Відео

Thank you for the comment. I'm sorry to hear about that person who is getting caught up with Nick's ideas. There's a lot of bad ideas online. A lot of them. Lord willing, we can respond to them thoughtfully, with the truth, and also that God will be pleased to frustrate the plans of those who come up with bad ideas.

@@reformedpilgrim Yes indeed.

Hey, man, thanks for the comment. It's not just the grammar that's at issue; it's understanding of historical events, as well, that is lacking as well. Just this morning I put a long comment on the Part 2 video, which addresses historical context. But inadequate and illogical conclusions are being drawn in that video, which classifies the expulsion of the Jews as a church split, requiring reconciliation. Brent Lay's question noted in my review at about 8:00 is where Jason is taking his cue from, unfortunately. So, Brent's misunderstanding of both grammar and history are clouding Jason's understanding. We need to pray for both Brent and Jason. (I'm aware you and I have differences, as well, but we can surely agree on this matter.)

@@reformedpilgrim UA-cam makes me so mad. I wrote you a nice reply, commented on how I was watching your other videos and you're obviously highly intelligent and analytical plus a great speaking voice, and I invited you to review my book, especially the part on Romans 9, but UA-cam deleted it! Grrr.

@@TheRomans9Guy Well, that's very nice of you and very improper of UA-cam. That's been happening to me this week. Unless some readers "sort by newest" they will never see some comments I've made recently. Oh well. If you want to send an email to me, we can chat about your book. I'm flattered to be considered. My email in my "About" section.

I've never heard of that, either. Interesting find, though.

I've heard of a few Pentecostals who have held such beliefs. There's some strange and scary ideas out there.

@@abacus813 I haven’t heard of one such book before, but I just looked into it a bit: There is an annotated edition with commentary by Joseph D. Reed, professor of Classics at Brown University. There’s another one that covers the first 5 books of Metamorphoses, with commentary by William S. Anderson, professor of Classics at UC Berkeley. Cambridge University Press has a commentary that is very expensive, but likely very thorough. I can’t vouch for any of these editions, though, as I haven’t read them. But if you want to start with the free option, I’m sure there are some videos on UA-cam by people versed in Roman literature that can offer some insight. It might also be helpful to read Edith Hamilton’s book Mythology, which will give you background on the underlying concepts in Metamorphoses. It’s important to remember that Ovid’s audience already knew these stories; he was merely telling them in a poetic way, skillfully weaving them together.

@reformedpilgrim Thanks for getting back, will read up on the suggestions. I came to Metamorphoses through the work of Joseph Campbell and Myth. So I might check out Edith Hamiltons book first. Thanks again!

@@dannymcmullan9375 It seems like a possible motive. Even if it is not, I have found Brian and similar channels resistant to correction, even by their own fanbase when they get some basic things wrong. That’s disappointing, but appears to be the norm online.

Right on, man. There's more I could have said, but I wanted to keep this somewhat streamlined. It does seem like the concept of Open Theism is an attempt to get God off the hook for the existence of evil. However, even in their system, God knows that a given sin or sins is possible for a given person. But when it happens, He still allows it to happen, like theft, mass casualty events, or war. Open Theism, therefore, doesn't get around the issue; if God allows the sin, He still has to make it part of His plan in some way. And if God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, that necessarily means that Christ was the planned propitiation for sin from before the foundation of the world. If that's the case, sin has always been part of God's plan. But the Open Theist may be dealing with a terrible hurt, and may wish that God didn't specifically plan that hurt for him. Open Theism gives God that "out". This is a hard area to get into a meaningful exchange with an Open Theist over, as he will be assuming Presentism, without the Reformed person (or other non-Open Theist) understanding what is happening in the conversation. In many cases, such an exchange devolves into the Open Theist calling the other person a Neo-Platonist Augustinian Determinist who believes in a static God, and the other guy will have no idea what just happened. (I've personally had experiences like this and just heard a recording of Bob Enyart doing something similar years ago.) Listening to John Sanders, I've picked up a clue that helps. He said Cicero is the earliest pagan author who formulated the idea of Dynamic Omniscience. Since Cicero most often wrote about politics, government, and oratory, his theological/philosophical writings are few. I'm doing what I can to read Cicero's relevant writings and see if I can find what John was referring to. It may help me understand where John and similar Open Theists are coming from.

That is a major point of disconnect in discussion with an Open Theist. They will ask questions from a presupposition of Presentism, then work an interlocutor into a corner, making that person affirm that God is static or agree to Open Theism. But the starting presuppositions about time are completely incompatible.

@@reformedpilgrim gotcha. Yeah thanks for putting this video together and answering the question

@@Godfrey118 My pleasure. I hope you find this video useful.

@@danijax24 Do you mean to ask, “ Is TULIP at odds with Acts 17?” Do you think it is? Why or why not? Since you zeroed in on a command, you could also ask, “Is TULIP at odds with the Ten Commandments?” If so, why? If not, why not?

