 1 Timothy online. Hope this helps you think about it more and may God bring you to a good conclusion!
It seems to me that the Supralapsarian position is the most Scriptural. "The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom." - Proverbs 16:4. And again in Romans 9:22, Exodus 9:16, Psalm 76:10, etc. etc. That said, I couldn't really find a distinction between it and so-called "Mean" "Hyper" Calvinism. I had a tumultuous struggle with the "Mean" God of the Scriptures in my young adulthood: "He's like if Superman shoves two people off a building, swoops down to save one, lets the other splat, then calls himself a hero." That was my reasoning. Because I was trying to make the Creator of the Universe make sense through the lens of human justice. After I gave up on finding answers to that old question of, "Why would a 'good' god allow suffering," in His mercy, God blessed me with a life-threatening infection. I spent a lot of time in the hospital with my veins on fire from whatever was in the I.V. I asked Him to please let me die. I realized how much I'd taken for granted. People who love me, health, and so on. And I remembered all His suffering he went through to cover my sins, even knowing I'd accuse Him of being at fault for all of it. God didn't grant my request to die. I recovered with a new appreciation for just how entirely dependent on God's mercy I am for every good thing I have. I'm no mystic, but I feel like debates like Supra- vs. Infra- vs. Sandwichlapsarianism run the risk of calling the Eternal down to the causality-bound bar of human reason. Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. - Psalm 90:2 Revelation 13:8 describes "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Not in the 1st century A.D. God does not change. Jesus bore the scars of crucifixion on his hands before Adam sinned. Even knowing that it would lead to His own enormous suffering, God started the clock of time running just a week before creating the first Human. Suffering that was a part of Him before the word "before" even had any meaning. Before the words, "You're such a mean God," ever passed the lips of a Human empowered to nail to a cross the very One who grants the power to hammer and accuse. So yeah. My point is that while it's good to reason out just how very little a person contributes to being resurrected from being dead in sins, it's dangerous to try and put God in a logical box.
So even if I am the greatest Christian to ever live, praying as much as possible, living the most Christlike life possible for a human, God can still just chose to send me to Hell? That’s scary.
@@UTTPOfficerBennie If you do all that, and stay faithful til death, the calvinistic view I think is that you then were predestined to heaven. But no human can know that beforehand. I am not a calvinist, so take it with a grain of salt.
Hmm Calvinists sure like to minimize the role of Jesus' sacrifice. I also find it a bit concerning that the Calvinist view of soteriology strays closer to that of Islam's rather than that of early Christianity.
Predestination to salvation is biblical; predestination to reprobation is not. Calvinism tends to affirm predestination (election of grace) and deny that God loves all men and that Christ died for all men; the "Arminian" tends to affirm that God does love all men and Christ died for all, but denies the election of grace. What each affirm is true, what each deny is false. Augustine wondered if predestination to damnation (same as reprobation for him) was a result of predestination to salvation, but didn't dare go further; later the Franciscans and Dominicans fought it out before the Reformation; and Calvin took it as a necessary consequence, although in his writings he describes it as "a horrible thing". The decrees of God which this is based on are also variable depending on which theory they promote: it can be based on his justice, on his foreknowledge, on his own good pleasure. Therefore admit that we don't know exactly, but that predestination to salvation is what is revealed and promised, and have the faith to count yourself called to be part of that company.
Authorship of evil: there is the problem to work out that evil is defined by a law and a judge, which in the end is God; and taking Him to apply one definition of evil (sin) sufficient to damn somebody, and another sufficient to save somebody else, despite both of them having sinned, is not justice. "Iniquity" means "inequality," which is hateful to God, and therefore the same criteria have to be applied in both cases. If they aren't, the person who is damned has either had no choice in the matter and must commit evil, or the saving grace of God is arbitrarily applied to somebody else and withheld from him. While God has the ultimate right to do whatever he likes, and we have no right to expect anything from him, this effectively leaves God as the origin of evil, which leads to a contradiction, whereby we know that it isn't like this that it works. One question I find useful in these cases is to ask "What is salvation?" Few people seem to be able to answer....
Well, if you choose who is being saved, then by extension you are choosing who is not being saved. And no, God is not the origin of evil. Allowing something to take place is not the same as being the cause of that thing taking place. For example, if I know that my wife is going to cheat on me, and still allow her to do it, that does not mean that I am the cause of her cheating on me.
Hey man. I understand that all of this stuff gets really heated, and I get everyone here. I have something that can totally reconcile this whole debate. Andrew Farley on Predestination: Part 1: czcams.com/video/RxSeHTXr3dw/video.htmlsi=EYYn1FiTiSoIQSYf Part 2: czcams.com/video/zQoVWdo-UvU/video.htmlsi=yurqK6CvkwIHljbF And I reccomend everyone else to also watch this stellar two part series as well.
@nerychristian true, but if you put her in a place where she has no option, then you are ultimately to blame. God is not the originator of evil as you say - it's just a touchstone to use when considering these theological statements. Predestination to salvation is not defining the total quantity of those who are saved. It is a specific grace. It doesn't close off salvation from the rest, which is where Augustine, Calvin, et al. went astray.
You say that God is infinite and man is finite. You understand that man lives inside the frames of time and God outside. But then you take a huge leap of faith and try to understand how God creates and how he plans things. That is not wise, thats stupid. Leave the mysteries as mysteries and focus on your path.
Predestination is a dangerous belief because if you are struggling with sin you might think "God is not giving me necessary graces to combat my sins, therefore I am probably not elect" and give up. We are not characters in Christs story. God isnt creating a cinema experience for himself. He is creating us for our benefit and to expand his love to billions of infinitely valuable souls that have a free will to choose their destiny.
RZ, you often say that the East has not been as scholastic as the West, but I cant see how that's possibly true. Before Thomas Aquinas, the most famous Catholic scholastic in the West even lived, Michael Psellos lived in the East, who wrote many great works on theology, philosophy, and history. Before him, Saint Photios the Great was responsible for other great theological works in the 9th century, before Anselm. John of Damascus was another Eastern theologian who wrote on iconoclasm. Finally, there's Gregory Palamas, who fleshed out the Hesychast tradition. All of these were great theologians who acted in much the same ways as Aquinas, Scotus, and Anselm, all of whom are Eastern.
Nothing new under the sun. Still not a single argument or a good reason in general, to show God is not the author of evil under Calvinism. Infra or Supra version alike. You basically said "God must have some reason to allow people to go to hell same as he allows cancer and stuff" the two could not be more different. One can be, and is, a means to achieve good. Presence of evil allows for existance of bravery. Mercy. Grace. Forgiveness and countless others. Damning billions to hell is no pathway for anything but their eternal suffering. It's crazy to think God would want this and allow this That he would plan this. That he would will this into existance. And he doesn't. Because God is not author of evil. He allows it because it's THEIR CHOICE. Free will in the mind of God is more precious than eternal life. This is why he only ever created eternal beings who can freely choose him or reject him. Like us and the angels. And Calvinism is a philosophy alien to modern Catholics, and most other Christians, for that exact reason. The Arminianism is also Catholic. Molinism is Catholic. I'd argue even Provisionism has Catholic roots at the very bottom. Calvinism is wrong. And not just because its incorrect. I do hope you eventually jump ship to a proper theological camp at some point man.
@@Cattleman16479 Catholic Church condemned the double predestination and emphasized the importance of free will. Thomism is a permissible (and influential no doubt) theology but so is Palamism. None are a dogma.
I disagree with the premise that you put forth. You affirm that the incarnation is absolutely necessary even if man did not sin, and say all infralapsarians disagree. We do agree, but it's for a different reason. The incarnation had two purposes, to reconcile the divine and the physical, and to atone for the sins of mankind. What was the reason for these purposes, or what were these purposes put in place to solve? They were meant to solve the imperfection of the physical. The world was made very good, but not perfect. God called it very good, but not perfect. Why? Because he did not create it perfect, and knew that sin was bound to infiltrate his creation. You're mixing up the incarnation with the atonement. The atonement is the enactment of God's predestination. God's predestination requires the atonement to be put into effect. When done out of a pure mass, predestination has no purpose when made out of a pure mass, without considering the fall, because sin, being not yet considered, practically does not exist. What would be the purpose of the atonement with no sin? And then, without the atonement, what is the purpose of predestination? The Bible tells us the purpose of predestination. Romans 8-29-30, KJV "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." It says the predestination is done out of God's foreknowledge of us, including his knowledge that we would sin; it is not done before consideration of sin, because that would make it meaningless. Now comes the hypothetical, what if Adam didn't sin? This is hard to answer since it is a hypothetical question. Supralapsarians would say that Adam's sin was ordained by God to happen before considering predestination, but that makes this hypothetical is impossible. However, infralapsarians would say that Adam's sin was possible, but not inevitable. Adam had the choice to sin or not to sin, and he chose to sin, and God knew that he would choose to sin. God knew what Adam would choose, but he could hypothetically resist, God just knew he wouldnt. But what if he didn't, and God knew? Then predestination would not be necessary, and the atonement would not be necessary. However, we must ask whether Adam or his descendants would still have the ability to sin, because of their inherent imperfection. It depends on what God does. If Adam resists, then would God send Satan to hell right then and there, and temptation, therefore sin, are gone? Or would he do something else? I think the former is more likely. Nonetheless, I reject Supralapsarianism, because it practically erases the meaning of the election, atonement, and therefore undermines God's grace.
I had a huge smile on my face through this entire video; this is almost exactly the same process by which I came to affirm supralapsarian. Only difference is my being a 1689-affirming Baptist.
I've heard you use the Star Wars analogy before, comparing George Lucas to God, and us as the characters (Anakin, Darth Maul, etc.) You made it clear that we're NOT droids (R2-D2, Destroyer Droid, etc.) In your view, this makes us not robots, subject to simple programming. We are actually able to act. My problem with this analogy is that at the end of they day, George Lucas programs Anakin has as much as he programs R2. Anakin is not capable of his own free will to do good or evil; it's simply what George Lucas writes him to do. If your view of predestination is analogous to Star Wars characters and their writer, then we're as unreal as Anakin is. We are nothing more than robots/characters/paintings without a soul. I understand your wish to be Christocentric in theology, but I think you take it too far in degrading human free will. In fact, I would say a non-Calvinist view of predestination is more Christocentric. The fact that God/Jesus is able to create humans who can reject his will (I firmly disagree with Irresistable Grace) does not show that his power/will is limited. On the contrary, it shows that God is powerful enough to create people who are not mere characters in a book. The more free will we have, the more it adds to God's glory who is able to create such free will. I am not saying our free will is unlimited, but I don't think it's as limited as you believe. All that said, I really like your channel. You do a lot for God's Kingdom, may the Lord bless you.
