It is true that if God knew from the foundation of the world that you would drink that coffee that would mean we don't have free will, but more significantly, God Himself doesn't have free will because He couldn't stop you from drinking the coffee
@@BandyAndysExcellentEssays how does knowing automatically determine a choice? And your presupposition of God not having free will because he couldn’t stop him from drinking the coffee is false because God is omnipotent. The flood is a great example of God stepping in.
@@MrKingcarella23 I believe that God COULD stop him from drinking the coffee, which means that him drinking the coffee is uncertain. If the future is certain then God wouldn't be omnipotent.
@@MrKingcarella23 If the future is certain not only are you and I cogs in a machine with no free will, but God Himself has no ability to change the future. In Jeremiah 18:7-10 God says explicitly that if He says He will do something but then the circumstances change, He will not do that which He thought He would do. There are many other verses especially in the Old Testament showing that the future is uncertain, but they are largely ignored by most Christians because they contradict the classical view of God where God is in control of every event and knows the future exhaustively.
Chad... the answer to this question is far deeper than some simple apologetic so please, just consider what I am asking you _before God_ (I know your reasoning before Team Calvin): God has set forth the expectation that men become disciples of Jesus, in His Body, with NO EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS.... so why then would you *_even want_* to self-identify as a disciple of John Calvin? They are two distinctly different people.... _like it or not_ John Calvin is NOT Jesus Christ and you can not serve 2 masters... so why would you ever self-identify as a disciple of a human??
@@inTruthbyGrace It's a label. Nothing more. The term "Calvinist" has nothing to do with the man, John Calvin. A Christian can be "calvinistic" without ever having read anything by John Calvin. It's simply an historical reference term used to distinguish certain Christian believers from, say, Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, Arminians, Romanists, Eastern Orthodox...etc. No Calvinist is "serving" John Calvin, or "having 2 masters". For example, if you told me your Soteriological views, and your views of Theology Proper, I could tell you which camp you fit into, Historically (Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Arminian...etc.). This is why a knowledge of Church History and Historical Theology is very helpful. I would say that they are actually indispensable for proper Christian education; Christians NEED to be studying Church History and Historical Theology. Hope this helps. *Soli Deo Gloria*
@@inTruthbyGrace Calvinism is just a label that makes it easy to identify someone. Like I would consider myself a reformed baptist Christian. It makes it easy for someone to know EXACTLY what I believe.
inTruthbyGrace, The term Calvinist was generated by opposers of the doctrines of sovereign grace. It’s not as if those who believe these doctrines chose to identify themselves as anything other than Christian. It’s not a gospel distinction but a soteriological one.
I’ve found your videos on Calvinism and Arminianism very interesting, balanced and helpful. Would love for you to do a video regarding Provisionism which is gaining much momentum currently.
He exists outside of time, but we do not. Our choices come from true free choice, but effectively they have already happened, only we are too small and too bound by time-space to perceive it.
Hell would Not make sense if we don't have free will. All this calvinist are Wrong because they don't follow the bible, they actually follow Calvin john thoughts
@@notusedexerHe didn't have to go down there - just like when He constantly says throughout scripture that a city/people's sins have finally reached unto heaven - it's not that He didn't know about their sin already - it just reached a certain point and He pronounced judgement. Basically God wanted to go see
I really appreciate your presentation. I own a book entitled (I think) What Does God Know? (And When Did He Know it?) You hav inspired me to read it. (Yes, I buy books that I “intend” to read. I guess only God knows if I ever will. :). Your humility combined with openness and thoroughness makes you an exceptional teacher and proclaimer of God’s truth. None of us get every minute detail right, but God honors our pursuit of truth. I appreciate your pursuit of truth as Biblically revealed. Blessings on your continued ministry.
Open theism. A new subject for me and my first thought was “what does Mike say about it” and low and behold here it is!! Thanks Mike. Looking forward to watching this.
For what it's worth I'm glad you chose to edit and upload the video. I always get so much out of your videos. It's always a blessing when I see a new upload of yours. 😉 I'm not Calvinist but I do really enjoy watching John MacArthur on the Grace to You channel. I have a lot of respect for him and I learn a lot from watching him as well. I do find the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism extremely interesting. But I believe that God gave us free will at the end of the day and that salvation is available to anyone who desires to have it.
Mike Winger I don't think Calvinism is correct but I have nothing about love and respect for MacArthur. I've seen some sermons where he stood up for the Gospel, the divinity of Christ, and the truth that no man gets to the Father expect through Christ like you wouldn't believe. Absolutely love that about MacArthur. He also strikes me as highly intelligent and committed to the faith. Really enjoy listening to him even though I disagree with a couple of his stances. As long as everyone agrees on the core, fundamentals on Christianity (that Jesus was God in the flesh and that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day) we should strive for unity in the church. I also find you highly intelligent and committed as well, which is why I really dig your channel. UA-cam as a whole has been an incredible blessing to me. As much as I love my local church (and I absolutely do; I have a fantastic local fellowship here) it's not a 24/7 thing like UA-cam. I get so much more out of my spiritual growth because of channels like yours and about a dozen others I like to follow (Grace to You included 😉). It's just incredible. I even found a church in Australia (Calvary Melbourne Australia is the channel name) that uploads a lot of great stuff to watch. I really do appreciate what you and a lot of others on UA-cam do.
Tom Bladecki To me verses like 1 John 5:7 (and yeah we could argue if it belongs there I know 😉) and the baptism of Jesus where all three were present seem pretty cut and dry to me. At the baptism we saw the Spirit descending upon the Son while hearing the Father speak. I believe that we can never fully understand the Godhead with our finite minds. I don't agree with the Oneness stance. I've always been taught that God is three (Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit) and that these three are one. That's just my opinion on it and how I read the text. I may be wrong and I may be right. I just know that I can't hope to fully understand the divine nature of God in my current (fallen) state. But what I do know is that Christ loves me and died on the cross in my place and that He offers me eternal life through His blood. I believe in His death, burial, and resurrection and that all I have to do is accept Jesus into my heart. I also know that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. No man can get to the Father except by Jesus. I know we are supposed to judge our brothers and sisters' fruits but I also know I can't see into a person's heart. We may disagree on secondary issues but anyone who preaches the Jesus of the Bible is okay in my book. 🙏 Anyway that's my thoughts on the matter. I hope you have a blessed day.
I'm by no means a beginner in the realm of soteriology, so this presentation was entry-level stuff to me, but I still enjoyed watching it because Mike Winger is a charismatic and even-handed teacher. His explanations for views that he doesn't agree with are gracious and accurate; he doesn't use strawman arguments or _ad hominem_ attacks.
"What can we know about predestination - we'll get there next week" I know (or at least I think ) that was not intentional, but I laughed out loud 😀 I love your teachings, you lay scripture out for me in a way that I can understand and I believe you are teaching under the watch of the Holy Spirit and I thank God for your help (and other teachers I listen to here and in my church) God bless you
Its interesting that from a very young age, I have believed in the idea of the 'middle knowledge' without actually knowing the term or the theology behind it. I received a type of picture of it a few years later when I first heard in science about the concept of the multiverse. I am not correlating the multiverse with the middle knowledge but the model of the multiverse just seemed to me like a decent picture of what middle knowledge might look like. Nice to finally hear some scripture on it. Obviously, this is not the end of discussion.
Christ follower I think you’re talking about open theism. Middle knowledge is not only God knows the future but He also know the what if. And middle knowledge is the only view that allows the sovereignty of God with free will with the least amount of contradictions in itself.
@@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759 Yep. Molinism and Open theism both have logical problems for me. Like the notion of "time and space". We live in time and space, but God lives in eternity. Therefore all things are present time to God. The future, past and present are all the same thing to God who lives in eternity. There is no future to know because it's His present. He knows all things, otherwise He wouldn't be able to give clear prophecy.
@@tessw9744 yes that's fair. However, Molinism is simple. 1. Human beings have a (limited because of sin) libertarian free will to make any choice that is in accord with their nature. 2. God knows the choices we WOULD make in different circumstances. 3. God uses this knowledge for his glory. One way is in placing people who would by his grace believe in various circumstances in the EXACT place where they would absolutely but freely believe.
I believe that God is 1: Infinitely Omnipotent Infinitely all Powerful 2: Infinitely Omniscient Infinitely all Knowing 3: Infinitely Omnipresent Infinitely everywhere and everwhen at once.
God is *NOT* infinitely Omnipotent. In Jesus' Name. The other two statements aren't nearly as blasphemous, and I know you are coming from a good place, so I am not mad at you or anything like that Proverbs 27:5
@@EricSmyth4Christ Eternal, for ever, from everlasting to everlasting. God exists in eternity past, present and future, God is an eternal being, if you go back in time quadrillions of years, God is there, if you go forward in time quadrillions of years God is there, this is the erternal nature and existence of God, that in my book qualifies God as being "Infinite" Psa 41:13 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen. Psa 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Psa 93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. Psa 103:17 But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; Psa 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD. Isa 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting. Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Hab 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction. Then there are the scriptures that reference God's "eternal" existence, we experience time, but God is timeless, we only mark time because of the way God setup the Sun, Moon, stars and Earth, as the earth oribits the sun and rotates once every 24 hours, we experience night and day, weeks months and years, we are born, we live for awhile and our mortal body dies. but the soul lives forever. In order to exist from everlasting to everlasting, God must be infinite, it matters not how far back or how far forward you go God is there, and that makes Him infinte, as a finite being like us could not be timeless existing eternally in any time direction backwards or forwards or in however many dimensions, God is there.
@@EricSmyth4Christ Yes you right, there are things that God cannot do, 1: God cannot lie Titus 1:2 (KJV) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; 2: God cannot be tempted with evil James 1:13 (KJV) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: There are some others but I would have to look them up. So yes there are things that God cannot do related to His character, this must be taken into account when we consider such verses as Matthew 19:26 (KJV) But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
I have prayed a lot about this. Recently, I have come to accept both. I don't think it is either/or. I think it belongs only to God as he needs or sees fit. Actually...I love this. I find comfort in allowing this belief. Walt
I agree. Arminianism doesn't quite cover the bases, and neither does Calvinism. The point that most struck me was that God knows every possibility, so that when things happen and we begin to question God, he's already considered the other possibilities that we, in our not so great understanding, think are somehow better.
Mike I really respect your teaching and have learned a great deal. You do misrepresent open thiesm however. Do you have a video that gives OT a fuller treatment?
Thank you for your videos. I am newly saved and trying to absorb as much Biblically sound knowledge about God as possible, and your videos have been very educational.
An interesting thought to put out there, God knows the future because He can create or speak the future into existence when He wants. In the case of free will, He asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac without speaking faith into him. Instead, Abraham freely chooses faith and God writes the rest of his story for us. Just a thought.
“Freely chooses,” means nothing. Free of what? God’s influence? Abrahams’ own nature? Who exactly created the Abraham that made the choice to sacrifice Isaac?
@@Creshex8 It actually means a lot. Love your neighbor as yourself..., Thou shall not ..., Who so ever believes in Him... are few example of times we choose freely and God's people are to choose according to the direction of the Holy Spirit, yet we fall short sometimes due to free choices. God was not limited to directing Abraham's path but when He wanted to test his faith, He allowed Him to make his human decision which put his trust in the LORD. Hence, the way out was provided by God. God created Abram just like He created you and I but if we had been put in the same situation as Abraham's we may have questioned God or chosen differently. So Abraham broke the barrier that separates logical thinking and thinking by faith. Job hanged in there and trusted God but King Saul did not. We all choose freely but it does not mean that limits God from choosing our paths when deems. He chose to send us His one and only Son. We have to choose to believe in Him. Thanks for the questions.
Is the Almighty telling us something here we do not really appreciate?I Isaiah 46:8-11 Remember this, that you people may muster up courage. Lay it to heart, you transgressors. Remember the first things of a long time ago, that I am the Divine One and there is no other God, nor anyone like me; the One telling from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done; the One saying, ‘My own counsel will stand, and everything that is my delight I shall do’; the One calling from the sunrising a bird of prey, from a distant land the man to execute my counsel. I have even spoken [it]; I shall also bring it in. I have formed [it], I shall also do it.
Yes. He is telling us that the people can remember the things He said at the beginning. He told them judgement would come if they left Him, now He is about to do it.
When I read the comments below and also in the video itself I’m surprised that everyone seems to think of foreknowing as looking into the future. In my understanding God is already in the future - and in the presence and past. “I am” is always “I am”. God is not restricted by, but exists outside time. That is also the definition of eternity. A constant now. Not infinite time. Comments?
Lasse Peterson Yes amen great point! The fact that God knows the future is not dependent on God meticulously predetermining every last detail of the future. Neither does God need to “look down through the corridors of time” in order to know the future. God knows the future simply because He’s IN the future! ISAIAH 57:15 15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that INHABITETH ETERNITY, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. He’s the Alpha and the Omega AT THE EXACT SAME TIME. He’s not the Alpha and THEN the Omega. He’s not going to one day be the Omega. He’s CURRENTLY as we speak the Alpha and the Omega: REVELATION 22:13 13 I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE END, THE FIRST AND THE LAST. He’s outside of time and space and not contained within it that it should limit Him. He PRESENTLY inhabits the future. He PRESENTLY inhabits eternity. God is ALREADY in the future. He’s ALREADY in tomorrow. He’s OUTSIDE time and space. He’s FAR ABOVE ALL HEAVENS: EPHESIANS 4:10 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up FAR ABOVE ALL HEAVENS, that he might fill all things.)
The Bible says God is the one who is (present) Who Was (past) and Who is to come (future) A clear description of linear time. Now your turn. Show me where the Bible says that God is experiencing past present and future simultaneously
I think this view makes more sense of the whole Bible. I think about for instance the moment Moses dishonored God and now God had to punish Moses. Obviously it’s God’s desire for people to obey him but we have the choice and when we don’t obey Him then God must act as is appropriate in that situation. God’s plans will come to pass even though we as humans disobey along the way. The people he chose at the end of that journey through the desert got to enter the promised land. Was it his will for more people or everyone to have entered? Seems like it but people chose to rebel and God had to act appropriately and now only a few were allowed to enter, excluding Moses himself. This seems to me to reflect God’s heart with his plan of salvation for all. His will is for all to be chosen or “elected” to enter eternity with Him but he must act appropriately when people rebel against him and want nothing to do with him, by not repenting and putting their trust in Jesus.
Seeing it through this example, wouldn’t we consider only the people that entered the promised land as those that were chosen by God? That would be true at that point of time, but this wouldn’t make the point that God had not chosen everyone else. Instead he gave everyone the same opportunity but some people chose to rebel against God instead.
Now apply that logic to Paul on the road to Damascus 😉 Did God ‘act appropriately’ against this rebelling man? Or showed him undeserved mercy and pulled him out of sin and destruction forcefully?
So at 40:00 Mike’s solution to the question of what “Those whom He foreknew” means is “He knew everything.” So the verse would say, “For God knew everything, he predestined everyone he knew everything about to be conformed to the image of His Son…” I could continue down the list in Romans 8:30, but I hope you get the point. One has to be a scriptural contortionist to come to that conclusion.
