Opening Statement Review - Part 2 - Total Depravity Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- Continuing our review of the @TwitchyTheologian 's review of Idol Killer's opening statement in the @roguecalvinist Total Depravity Debate, recently held on @StandingForTruthMinistries
Previously we considered Jerry's critique of Warren's first central argument: "Total Depravity is anti-Biblical". In this episode we review Jerry's critique of Warren's last two central arguments: Total Depravity is anti-reason and anti-Christ.
PSA: Beware cloaked figures bearing tulips.
To see the full debate: www.youtube.co....
To see Twitchy's review: www.youtube.co....
#Calvinism #Fatalism #gnosticism #debate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
💡 About:
Idol Killer is committed to spreading the Gospel and making disciples of Christ. We are dedicated to promoting classic orthodox Christian doctrine (pre-Augustinian) and in doing so exposing extra-Biblical corrupt philosophies and presuppositions.
📈 Support Idol Killer
Patreon: / idolkiller
PaylPal: www.paypal.com....
GiveSendGo: www.givesendgo...
⚠️ DISCLAIMER:
Any view expressed by a guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of the host and visa versa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE
Any use of works in our videos is de minimis, transformative, and constitutes fair use under the Copyright laws of the United States. They are used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Any improper attempts to takedown or claim our videos may be subject to 17 U.S.C. 512(f) claim for bad faith under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If you want to discuss any content in our videos, please contact us at idolkiller.com before initiating any takedown requests. Failure to do so may constitute bad faith.
Hey cool! You actually reviewed my review! Thanks man! I look forward to seeing your responses!
@TwitchyThelogian Your review was not reviewing the debate but rather reviewing Warren’s remarks vs. what YOU believe.
If you’re doing a debate review then you need to actually review what Rogue’s views are as stated in the debate that Warren was arguing against.
You need to do a proper review of that.
Again, not reviewing what Calvinism or yourself believe, but actually reviewing what Rogue was saying in the debate.
There’s a massive disconnect in your review.
@@apilkey I did not want to review the entire debate as that takes way too much time. Instead, I reviewed his opener in order to provide my rebuttal as if I was in the debate myself. I apologize that I am unable to review the entire debate. Between prison ministry, helping with the youth group, working two jobs, and raising my kids, I simply don’t have the time.
Thank you for reaching out to me with your concerns.
God bless
@@TwitchyTheologian Please re-read my comment, I wasn’t asking you to review the entire debate so not quite sure why you focused your response to me around that.
I’ll say it again, your review was not a review of the debate or even the opener of the debate.
You didn’t review anything other than what Warren said vs. what YOU believe.
You need to review what Warren said vs. what his opponent in the debate said.
👉Again, review Warren’s comments in light of Rogue Calvinist’s comments during the debate.
This is vastly different than reviewing Warren’s comments based on your personal beliefs.
Warren was not debating you and your beliefs so why are you reviewing what he said against your beliefs? 😂
Warren was debating Rogue Calvinist and his beliefs, so that’s what you need to address.
This isn’t rocket science.
Review Rogue’s comments vs. what Warren was saying.
I think God quadruple predestined me to discover this Chanel over the last week. Good stuff. Going through the PSA playlist and trying to wrap my head around it all. I’ve only be a serious Christian the last year and never looked into the various tenants of Christian faith amongst the different Church’s and it’s still surprising to me how much Christian’s disagree on literally everything.
The PSA playlist is 🔥
Yes, but that's true of every religion/ideology that lets people think freely. Providentially, we have the Scriptures to go to and determine what the truth is from there.