Do you think what you build in Minecraft is predestined to be like that when you start? (Intention vs result) That is to say, you are playing God in this little virtual world, and you know what you want it to look like. If others come along and change it, do you ban them from the server (damn them), do you let them roll, do you give them the plans and expect them to get on with it, do you intervene so that they are doing exactly what you want (save them)? (The twanging sound in the background is a metaphor being stretched)
You're turning into a consistent 'Calvinist', so to speak (I know you're not a Calvinist). Since you're reformed you're incorrect, but at least now you're consistently incorrect. Any who, here are some passages that refute the doctrine of unconditional election. The very best reformed theologians interpretations of these verses are lacking to say the least. Their interpretations end up meaning the exact opposite of what these verses plainly state. 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance." The plain reading is that the Lord is not willing that any should perish (in this context referring to spiritual death, IE damnation for sins). Under the presupposition of determinism, someone who is reformed must, when dealing with this verse, either suggest that the verse actually somehow really means something to the effect of 'The Lord is willing that the majority of humanity perishes.', or suggest universalism (which is obviously refuted by scripture). The Provisionist interpretation requires no reinterpretation of the verse. The verse plainly states that God is not willing that any should perish. God doesn't will for anyone to perish, so God doesn't will for anyone to reject Him. He draws everyone to Himself, but in order for us to freely choose to accept His offer, which is what He wants, He must therefore also give us the ability to reject His offer. Hence the many, many, many passages of scripture imploring us to put our faith in Him (rather than scripture ever suggesting that God will make us put our faith in Him). 1 Timothy 2: 3-4 "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." The plain reading is that God wants all people to be saved. The reformed reinterpretation of this verse suggests that "all people" really means "all kinds of people" rather than "all people". This would effectively mean that God wants all kinds of people, but not each and every individual person, to be saved. This would effectively mean that God does not want all people to be saved. IE, 'God wants all people to be saved' turns into 'God does not want all people to be saved', which means the reformed interpretation is the exact opposite of what the text states plainly. The Provisionist interpretation requires no reinterpretation of the verse. The verse plainly states that God wants all people to be saved. He offers His grace and desires everyone to freely accept it. Not everyone does accept His offer, but He wants them to. 1 John 2:2 "...and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." The verse plainly states that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. The reformed reinterpretation of this verse is that Jesus only died for the sins of a very small minority of people in the world, which, again, is the opposite of what's plainly stated. The Provisionist interpretate requires no reinterpretation of the verse. The verse plainly states that Jesus died for the sins of all. This gives God the ability to forgive the sins of everyone, and He chooses to apply that salvation based on the condition of having Faith in Jesus. Not everyone chooses to believe in Jesus, and so not everyone is saved. 2 Corinthians 5:14 "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died..." The verse plainly states that Christ died for all. The reformed reinterpretation of this verse is that Jesus only died for a tiny minority of humanity. Etc, etc. I could go on and on.
Dude, you're pretty much using mental gymnastics to say that God punishes people for things they can't control. And, Im sorry you think that way, because thats not the God that I know. Calvinism was never supposed to be something people take too seriously anyways, its literally just a concept that has no effect on how one should live their life. If you agree that all people are sinners, and therefore deserve to go to hell (basic christian belief), and you also agree that the only way to not go to hell is through Gods forgiveness, but that God will only decide to forgive some, and not others, how is this not pre damnation? If you believe there is no path that COULD lead EVERYONE to salvation (i.e. following Jesus), then you are disagreeing with a core christian belief. Psalms 25:8 literally says that God is just, and he is fair. Through our definition of the terms just and fair, the concept of pre damnation would contradict this.
i clicked on this video to find out what literally any of this means and, having read the comments, i am one million percent more confused. this is really funny to me
i think charles hodge brought up a good point when dealing with this view which i also reject, "it is a clearly revealed scriptural principle that where there is no sin there is no condemnation" (verses like romans 5:16 show condemnation in light of sin) back to hodge "therefore there can be no foreordination to death which does not contemplate its objects as already sinful"
I'm kinda confused about the wording here, but if I'm understanding correctly, remember Adam was a federal head. All of humanity descended from Adam is born into sin because of his fall. Second, Zoomer clarified in this video that supralapsarianism affirms that God determined He would pass over the non-elect, not that He would damn them, as does infralapsarianism. The difference isn't at that point.
@@ethanmulvihill7177 the point in what I said with the utilization of Charles Hodge is that if in the sup view election comes first or is done before the fall or at least not in light of the fall, then people are passed over aka will go to hell not on the basis or in light of the fall
For someone as intelligent as yourself, I cannot believe you can't see the logical fallacy between the separation of reprobation and damnation. If people have been eternally predestined to not receive grace, then they are certain to be damned. Thus reprobation, whilst a separate term from damnation, always leads to damnation with no exceptions.
0:48 Really? Literally every Christian ever believes in predestination, not only Calvinists. And it’s not only infra or supra. There are other historic views. Arminians believe in predestination, orthodox Lutherans believe in predestination, non-thomist Roman Catholics believe in predestination, Eastern Orthodox believe in predestination, etc. Not every predestination is Calvinistic or Thomistic.
Nah dude you must use Augustine/Calvin’s definition of words such as “election” or “sovereignty”. Nevermind that those words are used completely differently in non-theological contexts…they rely on special pleading
@@kuafer3687 Decree 3 We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth {1 Timothy 2:4}. But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other.
Could you please do a video where you do a tier list of all the main bible versions? I use KJV, but I would be interested in ones that are similar or questionable.
@@darnit1944 It isn't though, sure, you can choose to sin or not in the now, but God has already chosen your outcome in Calvinism, so you could be the most die-hard bible-belting christian, but if you aren't elect, God hasn't chosen you, sorry, no grace, no forgiveness, to the pits of hell with you! I. never. knew. you.
A complete waste, how so? Under predestination, Christ achieves by his death exactly what he hoped to achieve, salvation and redemption of human souls to the glory of God. If anything, non-predestination is a waste because without the perseverance of the saints, there is no guarantee that anyone will truly be saved.
haha. you're so right dude. that two minute long tirade about how Catholics have predestination as well really makes them super similar! Why don't you convert to Catholicism then?
@@famtomerc I'm Presbyterian. You need to give me a positive reason to become Roman Catholic. "It's the one true church" doesn't count as a reason, because the only people who would agree with that premise are those who are already Roman Catholic
@@redeemedzoomer6053in my opinion it all boils down to the Papacy. That's the fundamental issue. If Papal supremacy is true then you should become Catholic. I see Papal supremacy taught both in the Scriptures and in the history of the Early Church. Why do you reject it?
@redeemedzoomer6053 isn't God eternal though? That should mean he doesn't change his goals, meaning everything was planned eternally and perpetually. How can one say that God decided to allow something before deciding to allow something else if he knew everything he permits before there even was anything aside from his triune self? This argument on how God decides who to elect seems irrational due to his timelessness. His plan is a mystery to us, all we know is that some are elect, and who the elect are shall be revealed to us by the end of times (at the latest). Edit: May God bless us all on our journey as we strive to follow him.
Concerning Thomas - somewhere I heard that he did not exclude that the Incarnation would have happened if people hadn't sinned. He even was in favor of unconditional Incarnation - only he stated that we cannot know it for sure because it is not directly revealed in Scripture. I did not read it in Thomas and I do not remember the source, but I remember I heard it said by some serious Thomist.
Nah, respectfully, I'll keep my Infralapsarianism. I just don't see how God could simultaneously not give Adam an actual choice between obedience and rebellion and not constructively be the "author of sin" as it is often put and I don't see how the Incarnation (regardless of the order) necessitates the fall. Maybe I have misunderstood and misstated the argument, someone please correct me if I have. I would also argue that our free will is at a minimum presently constrained with respect to morality (constrained by our sin nature - i.e "unable not to sin" - ) and with respect to our eternity (by God's election) and not necessarily all decisions in a total sense. I also don't think that predestination implies one single ordained outcome (as it does in election) in every situation. Idk, maybe it somehow comes down to some way that I can't just get past my Armenian upbringing that I am not completely aware of - I've only been Presbyterian (PCA) for about a year-and-a-half and I am the only Calvinist/predestinarian in my largely Pentecostal/Methodist family - but Supralapsarianism looks like a rather small distinction from "hyper-Calvinism" to me.
I don't like Catholicism and her teachings being reduced solely down to the teachings of certain Scholastic schools, like I would get pretty annoyed if a Protestant with leanings towards Ockhamism or Molinism would act like the Catholic Church teaches either of those two officially, as if it is Magisterial, regardless of how many Catholic laity believe in Molinism (cringe) or not. Medieval Scholasticism doesn't necessarily equal Catholic Theology; what Redeemed Zoomer is referring to is only a type of theology that is systemized and done in the light of scripture, and that is the Catholic Scholastic tradition that RZ is referring to. RZ is clumsy with his communication it seems when, and particularly when he speaks from an understanding of how propositions from Medieval Scholastics are taught by the Catholic Church (as if that would even be simply possible to the laity), and he makes it sound very straightforward and pure as that, which then undermines the wider breadth of beliefs allowed. What I am referring to is his inferrence that is both rough and ill defined, like when he says something along the lines of "reformed Predestination IS basically the same as the Catholics, because Wagner even confirmed it to me", that doesn't mean the Catholic Church binds the Scholastic forms of predestination to the consciousness of the laity, or that it is THE Catholic teaching, he says it like he couldn't be mistaken, when he is assuming such publicly. The problem is that RZ had a talk with Wagner (who has a whole channel dedicated to Scholasticism, and particularly Thomism) without realizing that systemized medieval theology is only a single slice of a cake within the larger stacked wedding sized cake of Catholicism, and her large blinding amount of traditions or methods as a unified whole, including the insane amount of large slices within Catholic Theology alone; I am saying that the reformed tradition inherits a very small aspect of Catholic Theology, and it's not even a tenth as large as it's ancestor. He has from his understanding by reason, paralleled SOME Catholic methods with one of the main components of his Reformed Tradition, and this has lead reducing Catholicism down to what they have in common with the Reformed teachings, and you see this too when Lutherans compare themselves to their ancestor they protested, because they make the same mistake when starting from this place of parallels, and then over simplifying from there, and both are assumptious and unwary in any context similar to this one. This isn't meant to undermine the genuis and owed glory to Scholastics, like Saint Thomas Aquinas (he da best Scholastic imo😃, I love his prayers and have been trying to make more time for studying him, though I don't subcribe to Thomist thought, but I just love Saint Thomas Aquinas, also most of what I know about predestination comes from him). The thing is that Thomist or Scotist predestination isn't THE official teaching from the Papacy, but rather it is taught that the scholastic teachings are a safe place to be for systemized theology within Catholic Theology(esp Thomism in particular), unlike the Reformed Scholastics... Please just don't over reduce and over simplify Catholicism like that, and especially considering that there are many views of predestination allowed within the firm and reasonable guard rails of the Magisterial guidances. I do appreciate the respect and honoring of Catholics of recent on this channel, and I know it's annoying having to explain that predestination is in the Bible constantly to unlearned Catholics, so I feel the pain there, but I feel that what I am putting forth needs to be said. (Clarifying at the end in case anyone is wondering, I don't subscribe to any particular scholastic predestination systems, or any defined system, nor am I some Molinist. It's a pretty uncomfortable topic for me that I have learned a lot more about then most Catholics, but I don't have a defined idea of what I believe, so I just stick with what the Church allows for me with what I see and infer from in my Bible, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're lots of Catholics like me in that sense, who see it as a mystery more so.)
I am a Primitive Baptist...we are hyper-Calvinists? I have heard a lot of PB sermons on predestination that were infralapsarian... What exactly is hyper-calvinism?
This video perfectly shows the single thing I dislike most about Protestants as a Catholic. This disgusting cult of personality they seem to spin around every single theologian that once wrote some great theological text useful to their cause. There is no single man or woman who can just by thinking about God figure out everything about him, and even if you take multiple theologians and combine their teachings to whatever you like, these theologians are still only human and most of the times contradict one another more than once. If you don't have an authority to sort through all of the theological writings and adopt what is found to be true by the magisterium of the church guided by the Holy Spirit, anyone can just combine whatever theology they like, crafting abominations like this whole infralapsarian or supralapsarian debate. Like what good is calling yourself a Thomist or a Scotist, you're either a Christian or not, stop naming yourself after random people from the past who may or may not have had some great teachings (same applies to Lutherans and Calvinists literally naming themselves after mortal, sinful men). That has nothing to do with being "nerdy" or not, it's just completely out of line of what Christianity should be.
Most Catholic monastic orders named themselves after mortal, sinful men. I've also never heard of Catholics being scornful about people calling themselves Thomists or Molinists ...