We need the whole context of Romans 8:29 to make it not redundant on the Calvinist view: "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be firstborn among many brethren." The point is not that whoever God chose, He chose; the point is that if God chose you _for salvation_ , He also chose you _for sanctification_
That's how I see it too. I'm sorta in a debate with someone who is leaning towards Calvinism because of all the verses that talk about predestination including romans 8:29. This was helpful. Thanks
@@ryanfieldflower602 "Pre-destination" in the Bible is pre-or-diz-mo in the Greek which means "To appoint beforehand" It's NOT talking about 16th century Augustinian Pre-destinationism
Since making this video I have discovered a lot more info about open theism than I was aware of before. I plan to do a more comprehensive treatment of it at some point in the not-so-near future. I hope you’ll find that to be thoughtful and on target.
@@MikeWinger Look forward to it. By the way Skylar Fiction spoke highly of you when talking about Christians he had debated. He still wasn't persuaded, but said you were smart and thoughtful (my paraphrase).
@@mige8492 Yes in Isaiah 5 God says He was expecting grapes from his vineyard but got wild grapes instead. In Jer 3:7 God says He thought Israel would turn to him, but they didn’t. In Jer 19:5 God says it didn’t even enter his mind that Israel sacrifice their children This are just a few examples that proof Open Theism
I soooooo enjoy watching and learning from you Mike!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANKS SOOOO MUCH FOR THESE WONDERFULLY POWERFUL EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS. Your broken brother in christ, ROC
Mike, in your understanding, how does God's testing his people to see what is in their hearts fit in with His omniscience? Specifically, why does he say he wants to see what is in their hearts if he already knows? (example: Deuteronomy 8:2) I realize some examples of this wording in other places of the Bible seem to suggest it is more for the people's sake to see what is in their hearts, or rather to bring forth character through the testing, but in some examples, like the Deuteronomy one, it seems like God really is seeking some specific information from how they will respond. Thanks in advance.
it’s for others to see. When God tested Abraham, He already knew Abraham would obey. But still tested him for other to see or for Abraham himself . And until something happen God can’t prove. Say I know what’s gonna happen in the future, and I’m the only one who knows it. The only way I could prove I have foreknowledge is that if what I said actually happen.
mumung7 let’s try a simple reading comprehension question. According to what God said, what did He learn? Gen 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
The question of "human free will" has always been the same..if we are free within boundaries are we truly free? Certainly only God possess libertarian free will. Also Scripture offers us passages where it seems clear that God is the one causing events and people's choices directly and other passages where this idea of man's freedom of choice is given... I really believe that on this side of Eternity as Christians we will never know everything we wished we knew about God's nature and behaviour. Especially when with advances of neuroscience we are learning that biology and brain's functioning have a huge role on how we perceive the world and make decisions..to the point where we can analyze the brain's activity of psychopaths and see on screen that certain areas of the brain connected with empathy and sense of guilt are basically malfunctioning... I'm realising more and more that within the Christian "camp" as brothers and sisters we should be more specific on terminologies..what do we really mean by man has "free will"? We're all born with specific talents, our brains are all wired differently..so definitely our free will is within what God would allow us to choose and what he wants us to choose ultimately.. God has no plan B. Jesus's Death on the Cross wasn't a mere fixing what unfortunately was broken after the fall because of "human free will".. The lamb was slained before the foundation of the world. Also if we're all agree that we can't choose the day we're born and the day we die.. Indeed we ask is God cruel allowing evil and suffering when He could easily override man's will? Many examples in Scripture shows us that indeed God has "forced" His own Will against the will of His creatures..the story of Jonah for example, even the very conversion of Paul..could God just respect Saul's will to go and persecute the Church? Yes He could, but He didn't. So could God bring everyone's desires to nothing and accomplish what He wishes even today? Of course He can! So please let's stop blaming exclusively man's free will for all the suffering in this world, the truth is that God has no set rule where He is forced to respect and not to reject man's free will. The existence of evil and suffering has a reason and purpose for humanity and angels that only the Lord fully knows..
I don't think God has true Libertarian Free Will the way you might think God is actually really complicated, much more complicated than "The Trinity" certainly, but let's assume that "The Trinity" is quasi-true for a second God obviously has in-house debates between himself, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. One time long ago, God (*may or may not have*) told me that God the Father prefers 100 pounds of Justice to 1 pound of Mercy, but Jesus prefers 1 ounce of Mercy to 12,000,000 pounds of Justice
@@Creshex8 How are you defining heresy and how would you defend this position that Open Theism is such? As I understand it, to claim something is heresy is to claim it is wrong on a salvific issue. If so, this is a very serious accusation, and I do not think it applies here. Open Theism affirms that God knows all things which are logically knowable. That includes all endpoints of all possible choices, both on the part of God and man, everything that would happen in the path to each endpoint, everything about those paths, &c.. It affirms that God has complete authority and control over everything in the universe, and that He at least sometimes (I get the impression from the Bible that it's fairly extensive, but that's not necessary for Open Theism) either directly causes something to happen, or restricts the available possibilities such that it happens, which is equivalent. But where it differs from Calvinism/Arminianism/Molonism is that it makes the claim that God allows us some degree (again, how frequent this is is not claimed by Open Theism in the most general sense) of Libertarian Free Will (LFW). We see this most prominently in the repeated calls throughout the Bible for various peoples to repent and turn to God. If the people being told to repent did not have both the ability to choose to respond to God's call, and the ability to choose to reject His call, then God calling them to repent would not make sense: the natural reading of the text indicates a choice, real and true, being offered Israel in specific instances in the OT, and people in general. This is not to make the claim that Molinism (nor Arminianism nor Calvinism) is un-Biblical, simply that there is scriptural basis for a belief in Open Theism, and to claim something is heresy is a very severe accusation which should not be bandied about without accompanying reasoning.
@@StrategicGamesEtc who is the LORD? A Being who knows all or does not? Your attempt to elevate God’s knowledge to knowing outcomes is as absurd as saying I am omniscient because when I tell you to choose A or B, I know the outcome will be that you choose either A or B! Or I can say I am a stock market prophet because I know it will go up or down. WOW! Even men have that type of knowledge. The Bible does NOT testify God is only in control sometimes or occasionally makes changes to help His intent, like he is some kind of guy watches his fish in a fish tank. Read all of the OT and tell me where God is constantly frustrated by surprises from men’s free will. No, you have not paid attention to the message of the OT, with the constant and relentless disobedience of the Hebrew people. The calling to repentance doesn’t prove men must have the LFW to repent, the message of the Bible is they CANNOT REPENT! This is the teaching of Christ, the message of the OT which is belabored unrelentingly, the message of Romans. Men are NOT free, they are ENSLAVED to sin. NO ONE chooses God, NO ONE fears God, not even ONE! That is why ALL of salvation is of God, including God freeing the will of man to repent and believe. 2 Timothy 2:25 opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth... Where is your free will here? How does man have a free will if repentance is something that God has to grant? You have missed the clear message of scripture, twisted God into a finite being to accommodate man having a sovereign will (which he does not have), and are resting your salvation on such a being? Good luck in avoiding a heresy charge. Neutering God has been a pretty universally condemned means that’s generally regarded as heresy.
@@Creshex8 God, amongst other things, knows everything which is logically possible to know. If something is logically impossible to know, such as the last digit of pi, God does not know it. I believe God knows pi to infinite accuracy in every conceivable number base, but not the last digit, because that does not exist (at least in whole number bases >= 2). God knows if a person faces a choice, A or B, that they will choose one or the other, yes, but His knowledge extends far beyond that. If they have that choice, it is because He has allowed them it, not because He must (as Pelagianism would claim) allow them it. God knows every possible future following from either of those choices, taking into account which subsequent choices He will allow to be made in each case. God knows all the consequences of A and B both before the choice is ever made. The Bible does not testify that God is only in control sometimes, and neither does Open Theism. God is always in control, He simply allows some real choices to be made. This is not loss of control, it a control so perfect that no human action could ever dent it. God allows humans to make choices, and some of those choices involve trying to struggle with God. This is, of course, futile on our part. God does not dictate literally everything, but nothing is ever out of His control. God's grace freeing us enough from our sin nature in order to be capable of choosing to repent is consistent with Open Theism. That said, so is us having the ability to repent all along, though in this case it should be clarified that in the Open Theism view God would choose to allow us that option, so I don't think the difference is very major here. All salvation is from God; we cannot save ourselves; we have every one gone astray. This said, whether God allows us at least at times to have the option of repenting, or if His grace changes us to allow us to repent, we still arrive at the situation where we must make a choice to repent and turn to God for forgiveness of sins. God clears the way, and forgives if we ask with a sincere and repentant heart, but it is us who must make that choice which God lays before us. (Open Theism of course deals the same with other choices, but the choice of who to turn to for salvation is the most important any of us will ever make) 2 Tim. 2:25 appears in context to be compatible with God's grace allowing us the ability to repent, which as mentioned above, is itself compatible with Open Theism. God is absolutely not a finite Being, I'm not sure where you're getting this. Open Theism claims that God has greater knowledge than Molinism, Arminianism, or Calvinism do, so if Open Theism denies God's infinitness, then so do the others.
@@StrategicGamesEtc your rant is philosophical gobbledygook, and it’s not supported with scripture. I notice I cite scripture but you don’t. That’s the trend with heresies. There is going to be one future, if God does not know that future, He is not all knowing, and is certainly not greater in omniscience than the Calvinist God, who knows the future with certainty. That definitionally makes no sense. This makes sense to any reasonable person. Now you can go off and write 3 pages explaining how knowing less somehow equates to knowing more, which is what you just did.
Molinism and Open theism both have logical problems for me because it defines God by time and space. But the Bible is clear that God lives in eternity. There is no past ,present or future to God. Even what we define as future is present before Him now. Which is why He has the ability to give us precise prophecy. ....if that makes sense to anyone.
As a Non Calvinist, in my view if God is that of the TULIP doctrine I have absolutely no issue saying that He is an evil God. Because In TULIP there is no free will meaning of God doesn’t save me it is His doing not mine. Therefore if God punishes me it is for something I had no choice in that He caused me to do. I don’t know about anyone else but this god I’ve presented is evil and I personally don’t have a problem with saying that.
"Whom he foreknew..." Rom 8:29 According to the the simple reading of this text, God foreknew individuals themselves. The object of the verb "foreknew" is individuals themselves and nothing is mentioned about future actions. Although God knows all our actions in advance, this is not what the text is saying. There is nothing in the text about God foreknowing individuals future actions, this is a presupposition that is forced on the text to make the text fit a certain theology. What this text is simply saying, is that God knew certain individuals in advance, when? "Before the foundation of the world" as Ephesians 1:4-5
This video presents an extreme view of Open Theism which is held by a minority of Open Theists. Thus, while not a strawman its far from an accurate representation or critique of the view at large.. Check out Dynamic Omniscience to see why most in analytic philosophy of religion affirm it.
If God foreknows all things and everyone, what does the word "knew" mean when Jesus says, "I never knew you." Is that the same word as the intimate knowing of marriage?
Exactly correct, I think. "I never knew you" is know in a different way than just knowing things, details,..etc. I know acquaintances. I know my sons. But its a different knowledge with my sons
In addition to what I said concerning God's foreknowledge in Romans 8:29, whom is the object of the verb 'foreknew'. There is no qualifying addition. Reading into this passage an idea not contained in the language itself, such as they whom He foreknew "would believe,etc.", is clearly an attempt at forcing a qualifying notion.
@@MikeWinger - Have you ever considered engaging in a moderated debate about this subject , or any other thing that you believe and teach ?. The other side[s] can probably throw around as many Scriptures as you can , and it would be interesting to see how you and they would do when you are not speaking on your home court and to your own crowd .
the point i always make about the free will debate is that it places the person asking it in the same plane as God, whereas we are all actually trapped here, on earth, in chronological time. if you really examine the question, you will see that it assumes a certain hubris, an elevation of mankind and our minds to the level of God, and then uses this to try to argue for spiritual weakness.
Mike, I like your ideas on middle knowledge, foreknowledge, and fatalism. However, while this is an in-house debate between dear brothers and sisters in Christ, I do think Calvinism/Arminianism is a gospel issue, because atonement is at the heart of the gospel. The essential content of the gospel is that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. If he didn't die for all people's sins, the good news does not apply to all people. Whether Calvinism or Arminianism is correct, the extent/scope of the atonement of Christ is a gospel issue.
I absolutely agree! My disagreement with Calvinism is over how the gospel is viewed. I strongly believe the tulip is a false gospel; there is no good news in it. I could go on, but that is the bottom line.
Travis Echols AMEN! Gospel means GOOD NEWS. Is being predestined to hell “good news?” Calvinism is NOT the gospel it most certainly is a gospel issue. “IF” Christ really did die for everyone and Calvinism denies that then that is NOT the gospel. Now go back in time 2000 years ago to the mount of crucifixion and stand before a beaten and bruised Jesus nailed to a cross in front of you breathing His last breath and yell up at Him, “this is not for everyone!” “IF” it was in fact for everyone then how do you think those words would be received as Christ was dying on the cross for everyone? Would your words be music to His ears or would the grief of those words break His heart? REVELATION 22:17 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
@@apilkey so Calvinists are heretics? Cause if we want to talk about gospel issues, the church fathers would say contemporary evangelicals are all heterodox (maybe even heretics) for denying baptismal regeneration
@@apilkey this is how I see it: Calvinism is wrong and error, but it is not heresy. Roman Catholics are in error, but not heretics. However, RC is a bigger "gospel issue" than Calvinism by a long shot.
Ify Nsoha Some reformers are honestly just deceived and don’t know any better and have just been brainwashed into believing it. While yet others know full well what they are doing and have hardened there hearts to the truth of God’s Word and don’t have eyes to see or ears to hear anymore. They refuse to humble themselves and learn of the Father. These people are leading others astray and need to be treated differently then those genuinely seeking truth and who are willing to learn and forsake their ways when proven wrong by scripture. It’s a different Christ a difference God and a different Gospel. I’ll let you decide for yourself if that’s a heresy.
I'd like to ask a question on the topic of Calvinists wanting "Foreknowledge" to mean "Fore-loved" and referencing the Old Testament word "Know" as in Adam knew Eve (wink, wink). Wouldn't an easy refutation of this idea be that in the OT the word "know" is translated from the word "yada," and therefore definitions/connotations of that word (know, loved) aren't going to be the same for the Greek word "proginosko"? So, unless "ginnosko" is used at some point to mean "love" in the NT, then trying to connect it to the OT word becomes a non-sequitur. Let me know your thoughts on this issue. Thanks! Adding to my comment: In the Blue Letter Bible app "ginosko" is pulling up as "Jewish idiom for intercourse between a man and a woman." It doesn't mention "Love." So, I'm thinking there IS a bit of a connection, but if it's just about intercourse, then wouldn't "Adam knew Eve" not even mean "Adam loved Eve"? It would just mean "Adam and Eve 'got to know each other a little better wink-wink'"? Funny enough, the Hebrew for this is "Yada-Yada". Seinfeld anyone?
In our attempts to be the god of our own lives we establish doctrines that suggest we are more intelligent or more spiritual than someone with an opposing view. The bottom line is that both Calvinism and Armenianism have quite a bit wrong with a few things right. Arguing Theology has its foundations in religious pride.