Great segment! Wanted to say three things: 1) Those who display glee over the hardship you're facing and explaining it as God's divine judgment...they should beware. This is exactly what Job's three "friends" proclaimed against him. God was not pleased with these "friends" and says, "they did not speak of me." Secondly, in response to you speaking of "categories." I watched a guy "discussing" with 2 Calvinists about "blindness." He wanted them to explain why God would "blind" those who are already "blind." They really didn't have an answer for it and then it happened: "well, you know there are degrees of blindness. They are not as blind as they could be. Surely you know there are different CATEGORIES of blindness in Scripture." If you can't answer the question then reach for a "category" and put it there. I saw before my eyes and ears a way to make Calvinism unfalsifiable. Lastly, how can one be true to Scripture and actually deny what that Scripture actually is saying. The brother changed the "children or offspring of Abraham" to the "children or offspring of Adam. " How can one do this? The Scripture specifically states what it specifically states. Why aren't Christians fearful of changing God's word to read differently? Do they not see the horrible error of doing this?
In regards to the degrees of blindness thing I notice that alot with Calvinists. When you bring up a contradiction they start adding degrees of X or Y, they start giving God multiple wills and desires in some kind of tiered list that just so happens to line up with their doctrines. They also love extra biblical writings and sources while proclaiming sola scriptura and they say sola fide but they believe were saved by election. It’s just a bizarre theology when you dig into it. I can understand for an average person who’s of a simple mind (I don’t mean stupid) who just hears their pastor say something ans they believe it, but anyone who actually looks into Calvinism and still believes it I just can’t see that unless they want it to be true more than they want to know THE truth.
@@thanevakarian9762 So very well said.
@@thanevakarian9762 God does have multiple wills:
1. God is three persons
2. one of those persons is Jesus who has
a. a human will as he is fully human, and
b. a divine will as he is fully divine, which
c. scripture states, though not always using the term "will"
Furthermore:
3. St. Paul speaks of the will of God in three descriptors:
a. the good,
b. the acceptable, and
c. the perfect.
@@duncescotus2342 that is not the contention is it? The contention is whether those wills are in contradiction to each other. With Calvinism they are. One of God's wills wants all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, but the other will of God is to not elect them to be saved so that He can pour His wrath out on them for His glory.
That is so contradictory that it borders on nonsensical. It is like me saying that I so wish for my child to become a doctor, but I am purposefully keeping her out of school, but I am equally hopeful of her becoming a doctor as I am determined to keep her out of school. People would call me mentally unwell if I operated in this way.
@@AnniEast RE: the contradictory wills of God
First, thank you for a thoughtful comment. I don't often get those.
1. No. If anyone contends that God desires to condemn humans to hell, they are "anathema"
2. The wills of God are harmonious, all of them "good," but there is a progression. In other words, the perfect will of God is what he truly desires, but he allows less than that.
3. This allowance is where the rubber meets the road, and I think you're alluding to that-- what is the contention here?
4. It comes down to anthropology, not "theo"logy, though of course everything is of God. What is man? What is sin?
5. And in particular, what is man in his sinful state capable of?
6. In other words, free will (the allowance given to man to have an independent will) is the problem.
So, in your example, we would have to allow for the will of your daughter:
1. You desire your daughter to go to medical school and become a doctor. This is akin to God desiring us to learn of Him and become Christians.
2. However, your daughter does not want to go to medical school. Her desire is to be a dancer.
3. Furthermore, the disconnect between her desire and yours feeds her rebellion. At some point, she fantasizes that you are not even her real mother
4. Going further, she dreams about a mother like herself, a mother made in her own image, and this alternative mother figure begins to occupy her consciousness
An imperfect analogy, but I hope you see the point.
1:08:00 thank you representing what I said correctly. I didn't think I articulated it well
They will know us by our LOVE…rogue is NOT loving
@@SugoiEnglish1
Really,
You’re lame little jab towards a genuine comment doesn’t help rogues obvious problem,
Seems your choosing to be part of it.
🤡
@@SugoiEnglish1 - - You champion calling God the author of all sin, you get push-back. Deal with it special snowflake.
@@SugoiEnglish1 Calvinists?
This crap pains me too. How is it every bro with a half decent brain considers himself a theologian for the masses?
"Let not many of you be teachers knowing you will be held to higher account."
A couple of thoughts, and since I've got your ear, allow me a minute of your time:
1. It's relatively easy to be conversant on the doctrinal issues, the TULIP, soteriological positions, atonement theories, etc.