@@Continentalphilosophyrules yeah, I wear a Saint Benedict Medal because I love this man, but still, religious orders of the Catholic Curch are a whole different story. When they were established, they actually had to go to Rome and have their teachings assessed to make sure they weren't teaching heresy. So the teachings were looked at by the supreme authority of the Church. There isn't a single order, even if they are named after a Saint that taught things that were against the teachings of the Church, that somehow was able to teach heresy. Yes, these orders are named after mortal, sinful men, but at least the Church has authority over them and even a Bendictine or a Dominican has to, in the first place, follow the teachings of the Church, only after that the teachings of their namesakes that are compatible with the teaching of the Church. My original comment was meant more as a condemnation of the Protestant way to elevate certain theologians over the actual teachings of the Church they belonged to (Thomas, Augustine, etc.) than the sole act of naming oneself after certain people.
Calvin agreed Servetus should die, but he suggested execution by the sword rather than burning. He didn’t want him to suffer. Calvin’s request was denied and Servetus was burned. Also, the Catholics wanted Servetus dead. That doesn’t mean Catholicism is bad or false. Lastly, Martin Luther said and did some messed up things in his life. That doesn’t mean Lutheranism is false or that the Reformation is bad. It’s almost as if we should strive to follow and understand the word of God rather than having our understanding stand or fall on the moral character of one person…
If we lack free will and God specifically chooses everyone who will be saved while passing over those who won't, why is our country (and the West broadly) becoming more secular? If it's His will that all might be saved (1 Tim. 2:4), why is He passing over more people now than He did 100 years ago? Why has He historically chosen more people in Western countries? Is there even a point to evangelizing?
I think tomist theology would make more sense. Since christ was the second adam, the one who reconcilled man and God by becoming the God-Man. There would be no need of reconcilliation if adam hadn't sinned.
Amazing content as always Zoomer. Would you consider making an in-depth video contrasting Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism? I have never really understood why Molinism is so often maligned by those in the theology world. The only critiques I can find seem illogical to me, and I have yet to find an argument against Molinism that is genuinely convincing. I would not consider myself a Molinist, as I don't know enough about such things to make a concrete decision, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. I suppose if I had to label myself I would align more closely with what I understand to be a Wesleyan perspective. Once again, thanks for your content, keep it up!
There is no such thing as mean Calvinism.
Because that would imply the existance of nice Calvinism 😔.
Why the hate? Rz is showing Calvinism hardly any different than medieval catholicism
Lol
I accept the Canons of Dort, which is the 5 points of Calvinism but Dutch. I prefer the term "doctrines of grace" over 5 points of Calvinism. Don't spread hate!
@@billytheconqueror5803 The lowest bar you could possibly set.
@@jessefoutz597 so you hate medieval catholicism. Ok
Zoomer's New York accent is clear when he says "thought"
'I've been wrong for several years'
**someone throws bread at RZ**
it was baked taters
@@jan_Kilan Must've been one of those door to door baptist types
@@Taryntheterrible101 lol
Supralapsarianism is the logical conclusion to Calvinism, which is why I'm not calvinist.
It is not the logical conclusion. I like Redeemed Zoomer but disagree with him on this point. Supralapsarianism makes no logical sense.
@@wilsonkuhnel7192 yes it does, in the Calvinist framework. But it is the Calvinist framework which is wrong.
@@chestersnapdragonmcphistic579I have to agree, Calvinism leads to this.
@@chestersnapdragonmcphistic579 can i ask why you think this?
This video was basically “ I was wrong about my terrible theology, I’ve realized it actually should be much worse”
Best comment. He went from cruel God to Pure Evil God.
Might wanna do some research if you consider Calvinism terrible theology. Check out Romans 9 and Eph 1
@@loaded5150 I don’t consider Calvinism terrible theology, I like most of it, just not there predestination theology. I’m aware of Romans 9 and Ephesians 1.
@@nerdtalk1789 So how do you interpret Romans 9 and Eph 1?
@@loaded5150 I went in the same path Augustine did, it was clear to me the sovereignty of God, based on passages like that. It was also clearly to me based on passages like 1 Timothy 2 that there is a semblance of human cooperation in our salvation. I was at some point Calvinist in my thinking, at another I was Arminian, at another Molinist, at another Thomist. Eventually I got to the same point Augustine did. I know of the supremacy of God, and I know of the cooperation of man, but I do not know, and I am unable to know how they correlate. I could make a valid argument for any of the views I listed above. And I can make a valid refutation as well. Because so much of predestination has to do with the foreknowledge of God, and how he views the world, it is impossible for us to ever truly understand what that relationship is. However, when I ask myself, what is the point of those passages, something is made very clear to me. The take away from these passages in every sense, is to make clear that at the end of the day, it is God who saves, and God who chooses. And our efforts are not contributors to that. You can be Arminian and still understand that truth. I think when you try too hard to intellectually analyze things we can know, that’s when you get the dangers of Calvinism. Things like Limited atonement, and irresistible grace. Those concepts are simply unbiblical. But too often I see Calvinists look at the Bible through their intellectual theological lens rather than the other way around. Of course, this is true of every denomination. But I think I’ve made my point.
Unfortunately, this line of thinking DOES necessitate that God is the progenitor of all sin.
If I understand your belief about predestination correctly, you are saying that when God creates you, He also creates every step of your life and all the events that happen to you for your ultimate benefit and for His glory. Every step of your life is according to His plan, but He is not responsible for your sin because He allows your sin, not causes it.
However, this is a contradiction because your life is affected by the choices you make. If I murder someone, get sent to jail, find redemption in jail, and then live my life as a redeemed example of God's grace even to murderers, then (by your logic) that means that God meant for me to go to jail so that He could bless me and others through me. However, I would not have gone to jail had I not sinned which would have thwarted God's plan. If God is the sole author of my story, then he must have authored my sin as well in order to make me fit into his plan. It is only by allowing us to affect our own lives that He avoids causing sin.
A brilliant strategist plans for contingencies and God is the perfect, omniscient strategist. God's glory would have been shown if Adam and Eve never sinned and He never needed to sacrifice Jesus. And if every single human throughout history had rejected Jesus, then God would have called witnesses out of the stones. His gift to us is the ability to be the vehicle through which His glory is portrayed, but His glory will be portrayed regardless.
Furthermore, predestination is unbiblical. 1 John 2:2 says that "[Jesus] is the sacrifice that atones for our sins--and not only our sins but the sins of all the world". If God predestined some and not others, then Jesus did not atone for the sins of the whole world, but just the predestined few.
I think of predestination as a form of mini-blasphemy. We limited beings are trying to understand a Being who exists beyond and above time, and so we stubbornly cling to an interpretation that conforms to our own limited logic, even (sometimes) at the cost of alienating potential believers. While it doesn't hurt to speculate, we have to be humble enough to know we don't understand His fullness.
It's not form of "mini-blasphemy" it's outright heretical. RZ is still huffing that intellectual BS majority of Protestants do, which is that they can uncover some perfect and ultimate truth just by reading, thinking and philosophizing about it. Which is also known as sin of pride. And because of this pride, there's 10.000 denominations of protestants, and why they alienated common man from religion so much almost every single historical protestant country has major issues with rampant atheism.
Majority of things councils deemed heretical hundreds of years after Christ was usually dividing Christ's human and divine nature. You can also see it in Qu'ran too, and it's clear that Muhammad had contact with Nestorian Christians. All these things when taken to next step (and it is always taken to the next step because every new generation thinks they can outthink the last one) leads to relationship akin to Allah, where you can only hope for Master-Servant relationship, and nothing else.
His talk about God writing story starting around 25:00 is not only unbiblical but is describing an outright malicious God. This is why so many protestants end up becoming atheists or convert to Orthodoxy later down the line. This type of predestination is completely same as it is in Qu'ran and it's disgusting, because it means if you got, let's say, r*ped, God wrote all that for what? Character development meme? And what if someone get's r*ped and then commits s*icide because of it, by all Christian theology such person would end up in Hell, so it either means Christian theology is wrong on that part or God wrote that whole life just to condemn a soul to Hell. Crickets from Calvinists at this point, not to mention if everything is written and predestined, then there is NO free will. Sure, they'll say some BS like "you have free will in accepting Lord or denying him" bla bla, that's semantics and hairsplitting.
Believing in predestination of any form=Believing in no free will
There's no fancy intellectual ways to by-pass that fact.
this is how ive always viewed the predestination issue too. the way i explained it to by brother was "you know your wife. if you asked her right now if she wanted pizza for dinner you already know what her answer will be. are you still gonna ask her regardless? yes, because it shows your respect and love for her. same thing with God except He has the benefit of knowing everything past present and future too."
But that right there, the idea that God has to allow us to affect our own lives - God didn't take that away from us. Adam did, when he disobeyed God. Then the Fall occurred, and humanity lost its free will to not sin.
Even if God structures His plan around your sins, that does not mean He is responsible for them. Adam is responsible for them. Adam could've simply not sinned.
God can still structure his plan around our sin, however, because He has the knowledge of what Adam will do, and thus what we all will do.
Also, 1st John 2:2 can very easily be interpreted - and it has been by Reformed theologians for centuries - as referring to the people (who will believe, hence the elect) from all over the Earth - that is, for Jews and Gentiles, not just the Jews. It is not necessarily saying that it's for every single human being to ever walk on the face of the Earth.
If you let a dog off of a leash knowing good and well it will dig a hole in the yard, are you the progenitor of the hole? Are you the progenitor of the temptation to dig a hole? Are you the progenitor of the temptation to dig a hole when you attempted to train the dog to not dig a hole? God does not interfere with you digging holes for yourself, even though He knows full and well you will do it. This is hardly a free will issue until it comes to the point of salvation, at which point all Christians can agree on the fact that your salvation is NOT of your free will and is at the will of whom your salvation comes from. It is a gift that He will choose to give to souls, a gift He has known who He will give it to before He created time and space. You are to live your life to the glory of God just as you said, but He has known the holes you will dig before He even spoke the light into existence.
>this isn't about God creating someone for damnation!
>looks inside
>God creating someone for damnation
@@SSJacksWolf Bible verses can be interpreted in a variety of ways, including the Universalist one.
>greentext format
>Reddit spacing
>mfw
I wonder if God knew 100% as he was creating Hell who would be in there for eternity….Or did he learn that later…
@@SSJacksWolfRomans 9:22 isn’t about God predestining someone for hell. It’s God showing his mercy upon someone who currently disbelieves. It describes God **having patience** with the “objects of his wrath prepared for destruction”, and literally one verse later it talks about God doing this so he can show “his glory to the objects of his mercy”. 2 Peter 3:9 supports this. In Ephesians 2, Paul describes how we were all once “children of wrath” but then became saved through faith in Christ. So the objects of God’s wrath can become the objects of God’s mercy.
Free will is necessary to be a logical Christian, because without it the entirety of the Book of Jonah makes no sense. It’s literally Jonah **choosing** to run away from God (irresistible grace? Jonah seems able to resist it.), and then choosing to obey and preach to Nineveh. And then it’s Nineveh **choosing** to repent. God did not force them to repent, it was their choice.
@@SSJacksWolfLet me guess, you’re Calvinist?
If there is no such thing as “free will” in your opinion, how do we answer to the problem of evil in a universe controlled by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God? If God wills that everyone comes to him, and his grace is “irresistible” why then does he not grace everybody so they can all come to him? Is that not what he wants? If you believe in total depravity, then *we have no choice but to sin* . *If we are incapable of doing anything but sin, then it is in fact God’s fault if we do not go to heaven* . God having the ability to give us something we cannot resist so we can enter heaven and not doing it is like a lifeguard choosing to not save a drowning person.
The solution? God’s grace is *not* irresistible (because if it were then God is forcing us to love him, and love without free will is not love at all) and all are given this grace, but not all cooperate with it. It’s like a person sending out invitations to his birthday party. He sends out invitations to *all people* , but it’s still completely *their choice* if they decide to go to the party or not.