With all due respect, I really do enjoy your videos but think you did a disservice to actual Open Theists. I understand that you were addressing all of them at a service level, but not once is the idea of “possibilities being a reality” or the Old Testament passages referring to God changing his mind ever raised. Something even more possible that one has to consider is that the writers of the scriptures had differing beliefs on God’s foreknowledge throughout the ages (possibly through influences in the cultures surrounding them). I’m not an open theist myself, but to leave the door open that those scriptures needs dealt with and that the writers could have disagreed with each other at least has to be evaluated - presuppositions on inerrancy aside (if we’ll allow that).
I was thinking the same thing! I know it probably wasn't Mike's heart to misrepresent Open Theism but even his description of it in the beginning is a bit of a misrepresentation.
"the writers of the scriptures had differing beliefs on God’s foreknowledge;" how is this possible if the Scriptures are God-breathed? I would think that if their beliefs differ, someone is wrong, in which case that writing should be thrown out as unscriptural.
How is God changing his plan/mind have anything to do with his knowledge or lack of? I think that idea makes many assumptions about God’s intentions in that moment that can not be known. Is there a good video that you would recommend on that subject.?
I think Mike did a stellar presentation. It wasn’t exhaustive but it hit the major points. I have read Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders, Olson, Pratney and evening sadly some Jesse Morrell articles. All of which promote Open Theism. If Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge is undermined many other doctrines will necessarily follow suit.
God's word has been eternally settled in Heaven and since He wrote His people's name in the Lamb's book of life before Creation,He loved them all by name and they will not worship the beast.God also knew the goats by name ,but He did not love them,as in ,HE NEVER KNEW THEM. NOR DID HE write their names in the Lamb's book of life before creation and THIS IS WHY they are guaranteed to worship the beast.God calls all things by a name and in time, everything becomes what He named it.He wrote all history before time and we are the characters in His story. Every thought, word ,deed and day of every human and angel was written before we ever lived the first moment. NOW, God is directing everything and individual to do as He has written, the destiny of all things and people was decided by God Himself, not by any other entity or by any other circumstances, He wrote everything to Glorify and please Himself alone.
Sir: If GOD knows everything, (because HE wrote everything down and orchestrated everything before hand), then why would HE write someone's name in the Lamb's Book of Life...and then later blot it out because that person messed up and did not overcome? (Ps. 69:28; Rev 3:5) It doesn't make any sense to waste time writing a name in the book KNOWING that you will blot it out later. Might as well never write it down in the first place, right? Also, if GOD writes history before it happens, then does that means he wrote out the act of some creep kidnapping a little 8 year old girl and tormenting her beyond imagination; molesting her little body; and finally killing her? You can't say GOD wrote EVERYTHING that happens down....and then say HE didn't write the BAD things down! EVERYTHING includes good and bad! Thanks! JC
“God cannot learn.” Doesn’t that fly in the face of middle knowledge, which says God knows what anyone would do in any given circumstance? Doesn’t that mean I as a person told God what I would do before He created anything, and God learned what I would do in that circumstance and adjusted accordingly? That’s a blatant contradiction to the statement, “God cannot learn.” Learning means an outside source gives information to another source. That’s exactly what Molinism results in: libertarian free creatures giving information about what they would do in any given circumstance to God, who then has to take that new information into consideration after the fact. Your God is only omniscient after He’s decided to create a specific world. My God has always been omniscient since He alone planned everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen without anyone giving input.
Josh Peterson, this is a fabulous point that you have made! Either God knows everything perfectly including everyone's "free (wink, wink)" final choice or He has to learn something He did not know. There is no middle anything on this. Would love for anyone to try and explain away this TRUTH...
Great points. I think Mike did a stellar presentation. It wasn’t exhaustive but it hit the major points. I have read Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders, Olson, Pratney and evening sadly some Jesse Morrell articles. All of which promote Open Theism. If Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge is undermined many other doctrines will necessarily follow suit.
No that's false lol. God isn't learning anything in Molinism. The mistake you're making is thinking that middle knowledge is a chronological step (occurs after natural knowledge). This is false. Middle knowledge is a logical step. No Molinist claims that God is learning anything. God is omniscient, meaning he innately knows counterfactuals. And there are many that are in scripture itself. Here's the wikipedia section on the biblical data: texts: 1 Samuel 23:8-14, Proverbs 4:11, and Matthew 11:23. Other passages which Molinists use are Ezekiel 3:6-7, Jeremiah 38:17-18, 1 Corinthians 2:8, Deuteronomy 28:51-57, Matthew 23:27-32, Matthew 12:7, Matthew 24:43, Luke 16:30-31, and Luke 22:67-68.[original research?] William Lane Craig has argued at length that many of Christ's statements seem to indicate middle knowledge. Craig cites the following passages: Matthew 17:27, John 21:6, John 15:22-24, John 18:36, Luke 4:24-44 and Matthew 26:24
I still think the Calvinist view of "those whom he foreknew" in Romans 8:29 is the correct one, i.e. "foreknew" means "loved beforehand" or "chose beforehand". Mike Winger seems to think it means "knew everything about a person beforehand" (33:25 onwards) and disagrees with the Calvinist interpretation. Here's the issue with that as I see it. If God is omniscient, then he knows everything about everyone by definition. But Paul's language "those whom he foreknew" seems strongly to imply that this is in contrast to some other group that we might call "those whom he did not foreknow". "Those whom he foreknew" is in some sense a restricted group. Not everyone is foreknown in the sense Paul is using the word here. (Just as an omniscient Jesus will one day say to people "I never knew you" (Matthew 7:23). If "foreknew" is referring merely to God's knowledge of every fact about a person, then God foreknows everyone in that sense. But then Paul would essentially be saying "he predestines EVERYONE to be conformed to the image of his Son." As I see it, since "those whom he foreknew" is not everyone, but actually only those who will end up glorified (v. 31) then the Calvinist view makes most sense, particularly since "know" is used throughout Scripture with the meaning of "have a personal, intimate relationship with" (although it does not ALWAYS have that connotation as Mike Winger demonstrated, it often does have that meaning). So the Calvinist interpretation is at least biblically plausible. The Arminian view that "foreknew" means "knew who would believe" is simply not what Paul wrote. He wrote of PEOPLE who were foreknown, not foreknown things about people. If Arminianism was true, Paul should have said, "For those whom he foreknew [would believe] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" but he didn't. Likewise for Mike Winger's view to be correct, Paul should have said "For those whom he foreknew [everything about]" or "those whom he completely foreknew" but he didn't because that would make the phrase be about everyone, and Romans 8:30-31 is clear that the foreknown, the predestined, the called, the justified and the glorified are all the same group of people, i.e. those God chose for salvation and not everyone.
Bro, at the beginning of this vid I didn’t hear the little chipmunk singing BIBLE THINKER... What’d you do with him? Aaaalviiin!! 🤪 Good teaching bro...
Foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination. In the Bible God foreknows things that never happen and can never happen. If I were psychic and I knew your future but I don’t tell you then how is that messing with free will? The decisions are yours. God only knows what they are. He doesn’t make you make them. This isn’t hard to understand. I don’t get why people struggle with this. Yes God knows but He will not, is not and has not made you do anything ever it interfere with your ability to choose. The only things God interferes with is things that could alter it decisions from the outside of it own minds. The world around us is what He will manipulate in order to guide us, but we still choose to take His advice and warnings or we don’t. This is why all of humanity has the ability to choose God but not all do. He hasn’t predestined anyone to hell. We make our choices ourselves. He’s currently competing with the rulers of the current age and their minions for our attention and that’s a problem.
God foreknew persons, _those_ whom he foreknew, not facts about those persons such as inherent faith. Romans 8:29 says that the particular people that God foreknew in saving relationship, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. It entails both our justification and sanctification being of God.
Mike points out a common argument against Calvinism that comes from believers calling a calvinist God evil and points out how we wouldn’t want to say that in front of God. I would. I wouldn’t want to follow a Calvinist God. And maybe that’s silly of me to say but it’s the same idea for me as if God killed babies for no good reason how I wouldn’t want to follow that version of Him either. I love calvinists and I think many are true believers, but I can’t get behind the doctrine of predestination as a moral doctrine…
I agree! Always be honest with God. If you don't like something, tell him! One of the things I was told I would be able to do in Heaven is actually pray for people in hell. In the afterlife, there are certain currencies that can be redeemed to help people in other worlds. Imagine doing a stand up comedy tour in Heaven, and getting paid in a currency that could be redeemed to buy water for someone like Hitler in hell (it is more expensive to buy Hitler water than other people though). God is so much better than we think, and its a shame Calvinism is getting popular, which focuses too much on God's power, and not enough on his other awesome attributes.
@@rubypeterson665 It was information I farmed through lots of hours of prayer But, just a few verses to support it Matthew 19:26 states that with God, ALL things are possible Matthew 21:22 says All things are possible with prayer Luke 6:27 says to love your enemies (even those you hate), and bless them deeply Colossians 3:2 "Set your mind on things above" Ecc 3:1 there is a season for all activities Psalm 30:5 God is infinitely Good, but not infinitely anti-evil 1 Corinthians 1:25 The smallest versions of God are bigger than the biggest imaginations of man
MIKE WINGER ADMITTED IT, FOLKS! At 30:08, Mike said: "So, God's foreknowledge...is DEPENDENT ON THE CHOICE I MAKE". This is how the "Molinist" responds to the question, 'how does God know stuff?'. The Molinist response is that God's Omni-prescience (His all beforehand knowledge) is DEPENDENT upon the CREATURE for His knowledge! What an amazing admission! Turretin was saying the exact same thing in response to the Jesuit invention of "middle knowledge" all the way back in the 17th century. Turretin (Reformed Scholastic Theologian/Genius) knew full well that the "middle knowledge" perspective entailed making God's knowledge of all future things DEPENDENT upon the creation itself for His knowledge of it. And Mike Winger just admitted it! Thanks, Mike! Yep, this is why Reformed Christians maintain that God's Omni-prescience comes from His own Divine Decisional Decree! This maintains the Aseity of God (what God is in-and-of-Himself...namely, all beforehand knowing stuff), AND makes God in NO WISE DEPENDENT UPON HIS OWN CREATION; rather, it makes all creatures completely and utterly dependent upon HIM ALONE FOR THEIR KNOWLEDGE! *Soli Deo Gloria*
@@kpeezy776 Dr. William Lane Craig has stated the same thing: "God's knowledge is DEPENDENT on the events that occur in time". I have a video with a clip from both men saying this exact same thing. I point this out because Francis Turretin (Reformed, Scholastic Theologian; 1623-1687) said the same thing about the Jesuit-invention of "middle knowledge" (aka. "Molinism"). Turretin said that this view makes God's knowledge dependent on the creation, rather than vice versa. It's exactly why it should be rejected by all Bible-believing Christians. More questions? Let me know. *Soli Deo Gloria*
Wait wait wait, you said, “God doesn’t want things to happen, but because of free will, He allows them to happen.” How does that fit with Psalm 135:6 where it says God dies whatever the heck He wants in heaven and earth?
Arminians say romans 8:29 is a foreknowledge of faith because that's exactly what the verse is talking about. We don't deny God has intimate knowledge of other facts as there are Arminians who are also Molinists such as Dr William Lane Craig.
We can only reject God, we can't accept him because it can't be with our own strength or means and it would be by works. We can only surrender to Him and let him do the work in us.
Hello will Ortiz, how can "surrender" not be considered some very difficult thing we do? If "surrendering" is "nothing" why do you give "praise" to those who surrender?
I guess it depends on your definition of condemn but actually He did. He tells them "they did not speak right of Me." And also they had to go ask Job to pray for them so God would forgive them. Another little allusion to the need for a Mediator.
I think there's a problem with that sort of view with God's middle knowledge and sovereignty. If God knows the what-ifs (which I agree) then he knows the choices we'd make in every given circumstance, but he also determines the circumstances in which we make these choices.
So my only question, as someone who comes from the more reformed theology is does God know what choice we are going to make? Because I feel like if the answer is no then wouldn't that imply that God isn't all-knowing?
I have the same question but then I started to consider the following: Why does God have to be “all knowing” for Him to achieve His plans? He is infinitely smart. He doesn’t need to see the future to win. I am not saying open theism is true, but it is intriguing.
This isn’t up for debate. Whenever God is the subject of the verb “to foreknow” in the New Testament, it refers to a loving relationship that God had with someone before he existed. Peter said God loved Jesus beforehand. God didn’t know what Jesus would do. He loved Jesus. Paul says God foreknowing the remnant of Israel in Romans 11. That foreknowledge RESULTED in them being the remnant, not the other way around. Then, we come to Romans 8:29, where God is the subject and the called are the object. You missed the point again. Foreknowing always means fore-loved *whenever God is the subject.*
It's called Middle Knowledge, because it's not knowledge, but it's not NOT knowledge. For example, there's a lot that He knows we won't do because we can't. We have a very limited envelope as creatures. or, He knows if a truck is headed at my house (a not impossible premise, given I live directly off a freeway exit) which I do not know about, but will have to do something about. I don't even know the decision is inevitable, let alone what I am going to do when I decide. (I would probably check to see if anybody was hurt.) My own preferred definition of Middle Knowledge is, He knows all the options for everybody, and knows what He will do in every permutation of those options, and can also see beyond this to the next decision, and every permutation of every permutation of that decision. Ad infinitum. I might call it Schrödinger's Knowledge, if someone were to ask me what to call it, which admittedly nobody has. It is knowledge all the interactions of all the superpositions of all the particles, and all the possible choices to be made by anything with free will . But I am impulsive, so in any given circumstances, I am only ever about 95% sure what I will do, so I don't know, if the decision came down to me, I would behave as rationally as I currently percieve myself to behave. It could also be that I put off the decision until the last minute, maintaining Middle Knowledge about myself. It's a stressful way to be, not even having perfect knowledge about yourself. But the outcome as regards the Glory of God (i.e., is God more or less glorified by this view over the other? Which seems to be an important consideration?) seems to me to be in favor of Middle Knowledge over Foreknowledge. If God knows Foreknowledge, He knows the future. If God knows Middle Knowledge, He knows the practically infinite variations of the future, which is way more knowledge. (It does have to require a redefinition of knowledge, but "omniscient" definitely requires a new definition of seeing. What does it look like to be omniscient? What kind of "attention" can be pointed in all directions at once? I know what it's like to attempt and fail to do this, since it's what ADHD seems to be trying to do.) But there is one knowledge that God does have perfectly, and that would have to be His knowledge of what He would do in each of these situations. He knows that, e.g. every time He is called to forgive, He will. And we know this through the life of Jesus, and His perfect self-control: even if God was one of us, He would be perfect and we would murder Him for it and He would still win. God set the whole universe up, with laws and everything, that even if the free people He made disobeyed Him and ruined it foreverybody, (*rightclick*, "add to dictionary". Oxford who?) He Himself would be born as one of them at the best time, and He would do it all just by talking to people, and telling His obedient Universe to do a few crazy things, and He would fix it. He planned the entire thing, and every other entire thing that never happened because somebody was disobedient. But several people were obedient, and here we are.
I really appreciate the content, but it’s a real strawmanning of open theism. God still has knowledge of all truths and still knows specific aspects of the future, but certain aspects/events are not “exhaustively settled.” It all depends on how time and creation are structured
I think you're way too quick to say this isn't a Gospel issue. To a Calvinist, choosing God of one's free will equals working for one's salvation. To a free willer, worshipping a God who predestines the majority of the human race to damnation means worshipping a false God (at least as falase as the God worshipped by JWs, I think). If this isn't a Gospel issue I feel compelled to accept the LDS, JWs, RCs and others as Christians.