Hi, thank you for your reply. TULIP does seem at odds with Acts 17 at first glance. Men seem to be called to repent, but T would suggest that we can’t repent on our own. “All men, everywhere” seems like every, single human being, unlike the U. If L is true, then men who have had no Savior provided for them, and thus no chance of being saved, are being called to repent. I have thought about the Ten Commandments in relation to TULIP as well. Good point. If God gave the commandments and we could not keep them, then is it plausible that a command to repent is also given to people who cannot repent? I’ve understood the law to be our tutor, used to bring us to Christ. As we look at the law we see both the holiness of God and our need to be rescued. This is described for us in Galatians. However, is there a precedent of the same concept in Scripture, showing us that God commands us to repent even though we cannot? Thank you for the dialogue.

@@danijax24 If repentance is commanded by God, does it stand to reason that repentance is good? Who does good?

My pleasure. I hope you find it useful.

Whether or not Cornelius was a saint prior to Peter's arrival, he and his household clearly believed the gospel once Peter preached it to them.

@@reformedpilgrim yes. I agree

It doesn't follow that if God decrees all things that He doesn't have to work all things for the good. It also doesn't follow that if God's own actions are part of the decree that He would not be free.

@@reformedpilgrim just because you say it doesn’t make it true. And yes, if God decreed everything down to the micro and moment and nothing can change it, the. His work was done upon the time of the decree. The decree is God and God is his decree. The problem is that’s not what the Bible describes. You see, I don’t have an issue if free will was a lie and that every thought deed and action was predetermined by God and I can do other than what he decreed me to do…I just don’t find it in scripture therefore that’s my problem. I’ll ask you as well, does the idea that God decrees everything that happens simply bring you comfort and peace? Why? Would you lack peace if you knew that we made choices that God does not decree and that he has to work all those things for the good? Is he unable to work all things for the good if he did not first decree the bad things that happened ?

​@@beaberean3286 You said, _"His work was done upon the time of the decree."_ In what sense do you mean "done"? If it's true that His work is done upon the time of the decree, would that be a problem? Why or why not? Do you subscribe to Dynamic Omniscience/Open Theism? My feelings about God decreeing everything that happens are irrelevant. I've had my share of hurt and pain, some remarkably similar to what Idol Killer hinted at in his own life. Scripture tells me that God works it all together for good. And if there is more such hurt and pain for me in the future, then God is working that for good, as well, no matter how I feel about it. I love God, regardless of how I feel about various trials in my life.

⁠@@reformedpilgrim if his work was done at the time of the decree then it’s not a problem at all, except that you stated that God IS working within time even though it’s the decree that determines what God does. Again, I don’t have an issue with total divine determinism except that it’s not found in the Bible. God decrees some things that are unchangeable like the cross of Christ, but other things that happen which he has not decreed, he works together for the good. I love the story of Joseph in this sense. Gods decree was that Joseph would be a ruler. But along the way, there were plans that man meant for evil, BUT GOD worked (weaved) them for the good. The reason I say “weaved” is because that’s the literal Hebrew word. חָשַׁב ḥâšaḇ - man has free will to plan and act but God will work those plans and actions for the good to show his great power. He weaves his plan into the plans of man in order to bring about His desired end and nothing can stop that. Did God know what all those evil people would freely choose to do to Joseph to hinder him? Absolutely! And so because he knew, he weaved his plan to ensure his end came about. So I’ll ask this, why it is bad or wrong for man to have free will and God to intervene in that free will to ensure his end? Since you hold free will in such a high esteem and power, doesn’t it make God even greater, bringing Him more glory in that he accomplishes his plans despite man’s free will, actions and desires?

@@beaberean3286 You said, _"if his work was done at the time of the decree then it’s not a problem at all."_ In what sense do you mean "done"? Done, as in planned out, or done as in fully completed? (Remember, you already granted that God's actions could be part of the decree.) You asked, _"why it is bad or wrong for man to have free will and God to intervene in that free will to ensure his end?"_ I don't know; I didn't say it is bad or wrong for man to have free will and God to intervene in that free will to ensure His end. In regards to your last question, could you please define "free will" in the way that you use it? Do you subscribe to Dynamic Omniscience/Open Theism?

@@reformedpilgrim Thank you, I will take a look.

Didn't God make all our inward parts and knew exactly how to make all people become believers if that was His plan? Didn't God know who both His sheep and the goats were before Creation ? God knew all this and still Created ,meaning Prov 16:4 The Lord made everything for it's own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil. This alone defeats open theism.

@CBALLEN yes, your presuppositions are at odds with Open Theism. This doesn't mean your presuppositions are correct. One will note upon examination of your claims, your assertions are additions to Scripture and not an accurate reflection of the Bible.