Colossians 1:15-20 literally says that Jesus created all things and reconcile all things to himself. Y'all calvinist are always taking a big leap.
What chapter
@@Nguyenzander Chapter 1
@@jim3769 The Book of Romans and the Book of Life: (Where God writes the names of people before creation), as an Armininan I say to you that you need a lot more than one verse to stand on a theological position.
The problem is you can't just take one verse or one section of verses. You have to have ways to interpret all the judgement verses that declare that some will be condemned and consigned to hell. Admittedly, I am also reformed but enjoy Karl Barth's theology the most. Having studied the Greek, I am more convinced than he was in universal salvation (Barth thinks that he can be a "hopeful universalist," but he does not think that there is enough Biblical evidence to go one or the other definitively). However, you must recognize that the three premises 1 God is omnipotent, 2 God is omnibenevolent (God loves everyone totally and equally), and 3 people are consigned to hell forever are not reconcilable. All three premises come from verses that prima facie indicate their veracity.
Plus pull is talking
About sigle predestination in which God is like an elevator that only turns on for those who it knows will board it. If the elevator just denied people it would be evil. Some people like to sat God is bound by the law but he is above it
The answer to the question “ how much y’all want for a beacon” at 3:42 was so funny
Why
Based and papist-approved reply 🗿🇻🇦
How much for a beacon?
Become catholic
For me true biblical predestination isn’t getting chosen to not roast forever. It’s getting chosen for a sacred mission to act as his hands and feet on this earth. It’s about being a soldier for Christ. The enemy isn’t sinners. Sinners are hostages in need of rescue. Satan is the enemy.
BARSSSSS
I'd say that's Election. Predestination is for adoption to sonship (Ef. 1) which is the redemption of our body (Rm 8:23) to be conformed to the image of His Son (Rm 8:29).
That's my view on it.
You are an anarcho christian? If yes could you explain it? Im a roman chatolic so I've always been used to hierarchy and statehood but im qurious about other ideologies and interpretations of christianity.
And how do you find that sinners are just prisoners in need of rescue..?
That seems like a very low view of sin.
What makes the difference of a murderer killing 5 kids and a person who was told once to murder and then went on killing kids for the rest of their lives?
@@Magyarpatriot-dk4mi I came to a lot of these views reading the book of revelation. The Bible project has a great explanation of it.
“This is the same argument non-Calvinists use against Calvinists.”
So close and yet so far from the right answer…
My thought hearing that too
So what I'm learning is that God controls everything, I control nothing, and free will exists somehow. If God creates all of me, including how i react and my experiences, how do I have free will?
In Calvinism you don't have free will
@@kuafer3687 (regretting not bringing my study Bible home right now 😅) Imagine that you're in prison. You have the freedom to choose to do or not to do certain things. But you're still in prison, there's still someone making certain decisions about your life. Getting this from a chapter of a devotional on the doctrines of grace that I read last year. Sorry if this doesn't make this 🤷♀️ You can't change your nature, and that's what I would mean when I say that we have no free will. We had free will once, but we lost it because of the fall.
They say you can choose different things, but you’ll never love God and choose things in true love of him.
We naturally do things with selfish motive, but God enlightens some to have their corrupt eyes open, so they then choose things out of love for God, viewing him above ourselves.
So they believe free will, just that we never choose to love God, and especially couldn’t in our heart love him first eternally by our own.
Cause obviously we don’t just see God and eventually walk perfectly in his will, no matter what you’d have to believe the Spirit assist our will in some way, or that the new body given takes our evil pursuits away.
Which is why Calvinists are mocked by even other heretical and misguided Protestants. They'll always use fancy terminology and word plays such as "you have free will of accepting or denying Lord" within, let's say, the "story" he wrote for you. And let me tell you, this is more akin to Islam than to Christianity.
Simply put:
Believing in ANY form of predestination=denying free will
If you read more of Calvinist theology you'd see clearly parables between it and Islam, where we're far more akin to stinking unworthy maggots on the ground which God picks and chooses and not His children. They are committing the same sins Arians and Nestorians committed 1600 years ago, but back then we had councils to condemn such heresies, now we don't.
Protestants and their Catholic counterparts (the very same people he mentioned in the video who gave birth to intellectual theology) just look like Charlie from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia to me, going absolutely unhinged and mad thinking if they just connect two right dots they'll somehow uncover the ultimate truth.
Just stop trying, your monkey brain is never going to wrap around the idea of God, and to even staunchly attempt it is in itself, a sin of pride. You can't "think your way out" of damnation. Quite the contrary, the moment you start thinking "I've figured it all out" and start applying karmic equations you are bound to do more harm than good in life and your surroundings.
Calvinists try not to intellectually explain everything instead of just believe in what scripture says in a literal sense at face value challenge: IMPOSSIBLE
Why not believe in what the scripture says at face value AND intellectually explain everything? They aren’t mutually exclusive.
@gigahorse1475 Lutherans do this. We take it at face value first, then discover parts of creation(science) / history / etc that enforce what scripture says. Hence, Sola Scruptura.
Even better, read what the early church fathers wrote and their commentaries. No PSA until 1200s, no calvinism until John Calvin St. Agustine (the Protestants favorite father) was a devout believer and most definitely saved but his theological knowledge was lacking because he could not read greek and that is shown in how his systematic theology differed massively from everyone before him (he was very isolated living in western north Africa from the rest of his fellow church fathers)
Eastern orthodoxy gets doctrine the best because they read the church father's. I say this as a protestant with theology very similar to EO bcs I read them as well and it's obvious all his "reformed" doctrine was invented 400, 1200, 1500 years after Jesus
Please pray for Mar Mari Emmanuel
@@wetfart420he was stabbed by a terrorist. Fortunately, he seems to be recovering and won’t have any life long injuries.
@@wetfart420 He was stabbed for speaking against Islam.
Scripture is very clear in explaining the reason for which Christ came. It was *for sin* and *for sinners.* In saying that Christ’s incarnation is necessary in another, wholly hypothetical instance without any sin whatsoever, you are doing nothing but lofty, extra-biblical speculation.
Especially when he doesn’t even believe that’s possible, so from his theology he should just reject the question out of hand as loaded and invalid.
What part did he say this?
@@GreenGoblin107
10:54 and following
Sin can’t enter the world unless God allows it to enter the world. Proverbs 16:4 states that God made the wicked for the day of destruction. Romans 9 Confirms this. What is first to be decreed will be the last to be executed. If I plan to build a house to live in the last to be executed is living in the house.
To be fair, one can very easily interpret that as in line with the idea that God chose to save some of us to glorify Himself.
i'm sorry but i just can't see how predestination is not just pure evil
How is it 😂 Everyone who says “predestination is evil” just doesn’t understand it at all and are brainwashed into believing that God is some hippie who is obligated to love everyone equally 😂
@@charles211371 Timothy 2:4
man im a catholic, but its amazing to see your humility, God bless you and your chanel zoomer!
Go watch Christian Wagner (Scholastic Answers). Every young catholic brother should know about our theology and intellectual tradition.
Paul was not the OG calvinist. This reminds me of james white making an assertion that the Bible teaches calvinism and simply waves the bible in the air saying to all who oppose him, "do you even believe the bible" ? This is hard to not see it the same as mormons reading out of context "yee are gods" and say if you don't believe we become gods then you don't believe your bible. I would love to see redeemed zoomed debate a person who opposes calvinism. As a non calvinist I do like 3 main calvinists today. I like when a calvinist can debate a provisionist and not engage as if non calvinists have leprosy.
You're right that Paul wasn't the OG Calvinist. Jesus was....
He suggested that predestination is in the Bible, he didn't say calvinism as a whole is in the Bible (although he probably does believe that)
@@jahnvantuttlesma8215 no, he was not. Maby if you read scripture without the man centered lens of calvin. Paul warns about man made traditions people will conflate as equal to scripture. Like when someone is reading 1 timothy 2:12 with an egalitarian lens, or some catholics read passages their church/tradition told them teaches purgatory. But if you want to support your bias views by being non historic then welcome to the 21st century of how most people say wrong things and if it's said enough it must be true. Historically an established form of calvinism was 4th-5th century augustinianism. It's like looking at 1.400 years of historic islam and deciding islam is the religion of peace. Remember the gnostic heresies claimed their made up teachings came from jesus own mouth. In a sense most calvinists are worse (time wise not heresy wise) gnostic around 2nd century forgery and calvinism is a 4th century invention that people claim was from Jesus himself to seem the most accurate.
Paul himself taught predestination. Actually even Jesus himself taught about it. John 17:9
@@joshuawoodin I should say Reformed rather than Calvinist. Calvin himself didn't like naming to movement after himself, and most in the tradition agree.
This is depressing no wonder every Calvanist nation became Atheist.
that’s simply not true. The West in general is suffering from the plague of atheism in varying degrees depending on country. The stats also seem really unreliable. I’ve met a lot of mexican “catholics” that still claim to be catholic despite never going to church. Would they be counted as catholic or not? They claim to be but yet don’t actually do any of the things that make a catholic catholic.
You don't think Catholic nations have atheists in them?
Disagree with it all you want, but what is depressing about God being ultimately in control? Wouldn’t you rather have God run the world and be responsible for human salvation than human beings?
@@gigahorse1475 I don't mind choosing us for salvation. But I don't see a God in Jesus Christ that would damn most people forever before they were even born.
@@MissionaryUniversalistPeople are damned because of their own evil. We dont blaim God for our unbelief
As a Lutheran, I believe the elect are predestined but the damned are damned by their own doing. In other words, for those who aren’t saved, it’s their own damn fault.
As a reformed Presby, I can affirm all of this. Also, God predetermined that He wouldn't regenerate the non-elect. That's all reprobation is.
And to me it's totally logical in every way. Believing in God's only or man's only choice doesn't make any sense what so ever. But supralapsarian is hole other level of being ignorant. I say let's leave it to God for our sake.
This is however, contradictory. You can't mix predestination and free will and retain a logicla framework.
@@fellinuxvi3541You can, there not contradictory, there not completely incompatible.
@@iceblaze3043Can the people who aren’t predestined to heaven go to heaven by their own choice? If so, then they can have faith outside of God giving mercy, if not then that means they are predestined not to go to heaven. You can still say they chose to sin though, as a Calvinist I believe God doesn’t cause evil.
Calvinism is the definition of a self refuting idea. It says we have free will, but were judged before were born. It says God loves everyone equally, but He has to choose you to be saved.
We were not judged before we were born, we were chosen. And although God loves everyone, He does not love everyone in the same way.
what a disgusting dismissal of Christ sacrifice
@@pedroguimaraes6094
1. It doesn't say we have free will
2. It doesn't say we were judged before we were born
3. It does not say that God loves everyone equally
4. It does say that God has to choose you for you to be saved. 1/4
"I named my first Minecraft seminary after Peter Martyr Vermigli." is officially the nerdiest sentence I've ever heard in. 😆😆
Predestination by foreknowledge is the only legitimately biblical and logical form of predestination.
Aquinas disagrees n Summa Theologiae, part 1, Chapter 23, article 3:
"Whether God reprobates any man?
I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article 1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (I:22:2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (I:22:1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.
Objection 1. It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wisdom 11:25): "Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the things Thou hast made." Therefore God reprobates no man.
Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good-namely, eternal life-He is said to hate or reprobated them."
God says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
nope, read Romans 9.
"The finite is not capable of the infinite" crowd when they find out God had a human body: >:(
**laughs in black holes/singularities**
The infinite is capable of the finite, that's why the incarnation makes sense
Finite means "having bounds". If God cannot lie, doesn't it mean that God has bounds?