Jeremiah 1:5 [5]Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
My brother Mike, I have just watched a video of you encouraging CHRISTIANS to participate in Christmas and I was very very disturbed in my spirit. THE BIBLE IS very clear that we cannot be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, The bible says the truth shall set us free, We have the resources to know the true date if Christ BIRTH, If we want to acknowledge his birth we can't do it Ignorantly as uniformed people. My beloved brother, The things of God is not Man wisdom it is Spiritual.. How can a Christian partake in WORLDLY things and be comfortable? Did you prayer and seek the lord to confirm this ?
If God is eternal (outside of time) and has exhaustive foreknowledge, whether Arminian, Molinist, or Calvinist, then logically God has always had knowledge of every form of atrocity and perversion that has and will ever be performed and these evil thoughts must hsve had their source in God. Does this claim that God is eternal not compromise the claim that God is perfectly holy in His nature? Open theism does not have this issue to answer.
Man, you really, really butchered the Calvinist interpretation of "foreknow." In Hebrew/Jewish understanding, when the subject knows an object, and that object is a person, then the word is usually being used to convey covenantal, special love. "Adam knew Eve, and she conceived a son." That's why God can tell Moses, "I know your name." I thought God factually knew everybody's name? That's not what "know" means when the subject and object are people. When the subject and object are people, the word "know" means covenantally love. The same is true when God tells Israel, "You alone have I known among the nations of the earth." He's not speaking intellectually. He's speaking emotionally, and that's the same background that Paul would have. Therefore, when Paul says God "foreknows" people, he's saying that God loved them with a special love before they even came into existence. Just as He said to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." God foreknow Jeremiah, and He foreknows His elect. That's why He predestined them to be saved, because He loves them.
Oh, you did address that point, and why do you ignore this? Because you have to. In the NT, whenever "foreknow" is used WITH GOD AS THE SUBJECT, it's clearly being used relationally. 1 Peter 1 says God "foreknew" Jesus. Is that factual, or relational? Romans 11 says God foreknew His remnant of 7,000 in Israel. Is that factual, or relational? It must be relational, lest you want to assert that the 7,000 preserved themselves with their free will, not God. That leaves Romans 8... it's relational, active, love.
@@bobbyadkins6983 What worshipping a God bigger than Himself feels like while eating a cheeseburger on a planet in a far away multiverse on a floating lake surrounded by square circles One of many things He doesn’t know what it’s like being a redeemed sinner Jeremiah 31:34 says he forgets our sins and remembers them no more. You can argue he doesn’t know them anymore Use your God-given brain 🧠
AI had no problem with the quote at all Here is what he said The statement "There is an infinite amount of things God knows; There is an infinite amount of things God doesn't know" delves into the concept of divine omniscience, which is the belief that God possesses infinite knowledge and awareness. 1. **Infinite Knowledge of God**: This part of the statement affirms the traditional theological understanding that God is omniscient, meaning He knows all things. This includes knowledge of past, present, and future events, as well as the thoughts, intentions, and actions of every individual. Psalm 147:5 (NIV) declares, "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit." 2. **Limitation of Human Understanding**: The second part of the statement introduces an intriguing notion by suggesting that there are also infinite things that God doesn't know. This can be interpreted in a few ways: a. **Mystery and Transcendence**: It acknowledges that there are aspects of God's nature and workings that transcend human comprehension. Deuteronomy 29:29 (NIV) states, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." b. **Free Will and Contingency**: It recognizes that God has granted humans free will, allowing for genuine choices and outcomes that are not predetermined or known in advance by God. This aligns with the concept of God interacting with His creation in dynamic and relational ways, rather than in a predetermined, mechanistic fashion. c. **Limitation of Language**: It acknowledges the limitation of human language and finite understanding in attempting to articulate the nature of an infinite and transcendent God. Isaiah 55:9 (NIV) states, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Overall, the statement invites reflection on the vastness of God's knowledge, while also recognizing the limitations of human understanding in comprehending the mysteries of the divine. It underscores the awe-inspiring nature of God's omniscience and the humility required in approaching the depths of His wisdom and knowledge
@Kristine Any depth of research that doesn’t just skim the glittery treasure trove of UA-cam hand me downs will come to the same conclusion as Winger. 👍🏽
I like John Piper's teachings but I will ever be a Calvinist. The best way to look at this is that God is the ultimate mathematician, computer science, chess MASTER. He's omniscient which means He knows every "if then else" choice algorithm because there's nothing He cannot know. It's a fool's errand therefore, to figure out how you can have a free will to choose even though He already knows what you will choose. Just TRUST HIM and you'll be blessed.
Unless He already knows you are going to Hell. In which case doesn’t matter if you trust him or not. Because what He knows will definitely happen right ?
@@lauromartinez8948Once again, omniscience and omnipotence are not the same. What this really comes down to is God's character. Can He be trusted to act in love and give a person every opportunity to repent even though He knows they won't? The answer is a definitive yes, He can be trusted. THAT is the issue. It's why satan and his minions attack God's character more than anything else.
@@GTX1123 I never said Omniscience and Omnipotence were the same thing. I know they are not. But that doesn’t answer my question. If God already knows you are going to hell, can you trust in God until the end ?
@@lauromartinez8948 Why are you trying to blame God for your own decision? It is your own decision. Yeah sure God knows how you will choose but it is still YOU who are choosing hell, NOT Him.
@@GTX1123 I’m not trying to blame God for anything. I’m just asking a simple yes or no question. If God already knows I will go to hell, Can I be saved ?
Very unfair and inaccurate definition of Open theism at 00:40 a lot of the misunderstanding about open theism is because most folks who have a very weak interpretation of it are very vocal about it.
I can see that “middle knowledge” has turned the future into a mixed bag with God ordaining some events but not others. I know that this will please some who wish to cling to their idea of “free will,” but is there any point to it? Does “free will” or an autonomous will (independent of God) serve any purpose? R K McGregor Wright who wrote “No Place for Sovereignty,” has argued that Biblical responsibility does not require an autonomous will. Biblical responsibility is based upon a will that is tethered to God’s standards. It is the good tree that brings forth good fruit not a tree that acts randomly.
Let's do "Systematic Theology" and figure out the attributes of man. It is clear that man is omniscient, immutable, omnipotent, and pure actuality. Look at this: 2Sa ...But my lord has wisdom like the wisdom of the angel of God to know all things that are on the earth.” King David, a man, knows all things on Earth. Luk 1:3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, Here Luke says he has had "perfect understanding of all things from the very first" affirming his omniscience of all things from all eternity. Eze 28:3 (Behold, you are wiser than Daniel! There is no secret that can be hidden from you! Here God says to the Prince of Tyre that the prince knows all secrets of the heart. Ecc 1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and indeed, all is vanity and grasping for the wind. Here the author says he has seen everything. It is obvious, most Christians just don't know that the Bible clearly teaches the omniscience of man. This is an omniscience that is eternal, and part of man's immutable character. We see immutability of man testified in the Bible: Psa 55:19 God will give ear and humble them, he who is enthroned from of old, Selah because they do not change and do not fear God. Notice the unchanging part. Man cannot change in any detail, but is always the same. This act is identical to man's omnipotence: Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Man cannot be opposed and can do anything they wish. In fact, because man is pure actuality, all these attributes are identical to man's essence. We see the famous "I am who I am" in Paul: 1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am... See! Systematic theology. You can't argue with those clear prooftexts. I can't wait for Mike's next sermon about the omniscience of man.
well played sir. You had me going there for a minute. Thank you for illustrating the fallacy of taking the Bible out of context and saying, "the inerrant word of God says..."
Here's what i think; Because God exists outside of space and time I think God knows every possible choices you're going to make and already knows where it eventually ends up. But you have the free will to choose. If you have a million choices and you can pick any one, God still knows where all of those choices will lead cos whatever way you take, God knows your end already. God is never surprised because he already knows what you'll pick but still it's your choice which one ypu finally go with. And thus even before the foundation of the world, God already knows who's going to be saved because he's seen all. But it's not predestination. It's pre-knowledge. We'll never fully understand God's omniscience on this side of our existence.
Yes, I've heard it put very well.... foreknowledge is not the same as causation. HIS knowing what we are going to do, does not mean HE caused us to do so.
I always thought armeniesm, and calvibism were both true. But then i learned that armenisim goes so far to say that God is not all powerful. So some basic ideas are true. But I guess Calvinism is correct, while armenism just isn't.
Hello MegaMech , when we use words like Calvinism and Armenian, and then lump certain Bible doctrines under one or the other we deny ourselves the ability to think outside those theologies. Our choices are not between two men or two ideologies but is still open as we study scripture.
Hey brother. Love you a lot. I'd recommend not getting theological truth from jobs friends. They were condemned by god bc of how wrong they were and god wanted to kill them.
Actually they were right about a lot of things about God, they were just wrong about condemning Job and assuming God's attitude toward Job, and that's the issue God had with them.
@@bramrawlings3051 Thanks Bram . We don't find that articulated in the clearest evangelistic/justification passages (John 3:16,5:24,6:28-47,11:24-27,20:31 ; Acts 16:31 ; Romans 3:21-4:16 etc.) , nor did the Disciples believe that until after Jesus rose . They were regenerate in John 2:11 . Jesus never made His work the object of saving faith , but rather His certain Guarantee of unending life to all who believe in Him for it - as Paul so clearly articulated (1 Timothy 1:16) . To believe in Him is to believe that this doubtless guarantee is true , apart from any works whatsoever (Ephesians 2:8-9) .
When it comes to the elect being predestined , God in Eph 1 . 4 just as he 'Chose' us past tense in him before the foundation of the world. The predestining of the Elect here are before the world began. Sounds like a consistent use of a relational foreknowledge that God had already began with us . We the Elect we're already Chosen are just being United with Christ now in this life. How glorious of an atonement that is sure and will not fail to accomplish the plans of the Lord.
We are not the elect. Read Ephesians 1 and pay attention to “we” versus “you.” “We” is referring to the apostles. He doesn’t use “you” until verse 13. Read 2 Corinthians 1 for another example of this.
@Joseph L this is not correct because in verse 12 .. so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. Ephesians 1:12 ESV This is not just the apostles because jesus says in the Gospels, Abraham saw my day and was glad. Paul asserts in Romans that the old covenant members were saved in christ in the same way 'by faith' that the new covenant members are. So the apostles weren't the first to hope in christ , you are very wrong about this sorry. You have also broken the golden chain of redemption in Rom 8, God will bring his people through all of these stages until they are glorified. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Romans 8:29-30 ESV The use of the word WE here includes the church, the regenerated are the church . When Paul speaks of his apostleship, he is very obvious as in 2 Cor 11. In this sense the WE are all those who are in Christ.
What if God knew what the other army was planning and every detail and God knew that so He gave Israel the best way to defeat them. That’s why when they went to war without God and his proper timing they would lose. That’s why proverbs says to trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. But in all your ways acknowledge him and He will direct your paths.
My issue with Arminianism is that free will with foreknowledge is the philosophical equivalent of a square circle. Two mutually exclusive concepts. How can God know you will turn right in 5 minutes if you havent even thought about that movement. That movement doesn't yet exist and so God cannot know it. If He knows it then you have already thought to do it or you have no will to choose. Because when the time to make that turn comes, you literally CANNOT choose to go left instead or else God did not know your decision. And so, you never had a choice because in a world where God knows the future certainly, the future already as good as done. I'm an Open Theist by the way. I also want to follow the Lord not due to fate but due to my own choice. The way i think is Calvinism is straight up heresy, and Arminianism tries to defend destiny and free will at the same time which cannot exist side by side. Regardless, I do not doubt God's prophecies because I know he has power to fulfil them.
The Bible exclusively teaches Sovereignty of God. We have entire chapters, like in Proverbs and Romans 9, for instance, that teaches the lack of a free, libertarian, will of man. Where do you believe free will is taught and explained in the Bible exactly?
@@Creshex8 every time a person is told to do something he is treated as a free agent who is capable of obeying the command. What else is wisdom if not the ability to decide what is best in a situation?
@@dahelmang “free agent” is the terminology Mormons use. I will ask again about what biblical verses or chapters talk about man’s inherent nature being free from God’s sovereign will. Throwing out nothing but your personal feelings or outside philosophy on this topic is just illustrating my point. Look at Romans 1. Man’s will and desires are clearly taught to be enslaved to evil. That is the opposite of free. You are also wrong in saying a command implies the ability to obey. Christ commanded us to be perfect. Can you do that? Pharaoh was commanded to let the Hebrews go. God hardened his heart to prevent that. So you are biblically wrong on that point.
@@dahelmang so are you going to give me the biblical teachings on man’s freedom or not? You have already made my point that your views aren’t biblical.
Is. 41 challenges idols to predict the future and to DO it, whether good or evil. It does not say that God achieves this by knowing all the future. He could achieve this by exercising His omnipotence to direct enough precursor events to cause the prophecy to come true. This would comport with open theism. Your assumption that God must have exhaustive foreknowledge to achieve this feat is false, especially as these idols are idols wood and stone and can neither hear, speak or move.
Open Theism (God can learn, he does not know everything, he doesn't actually know all the details of the future) Hebrews 13:8 - God Does Not Change (If someone can learn, they can change) Or just choose Hard Determinism
Inability to distinguish between “their” - as in “Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called *their* name Adam, in the day when they were created” and “there”, as in “Therefore, *there* is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”, is a red flag. Christians, whose Word-centred religion emphasises the importance of words very highly, have a strong motive to respect and value words. Perhaps especially when others do not.
Maybe "what if" doesn't exists to God, it exists with humans because we have limited knowledge and lack knowledge of the future. With omniscience and perfect foreknowledge there is no "what if". What if a square was a circle? You cannot have knowledge of a square circle because that does not exist. I'm probably wrong just some thoughts.
Does God voluntarily and graciously choose to not know something, resulting in a body of knowledge that is less than the universal set of everything that could be known? "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." When Isaac had seconds to live on Mount Moriah and Abraham heard, "...FOR NOW I KNOW that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" does your systematic require the capitalized words to mean, "I always knew..."? If so, I understand to motive for such interpretation by Bible correction. But I cannot identify.
""And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."" just use common sense here. can you choose to not remember something? no, that's not possible. then it's obvious that god means he will never use it against you going forward. "FOR NOW I KNOW that thou fearest God" the word "know" is sometimes used to establish a relationship. for example, genesis 4:1 says "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived". in that context, it's talking about sexual relationship. john 14:7 says "If you really know me, you will know my Father as well". in that context, it's talking about a general human relationship established through spending time and conversing with each other. the context of genesis 22:12 is God providing justification for choosing abraham to be the "father of many nations".