2. It's much harder to be truly up on what the Bible says,
3. And what it does NOT
4. Still harder yet to know Church history
5. And appreciate that you're not likely to be inventing the wheel first!
Conclusion: work for unity on the basics, for it is the express will of the Lord:
That we be one even as He and the Father are one, so the world may believe.
@Alana, I love you even though I think you highly misrepresent our beliefs which is odd since you were once a Calvinist.
Stay humble, keep your eyes on Jesus, love your brothers, love even your enemies, keep going Warren. Love you brother. From this free grace baptist. Lord Jesus have mercy on us sinners and guide us into truth. Into You!
Warren I’m in Australia and want to contribute to your financial challenge.
I’m not technically minded but have my card in hand , which is the easiest way to contribute.
Blessings
✌🏼.
I'm not sure about the Australia aspect, but it was very easy for me when I clicked on the GiveSendGo link I see near the bottom of the 'show more' expanded page.
@@johnknight3529
Cheers, I eventually found the link you’ve suggested
Bless.
✌🏼
We’re in a similar theological boat it seems. So much I love about Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy but there’s a few red flags that are keeping me from pursuing becoming a member. I can’t lie and say I affirm some of their traditions and interpretations even if I agree with 90% of everything else.
It suck’s because I’m genuinely trying to find the truth and all I know is I believe in the trinity, I believe the sacraments are way more than symbols but some of the tradition stuff and how they make them damnable if you don’t affirm them is concerning.
I spent 50 years thinking I had to do stuff to please God. Two things convinced me this is not the case, the thief on the cross and my love for my own children.
Don’t worry so much about what to do. Just asked the Lord to help you live a loving moral righteous life, that you might be an example to someone you may not even know was watching👍🏻👍🏻👊🏼👊🏼
@1:13:32 you started addressing the sinful semen issue.
Calvinists always appeal to the virgin birth, not realizing that MARY WAS ALSO SINFUL!
So if Mary was tainted by a sin nature then Christ was also because they SHARE THE SAME DNA!
Unless they also believe Mary is a sinless and spotless lamb like Christ was???
That's Augustinianism for you. The Roman Catholics at least tried to address the issue with the whole "Immaculate Conception" doctrine, but all they did was pass the buck back one generation, as Mary's parents were also sinful...
@@SugoiEnglish1The Virgin Birth would not solve anything regarding Calvinist Original Sin is what I’m saying.
Their appeal means nothing because even in a virgin birth there would still be a physical “contamination” from the woman.
There is no such thing as Original Sin which is why outside of Calvinism and Arminianism it’s a non-issue.
The only Original Sin, if that’s what you want to call it, was Adam and Eve originally sinning and that’s it.
It means nothing more in scripture.
And the only effects it has are the one God tells us it had in Genesis 3.
@@apilkey Well said! Unfortunately it’s easy for Calvinists to convince people of original sin because people naturally want to blame their desire to sin on someone else………
@@SugoiEnglish1Total Depravity is not found anywhere in scripture so you definitely can’t prove it.
Totally Depravity doesn’t exist so there’s no issue with Jesus and we don’t have to try and jump through hoops to explain why He didn’t have a sin nature.
We don’t have a sin nature either.
Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh the same as you and I.
Same nature.
@@SugoiEnglish1 I don’t need to make an argument.
Total Inability is found nowhere in scripture that’s just a fact.
Not sure why I would need to argue anything as I’m not the one here making a positive claim that it is.
32:21 I could be totally wrong about this… but when I read “they suppress the truth” i takeaway that there are people who understand the truth and deliberately suppress it so that others will not hear or understand it. Not that they suppress it within themselves but that they intentionally prevent others from hearing the truth.
Again… I could be wrong and I have not spent a lot of time studying this out. That’s just the way that sentence and those words make sense to me.
If someone is suppressing something it is a bit the opposite of disseminating the same thing.
Especially since disseminate is an antonym of suppress.
If they are rejoicing in your tribulation then they remind me of Joseph's brothers. I'm so sorry brother.