Does the bible actually use the word "infinite" to describe God? Eternal and infinite are 2 different things. Omnipotent is not the same as infinite
@@nerychristianGod has the ability to lie. He has the ability to do all things; however, He will not do all things.
Honest question, if we do not have the free will to follow God, and all aspects of salvation is done by God's sovereignty, why does he not just give everyone saving grace? If God is all powerful, desires all men be saved, is the only cause in salvation, but willfully does not provide the means for salvation to some, I do not understand how we could call God good under that definition. This is one of the main reasons, I reject Calvinism and believe the problem of evil is due to human free will in choosing or not choosing God.
Calvinists will only give u 2 possible answers to this concern:
1) we don't know, God must have a good reason which is unknown to us in this life
2) for God's glory. God is more gloryfied in not only saving people but also in punishing evil (sin -> sinful humans).
Is this evil? I'm afraid yes. Is this biblical? Again, I'm afraid yes.
I don't think it's that simple. It's not that God doesn't provide the means of salvation to everyone, He gives everyone that choice. But God being all-knowing as He is means that He already knows who will accept/reject the choice before they're even born. Since we're not omnipotent beings with infinite minds, we can't understand God's perspective because He has the infinite understanding that we lack in our finite minds. Much like the Trinity, this is one of those aspects of God that is impossible to fully grasp.
Besides, if our free will to follow God is what saved us, then WE would be the reason for our salvation, not God. The only reason we can be saved is because of God, so God must be in full control of our ability to be saved.
You're asking the wrong question. But that is because you do not really believe that evil exists. And that all humans are evil. And that evil must be punished by death. If you understood those things, and you truly understood how corrupt your nature is, you would be asking instead "Why am I not in hell right now? I am a sinful and evil man. I don't deserve God's mercy or love. Why did God choose to save me?"
Why does He not just give everyone saving grace? You do realize the great cost of that salvation? The blood of his only begotten Son. Does not God have a right to choose to whom he will extend his mercy? If God has no right to choose who will receive his mercy, then it is not really mercy. It is not even a gift. It is an entitlement.
@@marcingryko6872And this is why I reject Calvinism. My view of predestination is God looking at someone who doesn’t believe, and saying “Well, I knew this would happen” rather than, “ *evil villain laugh* just as I wanted!”
Ah, fiance, eh? A step up from girlfriend! Congrats!
Yeah she evolved into a new being by God's sovereign design
when he announced it on discord he said "I have skibidi Ohio rizz" I so wish I was pulling your leg right now but im not
@@infinitebutter7948thats so cringe 😬
@@zer0her058 dont shoot the messenger
@@infinitebutter7948 I’m not, just stating that saying skibidi ohio rizz to announce you’re getting married is some unbelievably gen z cringe
Honestly this concept makes it really hard for me to have faith and it scares me, the mental gymnastics in this is probably what would push me to become atheist, if ever
Don't allow your fear to push you away from your faith in God. Just because other schools of thought exist about certain aspects of theology, that doesn't change the fact that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. The most important thing to know is that Christ died for our sins, and it is through believing on him that we are saved. I don't think it matters what view you hold in regard to predestination because regardless of which viewpoint is correct, salvation is still about faith. If you think faith was a free choice then thank God for giving you the choice. If you think it was simply predestined, thank God that he let you have faith.
Well, not all Christians believe in predestination, I don’t.
And atheists also have to struggle with questions of free will. If our mind is nothing but chemical reactions causing neurons to fire, how can free will exist? This topic has scary implications no matter what you believe. I take solace in the notion that God bestowed upon us free will. So even if it’s hard to understand exactly how it works, we know through Him all things are possible, so have faith.
Well you don't have to believe in it. We do because we understand the Bible. Also, being an athiest would take more mental gymnastics than trying to understand the Bible.
Go to soteriology101
@@wrenithilduincats
Being an atheist doesn't require mental gymnastics
Now that he's switched from one wrong form of Predestination to another, he's probably going to stay Reformed.
What is wrong with it? Thomas Aquinas believed in predestination
@@billytheconqueror5803 I don't really care if Aquinas supposedly believed something. He also believed in Transubstantiation.
@@user-tb5sq6jm2y so you're against the classical theologens. You sound like a liberal Christian
And why does that matter? We're all still saved. ??????
I'm glad you made this video, even though I don't agree with predestination, I was really curious to see why you changed your opinion. So, good!
Well you have to believe in predestination because it’s in the Bible. You don’t have to agree with Calvin’s view of predestination or Aquines view but predestination is something we all have to wrestle with its meaning in the Bible.
@@jax5182I’d say it kind of can go both ways
@@jax5182where is the idea of predestination in the Bible?
@@Via-Media2024Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:5, I think every church denom I've heard of believes in single predestination, double predestination is where things get controversial though.
Literally every denomination believes in pre destination, the question is how does it work. That is where the debates are.
No God doesnt control who is going to be saved that would be a violation of free will. We have the free will to choose Jesus or not
So basically God knows whether we are going to be saved or not but he doesn't control it
Hey man. Absolutely. I totally get you on this. I have something that can totally reconcile this whole debate. Andrew Farley on Predestination:
Part 1: czcams.com/video/RxSeHTXr3dw/video.htmlsi=EYYn1FiTiSoIQSYf
Part 2: czcams.com/video/zQoVWdo-UvU/video.htmlsi=yurqK6CvkwIHljbF
I am confident that this series will completely settle this issue for you.
And I reccomend everyone else to also watch this stellar two part series as well.
Is it our own work when we have faith in Jesus. Or is the work of the spirit?
@Yoran87935 work of spirit but u have a free choice of accepting that spirit God doesn't force it
@@Christisthetruceso God starts the work, and we have to finish it by accepting?
I'm not even christian but this nerdy theology sure is fun :D
God bless you and everyone you love. May God lead you to Christ one day✝️❤️
Hey man, I was browsing the commnets section and noticed your very kind comment. I know this isn't my video and you weren't talking to me, but I'm a Christian who really enjoys this stuff like Zoomer does, and your comment really resonated with me. Just wanted to pop by and say thank you for leaving your kindness here. As the other gentleman here says, I also Pray blessing over you, your life, and your family. ANd I hope you can come to Christ one day an really dive into all of thsi fun stuff with us. I don't personally agree with Zoomer on this topic, but I deeply believe in treating other people's views within the body of Christ with great respect as fellow bretheren, and came into this vodeo to gether knowledge about this subject in the mindset of trying to be as honest as I can about this entire subject. All of that being said; I do feel ashamed at times at how people within The Body of Christ historically have acted towards each other in regards ot discussing and debating issues, and I think it gives us a bad wrap to many unbeliebvers. So I wanted to state that, to say an additional thank you to you for seeing past that and still being very kind. God Bless, man! Not sure why I felt like typing this whole thing lol. Idk, maybe God was calling me to you rcomment. Who knows? God works in mysterious ways. Peace!✌
if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
If God has already choses who is going to be saved and who isnt, then we dont have any sense of free will.
Ephesians 1:4-5, Ephesians 1:11, John 6:44 & Romans 9:11-23
Cool. Now reconcile that with God's sovereignty.
Real
He doesn't decide, He just knows the outcome(I didn't watch the video)
@@InCaseYouDidntKnowIHaveCZcams I would ask you read Ephesians 1:4-5 and Acts 13:48. It's clear God did decide.
I'm glad that you shared your opinions, even if I don't agree with them.
My view on all of this (and I'm not sure at all of what I'm saying) is that salvation is offered to everyone through Christ. However, being the all-knowing God he is, God already knows if we're gonna reject his gift or not. In that sense, you could say that you're "predestined" to be saved because God already knows the end, but at the same time, it is up to you to accept Jesus' gift of salvation or not.
That is my view of it as well. God knows who is and isn't going to be saved, yet he still gave us that choice. So from Gods POV it is predestined, but from ours, it is to be determined.
I think predestination says exactly that. From your perspective there is always a free will. It is just from the perspective of the all-knowing above-time-and-space God can be seen as predestined.
Jesus said "I do not pray for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours" John 17:9
@@Ordo1980 Exactly
That belief is called Arminianism. I agree with you.
BRO, calvinism make no sense!!!!!!!
It does
@@billytheconqueror5803no?
On the surface it makes no sense. Once you understand human nature, and the limitations of our free will, everything makes so much more sense.
I grew up in an anti-Calvinist church… I mean very hateful of Calvinism. Yet I became a Reformed Baptist after questioning things for years.
It does. Just like how all other forms of Christianity make sense. Just like how things you don't know much about don't make sense.
@DR_Sam_CZcams it does cause if God is beyond space and time then he knew how your life would go the time you were created. So predestination actually makes perfect sense unless you believe God isn't all knowing?
Yes Aquinas believed in predestination but not Calvinist predestination. Calvinist predestination requires all 5 points to be true since they are logically connected. But Aquinas rejected perseverance of the saints/eternal security. If someone can lose salvation then humans do have some say in salvation, which doesn't really match with Calvinism.
Both taught unconditonal election.
At ALL
I'm glad that I believe that I am preserved by God. If a person is born again, than they can never perish. 😊
@@wrenithilduincats
And all your unsaved family is refused entrance by God. You’re so blessed!
@@littlefishbigmountain ?????? I don't know if my unsaved family is elect or not, if they are, they will come to faith in Christ eventually. But if you die unfaithful (meaning that you're a reprobate) than you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Do you really believe that someone can be saved after death? And of course it's hard on me, knowing that not all family will be there in heaven, but that's just simply the life of a Christian. Not everyone will be saved.
"Turns out I'm an idiot. I've been completely wrong about an important theological thing for several years." Great to hear that you're converting to Catholicism zoomer
Made me choke on my meal 😂 oh dear
😂😂
inshallah
He'll come around. A lot of the young, restless and reformed are now Catholic .
“Great to hear that you’re converting to Cath- *ACK!* “
>becomes Orthodox instead
Maybe I missed something but this was just a whole lot of words used to try and go around the fact you think God creates people so he can send them to Hell, you can cope and say whatever you want to try and make it seem like it's not that way but you have still failed to convince me that you don't believe God creates people that are meant to go to Hell
Calvinism be like
It’s almost as if predestination is a foolish, misleading, and downright evil deliberate misreading of the bible. 😱😱😱
@@Bones74 mmmm nope not at all. "Misleading" and "deliberately evil misreading" are not accurate,
Imagine being reformed and not Supralapsarian - this post was made by Supralapsarian gang.
I mean if you take the view that Romans 9 is about salvation as Augustine/Aquinas/Calvinists do, “before they had done anything good or bad” seems to imply Supralapsarianism.
Apparently infralapsarians like RC Sproul, despite being Calvinists are skeptical of that reading of Roman’s 9 for that reason
You denied God is the author of evil, but you ended the video by arguing that God created all of our lives as a whole when He made us??? So every sin was literally CREATED by God when He created us! Bro this is wild.
Creating something capable of sin make God responsible for the sin of His creatures? Wild take.
@@wesleydahar7797
No, he said that God created our entire lives from start to finish. That includes every sin. Go back and listen to what he said again.
@@littlefishbigmountain Yes. We did the sinning, but you make it God's responsibility. How do you jump to that conclusion?
@@wesleydahar7797
I’m not saying that. I’m talking about what RZ said, bro. 24:39 to the end
@@littlefishbigmountain that’s wild😂 ultimately I will never understand the notion of God creating some for hell and others for heaven. I honestly find it prideful to say “well we all deserve hell and some are just destined for hell” because u only find it moral since ur one of the saved
But why would God decide to create people and make them choose eternal suffering?
Gods thoughts are not our thoughts. His ways are higher than our ways.
Noone knows why God does as He does.
@@Yoran87935aka i don’t know why god is a monster
@@Commandosoap777its very proud to say we can understand Gods ways. And blaim God for thing that are not revealed to us.