@@joegame4576 The logic of "can you choose not to remember?, impossible, therefore God must not either" is faulty in the extreme. There has to be a better way to gauge God's ability to do just as He says than compare to me. Besides, when you reach my age, you'll be amazed how easy it is to forget. It is agreed that the english verb, "to know," is overloaded and can communicate relationship or familiarity. Yet in each example you provide, the direct object is a person (mortal or divine.) Genesis 22:12 follows "Now I know that" with an observation of fact, however, which suggests and apples/oranges comparison concerning the examples provided. As for Abraham's justified standing with God - he was in a right relationship since 15:6 (at least) and probably since chapter 13 (in which he constructs and altar.) As for Abraham's seed being multiplied, that's a reminder (from a second message from the Angel) from 10 chapters prior. Yet Genesis 22:12 says, "Now..." If you wish to offer course correction that addresses that word in context then I'm all ears. Also for your consideration: The use of the infinitive "to know" in Deut 8:2, "...the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart..." conveys the idea an infinitely intelligent Creator, who knows every possibility that may happen, who knows how to push the right buttons to bring to pass His will as expressed in prophecy of specific events in spite and in response to free choices of His created beings, but is open to how the future actually unfolds. I consider that representation of deity far more capable and intelligent than the one whom, so we are told at times, needs to predetermine every minute detail or else there's no certainty of His prophetic will coming to pass. Thanks for the response, the first one I noticed on this topic...
@@williammarinelli2363 "The logic of ... is faulty in the extreme. There has to be a better way to gauge God's ability to do just as He says" god uses human language to convey messages. lot of times he uses them as metaphor or hyperbole just like humans do. when people say "hey, let's just forget it", they don't mean literally forget it (they can't), they just mean stop talking about it. also, i'm not sure if you're one of those people who take the meaning of "nothing is impossible with God" to the extreme and say that God can do things that are logically impossible. for example, god cannot draw a round square. one classic example is "can god create a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?" forgetting things when you get old is due to physical deterioration of your body. did you choose to forget those things you forgot? this has nothing to do with the logical impossibility of forgetting something by will. "he was in a right relationship since 15:6" we are not in a position to tell god whether abraham was justified at that point or not. god decides the requirements for justification and god tested abraham according to his requirements. this is encroaching god's sovereignty and while we can discuss about them, we're not in liberty to question them. having said that, it all has to do with justification. read James 2:14-26 and tell me what you think and how it relates to what we're talking about. i interpret deut 8:2 the same way. it means that god tested them to justify god's actions for them afterwards (either to bless them or punish them). while it would be logically fair for god to create billions of humans all at once and immediately send them to either heaven or hell according to what they would have done, humans would have a very hard time understanding what has happened to them. like i said before, it all comes down to justification. god is god of love and god of justice. now on predetermination, the only issue i have with it is that it can imply that god is held responsible for evil depending on how you define that word. my own understanding is that god created the world with full knowledge of what will happen in the future but the evil done by free creatures, whether angels or humans, are their responsibility and not god's. you can use whatever word you want to use, if your word fits this description, then i agree with you. i personally like to use the word foreknowledge.
@@joegame4576 My response to inquiry on where I stand on James 2: It speaks of justification in the sight of man. Example verses from context: 2:18 - SHEW ME thy faith without thy works, and I will SHEW THEE my faith by my works. 2:22 - SEEST THOU how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 2:24 - YE SEE then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. In this passage we are told that the offering of Isaac *fulfilled* Gen 15:6, which communicates to any who reads with open eyes that Abraham was in a right relationship with the Lord. This is set in contrast to the justification in the sight of God put forth in Romans 4, in which declares Abraham had righteousness imputed to him in Gen 15:6. If I understand your writing, Abraham was lost, or may have been lost, prior to trial of Genesis 22. If so, we are very much in dispute, but I have zero interest in a tis-so/tis-not.
The Almighty has a purpose for this earth in spite of our free will. Mike. do you know how Whos will is going to be done on earth as it is in heaven? Do you know how those with free will are going to be judged righteously?
I don't know... What is the point of any of this? Do we have free will or not? If God knows all, what we are going to do and what we think (and why) and guides the future to fruition then it seems we do not have any will at all. I'm little dubious on this lecture. I am open to open theism, but I'm not settled - which is why I'm here to learn...
i think we need to first define what "free will" is. before defining that though, we should first establish that humans do have a will. humans have a will, that is an obvious fact from observation and experience. whether we were created to think we have a will is irrelevant. will comes from thinking and as long as we can think, we have a will. so what is "free will" then? i think it's not so easy to define it in simple words so i think we should give examples of what we think is and is not a free will. if someone points a gun to my head and "makes" me do something, i still have a free choice to decide if i'd rather listen to him and not die or if it's better not to listen to him and die. what would you give as an example of not having free will?
I’m drinking coffee right now . I’m ok if God is making me or it’s my freewill . Lol 😂 great video brother!
It is true that if God knew from the foundation of the world that you would drink that coffee that would mean we don't have free will, but more significantly, God Himself doesn't have free will because He couldn't stop you from drinking the coffee
@@BandyAndysExcellentEssays how does knowing automatically determine a choice? And your presupposition of God not having free will because he couldn’t stop him from drinking the coffee is false because God is omnipotent. The flood is a great example of God stepping in.
@@MrKingcarella23 I believe that God COULD stop him from drinking the coffee, which means that him drinking the coffee is uncertain. If the future is certain then God wouldn't be omnipotent.
@@BandyAndysExcellentEssays explain if the future was certain God couldn’t be omnipotent
@@MrKingcarella23 If the future is certain not only are you and I cogs in a machine with no free will, but God Himself has no ability to change the future. In Jeremiah 18:7-10 God says explicitly that if He says He will do something but then the circumstances change, He will not do that which He thought He would do. There are many other verses especially in the Old Testament showing that the future is uncertain, but they are largely ignored by most Christians because they contradict the classical view of God where God is in control of every event and knows the future exhaustively.
Thank you so much for your opening statement!!! This is a discussion between brothers and sisters in Christ.
As Calvinist, I really respect the tone from this guy.
Agreed...
Chad... the answer to this question is far deeper than some simple apologetic so please, just consider what I am asking you _before God_ (I know your reasoning before Team Calvin):
God has set forth the expectation that men become disciples of Jesus, in His Body, with NO EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS.... so why then would you *_even want_* to self-identify as a disciple of John Calvin? They are two distinctly different people.... _like it or not_ John Calvin is NOT Jesus Christ and you can not serve 2 masters... so why would you ever self-identify as a disciple of a human??
@@inTruthbyGrace It's a label. Nothing more. The term "Calvinist" has nothing to do with the man, John Calvin. A Christian can be "calvinistic" without ever having read anything by John Calvin.
It's simply an historical reference term used to distinguish certain Christian believers from, say, Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, Arminians, Romanists, Eastern Orthodox...etc.
No Calvinist is "serving" John Calvin, or "having 2 masters".
For example, if you told me your Soteriological views, and your views of Theology Proper, I could tell you which camp you fit into, Historically (Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Arminian...etc.).
This is why a knowledge of Church History and Historical Theology is very helpful.
I would say that they are actually indispensable for proper Christian education; Christians NEED to be studying Church History and Historical Theology.
Hope this helps.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
@@inTruthbyGrace Calvinism is just a label that makes it easy to identify someone. Like I would consider myself a reformed baptist Christian. It makes it easy for someone to know EXACTLY what I believe.
inTruthbyGrace,
The term Calvinist was generated by opposers of the doctrines of sovereign grace. It’s not as if those who believe these doctrines chose to identify themselves as anything other than Christian. It’s not a gospel distinction but a soteriological one.
I’ve found your videos on Calvinism and Arminianism very interesting, balanced and helpful. Would love for you to do a video regarding Provisionism which is gaining much momentum currently.
He exists outside of time, but we do not. Our choices come from true free choice, but effectively they have already happened, only we are too small and too bound by time-space to perceive it.
Why did he have to go down to Sodom and Gomorrah?
Hell would Not make sense if we don't have free will.
All this calvinist are Wrong because they don't follow the bible, they actually follow Calvin john thoughts
@@notusedexerHe didn't have to go down there - just like when He constantly says throughout scripture that a city/people's sins have finally reached unto heaven - it's not that He didn't know about their sin already - it just reached a certain point and He pronounced judgement. Basically God wanted to go see
What does it mean to be "outside of time" ? Where is the Delorean, doc? Seriously what Scripture is that " outside of time"? It's not in the Bible.
@@notusedexerif we believe God and His word it was "to see" and "to know". Why would we doubt that?
I really appreciate your presentation. I own a book entitled (I think) What Does God Know? (And When Did He Know it?) You hav inspired me to read it. (Yes, I buy books that I “intend” to read. I guess only God knows if I ever will. :). Your humility combined with openness and thoroughness makes you an exceptional teacher and proclaimer of God’s truth. None of us get every minute detail right, but God honors our pursuit of truth. I appreciate your pursuit of truth as Biblically revealed. Blessings on your continued ministry.
Geez I wish I could have a conversation with this guy. So many good ideas to flesh out.
Open theism. A new subject for me and my first thought was “what does Mike say about it” and low and behold here it is!! Thanks Mike. Looking forward to watching this.
really? THAT was your FIRST thot?
not "what does God have to say about this?"
hmmm....
that's interesting
For what it's worth I'm glad you chose to edit and upload the video. I always get so much out of your videos. It's always a blessing when I see a new upload of yours. 😉
I'm not Calvinist but I do really enjoy watching John MacArthur on the Grace to You channel. I have a lot of respect for him and I learn a lot from watching him as well. I do find the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism extremely interesting. But I believe that God gave us free will at the end of the day and that salvation is available to anyone who desires to have it.
+c17slug sounds like we have a lot in common. :)
Mike Winger I don't think Calvinism is correct but I have nothing about love and respect for MacArthur. I've seen some sermons where he stood up for the Gospel, the divinity of Christ, and the truth that no man gets to the Father expect through Christ like you wouldn't believe. Absolutely love that about MacArthur.
He also strikes me as highly intelligent and committed to the faith. Really enjoy listening to him even though I disagree with a couple of his stances. As long as everyone agrees on the core, fundamentals on Christianity (that Jesus was God in the flesh and that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day) we should strive for unity in the church.
I also find you highly intelligent and committed as well, which is why I really dig your channel. UA-cam as a whole has been an incredible blessing to me. As much as I love my local church (and I absolutely do; I have a fantastic local fellowship here) it's not a 24/7 thing like UA-cam. I get so much more out of my spiritual growth because of channels like yours and about a dozen others I like to follow (Grace to You included 😉). It's just incredible. I even found a church in Australia (Calvary Melbourne Australia is the channel name) that uploads a lot of great stuff to watch. I really do appreciate what you and a lot of others on UA-cam do.
+c17slug thank you!
Tom Bladecki To me verses like 1 John 5:7 (and yeah we could argue if it belongs there I know 😉) and the baptism of Jesus where all three were present seem pretty cut and dry to me. At the baptism we saw the Spirit descending upon the Son while hearing the Father speak.
I believe that we can never fully understand the Godhead with our finite minds. I don't agree with the Oneness stance. I've always been taught that God is three (Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit) and that these three are one.
That's just my opinion on it and how I read the text. I may be wrong and I may be right. I just know that I can't hope to fully understand the divine nature of God in my current (fallen) state.
But what I do know is that Christ loves me and died on the cross in my place and that He offers me eternal life through His blood. I believe in His death, burial, and resurrection and that all I have to do is accept Jesus into my heart. I also know that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. No man can get to the Father except by Jesus.
I know we are supposed to judge our brothers and sisters' fruits but I also know I can't see into a person's heart. We may disagree on secondary issues but anyone who preaches the Jesus of the Bible is okay in my book. 🙏
Anyway that's my thoughts on the matter. I hope you have a blessed day.
Tom Bladecki greater in number , have you read genesis 18 ? And death of the body doesn't mean to cease of existence
I'm by no means a beginner in the realm of soteriology, so this presentation was entry-level stuff to me, but I still enjoyed watching it because Mike Winger is a charismatic and even-handed teacher. His explanations for views that he doesn't agree with are gracious and accurate; he doesn't use strawman arguments or _ad hominem_ attacks.
"What can we know about predestination - we'll get there next week" I know (or at least I think ) that was not intentional, but I laughed out loud 😀
I love your teachings, you lay scripture out for me in a way that I can understand and I believe you are teaching under the watch of the Holy Spirit and I thank God for your help (and other teachers I listen to here and in my church) God bless you
LOL Great point!! That is too funny.
Yea predestination is taking out of contacts
I always thought pre-destination was a joke amongst believers, but no, no, it's a real theology
Its interesting that from a very young age, I have believed in the idea of the 'middle knowledge' without actually knowing the term or the theology behind it. I received a type of picture of it a few years later when I first heard in science about the concept of the multiverse.
I am not correlating the multiverse with the middle knowledge but the model of the multiverse just seemed to me like a decent picture of what middle knowledge might look like. Nice to finally hear some scripture on it.
Obviously, this is not the end of discussion.
The "what if" option (middle knowledge) presented is called Molinism. William Lane Craig espouses this view.
Douglas Walker
A middle knowledge sound like probabilistic, God know with great certainty what we are going to do however, until we do it is not 100%.
Christ follower I think you’re talking about open theism. Middle knowledge is not only God knows the future but He also know the what if. And middle knowledge is the only view that allows the sovereignty of God with free will with the least amount of contradictions in itself.
Yes molinism. The view with tons of problems and has been debunked several times
@@javariusjavarlamariuslamar3759
Yep. Molinism and Open theism both have logical problems for me. Like the notion of "time and space". We live in time and space, but God lives in eternity. Therefore all things are present time to God. The future, past and present are all the same thing to God who lives in eternity. There is no future to know because it's His present. He knows all things, otherwise He wouldn't be able to give clear prophecy.
@@tessw9744 yes that's fair. However, Molinism is simple.
1. Human beings have a (limited because of sin) libertarian free will to make any choice that is in accord with their nature.
2. God knows the choices we WOULD make in different circumstances.
3. God uses this knowledge for his glory. One way is in placing people who would by his grace believe in various circumstances in the EXACT place where they would absolutely but freely believe.
Mike, I just met you at ETS in Ft. Worth. I asked you about matters brought up in this video. This was very helpful. Thanks!
I believe that God is
1: Infinitely Omnipotent Infinitely all Powerful
2: Infinitely Omniscient Infinitely all Knowing
3: Infinitely Omnipresent Infinitely everywhere and everwhen at once.
Amen
God is *NOT* infinitely Omnipotent. In Jesus' Name.
The other two statements aren't nearly as blasphemous, and I know you are coming from a good place, so I am not mad at you or anything like that
Proverbs 27:5
@@EricSmyth4Christ
Eternal, for ever, from everlasting to everlasting.
God exists in eternity past, present and future, God is an eternal being, if you go back in time quadrillions of years, God is there, if you go forward in time quadrillions of years God is there, this is the erternal nature and existence of God, that in my book qualifies God as being "Infinite"
Psa 41:13 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen.
Psa 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Psa 93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.
Psa 103:17 But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children;
Psa 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD.
Isa 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.
Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Hab 1:12 Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.
Then there are the scriptures that reference God's "eternal" existence, we experience time, but God is timeless, we only mark time because of the way God setup the Sun, Moon, stars and Earth, as the earth oribits the sun and rotates once every 24 hours, we experience night and day, weeks months and years, we are born, we live for awhile and our mortal body dies. but the soul lives forever.
In order to exist from everlasting to everlasting, God must be infinite, it matters not how far back or how far forward you go God is there, and that makes Him infinte, as a finite being like us could not be timeless existing eternally in any time direction backwards or forwards or in however many dimensions, God is there.
@@dennishagans6339 I agree he is infinite, but God cannot do everything
@@EricSmyth4Christ
Yes you right, there are things that God cannot do,
1: God cannot lie
Titus 1:2 (KJV) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
2: God cannot be tempted with evil
James 1:13 (KJV) Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
There are some others but I would have to look them up.