On a side note: it appears to me that in order to distance himself from faulty doctrine, he is conflating rejection with inability. No one debates the fact that someone can reject the gospel, unless they are consistent with irresistible grace.
Reference James 2:19 - according to Twitchy, the demons only know God as in 2+2=4 (intellectual vice spiritual) OR the demons are regenerate. Their knowledge has to be one or the other? I don't think Twitchy affirms demons are regenerate so he has to says they only have the carnal understand; an intellectual understanding of God. And yet James also says the demons "shudder" with that knowlege, which certainly implies a spiritual understanding, a fear of God. This comparison of the demon's knowledge and their spiritual reaction to God is made in direct comparison to the failing of the men James is writing.
Rogue says he makes content that "pulls people out of darkness one souls at a time". My understanding of reformed theology is that regeneration precedes salvation, therefore, no amount of human works (including online content) can "pull" anyone out of anywhere.
Bingo. Rogue is consistently inconsistent.
Connect your computer to a lan cable and then it will be better.
@1:13.00. I know a very anti-male single gal who leans hard on the sinful semen argument. She loves to argue that the sin nature is passed down from the father’s DNA instead of the mother’s. It’s interesting that Christian feminists have something in common with Calvinists.
“The demon is in the semen” is not only the dumbest and most gross quote I’ve heard lately, but it implies the most bizarre thing… that there is a demon that passes down generation to generation that is present in our individual creation as God is knitting us together? So so SO very weird.
That’s not even original sin or total depravity. That’s some creepy nutjob stuff right there.
Unable to download this video for watching later....?
if it’s a new video sometimes it takes up to a day to be able to download it. why, idk.
@DBHunter1 replied: "@BoldCarnivore When the host deletes a rejoinder like I posted it is dishonest. And is telling." I am having a hard time finding the rejoinder you are speaking of. And I have never known Warren to take down anything that was meaningful argumentation.
@@SugoiEnglish1UA-cam is well known for deleting comments, especially when items are copy/pasted or use certain kinds of language.
Duckworth is such an awesome name haha
beware of conflating one's interpretation with the bible itself.
I think a good question to examine to aide in this is, how do we know when one is using their own interpretation, and how do we know when we've correctly ascertained what the Bible says?
Rogue is under the impression that we cannot use our minds. So, how do we know?
@@SugoiEnglish1 How does one use Scripture to interpret Scripture, if one does not first understand part of what Scripture means?
The problem with the "Scripture interprets Scripture" mode of thinking is that it first requires you to *understand* some Scripture.
How does one begin to understand Scripture?
@@SugoiEnglish1 Can someone who does not have the Holy Spirit ever understand any part of the Scriptures? Or must they first have the Holy Spirit to understand what it says?
@@SugoiEnglish1 So, then, it is possible for an unsaved person to exegete a part of the scripture, using their mind?
If that is the case, then why ever condemn someone for not having the Holy Spirit with regards to exegesis? It seems like a complete non-sequitur.
@@SugoiEnglish1 So, then, if a person can properly exegete the text with their mind, then what does the Holy Spirit provide that the mind can't?
Under your position, why bother listening to the instruction of the Holy Spirit with regards to understanding what Scripture says?
It seems that there is a crucial element missing in your theology - that pure exegesis can never give you the full meaning of the text. That is to say, the Holy Spirit helps us eisegete the text correctly. The Holy Spirit informs us what the correct presuppositions are.
But the presuppositions *are* there.
Everyone exegetes and eisegetes the text. Our minds, given by God, help us determine when we are exegeting the text correctly, through logic, grammar, and reason. The Holy Spirit, also given by God, helps us eisegete the text, by giving us the intentions and knowledge of the mind of God.
Both help us understand the text of Scripture. But everyone exegetes and eisegetes the text.
36:17, call it total inability then. I don't care. My pastor agrees with my interpretation and he is a Presbyterian. :)
It appears you haven't thought through all the implications of your system. If you argue total depravity - then flip to total inability.... concurs calvinism is built on sand
enjoyable, it appears Rogue Calvinist does not fully understand Calvinism.