Deut 29:29
Shows us that God knows more than us.
And we dont have to know everything. And we cant know everthing. Because we are weak creatures.
But what God revealed to us is His love in Jesus Christ. That even though we are as grass, even though we are evil, even though we are enemies of God. God did not forsake us. But showed his everlasting grace. In the dead and resurrection, of our lord Jesus Christ.
Dont call God a monster.
He is righteous and gracious
8:40 this seems like a distinction without a difference. If it's impossible for humans to not sin it's the same thing as creating them to be punished
One problem I have with the predestination model is that it relies on two logical assumptions. First, it assumes a classical view of time, seeing it as linear, with God's interaction following this straight-flowing line. Second, it presupposes that God makes decisions within our perceived conception of time, based on our understanding of chronology. However, God, being the ultimate "is," the divine being from which all concepts flow, including time, existed before the creation of space and time as we know it, and exists outside of it in divine lordship. Therefore, it logically follows that if God is making a decision, subjecting it to chronology is meaningless, as His will transcends time. His decisions act perpetually outside our perceived notion of linear time, which He holds in His hand. it becomes apparent that trying to comprehend the nature of divinity within our limited human capacity is a futile endeavor. This realization is akin to the main character's experience in "Flatland" by Edwin Abbott Abbott, who exists in a 2-dimensional space and struggles to grasp the concept of an additional dimension when suddenly transported to a world of 3 dimensions.How can we, beings trapped in time, truly understand the workings of a timeless God? Especially considering that a lot of speculation on the nature of God and His decisions was made in the past, based on a classical linear view of time and matter, which we now know to be an assumption? Just as classical church philosophers once had a geocentric view of the world, only to be proven wrong, our classical assumption of time and space may also be flawed. We are discovering how finicky such concepts are in the quantum realm and in the presence of extreme gravity. For all we know, God's interaction with time is as mysterious as the concept of quantum superposition is to our understanding of classical Newtonian physics.I am more than confident that we can be wrong about our assumptions, and as such, I see this as a meaningless venture. This realization gives me a greater appreciation for our Lutheran brothers who focus on the points of the Bible that truly matter, such as the salvation of souls through baptism, the sacraments, preaching the gospel, and leading a godly life. God revealed His truth to us and commanded us to come to Him like children, without needing to fully understand the complexities of His nature. For an eternal God to choose to love the sinner is an inconceivable concept, and I am satisfied with accepting it without needing to fully comprehend it.
@@SSJacksWolf This is the paradox I face with the language we use to describe the nature of God's will "God determined" implies that God was in time, and in a past and subjects him to chronology. This implies that God was within time when he made his will known thus making him within the flow of time instead of the outside of it. How do you describe the will of an eternal God without making assumptions? that was I guess on of my major issues I brought up. On the nature of evil I subscribe more to a Neoplatonist view especially one subscribed by Plotinus. Evil characterized by lack, or in a more defined sense a shadow of non-being all sense-objects and their passive modifications. I do not believe God created evil, evil is a consequence of lack in a created world. I am worshiping the God of the bible who is one in the trinity, not your implied "demiurge".
@@koko00083 I believe God created the angels with free will, which I view as a moral "creativity". God created the angels, Lucifer created evil through his free will. That is not the same as God creating evil. He allowed it to happen, but didn't create it.
@@SSJacksWolf 1. I was quoting Plotinus, not Plato, and I claimed that the definition of evil provided was an approximation to my understanding of the metaphysics of evil and God. I was not approving any of Plato's pagan beliefs.
2.I did not say evil was nothingness, nor did I claim anything diminishing the will of God. I made sure to be deliberate and careful with my words in the definition I provided because nuances of words matter.
3. You have not provided any appropriate response to any of my criticisms of the problem of Calvinists' overreach in their assumptions of natural and metaphysics in their theology, and as a result, the unnecessary over complication and jargon they introduced in the message of the Gospel.
4. The whole back-and-forth I have had with you was boiled down to you calling me a "dualist" even though I made sure to be clear in my belief in a Trinity timeless God, and the whole "demiurge" ordeal. I can already tell this is going to be an exhausting and fruitless exchange because I have had many similar conversations before, so I’ll choose to end it here. Wish you the best in all that you do, and God be with you.
I generally disagree with the reformed view of predestination but half of the people disagreeing aren’t even attempting to understand what they’re disagreeing with
Then why the heck would He created that damn tree and told Adam not to eat it in the first place? You silly man.
Im not a calvinist, but I highly respect the fact that you were able to admit your fault and seek the truth.
"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires *all men* to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" 1 Timothy 2:3-6, NKJV
Key word 'Desires' - does not mean that's how it plays out
@@philc.2504 True, but it'd be really stupid for God to hope or desire for everyone to be saved if he KNEW it wasn't going to happen because of what he had done and decrees he had already made. If he made a system by which some were guaranteed to be lost and some were guaranteed to be saved, then his desire is foolish.
God wouldn't waste his energy on that foolishness and he wouldn't have allowed that word to be put in the Bible because it would be incorrect.
God is not stupid and not foolish. He is wise and all-knowing.
Hmmm; although God desires all would be saved and no one should perish; he still has to show his justice against sin. If we took the text very literal we would arrive to your conclusion but questions like why should we believe in Christ to enter heaven if eventually all are saved? How would everyone be saved and also what happens to all the people who have died already? How would they be saved?
We see another example in Ezekiel that God doesnt take pleasure in people dying and would rather want them to repent of their sins, does that mean that they did because God said thats what he would rather have? Maybe some but not everyone.
Its clear in Revelation that whoever takes the mark of the beast and follow the beast go into the lake of fire with satan and his angels; so how is everyone saved then as well when we see that? Also cant forget Christ warning of the outer darkness, where they'll be "wailing and gnashing of teeth" that he taught to the multitudes
I highly encourage you to research what the reformers taught on 1 Timothy 2:3-6; they probably explain it in an understandable way. You can search for a Calvin commentary on 1 Timothy online. Hope this helps you think about it more and may God bring you to a good conclusion!
It seems to me that the Supralapsarian position is the most Scriptural. "The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom." - Proverbs 16:4. And again in Romans 9:22, Exodus 9:16, Psalm 76:10, etc. etc. That said, I couldn't really find a distinction between it and so-called "Mean" "Hyper" Calvinism.
I had a tumultuous struggle with the "Mean" God of the Scriptures in my young adulthood: "He's like if Superman shoves two people off a building, swoops down to save one, lets the other splat, then calls himself a hero." That was my reasoning. Because I was trying to make the Creator of the Universe make sense through the lens of human justice.
After I gave up on finding answers to that old question of, "Why would a 'good' god allow suffering," in His mercy, God blessed me with a life-threatening infection. I spent a lot of time in the hospital with my veins on fire from whatever was in the I.V. I asked Him to please let me die. I realized how much I'd taken for granted. People who love me, health, and so on. And I remembered all His suffering he went through to cover my sins, even knowing I'd accuse Him of being at fault for all of it.
God didn't grant my request to die. I recovered with a new appreciation for just how entirely dependent on God's mercy I am for every good thing I have.
I'm no mystic, but I feel like debates like Supra- vs. Infra- vs. Sandwichlapsarianism run the risk of calling the Eternal down to the causality-bound bar of human reason.
Before the mountains were born
Or You gave birth to the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.
- Psalm 90:2
Revelation 13:8 describes "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Not in the 1st century A.D. God does not change. Jesus bore the scars of crucifixion on his hands before Adam sinned. Even knowing that it would lead to His own enormous suffering, God started the clock of time running just a week before creating the first Human. Suffering that was a part of Him before the word "before" even had any meaning. Before the words, "You're such a mean God," ever passed the lips of a Human empowered to nail to a cross the very One who grants the power to hammer and accuse. So yeah. My point is that while it's good to reason out just how very little a person contributes to being resurrected from being dead in sins, it's dangerous to try and put God in a logical box.
Saved comment
@@waltworks8389how do you save a comment?
So even if I am the greatest Christian to ever live, praying as much as possible, living the most Christlike life possible for a human, God can still just chose to send me to Hell? That’s scary.
if you're thinking like that, you believe in justification by works and not by grace
@@redeemedzoomer6053 well, in addition to having faith in Christ. But even if you do all of that and have faith in Christ you may still be damned?
@@UTTPOfficerBennie If you do all that, and stay faithful til death, the calvinistic view I think is that you then were predestined to heaven. But no human can know that beforehand. I am not a calvinist, so take it with a grain of salt.
If you are like that, then you're def elect
@@quickbird5395 If you're faithful to death, you're not a reprobate.
Hmm Calvinists sure like to minimize the role of Jesus' sacrifice. I also find it a bit concerning that the Calvinist view of soteriology strays closer to that of Islam's rather than that of early Christianity.
You mean when you first declared your Supralapsarian stance, that wasn’t an April Fool’s Day prank?
What are you using to make the little rectangular symbols? And also the other symbols for different denominations?
Predestination to salvation is biblical; predestination to reprobation is not. Calvinism tends to affirm predestination (election of grace) and deny that God loves all men and that Christ died for all men; the "Arminian" tends to affirm that God does love all men and Christ died for all, but denies the election of grace. What each affirm is true, what each deny is false.
Augustine wondered if predestination to damnation (same as reprobation for him) was a result of predestination to salvation, but didn't dare go further; later the Franciscans and Dominicans fought it out before the Reformation; and Calvin took it as a necessary consequence, although in his writings he describes it as "a horrible thing".
The decrees of God which this is based on are also variable depending on which theory they promote: it can be based on his justice, on his foreknowledge, on his own good pleasure.
Therefore admit that we don't know exactly, but that predestination to salvation is what is revealed and promised, and have the faith to count yourself called to be part of that company.
Authorship of evil: there is the problem to work out that evil is defined by a law and a judge, which in the end is God; and taking Him to apply one definition of evil (sin) sufficient to damn somebody, and another sufficient to save somebody else, despite both of them having sinned, is not justice. "Iniquity" means "inequality," which is hateful to God, and therefore the same criteria have to be applied in both cases. If they aren't, the person who is damned has either had no choice in the matter and must commit evil, or the saving grace of God is arbitrarily applied to somebody else and withheld from him. While God has the ultimate right to do whatever he likes, and we have no right to expect anything from him, this effectively leaves God as the origin of evil, which leads to a contradiction, whereby we know that it isn't like this that it works.
One question I find useful in these cases is to ask "What is salvation?" Few people seem to be able to answer....
Well, if you choose who is being saved, then by extension you are choosing who is not being saved. And no, God is not the origin of evil. Allowing something to take place is not the same as being the cause of that thing taking place. For example, if I know that my wife is going to cheat on me, and still allow her to do it, that does not mean that I am the cause of her cheating on me.
Hey man. I understand that all of this stuff gets really heated, and I get everyone here. I have something that can totally reconcile this whole debate. Andrew Farley on Predestination:
Part 1: czcams.com/video/RxSeHTXr3dw/video.htmlsi=EYYn1FiTiSoIQSYf
Part 2: czcams.com/video/zQoVWdo-UvU/video.htmlsi=yurqK6CvkwIHljbF
And I reccomend everyone else to also watch this stellar two part series as well.
@nerychristian true, but if you put her in a place where she has no option, then you are ultimately to blame.
God is not the originator of evil as you say - it's just a touchstone to use when considering these theological statements.
Predestination to salvation is not defining the total quantity of those who are saved. It is a specific grace. It doesn't close off salvation from the rest, which is where Augustine, Calvin, et al. went astray.
Redeemed Zoomer is never 1 week away from turning Catholic and yet he is now -9 hours from turning into a Supralapsarian.
You say that God is infinite and man is finite. You understand that man lives inside the frames of time and God outside. But then you take a huge leap of faith and try to understand how God creates and how he plans things. That is not wise, thats stupid.