So yes there are things that God cannot do related to His character, this must be taken into account when we consider such verses as
Matthew 19:26 (KJV) But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
I have prayed a lot about this. Recently, I have come to accept both. I don't think it is either/or. I think it belongs only to God as he needs or sees fit. Actually...I love this. I find comfort in allowing this belief. Walt
"There is an infinite number of things God knows; There is an infinite number of things God doesn't know."
I agree. Arminianism doesn't quite cover the bases, and neither does Calvinism.
The point that most struck me was that God knows every possibility, so that when things happen and we begin to question God, he's already considered the other possibilities that we, in our not so great understanding, think are somehow better.
Mike I really respect your teaching and have learned a great deal. You do misrepresent open thiesm however. Do you have a video that gives OT a fuller treatment?
He doesn't he just has this and a video where he insults it
Thank you for your videos. I am newly saved and trying to absorb as much Biblically sound knowledge about God as possible, and your videos have been very educational.
An interesting thought to put out there, God knows the future because He can create or speak the future into existence when He wants. In the case of free will, He asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac without speaking faith into him. Instead, Abraham freely chooses faith and God writes the rest of his story for us. Just a thought.
“Freely chooses,” means nothing. Free of what? God’s influence? Abrahams’ own nature? Who exactly created the Abraham that made the choice to sacrifice Isaac?
@@Creshex8 It actually means a lot. Love your neighbor as yourself..., Thou shall not ..., Who so ever believes in Him... are few example of times we choose freely and God's people are to choose according to the direction of the Holy Spirit, yet we fall short sometimes due to free choices. God was not limited to directing Abraham's path but when He wanted to test his faith, He allowed Him to make his human decision which put his trust in the LORD. Hence, the way out was provided by God. God created Abram just like He created you and I but if we had been put in the same situation as Abraham's we may have questioned God or chosen differently. So Abraham broke the barrier that separates logical thinking and thinking by faith. Job hanged in there and trusted God but King Saul did not. We all choose freely but it does not mean that limits God from choosing our paths when deems. He chose to send us His one and only Son. We have to choose to believe in Him. Thanks for the questions.
Is the Almighty telling us something here we do not really appreciate?I
Isaiah 46:8-11
Remember this, that you people may muster up courage. Lay it to heart, you transgressors. Remember the first things of a long time ago, that I am the Divine One and there is no other God, nor anyone like me; the One telling from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done; the One saying, ‘My own counsel will stand, and everything that is my delight I shall do’; the One calling from the sunrising a bird of prey, from a distant land the man to execute my counsel. I have even spoken [it]; I shall also bring it in. I have formed [it], I shall also do it.
Yes. He is telling us that the people can remember the things He said at the beginning. He told them judgement would come if they left Him, now He is about to do it.
When I read the comments below and also in the video itself I’m surprised that everyone seems to think of foreknowing as looking into the future. In my understanding God is already in the future - and in the presence and past. “I am” is always “I am”. God is not restricted by, but exists outside time. That is also the definition of eternity. A constant now. Not infinite time.
Comments?
Lasse Peterson Yes amen great point!
The fact that God knows the future is not dependent on God meticulously predetermining every last detail of the future.
Neither does God need to “look down through the corridors of time” in order to know the future.
God knows the future simply because He’s IN the future!
ISAIAH 57:15
15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that INHABITETH ETERNITY, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
He’s the Alpha and the Omega AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.
He’s not the Alpha and THEN the Omega.
He’s not going to one day be the Omega.
He’s CURRENTLY as we speak the Alpha and the Omega:
REVELATION 22:13
13 I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE END, THE FIRST AND THE LAST.
He’s outside of time and space and not contained within it that it should limit Him.
He PRESENTLY inhabits the future.
He PRESENTLY inhabits eternity.
God is ALREADY in the future.
He’s ALREADY in tomorrow.
He’s OUTSIDE time and space.
He’s FAR ABOVE ALL HEAVENS:
EPHESIANS 4:10
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up FAR ABOVE ALL HEAVENS, that he might fill all things.)
The Bible says God is the one who is (present) Who Was (past) and Who is to come (future)
A clear description of linear time.
Now your turn. Show me where the Bible says that God is experiencing past present and future simultaneously
The thought that God knows everything comforts me more than that He doesnt know everything.
"There is an infinite number of things God knows; There is an infinite number of things God doesn't know."
Sorry to push you down that rabbit hole xD
Love your username btw
I think this view makes more sense of the whole Bible. I think about for instance the moment Moses dishonored God and now God had to punish Moses. Obviously it’s God’s desire for people to obey him but we have the choice and when we don’t obey Him then God must act as is appropriate in that situation. God’s plans will come to pass even though we as humans disobey along the way. The people he chose at the end of that journey through the desert got to enter the promised land. Was it his will for more people or everyone to have entered? Seems like it but people chose to rebel and God had to act appropriately and now only a few were allowed to enter, excluding Moses himself. This seems to me to reflect God’s heart with his plan of salvation for all. His will is for all to be chosen or “elected” to enter eternity with Him but he must act appropriately when people rebel against him and want nothing to do with him, by not repenting and putting their trust in Jesus.
Seeing it through this example, wouldn’t we consider only the people that entered the promised land as those that were chosen by God? That would be true at that point of time, but this wouldn’t make the point that God had not chosen everyone else. Instead he gave everyone the same opportunity but some people chose to rebel against God instead.
Very good!
Now apply that logic to Paul on the road to Damascus 😉 Did God ‘act appropriately’ against this rebelling man? Or showed him undeserved mercy and pulled him out of sin and destruction forcefully?
@@Lena.9Forcefully? No.
So at 40:00 Mike’s solution to the question of what “Those whom He foreknew” means is “He knew everything.” So the verse would say, “For God knew everything, he predestined everyone he knew everything about to be conformed to the image of His Son…”
I could continue down the list in Romans 8:30, but I hope you get the point. One has to be a scriptural contortionist to come to that conclusion.
We need the whole context of Romans 8:29 to make it not redundant on the Calvinist view:
"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be firstborn among many brethren." The point is not that whoever God chose, He chose; the point is that if God chose you _for salvation_ , He also chose you _for sanctification_
That's how I see it too. I'm sorta in a debate with someone who is leaning towards Calvinism because of all the verses that talk about predestination including romans 8:29. This was helpful. Thanks
@@ryanfieldflower602 "Pre-destination" in the Bible is pre-or-diz-mo in the Greek which means "To appoint beforehand"
It's NOT talking about 16th century Augustinian Pre-destinationism
Mike as an open theist, I was disappointed with your not dealing with the idea that God does not like some things, but he is also surprised by them.
Since making this video I have discovered a lot more info about open theism than I was aware of before. I plan to do a more comprehensive treatment of it at some point in the not-so-near future. I hope you’ll find that to be thoughtful and on target.
@@MikeWinger Look forward to it. By the way Skylar Fiction spoke highly of you when talking about Christians he had debated. He still wasn't persuaded, but said you were smart and thoughtful (my paraphrase).
@@leonardallen1750 does God ever say he’s surprised?
I know this comment is super old but do you mind sharing where we see that in the Bible?
@@mige8492 Yes in Isaiah 5 God says He was expecting grapes from his vineyard but got wild grapes instead.
In Jer 3:7 God says He thought Israel would turn to him, but they didn’t.
In Jer 19:5 God says it didn’t even enter his mind that Israel sacrifice their children
This are just a few examples that proof Open Theism
I soooooo enjoy watching and learning from you Mike!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANKS SOOOO MUCH FOR THESE WONDERFULLY POWERFUL EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS. Your broken brother in christ, ROC
Mike, in your understanding, how does God's testing his people to see what is in their hearts fit in with His omniscience? Specifically, why does he say he wants to see what is in their hearts if he already knows? (example: Deuteronomy 8:2) I realize some examples of this wording in other places of the Bible seem to suggest it is more for the people's sake to see what is in their hearts, or rather to bring forth character through the testing, but in some examples, like the Deuteronomy one, it seems like God really is seeking some specific information from how they will respond. Thanks in advance.
@Strefanasha Nice answer.
it’s for others to see. When God tested Abraham, He already knew Abraham would obey. But still tested him for other to see or for Abraham himself . And until something happen God can’t prove. Say I know what’s gonna happen in the future, and I’m the only one who knows it. The only way I could prove I have foreknowledge is that if what I said actually happen.
mumung7 let’s try a simple reading comprehension question. According to what God said, what did He learn?
Gen 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
@@mumung90 As Winger said in the video, that explanation is an attempt to "get God off the hook". See? It can work both ways.
God said "now I know." If God already knew, then he was lying.
What is your church's denomination Mike? thank you very much for explaining this. I had difficulty understanding this during my youth.
He's from a Calvary Chapel. You can Google their statement of faith.
The question of "human free will" has always been the same..if we are free within boundaries are we truly free? Certainly only God possess libertarian free will.
Also Scripture offers us passages where it seems clear that God is the one causing events and people's choices directly and other passages where this idea of man's freedom of choice is given...
I really believe that on this side of Eternity as Christians we will never know everything we wished we knew about God's nature and behaviour.
Especially when with advances of neuroscience we are learning that biology and brain's functioning have a huge role on how we perceive the world and make decisions..to the point where we can analyze the brain's activity of psychopaths and see on screen that certain areas of the brain connected with empathy and sense of guilt are basically malfunctioning...
I'm realising more and more that within the Christian "camp" as brothers and sisters we should be more specific on terminologies..what do we really mean by man has "free will"?
We're all born with specific talents, our brains are all wired differently..so definitely our free will is within what God would allow us to choose and what he wants us to choose ultimately..
God has no plan B.
Jesus's Death on the Cross wasn't a mere fixing what unfortunately was broken after the fall because of "human free will"..
The lamb was slained before the foundation of the world.
Also if we're all agree that we can't choose the day we're born and the day we die..
Indeed we ask is God cruel allowing evil and suffering when He could easily override man's will?
Many examples in Scripture shows us that indeed God has "forced" His own Will against the will of His creatures..the story of Jonah for example, even the very conversion of Paul..could God just respect Saul's will to go and persecute the Church? Yes He could, but He didn't. So could God bring everyone's desires to nothing and accomplish what He wishes even today? Of course He can!
So please let's stop blaming exclusively man's free will for all the suffering in this world, the truth is that God has no set rule where He is forced to respect and not to reject man's free will.
The existence of evil and suffering has a reason and purpose for humanity and angels that only the Lord fully knows..
We have Fred will when It comes to decisions to choose God
Oh definitely, there are *many* different levels of Free Will
I don't think God has true Libertarian Free Will the way you might think
God is actually really complicated, much more complicated than "The Trinity" certainly, but let's assume that "The Trinity" is quasi-true for a second
God obviously has in-house debates between himself, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
One time long ago, God (*may or may not have*) told me that God the Father prefers 100 pounds of Justice to 1 pound of Mercy, but Jesus prefers 1 ounce of Mercy to 12,000,000 pounds of Justice
The future is not settled. I have started to believe that more and more
Then you have fallen for the heresy of open theism.
@@Creshex8 How are you defining heresy and how would you defend this position that Open Theism is such? As I understand it, to claim something is heresy is to claim it is wrong on a salvific issue. If so, this is a very serious accusation, and I do not think it applies here.
Open Theism affirms that God knows all things which are logically knowable. That includes all endpoints of all possible choices, both on the part of God and man, everything that would happen in the path to each endpoint, everything about those paths, &c.. It affirms that God has complete authority and control over everything in the universe, and that He at least sometimes (I get the impression from the Bible that it's fairly extensive, but that's not necessary for Open Theism) either directly causes something to happen, or restricts the available possibilities such that it happens, which is equivalent. But where it differs from Calvinism/Arminianism/Molonism is that it makes the claim that God allows us some degree (again, how frequent this is is not claimed by Open Theism in the most general sense) of Libertarian Free Will (LFW). We see this most prominently in the repeated calls throughout the Bible for various peoples to repent and turn to God. If the people being told to repent did not have both the ability to choose to respond to God's call, and the ability to choose to reject His call, then God calling them to repent would not make sense: the natural reading of the text indicates a choice, real and true, being offered Israel in specific instances in the OT, and people in general.
This is not to make the claim that Molinism (nor Arminianism nor Calvinism) is un-Biblical, simply that there is scriptural basis for a belief in Open Theism, and to claim something is heresy is a very severe accusation which should not be bandied about without accompanying reasoning.
@@StrategicGamesEtc who is the LORD? A Being who knows all or does not? Your attempt to elevate God’s knowledge to knowing outcomes is as absurd as saying I am omniscient because when I tell you to choose A or B, I know the outcome will be that you choose either A or B! Or I can say I am a stock market prophet because I know it will go up or down. WOW! Even men have that type of knowledge.
The Bible does NOT testify God is only in control sometimes or occasionally makes changes to help His intent, like he is some kind of guy watches his fish in a fish tank. Read all of the OT and tell me where God is constantly frustrated by surprises from men’s free will. No, you have not paid attention to the message of the OT, with the constant and relentless disobedience of the Hebrew people. The calling to repentance doesn’t prove men must have the LFW to repent, the message of the Bible is they CANNOT REPENT! This is the teaching of Christ, the message of the OT which is belabored unrelentingly, the message of Romans. Men are NOT free, they are ENSLAVED to sin. NO ONE chooses God, NO ONE fears God, not even ONE! That is why ALL of salvation is of God, including God freeing the will of man to repent and believe.
2 Timothy 2:25 opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth...
Where is your free will here? How does man have a free will if repentance is something that God has to grant?
You have missed the clear message of scripture, twisted God into a finite being to accommodate man having a sovereign will (which he does not have), and are resting your salvation on such a being? Good luck in avoiding a heresy charge. Neutering God has been a pretty universally condemned means that’s generally regarded as heresy.
@@Creshex8 God, amongst other things, knows everything which is logically possible to know. If something is logically impossible to know, such as the last digit of pi, God does not know it. I believe God knows pi to infinite accuracy in every conceivable number base, but not the last digit, because that does not exist (at least in whole number bases >= 2).
God knows if a person faces a choice, A or B, that they will choose one or the other, yes, but His knowledge extends far beyond that. If they have that choice, it is because He has allowed them it, not because He must (as Pelagianism would claim) allow them it. God knows every possible future following from either of those choices, taking into account which subsequent choices He will allow to be made in each case. God knows all the consequences of A and B both before the choice is ever made.
The Bible does not testify that God is only in control sometimes, and neither does Open Theism. God is always in control, He simply allows some real choices to be made. This is not loss of control, it a control so perfect that no human action could ever dent it. God allows humans to make choices, and some of those choices involve trying to struggle with God. This is, of course, futile on our part. God does not dictate literally everything, but nothing is ever out of His control.
God's grace freeing us enough from our sin nature in order to be capable of choosing to repent is consistent with Open Theism. That said, so is us having the ability to repent all along, though in this case it should be clarified that in the Open Theism view God would choose to allow us that option, so I don't think the difference is very major here.
All salvation is from God; we cannot save ourselves; we have every one gone astray. This said, whether God allows us at least at times to have the option of repenting, or if His grace changes us to allow us to repent, we still arrive at the situation where we must make a choice to repent and turn to God for forgiveness of sins. God clears the way, and forgives if we ask with a sincere and repentant heart, but it is us who must make that choice which God lays before us. (Open Theism of course deals the same with other choices, but the choice of who to turn to for salvation is the most important any of us will ever make)
2 Tim. 2:25 appears in context to be compatible with God's grace allowing us the ability to repent, which as mentioned above, is itself compatible with Open Theism.