@Idol Killer : rogue has explicitly apologised to the moderator and implied apologies to you in his community section.
The exchanges between you and @TwitchyTheologian are to be lauded.
40:00, I think we may have been talking past each other there. I wasn't very clear obviously. What I am saying its that 1 Corinthians 2 is a "Moral indictment" that they refuse to savingly comprehend the things of God. I have no problem with man having a conscience. I feel like that is a part of God's restraining hand on man. So, I am not saying that men can't understand it is wrong to murder. We all know that inherently because God's law is written on our heart via our conscience. That's not in contradiction with Total Depravity (Total inability) though.
1:30:00 I don't think I redefined the T to a point that I am saying man is able to respond positively to the Gospel. Do I believe that people have pressed the noetic effects of sin too far at times? Sure, but that doesn't mean I deny the inability aspect because mankind will always willingly reject the Gospel (John 6:44, Romans 3, Romans 8, etc...) U know the verses. I am just listing them for those who don't. Thanks again for reviewing my review. Also, thank you for being kind and gracious as you reviewed it.
@@TwitchyTheologian With all due respect if you didn’t redefine the T to that point then your argument failed. The T is self defeating and causes so many problems that you are forced to move the target around anytime someone points out one of those problems. Trying to persuade people of the T while believing they are unable to understand until God makes them is just the tip of the iceberg.
which bible verse explicitly says "mankind will always willingly reject the Gospel" ???
And how is one culpable if "mankind will always willingly reject the Gospel" statement is true? as per God's decree
1:05:15 2 john 1:7
32:40 We understand (not savingly) and suppress the truth because of our moral inability. The real question would be why do unbelievers suppress the truth in unrighteousness? Because they are morally incapable of doing otherwise. They will not submit themselves to the truth and therefore must be regenerate.
@TwitchyThelogian Then the question follows: Did God make men unable, or did man make himself hardened against the will of God?
@@SugoiEnglish1
That is incoherent
Not seeing why Warren thinks his issue with the calvinist argument regarding adam/ abraham and Christ taking on human nature is a good argument.
Christ took on human flesh. The flesh itself is not evil, it’s the mind that is sinful and by extension we use our flesh for sinful deeds. The flesh itself is not sinful, whether that be adam or abraham.
St. Paul uses both terms, the flesh and the mind. And he combines them: the fleshly mind (the oft quoted, "to be carnally minded is death...")
He is not rigorous in his usage. Sometimes the mind is cast in a good light: "With my mind I serve the law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."
So we have to be flexible. Generally Paul uses the flesh to mean the natural human sinful state. And the flesh is basically "evil." Sin, mortality, the law which excites sin in our "members," are all inextricably connected in Pauline thought.
However, the teaching of Jesus are instructive too. He calls men evil: "If you being evil know how to give good gifts..." But here evil could simply mean "bad" in clear contrast to "good," and how can something truly evil do anything good?
That Christ is the second Adam is scripturally clear.
I am not sure why "acting according to your greatest desire" is incompatible with free will. I got the impression that IK was making that claim.
with free will, it seems like you can act according to your greatest desire. You can also act not according to your greatest desire
@@chrislucastheprotestantview that seems irrational to me.
@@paulanchor867 I have no idea what seems irrational about it
@@paulanchor867 You are not pushing that thought back far enough. What is the source of man’s “greatest desires?” In Calvinism God is…… In Calvinism or any other form of determinism God willed and predetermined EVERYTHING in eternity past for his own glory. I guess no one is suppose to look behind the curtain……..
Man isn’t just flesh. We have a soul and spirit. We have the light which Christ gives to every man entering the world. He draws all people. So man isn’t simply left on their own as flesh following its greatest desires. There is much more involved. God created man in His image, so a person can choose to walk in the flesh or the spirit. It seems they have different desires.
@@chrislucastheprotestantview They oppose this by saying the reason you didn't eat the cake (which you desired) was because your (true) greater desire (whether you acknowledge it or not) was that you did not want to ... feel sick / get fat etc ...
rather than argue 'free" will which is just a calvinist theological framework - reference scripture, its our will vs obedience to Gods will. Luke 22:42-44 Jesus had a different 'will' to His father's, but chose obedience to do His father's will.