Leave the mysteries as mysteries and focus on your path.
Predestination is a dangerous belief because if you are struggling with sin you might think "God is not giving me necessary graces to combat my sins, therefore I am probably not elect" and give up.
We are not characters in Christs story. God isnt creating a cinema experience for himself. He is creating us for our benefit and to expand his love to billions of infinitely valuable souls that have a free will to choose their destiny.
RZ, you often say that the East has not been as scholastic as the West, but I cant see how that's possibly true. Before Thomas Aquinas, the most famous Catholic scholastic in the West even lived, Michael Psellos lived in the East, who wrote many great works on theology, philosophy, and history. Before him, Saint Photios the Great was responsible for other great theological works in the 9th century, before Anselm. John of Damascus was another Eastern theologian who wrote on iconoclasm. Finally, there's Gregory Palamas, who fleshed out the Hesychast tradition. All of these were great theologians who acted in much the same ways as Aquinas, Scotus, and Anselm, all of whom are Eastern.
The Dutch are now high 24/7 to avoid thinking about all that
Nothing new under the sun. Still not a single argument or a good reason in general, to show God is not the author of evil under Calvinism. Infra or Supra version alike. You basically said "God must have some reason to allow people to go to hell same as he allows cancer and stuff" the two could not be more different. One can be, and is, a means to achieve good. Presence of evil allows for existance of bravery. Mercy. Grace. Forgiveness and countless others. Damning billions to hell is no pathway for anything but their eternal suffering. It's crazy to think God would want this and allow this That he would plan this. That he would will this into existance. And he doesn't. Because God is not author of evil. He allows it because it's THEIR CHOICE. Free will in the mind of God is more precious than eternal life. This is why he only ever created eternal beings who can freely choose him or reject him. Like us and the angels. And Calvinism is a philosophy alien to modern Catholics, and most other Christians, for that exact reason. The Arminianism is also Catholic. Molinism is Catholic. I'd argue even Provisionism has Catholic roots at the very bottom. Calvinism is wrong. And not just because its incorrect. I do hope you eventually jump ship to a proper theological camp at some point man.
@@Cattleman16479
Catholic Church condemned the double predestination and emphasized the importance of free will. Thomism is a permissible (and influential no doubt) theology but so is Palamism. None are a dogma.
"A consistent Calvinist is a hyper-Calvinist."
hello, which software do you use for the explainer videos like "every religion explqind" etc.... thanks in advance for your answer
Do you edit videos?
Have an interview with Dr Leighton Flowers!
*Dr. Layton Flours
@@Achyirah no
The riddler. lol what a joke he is.
He would reject God of Calvinism was true, so I don’t respect him.
@@gigahorse1475 I would too, but if Calvinism is true, it wouldn't be my fault 😆🤭
I disagree with the premise that you put forth.
You affirm that the incarnation is absolutely necessary even if man did not sin, and say all infralapsarians disagree. We do agree, but it's for a different reason.
The incarnation had two purposes, to reconcile the divine and the physical, and to atone for the sins of mankind. What was the reason for these purposes, or what were these purposes put in place to solve? They were meant to solve the imperfection of the physical.
The world was made very good, but not perfect. God called it very good, but not perfect. Why? Because he did not create it perfect, and knew that sin was bound to infiltrate his creation. You're mixing up the incarnation with the atonement. The atonement is the enactment of God's predestination. God's predestination requires the atonement to be put into effect. When done out of a pure mass, predestination has no purpose when made out of a pure mass, without considering the fall, because sin, being not yet considered, practically does not exist. What would be the purpose of the atonement with no sin? And then, without the atonement, what is the purpose of predestination? The Bible tells us the purpose of predestination. Romans 8-29-30, KJV "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." It says the predestination is done out of God's foreknowledge of us, including his knowledge that we would sin; it is not done before consideration of sin, because that would make it meaningless.
Now comes the hypothetical, what if Adam didn't sin? This is hard to answer since it is a hypothetical question. Supralapsarians would say that Adam's sin was ordained by God to happen before considering predestination, but that makes this hypothetical is impossible. However, infralapsarians would say that Adam's sin was possible, but not inevitable. Adam had the choice to sin or not to sin, and he chose to sin, and God knew that he would choose to sin. God knew what Adam would choose, but he could hypothetically resist, God just knew he wouldnt. But what if he didn't, and God knew? Then predestination would not be necessary, and the atonement would not be necessary. However, we must ask whether Adam or his descendants would still have the ability to sin, because of their inherent imperfection. It depends on what God does. If Adam resists, then would God send Satan to hell right then and there, and temptation, therefore sin, are gone? Or would he do something else? I think the former is more likely.
Nonetheless, I reject Supralapsarianism, because it practically erases the meaning of the election, atonement, and therefore undermines God's grace.
I had a huge smile on my face through this entire video; this is almost exactly the same process by which I came to affirm supralapsarian. Only difference is my being a 1689-affirming Baptist.
Waiting for that- "Why I became a Catholic" vid
I've heard you use the Star Wars analogy before, comparing George Lucas to God, and us as the characters (Anakin, Darth Maul, etc.) You made it clear that we're NOT droids (R2-D2, Destroyer Droid, etc.) In your view, this makes us not robots, subject to simple programming. We are actually able to act.
My problem with this analogy is that at the end of they day, George Lucas programs Anakin has as much as he programs R2. Anakin is not capable of his own free will to do good or evil; it's simply what George Lucas writes him to do. If your view of predestination is analogous to Star Wars characters and their writer, then we're as unreal as Anakin is. We are nothing more than robots/characters/paintings without a soul.
I understand your wish to be Christocentric in theology, but I think you take it too far in degrading human free will. In fact, I would say a non-Calvinist view of predestination is more Christocentric. The fact that God/Jesus is able to create humans who can reject his will (I firmly disagree with Irresistable Grace) does not show that his power/will is limited. On the contrary, it shows that God is powerful enough to create people who are not mere characters in a book.
The more free will we have, the more it adds to God's glory who is able to create such free will. I am not saying our free will is unlimited, but I don't think it's as limited as you believe.
All that said, I really like your channel. You do a lot for God's Kingdom, may the Lord bless you.
Do you think what you build in Minecraft is predestined to be like that when you start? (Intention vs result)
That is to say, you are playing God in this little virtual world, and you know what you want it to look like. If others come along and change it, do you ban them from the server (damn them), do you let them roll, do you give them the plans and expect them to get on with it, do you intervene so that they are doing exactly what you want (save them)?
(The twanging sound in the background is a metaphor being stretched)
You're turning into a consistent 'Calvinist', so to speak (I know you're not a Calvinist). Since you're reformed you're incorrect, but at least now you're consistently incorrect.
Any who, here are some passages that refute the doctrine of unconditional election. The very best reformed theologians interpretations of these verses are lacking to say the least. Their interpretations end up meaning the exact opposite of what these verses plainly state.
2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance."
The plain reading is that the Lord is not willing that any should perish (in this context referring to spiritual death, IE damnation for sins). Under the presupposition of determinism, someone who is reformed must, when dealing with this verse, either suggest that the verse actually somehow really means something to the effect of 'The Lord is willing that the majority of humanity perishes.', or suggest universalism (which is obviously refuted by scripture).
The Provisionist interpretation requires no reinterpretation of the verse. The verse plainly states that God is not willing that any should perish. God doesn't will for anyone to perish, so God doesn't will for anyone to reject Him. He draws everyone to Himself, but in order for us to freely choose to accept His offer, which is what He wants, He must therefore also give us the ability to reject His offer. Hence the many, many, many passages of scripture imploring us to put our faith in Him (rather than scripture ever suggesting that God will make us put our faith in Him).
1 Timothy 2: 3-4 "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
The plain reading is that God wants all people to be saved. The reformed reinterpretation of this verse suggests that "all people" really means "all kinds of people" rather than "all people". This would effectively mean that God wants all kinds of people, but not each and every individual person, to be saved. This would effectively mean that God does not want all people to be saved. IE, 'God wants all people to be saved' turns into 'God does not want all people to be saved', which means the reformed interpretation is the exact opposite of what the text states plainly.
The Provisionist interpretation requires no reinterpretation of the verse. The verse plainly states that God wants all people to be saved. He offers His grace and desires everyone to freely accept it. Not everyone does accept His offer, but He wants them to.
1 John 2:2 "...and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
The verse plainly states that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. The reformed reinterpretation of this verse is that Jesus only died for the sins of a very small minority of people in the world, which, again, is the opposite of what's plainly stated.
The Provisionist interpretate requires no reinterpretation of the verse. The verse plainly states that Jesus died for the sins of all. This gives God the ability to forgive the sins of everyone, and He chooses to apply that salvation based on the condition of having Faith in Jesus. Not everyone chooses to believe in Jesus, and so not everyone is saved.
2 Corinthians 5:14 "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died..."
The verse plainly states that Christ died for all. The reformed reinterpretation of this verse is that Jesus only died for a tiny minority of humanity. Etc, etc.
I could go on and on.
Honestly this all just sounds like someone placing other people's words over God's word (the Bible).
This is heretical, just downright heresy. Please for yourself break out of this prelest.
Wow, you make a great point !
@@regeneratus Decree 3 of the Synod of Jerusalem is my view on predestination & it states my same arguments more eloquently than I can.
I don't care what synods say. What does the bible teach?
I don’t think you know what “heresy” is..
I’m Dutch Reformed and I really had troubles in understanding what theologians you actually meant! 😂 But that aside, great video!
Dude, you're pretty much using mental gymnastics to say that God punishes people for things they can't control. And, Im sorry you think that way, because thats not the God that I know. Calvinism was never supposed to be something people take too seriously anyways, its literally just a concept that has no effect on how one should live their life. If you agree that all people are sinners, and therefore deserve to go to hell (basic christian belief), and you also agree that the only way to not go to hell is through Gods forgiveness, but that God will only decide to forgive some, and not others, how is this not pre damnation? If you believe there is no path that COULD lead EVERYONE to salvation (i.e. following Jesus), then you are disagreeing with a core christian belief. Psalms 25:8 literally says that God is just, and he is fair. Through our definition of the terms just and fair, the concept of pre damnation would contradict this.
i clicked on this video to find out what literally any of this means and, having read the comments, i am one million percent more confused. this is really funny to me
This is a brilliant satire
i think charles hodge brought up a good point when dealing with this view which i also reject, "it is a clearly revealed scriptural principle that where there is no sin there is no condemnation" (verses like romans 5:16 show condemnation in light of sin) back to hodge "therefore there can be no foreordination to death which does not contemplate its objects as already sinful"
I'm kinda confused about the wording here, but if I'm understanding correctly, remember Adam was a federal head. All of humanity descended from Adam is born into sin because of his fall. Second, Zoomer clarified in this video that supralapsarianism affirms that God determined He would pass over the non-elect, not that He would damn them, as does infralapsarianism. The difference isn't at that point.
@@ethanmulvihill7177 the point in what I said with the utilization of Charles Hodge is that if in the sup view election comes first or is done before the fall or at least not in light of the fall, then people are passed over aka will go to hell not on the basis or in light of the fall
Wasn't Scotus the guy who defended the imaculate conception of Mary? That's kinda weird for a protestant to admire him so much if we consider this
yes he was. I'm willing to look past that
Redeemed Zoomer to the Pope ''we're all cafeteria Scotists, aren't we?''
For someone as intelligent as yourself, I cannot believe you can't see the logical fallacy between the separation of reprobation and damnation. If people have been eternally predestined to not receive grace, then they are certain to be damned. Thus reprobation, whilst a separate term from damnation, always leads to damnation with no exceptions.