God is absolutely not a finite Being, I'm not sure where you're getting this. Open Theism claims that God has greater knowledge than Molinism, Arminianism, or Calvinism do, so if Open Theism denies God's infinitness, then so do the others.
@@StrategicGamesEtc your rant is philosophical gobbledygook, and it’s not supported with scripture. I notice I cite scripture but you don’t. That’s the trend with heresies.
There is going to be one future, if God does not know that future, He is not all knowing, and is certainly not greater in omniscience than the Calvinist God, who knows the future with certainty. That definitionally makes no sense.
This makes sense to any reasonable person. Now you can go off and write 3 pages explaining how knowing less somehow equates to knowing more, which is what you just did.
I just love your work Mike!
Molinism and Open theism both have logical problems for me because it defines God by time and space. But the Bible is clear that God lives in eternity. There is no past ,present or future to God. Even what we define as future is present before Him now. Which is why He has the ability to give us precise prophecy.
....if that makes sense to anyone.
@Tess W 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
As a Non Calvinist, in my view if God is that of the TULIP doctrine I have absolutely no issue saying that He is an evil God. Because In TULIP there is no free will meaning of God doesn’t save me it is His doing not mine. Therefore if God punishes me it is for something I had no choice in that He caused me to do. I don’t know about anyone else but this god I’ve presented is evil and I personally don’t have a problem with saying that.
"Whom he foreknew..." Rom 8:29
According to the the simple reading of this text, God foreknew individuals themselves. The object of the verb "foreknew" is individuals themselves and nothing is mentioned about future actions. Although God knows all our actions in advance, this is not what the text is saying. There is nothing in the text about God foreknowing individuals future actions, this is a presupposition that is forced on the text to make the text fit a certain theology. What this text is simply saying, is that God knew certain individuals in advance, when? "Before the foundation of the world" as Ephesians 1:4-5
Theophilus Godlover Does it also say God predestined these people’s actions with no free will? I don’t think so.
Only certain individuals? How could he not foreknow everybody? Forever?
Victorya Martin I don’t think it’s only certain individuals.
This video presents an extreme view of Open Theism which is held by a minority of Open Theists. Thus, while not a strawman its far from an accurate representation or critique of the view at large..
Check out Dynamic Omniscience to see why most in analytic philosophy of religion affirm it.
Are you an open theist?
@@Objectivetruth9122 Tell me you didn’t check his channel without telling me you didn’t check out his channel…
If God foreknows all things and everyone, what does the word "knew" mean when Jesus says, "I never knew you." Is that the same word as the intimate knowing of marriage?
The know in foreknowledge is about love.
Exactly correct, I think.
"I never knew you" is know in a different way than just knowing things, details,..etc.
I know acquaintances. I know my sons. But its a different knowledge with my sons
In addition to what I said concerning God's foreknowledge in Romans 8:29, whom is the object of the verb 'foreknew'. There is no qualifying addition. Reading into this passage an idea not contained in the language itself, such as they whom He foreknew "would believe,etc.", is clearly an attempt at forcing a qualifying notion.
What bible translation are you using? If like to make sure I am following along with the same one. Thank you!
+Steffie_Ehm I am using the NKJV
Mike Winger thank You!
@@MikeWinger - Have you ever considered engaging in a moderated debate about this subject , or any other thing that you believe and teach ?.
The other side[s] can probably throw around as many Scriptures as you can , and it would be interesting to see how you and they would do when you are not speaking on your home court and to your own crowd .
the point i always make about the free will debate is that it places the person asking it in the same plane as God, whereas we are all actually trapped here, on earth, in chronological time. if you really examine the question, you will see that it assumes a certain hubris, an elevation of mankind and our minds to the level of God, and then uses this to try to argue for spiritual weakness.
Mike, I like your ideas on middle knowledge, foreknowledge, and fatalism. However, while this is an in-house debate between dear brothers and sisters in Christ, I do think Calvinism/Arminianism is a gospel issue, because atonement is at the heart of the gospel. The essential content of the gospel is that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. If he didn't die for all people's sins, the good news does not apply to all people. Whether Calvinism or Arminianism is correct, the extent/scope of the atonement of Christ is a gospel issue.
I absolutely agree! My disagreement with Calvinism is over how the gospel is viewed. I strongly believe the tulip is a false gospel; there is no good news in it. I could go on, but that is the bottom line.
Travis Echols AMEN!
Gospel means GOOD NEWS.
Is being predestined to hell “good news?”
Calvinism is NOT the gospel it most certainly is a gospel issue.
“IF” Christ really did die for everyone and Calvinism denies that then that is NOT the gospel.
Now go back in time 2000 years ago to the mount of crucifixion and stand before a beaten and bruised Jesus nailed to a cross in front of you breathing His last breath and yell up at Him, “this is not for everyone!”
“IF” it was in fact for everyone then how do you think those words would be received as Christ was dying on the cross for everyone?
Would your words be music to His ears or would the grief of those words break His heart?
REVELATION 22:17
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
@@apilkey so Calvinists are heretics?
Cause if we want to talk about gospel issues, the church fathers would say contemporary evangelicals are all heterodox (maybe even heretics) for denying baptismal regeneration
@@apilkey this is how I see it: Calvinism is wrong and error, but it is not heresy. Roman Catholics are in error, but not heretics. However, RC is a bigger "gospel issue" than Calvinism by a long shot.
Ify Nsoha Some reformers are honestly just deceived and don’t know any better and have just been brainwashed into believing it.
While yet others know full well what they are doing and have hardened there hearts to the truth of God’s Word and don’t have eyes to see or ears to hear anymore.
They refuse to humble themselves and learn of the Father.
These people are leading others astray and need to be treated differently then those genuinely seeking truth and who are willing to learn and forsake their ways when proven wrong by scripture.
It’s a different Christ a difference God and a different Gospel.
I’ll let you decide for yourself if that’s a heresy.
I'd like to ask a question on the topic of Calvinists wanting "Foreknowledge" to mean "Fore-loved" and referencing the Old Testament word "Know" as in Adam knew Eve (wink, wink). Wouldn't an easy refutation of this idea be that in the OT the word "know" is translated from the word "yada," and therefore definitions/connotations of that word (know, loved) aren't going to be the same for the Greek word "proginosko"? So, unless "ginnosko" is used at some point to mean "love" in the NT, then trying to connect it to the OT word becomes a non-sequitur. Let me know your thoughts on this issue. Thanks!
Adding to my comment: In the Blue Letter Bible app "ginosko" is pulling up as "Jewish idiom for intercourse between a man and a woman." It doesn't mention "Love." So, I'm thinking there IS a bit of a connection, but if it's just about intercourse, then wouldn't "Adam knew Eve" not even mean "Adam loved Eve"? It would just mean "Adam and Eve 'got to know each other a little better wink-wink'"?
Funny enough, the Hebrew for this is "Yada-Yada". Seinfeld anyone?
I'm sitting here watching this with my four month old baby and she's smiling so big! lol
Aww
In our attempts to be the god of our own lives we establish doctrines that suggest we are more intelligent or more spiritual than someone with an opposing view. The bottom line is that both Calvinism and Armenianism have quite a bit wrong with a few things right. Arguing Theology has its foundations in religious pride.
as a calvinist, i'm interested to know what you consider wrong by calvinism and what you consider right by arminianism.
With all due respect, I really do enjoy your videos but think you did a disservice to actual Open Theists. I understand that you were addressing all of them at a service level, but not once is the idea of “possibilities being a reality” or the Old Testament passages referring to God changing his mind ever raised.
Something even more possible that one has to consider is that the writers of the scriptures had differing beliefs on God’s foreknowledge throughout the ages (possibly through influences in the cultures surrounding them).
I’m not an open theist myself, but to leave the door open that those scriptures needs dealt with and that the writers could have disagreed with each other at least has to be evaluated - presuppositions on inerrancy aside (if we’ll allow that).
I was thinking the same thing! I know it probably wasn't Mike's heart to misrepresent Open Theism but even his description of it in the beginning is a bit of a misrepresentation.
"the writers of the scriptures had differing beliefs on God’s foreknowledge;" how is this possible if the Scriptures are God-breathed? I would think that if their beliefs differ, someone is wrong, in which case that writing should be thrown out as unscriptural.
How is God changing his plan/mind have anything to do with his knowledge or lack of? I think that idea makes many assumptions about God’s intentions in that moment that can not be known. Is there a good video that you would recommend on that subject.?
I think Mike did a stellar presentation. It wasn’t exhaustive but it hit the major points.
I have read Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders, Olson, Pratney and evening sadly some Jesse Morrell articles.
All of which promote Open Theism. If Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge is undermined many other doctrines will necessarily follow suit.
@@pateunuchity884 like what ?
God's word has been eternally settled in Heaven and since He wrote His people's name in the Lamb's book of life before Creation,He loved them all by name and they will not worship the beast.God also knew the goats by name ,but He did not love them,as in ,HE NEVER KNEW THEM. NOR DID HE write their names in the Lamb's book of life before creation and THIS IS WHY they are guaranteed to worship the beast.God calls all things by a name and in time, everything becomes what He named it.He wrote all history before time and we are the characters in His story. Every thought, word ,deed and day of every human and angel was written before we ever lived the first moment. NOW, God is directing everything and individual to do as He has written, the destiny of all things and people was decided by God Himself, not by any other entity or by any other circumstances, He wrote everything to Glorify and please Himself alone.
Sir:
If GOD knows everything, (because HE wrote everything down and orchestrated everything before hand), then why would HE write someone's name in the Lamb's Book of Life...and then later blot it out because that person messed up and did not overcome? (Ps. 69:28; Rev 3:5)
It doesn't make any sense to waste time writing a name in the book KNOWING that you will blot it out later. Might as well never write it down in the first place, right?
Also, if GOD writes history before it happens, then does that means he wrote out the act of some creep kidnapping a little 8 year old girl and tormenting her beyond imagination; molesting her little body; and finally killing her?
You can't say GOD wrote EVERYTHING that happens down....and then say HE didn't write the BAD things down! EVERYTHING includes good and bad!
Thanks!
JC
“God cannot learn.” Doesn’t that fly in the face of middle knowledge, which says God knows what anyone would do in any given circumstance? Doesn’t that mean I as a person told God what I would do before He created anything, and God learned what I would do in that circumstance and adjusted accordingly? That’s a blatant contradiction to the statement, “God cannot learn.” Learning means an outside source gives information to another source. That’s exactly what Molinism results in: libertarian free creatures giving information about what they would do in any given circumstance to God, who then has to take that new information into consideration after the fact. Your God is only omniscient after He’s decided to create a specific world. My God has always been omniscient since He alone planned everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen without anyone giving input.
Josh Peterson, this is a fabulous point that you have made! Either God knows everything perfectly including everyone's "free (wink, wink)" final choice or He has to learn something He did not know. There is no middle anything on this. Would love for anyone to try and explain away this TRUTH...
Great points.
I think Mike did a stellar presentation. It wasn’t exhaustive but it hit the major points.
I have read Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders, Olson, Pratney and evening sadly some Jesse Morrell articles.
All of which promote Open Theism. If Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge is undermined many other doctrines will necessarily follow suit.
No that's false lol. God isn't learning anything in Molinism. The mistake you're making is thinking that middle knowledge is a chronological step (occurs after natural knowledge). This is false. Middle knowledge is a logical step. No Molinist claims that God is learning anything. God is omniscient, meaning he innately knows counterfactuals. And there are many that are in scripture itself.
Here's the wikipedia section on the biblical data:
texts: 1 Samuel 23:8-14, Proverbs 4:11, and Matthew 11:23. Other passages which Molinists use are Ezekiel 3:6-7, Jeremiah 38:17-18, 1 Corinthians 2:8, Deuteronomy 28:51-57, Matthew 23:27-32, Matthew 12:7, Matthew 24:43, Luke 16:30-31, and Luke 22:67-68.[original research?] William Lane Craig has argued at length that many of Christ's statements seem to indicate middle knowledge. Craig cites the following passages: Matthew 17:27, John 21:6, John 15:22-24, John 18:36, Luke 4:24-44 and Matthew 26:24
@@Iffmeister as usual, cage stage Calvinists gotta strawman cause they can’t beat a steel man.
@@Iffmeister Don’t molinist believe that God considered which world to actualize ?
I still think the Calvinist view of "those whom he foreknew" in Romans 8:29 is the correct one, i.e. "foreknew" means "loved beforehand" or "chose beforehand". Mike Winger seems to think it means "knew everything about a person beforehand" (33:25 onwards) and disagrees with the Calvinist interpretation. Here's the issue with that as I see it. If God is omniscient, then he knows everything about everyone by definition. But Paul's language "those whom he foreknew" seems strongly to imply that this is in contrast to some other group that we might call "those whom he did not foreknow". "Those whom he foreknew" is in some sense a restricted group. Not everyone is foreknown in the sense Paul is using the word here. (Just as an omniscient Jesus will one day say to people "I never knew you" (Matthew 7:23). If "foreknew" is referring merely to God's knowledge of every fact about a person, then God foreknows everyone in that sense. But then Paul would essentially be saying "he predestines EVERYONE to be conformed to the image of his Son." As I see it, since "those whom he foreknew" is not everyone, but actually only those who will end up glorified (v. 31) then the Calvinist view makes most sense, particularly since "know" is used throughout Scripture with the meaning of "have a personal, intimate relationship with" (although it does not ALWAYS have that connotation as Mike Winger demonstrated, it often does have that meaning). So the Calvinist interpretation is at least biblically plausible. The Arminian view that "foreknew" means "knew who would believe" is simply not what Paul wrote. He wrote of PEOPLE who were foreknown, not foreknown things about people. If Arminianism was true, Paul should have said, "For those whom he foreknew [would believe] he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" but he didn't. Likewise for Mike Winger's view to be correct, Paul should have said "For those whom he foreknew [everything about]" or "those whom he completely foreknew" but he didn't because that would make the phrase be about everyone, and Romans 8:30-31 is clear that the foreknown, the predestined, the called, the justified and the glorified are all the same group of people, i.e. those God chose for salvation and not everyone.
Bro, at the beginning of this vid I didn’t hear the little chipmunk singing
BIBLE THINKER...
What’d you do with him?
Aaaalviiin!!
🤪
Good teaching bro...
Foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination. In the Bible God foreknows things that never happen and can never happen. If I were psychic and I knew your future but I don’t tell you then how is that messing with free will? The decisions are yours. God only knows what they are. He doesn’t make you make them. This isn’t hard to understand. I don’t get why people struggle with this. Yes God knows but He will not, is not and has not made you do anything ever it interfere with your ability to choose. The only things God interferes with is things that could alter it decisions from the outside of it own minds. The world around us is what He will manipulate in order to guide us, but we still choose to take His advice and warnings or we don’t. This is why all of humanity has the ability to choose God but not all do. He hasn’t predestined anyone to hell. We make our choices ourselves. He’s currently competing with the rulers of the current age and their minions for our attention and that’s a problem.