"if you are willing". Jesus words don't support calvinisms EDD.
Calvinism is about calvinism as the authority .. not scripture as authority.
Sometimes I wonder if I might be the only person on the planet, who even cares what the Book is talking about when it speaks of the "heart". It seems to me no one gives it a moment's thought, and it just goes on as a vague undefinable something, that has something to do with feelings we feel, which there can be no point in even trying to pin down, as a distinct component of human nature, even though it plays a huge role in the Scriptures.
"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment."
It seems like people just hear him saying something like "You should love god very much", and the concept that there are (at least) three aspects of our overall consciousness that can love things, never occurs . .
(Indeed, it seems to me like people "actively" don't want to know what Jesus is talking about there.)
But anyhow, the Calvinism clan seems to me to be composed mostly of people who are retarded (old school meaning; have fallen behind) when it comes to dealing with their "heart's" activity, . (Which, I suspect means virtually nothing to anyone else on Earth ; )
interesting.
Good point. The heart is a Judaic metonym. Paul avoids it, preferring several terms, the flesh, the mind, the spirit, even some neologisms like the spiritual body.
@@duncescotus2342 - "Paul avoids it..." God sure doesn't, it's "everywhere" in the pre-Christ books (and in the sayings of Jesus).
It seems to me Paul was not so much avoiding it, as using terminology that those not steeped in "the Books" ("Bible" of that time) like he was, could better relate to. As though he was "translating" what he was intimately aware of, into words that conveyed what those he was speaking to were also intimately aware of, and would recognize as speaking of what they were aware of, in themselves.
I myself became aware of "it" in myself as a child, though I would not realize the Book was speaking of what I had become aware of in myself for several decades. Indeed no one seemed to be aware of "it" and I seemed to be the only one who "noticed" it.
Recognizing that the Bible (I was not truly familiar with) I heard being "explained" by a minister/pastor on TV, might be speaking of what I had become aware of all those years before, was one of the reasons I eventually asked a God I didn't believe existed (being what we used to call a "strong agnostic"), to "alleviate my ignorance, if that is your will".
And (to my utter amazement) He did. And because He used a certain Book to do so, I am a Christian.
But I'm still alone, it would seem, in terms of being aware of "it", operating away as a part of my overall consciousness.
(Came in real handy in sports, which I engaged in enthusiastically on into my late fifties (till my knees became too untrustworthy), because "it" is indeed "the spirit of the body" as Paul put it ; )
@@duncescotus2342 - @duncescotus2342 - PS, Your eventual acknowledgment the other day, that you had said something false which I pointed out to you, was actually a part of the reason I said in my original comment; "..the Calvinism clan seems to me to be composed *mostly* of people who are retarded (old school meaning; have fallen behind) when it comes to dealing with their "heart's" activity, ".
You didn't "dig in your heels" so to speak, as so many in the Calvinist clan have seemed to me to do, when I tried to reason with them about something. You seemed to "lay aside" the concern I expect a person's "heart" will naturally react with, when accused of speaking falsely. So I hesitated to speak of "the Calvinism clan" collectively . . and, lo and behold, the very person that was fresh in mind who caused that hesitation, commented on this "strange" comment about the "heart" I ventured to post.
was jerry arguing for singular depravity rather than total depravity.....?
No, I am simply arguing that total depravity doesn't mean we are all little Hitlers. It simply means that every part of us has been affected by sin. The result is essentially that we have a moral inability to trust in Christ. That is my argument.
@@TwitchyTheologian why do calvinists need to invent a whole doctrine of "depravity"? Most of what you write is simply we are sinners. You haven't been able to correlate inability to repent/chose to follow God with scripture. Scripture calls us sinners, calvinists redefine this as depravity.
@@SugoiEnglish1 you show you gnostic bias. You are reading calvinism into those passages.
No question that God acts first - but he doesn't act for some and not others.