0:48
Really? Literally every Christian ever believes in predestination, not only Calvinists. And it’s not only infra or supra. There are other historic views. Arminians believe in predestination, orthodox Lutherans believe in predestination, non-thomist Roman Catholics believe in predestination, Eastern Orthodox believe in predestination, etc. Not every predestination is Calvinistic or Thomistic.
Nah dude you must use Augustine/Calvin’s definition of words such as “election” or “sovereignty”. Nevermind that those words are used completely differently in non-theological contexts…they rely on special pleading
The Eastern Orthodox does not believe in predestination
@@applegaming2345Orthodoxy has always affirmed predestination. The Synod of Jerusalem talks about it. It’s in the Fathers and the Bible.
@@garrettklawuhn9874 nope, Council of Jerusalem doubled down on the humsn cooperation with Grace and the free will
@@kuafer3687 Decree 3
We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth {1 Timothy 2:4}. But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other.
Evil Calvin be like: "God will save everyone!"
You're telling me it's not "nice calvinism vs mean calvinism"?
Could you please do a video where you do a tier list of all the main bible versions? I use KJV, but I would be interested in ones that are similar or questionable.
Also, would you be willing to debate a Baptist? I'd debate you!
How despressing both ideas are. It means that there is no hope for some. It also means that Jesus' death was a complete waste.
In the end, if you sinned, you will be damned. If you don't sin, you won't. It is still your choice to sin or not.
@@darnit1944 It isn't though, sure, you can choose to sin or not in the now, but God has already chosen your outcome in Calvinism, so you could be the most die-hard bible-belting christian, but if you aren't elect, God hasn't chosen you, sorry, no grace, no forgiveness, to the pits of hell with you! I. never. knew. you.
@@darnit1944except god made us with a sinful nature loool
A complete waste, how so? Under predestination, Christ achieves by his death exactly what he hoped to achieve, salvation and redemption of human souls to the glory of God. If anything, non-predestination is a waste because without the perseverance of the saints, there is no guarantee that anyone will truly be saved.
haha. you're so right dude. that two minute long tirade about how Catholics have predestination as well really makes them super similar! Why don't you convert to Catholicism then?
Why should I be Catholic
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Why not?
@@famtomerc I'm Presbyterian. You need to give me a positive reason to become Roman Catholic. "It's the one true church" doesn't count as a reason, because the only people who would agree with that premise are those who are already Roman Catholic
@@redeemedzoomer6053in my opinion it all boils down to the Papacy. That's the fundamental issue. If Papal supremacy is true then you should become Catholic. I see Papal supremacy taught both in the Scriptures and in the history of the Early Church. Why do you reject it?
@@eb0632it's an innovation
Bruv just tricked us into minecraft and calvanism
If you changed your belief, Why don't you change your banner?
What God does last is what he decided to do first. Had never heard that before!
@redeemedzoomer6053 isn't God eternal though? That should mean he doesn't change his goals, meaning everything was planned eternally and perpetually.
How can one say that God decided to allow something before deciding to allow something else if he knew everything he permits before there even was anything aside from his triune self?
This argument on how God decides who to elect seems irrational due to his timelessness. His plan is a mystery to us, all we know is that some are elect, and who the elect are shall be revealed to us by the end of times (at the latest).
Edit: May God bless us all on our journey as we strive to follow him.
Concerning Thomas - somewhere I heard that he did not exclude that the Incarnation would have happened if people hadn't sinned. He even was in favor of unconditional Incarnation - only he stated that we cannot know it for sure because it is not directly revealed in Scripture. I did not read it in Thomas and I do not remember the source, but I remember I heard it said by some serious Thomist.
It would be cool for you to talk about the Reformed focus on Theosis
i would like that as well
Nah, respectfully, I'll keep my Infralapsarianism. I just don't see how God could simultaneously not give Adam an actual choice between obedience and rebellion and not constructively be the "author of sin" as it is often put and I don't see how the Incarnation (regardless of the order) necessitates the fall. Maybe I have misunderstood and misstated the argument, someone please correct me if I have. I would also argue that our free will is at a minimum presently constrained with respect to morality (constrained by our sin nature - i.e "unable not to sin" - ) and with respect to our eternity (by God's election) and not necessarily all decisions in a total sense. I also don't think that predestination implies one single ordained outcome (as it does in election) in every situation. Idk, maybe it somehow comes down to some way that I can't just get past my Armenian upbringing that I am not completely aware of - I've only been Presbyterian (PCA) for about a year-and-a-half and I am the only Calvinist/predestinarian in my largely Pentecostal/Methodist family - but Supralapsarianism looks like a rather small distinction from "hyper-Calvinism" to me.
As a Catholic I am going to go research Scotism more but I lack a proper theological education to understand some of the philosophical concepts
Can you do a video addressing some of the common rebuttals to Calvinism?
Damn you're getting married right, congrats my dude
So we back in the mine? 😂
I don't like Catholicism and her teachings being reduced solely down to the teachings of certain Scholastic schools, like I would get pretty annoyed if a Protestant with leanings towards Ockhamism or Molinism would act like the Catholic Church teaches either of those two officially, as if it is Magisterial, regardless of how many Catholic laity believe in Molinism (cringe) or not.
Medieval Scholasticism doesn't necessarily equal Catholic Theology; what Redeemed Zoomer is referring to is only a type of theology that is systemized and done in the light of scripture, and that is the Catholic Scholastic tradition that RZ is referring to.
RZ is clumsy with his communication it seems when, and particularly when he speaks from an understanding of how propositions from Medieval Scholastics are taught by the Catholic Church (as if that would even be simply possible to the laity), and he makes it sound very straightforward and pure as that, which then undermines the wider breadth of beliefs allowed. What I am referring to is his inferrence that is both rough and ill defined, like when he says something along the lines of "reformed Predestination IS basically the same as the Catholics, because Wagner even confirmed it to me", that doesn't mean the Catholic Church binds the Scholastic forms of predestination to the consciousness of the laity, or that it is THE Catholic teaching, he says it like he couldn't be mistaken, when he is assuming such publicly. The problem is that RZ had a talk with Wagner (who has a whole channel dedicated to Scholasticism, and particularly Thomism) without realizing that systemized medieval theology is only a single slice of a cake within the larger stacked wedding sized cake of Catholicism, and her large blinding amount of traditions or methods as a unified whole, including the insane amount of large slices within Catholic Theology alone; I am saying that the reformed tradition inherits a very small aspect of Catholic Theology, and it's not even a tenth as large as it's ancestor. He has from his understanding by reason, paralleled SOME Catholic methods with one of the main components of his Reformed Tradition, and this has lead reducing Catholicism down to what they have in common with the Reformed teachings, and you see this too when Lutherans compare themselves to their ancestor they protested, because they make the same mistake when starting from this place of parallels, and then over simplifying from there, and both are assumptious and unwary in any context similar to this one.
This isn't meant to undermine the genuis and owed glory to Scholastics, like Saint Thomas Aquinas (he da best Scholastic imo😃, I love his prayers and have been trying to make more time for studying him, though I don't subcribe to Thomist thought, but I just love Saint Thomas Aquinas, also most of what I know about predestination comes from him). The thing is that Thomist or Scotist predestination isn't THE official teaching from the Papacy, but rather it is taught that the scholastic teachings are a safe place to be for systemized theology within Catholic Theology(esp Thomism in particular), unlike the Reformed Scholastics...
Please just don't over reduce and over simplify Catholicism like that, and especially considering that there are many views of predestination allowed within the firm and reasonable guard rails of the Magisterial guidances. I do appreciate the respect and honoring of Catholics of recent on this channel, and I know it's annoying having to explain that predestination is in the Bible constantly to unlearned Catholics, so I feel the pain there, but I feel that what I am putting forth needs to be said.
(Clarifying at the end in case anyone is wondering, I don't subscribe to any particular scholastic predestination systems, or any defined system, nor am I some Molinist. It's a pretty uncomfortable topic for me that I have learned a lot more about then most Catholics, but I don't have a defined idea of what I believe, so I just stick with what the Church allows for me with what I see and infer from in my Bible, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're lots of Catholics like me in that sense, who see it as a mystery more so.)
I am a Primitive Baptist...we are hyper-Calvinists? I have heard a lot of PB sermons on predestination that were infralapsarian... What exactly is hyper-calvinism?
This video perfectly shows the single thing I dislike most about Protestants as a Catholic. This disgusting cult of personality they seem to spin around every single theologian that once wrote some great theological text useful to their cause.
There is no single man or woman who can just by thinking about God figure out everything about him, and even if you take multiple theologians and combine their teachings to whatever you like, these theologians are still only human and most of the times contradict one another more than once.
If you don't have an authority to sort through all of the theological writings and adopt what is found to be true by the magisterium of the church guided by the Holy Spirit, anyone can just combine whatever theology they like, crafting abominations like this whole infralapsarian or supralapsarian debate.
Like what good is calling yourself a Thomist or a Scotist, you're either a Christian or not, stop naming yourself after random people from the past who may or may not have had some great teachings (same applies to Lutherans and Calvinists literally naming themselves after mortal, sinful men). That has nothing to do with being "nerdy" or not, it's just completely out of line of what Christianity should be.
Most Catholic monastic orders named themselves after mortal, sinful men. I've also never heard of Catholics being scornful about people calling themselves Thomists or Molinists ...
@@Continentalphilosophyrules yeah, I wear a Saint Benedict Medal because I love this man, but still, religious orders of the Catholic Curch are a whole different story.
When they were established, they actually had to go to Rome and have their teachings assessed to make sure they weren't teaching heresy. So the teachings were looked at by the supreme authority of the Church.
There isn't a single order, even if they are named after a Saint that taught things that were against the teachings of the Church, that somehow was able to teach heresy.
Yes, these orders are named after mortal, sinful men, but at least the Church has authority over them and even a Bendictine or a Dominican has to, in the first place, follow the teachings of the Church, only after that the teachings of their namesakes that are compatible with the teaching of the Church.
My original comment was meant more as a condemnation of the Protestant way to elevate certain theologians over the actual teachings of the Church they belonged to (Thomas, Augustine, etc.) than the sole act of naming oneself after certain people.
Always remember that Calvin burned Servetus at the stake with greenwood to prolong his suffering, so much for a "christian"
A fate befitting a heretic.
How would you have killed Servetus then? You're probably one of those weak liberals who is opposed to the death penalty.
Calvin agreed Servetus should die, but he suggested execution by the sword rather than burning. He didn’t want him to suffer. Calvin’s request was denied and Servetus was burned.
Also, the Catholics wanted Servetus dead. That doesn’t mean Catholicism is bad or false.
Lastly, Martin Luther said and did some messed up things in his life. That doesn’t mean Lutheranism is false or that the Reformation is bad.
It’s almost as if we should strive to follow and understand the word of God rather than having our understanding stand or fall on the moral character of one person…
Arminian Strawman!
@@simeonyves5940 I like scarecrows
If we lack free will and God specifically chooses everyone who will be saved while passing over those who won't, why is our country (and the West broadly) becoming more secular? If it's His will that all might be saved (1 Tim. 2:4), why is He passing over more people now than He did 100 years ago? Why has He historically chosen more people in Western countries? Is there even a point to evangelizing?
I think tomist theology would make more sense. Since christ was the second adam, the one who reconcilled man and God by becoming the God-Man. There would be no need of reconcilliation if adam hadn't sinned.
Amazing content as always Zoomer. Would you consider making an in-depth video contrasting Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism? I have never really understood why Molinism is so often maligned by those in the theology world. The only critiques I can find seem illogical to me, and I have yet to find an argument against Molinism that is genuinely convincing. I would not consider myself a Molinist, as I don't know enough about such things to make a concrete decision, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. I suppose if I had to label myself I would align more closely with what I understand to be a Wesleyan perspective. Once again, thanks for your content, keep it up!