@IdolKiller The Lord declares the end at the very Beginning and that includes the middle too. WHO CAN SAY IT AND IT COMES TO PASS UNLESS THE LORD HAS DECREED IT? That's right, the heart of man plans his way,but the Lord decides what happens. Men want to do much,much more sin than God has decided that they do.So,if men cannot do all the sin that they truly want to do,then where is man's free will?? Men will only do what God has decreed they will do,nothing more and nothing less. We are all like David, all our days were written in God's book before a single moment was lived ,men don't like this and they will imagine all kinds of schemes to try to explain it away, but the truth remains the truth.

@CBALLEN your view denies God has any relationship to the beginning or end and flattens it all out to a single eternal decree. This is what you're reading into Scripture. Stop prooftexting in defense of an extra-Biblical presupposition and instead look at His self-revelation in Scripture and you'll see God describe Himself in ways the Classical Theist denies.

@IdolKiller Here's another thing to think about. If one is able to say,: " I made many terrible decisions in my life,but I did make one GREAT ONE " then this is boasting and since we are saved by God's grace, not by the will or works of man,then this makes it a false Gospel ,it's the same Gospel that those who'll hear,,DEPART, believed in.Remember they called Jesus Lord,they had a faith,in a Jesus, but it was a false faith,in a false Jesus. Their Gospel was based on their best decisions that they made .Eph 2:4-5 is key to the truth, IT WAS GOD WHO LOVED HIS PEOPLE, that Jesus died for and while we were still DEAD IN SIN ( GOD HATERS) ,He made us alive with Christ, by GRACE WE HAVE BEEN SAVED!! Grace is unmerrited favor . This is the new birth and with this new birth comes THE FAITH OF CHRIST that makes us cognizant of the fact that Jesus actually saved us and this faith gives us peace with God.

You are too kind, brother! Thank you! Welcome to the channel!

Right on! Me, too!

Just doing what I can to point people to the free resources available out there.

Very interesting. Thanks! I just subscribed!

@@reformedpilgrim Bruce is the man. Enjoy

Thank you for the encouragement!

In the Preface of the 2017 book, Brent says, _"When I came upon this personal discovery, I spent several months searching for historical evidence of others who took this position. I say discovery because I first realized this revelation on Thursday, June 6, 2013, about 10:15 in the morning while on vacation in Florida. Recovering from a cancer treatment, I was confined to a condominium overlooking the beach for the week. In reading through the book of Romans for the 28th consecutive time on the sixth consecutive day, I realized for the first time the reality that Paul had written Romans in two part. He wrote the first eight chapters to the Jews and the later eight chapters to the Gentiles."_ In Chapter 1, Brent says, _"It is just like Paul said, '...first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles.' What difference does it make? A great difference in that the first eight chapters include the teaching of predestination, foreknowledge, and election which apply only to the Jewish believers (remnant)."_ I think this tips Brent's hand, in the same way that you and James White point out: Brent wanted a way to get around the Golden Chain of Redemption, and he found a way. His way is to misconstrue some rather plainly-written words. Brent has no apparent difficulty understanding that God foreknew, elected, and predestined _some_ people; he just can't allow those people to be Gentiles. I don't know why it makes him feel better that this is only Jewish Christians. I guess Brent is a Gentile, then? (Ancestry DNA tests can actually reveal a Jewish heritage some never knew about otherwise.) Why would it make Brent feel good that God didn't foreknow him, elect, and predestine him? He doesn't flesh out why in is book. He has some conception of what "whosoever will" means that he treats as a given understanding, rather than explaining. It makes his position that much stranger, actually. In the end, it's funny that the Golden Chain of Redemption is simple enough for him to understand, but Romans 1:5-6, and 13 are not.

I think the issue is just simply he struggles with reading comprehension. He’s probably a great guy. Maybe he’s great at math? But among any collection of individuals, some people are just going to be in the bottom percentiles in reading comprehension.

He doesn’t have to tempt man or make them evil, they did it themselves and God is just to leave them in their sin. Mercy and grace are not obligated, it’s optional, otherwise it would cease to be mercy and grace.

Thanks for this! I particularly appreciate your assessment at the end of the video. I recently caught Jason in one of his 2PR streams and asked him to do a series walking through the WCF or the 1689 and explain where he agrees and disagrees. He seemed to like the idea. I think it would help him to work through the fullness of his beliefs....and by God's grace, perhaps such an endeavor would help to lead him away from this trendy reading he is on at the moment.

@@sevencrickets9258 That could be interesting. We'll see if he does. I get the sense he has a lot of content in the pipeline, waiting to get made.

@@reformedpilgrim Yep, probably true.

@@sevencrickets9258Just keep praying for him!

@@reformedpilgrim 💯

Thanks, Danny. It's really astounding the lengths some will go to.

God decreed and predestined the refutation of reformed theology, because it debases his character and nature.

​@@SheepDog1974are you taking a reformed position on the refutation of the reformed position? I think you might have some wires crossed there bud.

@@sevencrickets9258 precisely the absurdity of calvinism !!

@@SheepDog1974 Where does the Bible say that? Chapter and verse please