You reference 1 John 5. That doesn't support your stance. So you therefore reference a man's (FB Meyer) incorrect eisegesis as an authority over scripture. No thanks.
your reference to 1 John reminds me that Calvinism teachings oppose Scripture in 1 John 1:5. ... for calvinist teach God decrees evil ... for His Glory (John Calvin, RC Sproul, John Piper, John MacArthur, James White, Voddie B etc)
Read Habakkuk 2.
Hopefully twitchy Jerry can explain calvinism in Habakkuk.....
1:06:14 did Jesus have female genitalia? If not, then Jesus wasn't like some people in EVERY respect. My point? That in EVERY respect is delimited by the passage and by simple logic. Love you Warren. Thanks for the review. I have to go work so I will check out the rest later.
That's the Starbuck's Fallacy I addressed in the program and have a YT Short dedicated to. Did all the offspring share in having ovaries? No. Did they all share in the same nature common among the offspring? Yes. Does TD say this shared nature is sinful and corrupt? Yes.
A moot and absurd point. "In every way tempted as we are, yet without sin."
@@SugoiEnglish1It sounds like you are saying that "Total Depravity" is a presupposition/implication you are bringing to the text, based on prior, assumed understandings.
If so, that's okay! I'm not faulting you for doing that. However, recognizing where our presuppositions are is an important part of having a discussion.
You can't suppress what you can't understand. You have to understand in order to suppress. IK view just leads to absurdity. Adam in his original condition could not have written Romans 7 v 13 onwards. After he fell he could. The ontological change is described in romans 7. Sin is a force embedded in human nature which acts upon it from within. It is not a part of what is necessary to be human. I think IK is stretching on his views about how TD would affect the incarnation if it were true. No one knows exactly how sin gets in to the newly created soul. God doesn't tell us how he prevented sin from entering the human nature of Jesus. We just believe he could and did. It seems that IK believes that sin is not transmitted by generation. Or he may not believe it is even a force at all which is present in the human nature. "Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." No I have neither the time nor inclination to watch all his videos on the subject. He waffles on too much for my taste. He is a one man expert on all things biblical. They are two a penny on you tube. I should have more respect.
@paulanchor867 what was the author's state prior to Romans 7?
"I once was alive..."
@@IdolKiller I can only guess that it denotes the time of innocence before the transition to moral responsibility.
@@IdolKiller What is sin in your system?
What Warren fails to realize is that sin is not an essential component of human nature. It’s an accident introduced by the fall. The human nature of Adam pre-fall is the same essential nature of man post-fall. Sin was an addition and not essential.
Is Christ come in the flesh, like his brothers in everyway?
@@BoldCarnivore but without sin…..
Then God did not cause man to carry the sin of Adam in the flesh, nor did He cause corruption of the natural mind, nor cause total depravity of all of Adams offspring?
@@SugoiEnglish1 So you deny that he was as the children of Abraham. Good to know.
@@SugoiEnglish1 You added a premise that scripture does not.
I love that the chat was calling Warren out for his strawman tactics.
Total depravity is certainly not "anti-" biblical. It's a matter of defining depravity. Usually it's meant to be equivalent to "inability," and used only in reference to mankind's ability to get to God without God first making that move possible. Calvinists will differ. Even Arminius affirmed total inability and the necessity for prevenient (preceding) grace. Wesley sided with that. But prevenient grace was Catholic dogma since the Councils of Orange. The Second Council of Orange affirmed Augustinian pessimism and single predestination but did not affirm double predestination, which is usually meant to say that God condemns the non-elect to hell beforehand.
Eternal destinies are determined beforehand. It's not debatable.
Revelation 20:10 NKJV
[10] The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the 👉lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are.👈 And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Whose names were not written in the Book of Life is in the PERFECT tense, passive voice, indicative mood.
Strong's: G1125
English: were written
Code: V-RPI-3S
Long: Verb - Perfect Passive Indicative - 3rd Person Singular
Speech: Verb
Tense: Perfect
Voice: Passive
Mood: Indicative
Person: 3rd Person
Number: Singular
Total depravity is all of the things Warren has labeled it here. The false hoods of TD and a gnostic elect are corruptions of scripture injected into scripture not taken from scripture. These concepts, as used by Agastinian anthropology, are not biblical. The word elect is in scripture, but no one in scripture is elect to salvation election in scripture is to service purpose and blessing.
@jayrodriguez84 who are the people deceived by Satan here in Revelation 20:10?
@BigGuy86ed Unbelievers. The devil who deceives those unbelievers at that time will be cast into the lake of fire, WHERE the false prophet and beast ARE.
False prophet and beast are going to the lake of fire. John wrote this before they were born into this world. Therefore, their eternal destinies were determined beforehand. ✅️
Like I’ve been saying for some time now, Warren does not know what Total Depravity is. He argues against his own strawman.
Articulate it as it is in your understanding and show how Warren has straw-manned the view.
@@BoldCarnivore I have, on my channel, uploaded the video two days ago.
@@chrisharris9710 Click bait as far as I'm concerned. You made the claim here.
@@chrisharris9710Do you think that RC and Twitchy Theologian have a good understanding of TD? Because that is who he is responding to.
Chris was exposed once before, should I do it again?
You lean Orthodox but there’s a cultural barrier…brother come to the Anglican Church!
God gives mercy before grace to the redeemed. Since mercy precedes grace and regeneration is according to mercy and grace through faith, regeneration must precede faith.
@jayrodriguez84 According to scripture regeneration does not precede faith.
@apilkey 1. You didn't refute what I said. I made an argument based on biblical text that since mercy precedes grace, then regeneration must precede faith.
2. I've already talked with you about 1 Peter 1:3. You don't know what the purpose of the preposition is. Born again TO a living hope.
Strong's Definitions: εἰς eis, ice; a primary preposition;👉 to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose👈
@@jayrodriguez84 You said: you didn’t make an argument based on biblical text.
You made an argument based on your OPINIONS of biblical text.
Massive difference.
And since mercy precedes grace that does NOT then magically mean regeneration must precede faith.
and nowhere does it say mercy proceeded grace.
Mercy is an act of grace and grace is an act of mercy.
They’re both the same and both come before we can believe but that does not mean regeneration precedes faith.
You’re just starting your personal and fleshly opinions and nothing more.
Scripture is directly against you.
@apilkey "Mercy is an act of grace and grace is an act of mercy." Give me a bible verse for this statement.
I actually didn't say, "You didn't make an argument based on biblical text."
What I actually said was " You didn't refute what I said. I made an argument based on biblical text that since mercy precedes grace, then regeneration must precede faith."
You need to LEARN HOW TO READ. You told me I said something that I did not say. I didn't accuse you of not making an argument on biblical text. I stated that my argument was based on biblical text.
@@jayrodriguez84I know how to read, you need to learn how to COMPREHEND.
Nothing you’ve stated so far is biblical.
Please provide a scripture passage that supports prefaith regeneration.
You won’t find one sorry.
This is so bad Warren, you’re making a fool of yourself denying the error of your understanding of TD that has been pointed out.
Warren’s defense: “I’m a guy that made some videos about a view I don’t hold, to teach those who actually hold the view that they don’t understand the view they hold”…….. come on man.
Thank you for the comment. Recall previously when you claimed no Calvinists taught what I said and I provided video of numerous Calvinists doing precisely that? Also, you heard Rogue's claims in the debate so why pretend?
@@SugoiEnglish1 nah, he has some out of context quotes from pastors in sermons that he can manipulate. Read those, quote a sentence from a confession or older theologian, do nothing to try to understand what was meant, and then argue against the strawman which was erected. It’s bad.
@@chrisharris9710Hello, my friend. Do you think all people - or even all Calvinists - define "Total Depravity" the same way?
@@Narikku there is a standard understanding of what total depravity/total inability is. In the latest video on my channel I use several theologians to show the agreement even when arriving at the conclusions in different ways.
@@chrisharris9710 Do you think Rogue Calvinist and Twitchy Theologian agree with those definitions? Because that's who's being responded to here.