God foreknew persons, _those_ whom he foreknew, not facts about those persons such as inherent faith. Romans 8:29 says that the particular people that God foreknew in saving relationship, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. It entails both our justification and sanctification being of God.
So what is prayer and why do we pray and does prayer change anything?
Mike points out a common argument against Calvinism that comes from believers calling a calvinist God evil and points out how we wouldn’t want to say that in front of God. I would. I wouldn’t want to follow a Calvinist God. And maybe that’s silly of me to say but it’s the same idea for me as if God killed babies for no good reason how I wouldn’t want to follow that version of Him either. I love calvinists and I think many are true believers, but I can’t get behind the doctrine of predestination as a moral doctrine…
I agree! Always be honest with God. If you don't like something, tell him! One of the things I was told I would be able to do in Heaven is actually pray for people in hell. In the afterlife, there are certain currencies that can be redeemed to help people in other worlds. Imagine doing a stand up comedy tour in Heaven, and getting paid in a currency that could be redeemed to buy water for someone like Hitler in hell (it is more expensive to buy Hitler water than other people though).
God is so much better than we think, and its a shame Calvinism is getting popular, which focuses too much on God's power, and not enough on his other awesome attributes.
@@EricSmyth4Christ who told you about this version of the afterlife?
@@rubypeterson665 It was information I farmed through lots of hours of prayer
But, just a few verses to support it
Matthew 19:26 states that with God, ALL things are possible
Matthew 21:22 says All things are possible with prayer
Luke 6:27 says to love your enemies (even those you hate), and bless them deeply
Colossians 3:2 "Set your mind on things above"
Ecc 3:1 there is a season for all activities
Psalm 30:5 God is infinitely Good, but not infinitely anti-evil
1 Corinthians 1:25 The smallest versions of God are bigger than the biggest imaginations of man
MIKE WINGER ADMITTED IT, FOLKS! At 30:08, Mike said:
"So, God's foreknowledge...is DEPENDENT ON THE CHOICE I MAKE".
This is how the "Molinist" responds to the question, 'how does God know stuff?'.
The Molinist response is that God's Omni-prescience (His all beforehand knowledge) is DEPENDENT upon the CREATURE for His knowledge!
What an amazing admission!
Turretin was saying the exact same thing in response to the Jesuit invention of "middle knowledge" all the way back in the 17th century.
Turretin (Reformed Scholastic Theologian/Genius) knew full well that the "middle knowledge" perspective entailed making God's knowledge of all future things DEPENDENT upon the creation itself for His knowledge of it.
And Mike Winger just admitted it!
Thanks, Mike!
Yep, this is why Reformed Christians maintain that God's Omni-prescience comes from His own Divine Decisional Decree!
This maintains the Aseity of God (what God is in-and-of-Himself...namely, all beforehand knowing stuff),
AND makes God in NO WISE DEPENDENT UPON HIS OWN CREATION;
rather, it makes all creatures completely and utterly dependent upon HIM ALONE FOR THEIR KNOWLEDGE!
*Soli Deo Gloria*
Ryan Gallmeier I think you are looking for him to slip up. I heard that too but he didn’t mean that in that way.
Did you ever hear of Leighton Flowers? His page is swarming with Open Theists who needs to here this. He’s already blocked me. Lol
@@kpeezy776 Dr. William Lane Craig has stated the same thing: "God's knowledge is DEPENDENT on the events that occur in time".
I have a video with a clip from both men saying this exact same thing.
I point this out because Francis Turretin (Reformed, Scholastic Theologian; 1623-1687) said the same thing about the Jesuit-invention of "middle knowledge" (aka. "Molinism"). Turretin said that this view makes God's knowledge dependent on the creation, rather than vice versa. It's exactly why it should be rejected by all Bible-believing Christians.
More questions?
Let me know.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
Wait wait wait, you said, “God doesn’t want things to happen, but because of free will, He allows them to happen.” How does that fit with Psalm 135:6 where it says God dies whatever the heck He wants in heaven and earth?
God does whatever He wants it’s different from “Everyone does whatever they want”
Arminians say romans 8:29 is a foreknowledge of faith because that's exactly what the verse is talking about.
We don't deny God has intimate knowledge of other facts as there are Arminians who are also Molinists such as Dr William Lane Craig.
@Mr Liver - Alive in Christ
Good to see you here. You’ll learn a lot from Mike. Leighton is a liar.
We can only reject God, we can't accept him because it can't be with our own strength or means and it would be by works. We can only surrender to Him and let him do the work in us.
Will Ortiz why then does it say that we are saved by grace thru faith? Isn’t faith like trusting - like accepting?
Hello will Ortiz, how can "surrender" not be considered some very difficult thing we do? If "surrendering" is "nothing" why do you give "praise" to those who surrender?
Your opening puts me in mind of God's comment to Job's friends. He doesn't condemn them but He's not impressed with them either.
I guess it depends on your definition of condemn but actually He did. He tells them "they did not speak right of Me." And also they had to go ask Job to pray for them so God would forgive them. Another little allusion to the need for a Mediator.
I think there's a problem with that sort of view with God's middle knowledge and sovereignty. If God knows the what-ifs (which I agree) then he knows the choices we'd make in every given circumstance, but he also determines the circumstances in which we make these choices.
So my only question, as someone who comes from the more reformed theology is does God know what choice we are going to make? Because I feel like if the answer is no then wouldn't that imply that God isn't all-knowing?
I have the same question but then I started to consider the following: Why does God have to be “all knowing” for Him to achieve His plans? He is infinitely smart. He doesn’t need to see the future to win. I am not saying open theism is true, but it is intriguing.
This isn’t up for debate. Whenever God is the subject of the verb “to foreknow” in the New Testament, it refers to a loving relationship that God had with someone before he existed. Peter said God loved Jesus beforehand. God didn’t know what Jesus would do. He loved Jesus. Paul says God foreknowing the remnant of Israel in Romans 11. That foreknowledge RESULTED in them being the remnant, not the other way around. Then, we come to Romans 8:29, where God is the subject and the called are the object. You missed the point again. Foreknowing always means fore-loved *whenever God is the subject.*
You're saying God didn't know what Jesus would do? How is that if God knows all?
It's called Middle Knowledge, because it's not knowledge, but it's not NOT knowledge. For example, there's a lot that He knows we won't do because we can't. We have a very limited envelope as creatures. or, He knows if a truck is headed at my house (a not impossible premise, given I live directly off a freeway exit) which I do not know about, but will have to do something about. I don't even know the decision is inevitable, let alone what I am going to do when I decide. (I would probably check to see if anybody was hurt.)
My own preferred definition of Middle Knowledge is, He knows all the options for everybody, and knows what He will do in every permutation of those options, and can also see beyond this to the next decision, and every permutation of every permutation of that decision. Ad infinitum.
I might call it Schrödinger's Knowledge, if someone were to ask me what to call it, which admittedly nobody has. It is knowledge all the interactions of all the superpositions of all the particles, and all the possible choices to be made by anything with free will .
But I am impulsive, so in any given circumstances, I am only ever about 95% sure what I will do, so I don't know, if the decision came down to me, I would behave as rationally as I currently percieve myself to behave. It could also be that I put off the decision until the last minute, maintaining Middle Knowledge about myself. It's a stressful way to be, not even having perfect knowledge about yourself.
But the outcome as regards the Glory of God (i.e., is God more or less glorified by this view over the other? Which seems to be an important consideration?) seems to me to be in favor of Middle Knowledge over Foreknowledge. If God knows Foreknowledge, He knows the future. If God knows Middle Knowledge, He knows the practically infinite variations of the future, which is way more knowledge. (It does have to require a redefinition of knowledge, but "omniscient" definitely requires a new definition of seeing. What does it look like to be omniscient? What kind of "attention" can be pointed in all directions at once? I know what it's like to attempt and fail to do this, since it's what ADHD seems to be trying to do.)
But there is one knowledge that God does have perfectly, and that would have to be His knowledge of what He would do in each of these situations. He knows that, e.g. every time He is called to forgive, He will. And we know this through the life of Jesus, and His perfect self-control: even if God was one of us, He would be perfect and we would murder Him for it and He would still win. God set the whole universe up, with laws and everything, that even if the free people He made disobeyed Him and ruined it foreverybody, (*rightclick*, "add to dictionary". Oxford who?) He Himself would be born as one of them at the best time, and He would do it all just by talking to people, and telling His obedient Universe to do a few crazy things, and He would fix it. He planned the entire thing, and every other entire thing that never happened because somebody was disobedient. But several people were obedient, and here we are.
There is an infinite number of things God knows; There is an infinite number of things God doesn't know
I really appreciate the content, but it’s a real strawmanning of open theism. God still has knowledge of all truths and still knows specific aspects of the future, but certain aspects/events are not “exhaustively settled.” It all depends on how time and creation are structured
Well said. I love Mike, but I don't think he's ever given open theism a totally fair shot. I still love him and recognize his brilliance, though!
Hey Mike, @ 25:32 - the 'weird philosophical thing'. Have you spent 20 minutes on it in any video?
I think you're way too quick to say this isn't a Gospel issue. To a Calvinist, choosing God of one's free will equals working for one's salvation. To a free willer, worshipping a God who predestines the majority of the human race to damnation means worshipping a false God (at least as falase as the God worshipped by JWs, I think). If this isn't a Gospel issue I feel compelled to accept the LDS, JWs, RCs and others as Christians.
Jeremiah 1:5
[5]Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
My brother Mike, I have just watched a video of you encouraging CHRISTIANS to participate in Christmas and I was very very disturbed in my spirit. THE BIBLE IS very clear that we cannot be unequally yoked together with unbelievers, The bible says the truth shall set us free, We have the resources to know the true date if Christ BIRTH, If we want to acknowledge his birth we can't do it Ignorantly as uniformed people. My beloved brother, The things of God is not Man wisdom it is Spiritual.. How can a Christian partake in WORLDLY things and be comfortable? Did you prayer and seek the lord to confirm this ?
I don't know - are you typing these thoughts out on a worldy UA-cam media outlet?
If God is eternal (outside of time) and has exhaustive foreknowledge, whether Arminian, Molinist, or Calvinist, then logically God has always had knowledge of every form of atrocity and perversion that has and will ever be performed and these evil thoughts must hsve had their source in God. Does this claim that God is eternal not compromise the claim that God is perfectly holy in His nature? Open theism does not have this issue to answer.
It is still our own free will that creates those atrocities, they come from us and from Satan, not from God.
Man, you really, really butchered the Calvinist interpretation of "foreknow." In Hebrew/Jewish understanding, when the subject knows an object, and that object is a person, then the word is usually being used to convey covenantal, special love. "Adam knew Eve, and she conceived a son." That's why God can tell Moses, "I know your name." I thought God factually knew everybody's name? That's not what "know" means when the subject and object are people. When the subject and object are people, the word "know" means covenantally love. The same is true when God tells Israel, "You alone have I known among the nations of the earth." He's not speaking intellectually. He's speaking emotionally, and that's the same background that Paul would have.
Therefore, when Paul says God "foreknows" people, he's saying that God loved them with a special love before they even came into existence. Just as He said to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." God foreknow Jeremiah, and He foreknows His elect. That's why He predestined them to be saved, because He loves them.
Oh, you did address that point, and why do you ignore this? Because you have to. In the NT, whenever "foreknow" is used WITH GOD AS THE SUBJECT, it's clearly being used relationally. 1 Peter 1 says God "foreknew" Jesus. Is that factual, or relational? Romans 11 says God foreknew His remnant of 7,000 in Israel. Is that factual, or relational? It must be relational, lest you want to assert that the 7,000 preserved themselves with their free will, not God. That leaves Romans 8... it's relational, active, love.
Better YET--- What DOESN'T GOD know??
Try THAT!!
GOD bless.
"There is an infinite number of things God knows; There is an infinite number of things God doesn't know."
@@EricSmyth4ChristSuch as?
@@bobbyadkins6983 What worshipping a God bigger than Himself feels like while eating a cheeseburger on a planet in a far away multiverse on a floating lake surrounded by square circles
One of many things
He doesn’t know what it’s like being a redeemed sinner
Jeremiah 31:34 says he forgets our sins and remembers them no more. You can argue he doesn’t know them anymore
Use your God-given brain 🧠
AI had no problem with the quote at all
Here is what he said
The statement "There is an infinite amount of things God knows; There is an infinite amount of things God doesn't know" delves into the concept of divine omniscience, which is the belief that God possesses infinite knowledge and awareness.
1. **Infinite Knowledge of God**: This part of the statement affirms the traditional theological understanding that God is omniscient, meaning He knows all things. This includes knowledge of past, present, and future events, as well as the thoughts, intentions, and actions of every individual. Psalm 147:5 (NIV) declares, "Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit."
2. **Limitation of Human Understanding**: The second part of the statement introduces an intriguing notion by suggesting that there are also infinite things that God doesn't know. This can be interpreted in a few ways:
a. **Mystery and Transcendence**: It acknowledges that there are aspects of God's nature and workings that transcend human comprehension. Deuteronomy 29:29 (NIV) states, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law."
b. **Free Will and Contingency**: It recognizes that God has granted humans free will, allowing for genuine choices and outcomes that are not predetermined or known in advance by God. This aligns with the concept of God interacting with His creation in dynamic and relational ways, rather than in a predetermined, mechanistic fashion.
c. **Limitation of Language**: It acknowledges the limitation of human language and finite understanding in attempting to articulate the nature of an infinite and transcendent God. Isaiah 55:9 (NIV) states, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Overall, the statement invites reflection on the vastness of God's knowledge, while also recognizing the limitations of human understanding in comprehending the mysteries of the divine. It underscores the awe-inspiring nature of God's omniscience and the humility required in approaching the depths of His wisdom and knowledge
@@EricSmyth4Christ So that's your argument of support for open theism? Interesting.
Huh? 28:00 Fatalism is the quintessence of Calvinism!
@Kristine
Any depth of research that doesn’t just skim the glittery treasure trove of UA-cam hand me downs will come to the same conclusion as Winger. 👍🏽
We have free will to choose, but only God dictates the outcome, which we have no control over.
🤣🤣🤣
Brah i don't even understand the comments here.
It’s alright, some of the commenters here don’t even know the stuff they claim to be spewing lol
I like John Piper's teachings but I will ever be a Calvinist. The best way to look at this is that God is the ultimate mathematician, computer science, chess MASTER. He's omniscient which means He knows every "if then else" choice algorithm because there's nothing He cannot know. It's a fool's errand therefore, to figure out how you can have a free will to choose even though He already knows what you will choose. Just TRUST HIM and you'll be blessed.
Unless He already knows you are going to Hell. In which case doesn’t matter if you trust him or not. Because what He knows will definitely happen right ?
@@lauromartinez8948Once again, omniscience and omnipotence are not the same. What this really comes down to is God's character. Can He be trusted to act in love and give a person every opportunity to repent even though He knows they won't? The answer is a definitive yes, He can be trusted. THAT is the issue. It's why satan and his minions attack God's character more than anything else.
@@GTX1123 I never said Omniscience and Omnipotence were the same thing. I know they are not. But that doesn’t answer my question.
If God already knows you are going to hell, can you trust in God until the end ?
@@lauromartinez8948 Why are you trying to blame God for your own decision? It is your own decision. Yeah sure God knows how you will choose but it is still YOU who are choosing hell, NOT Him.
@@GTX1123 I’m not trying to blame God for anything. I’m just asking a simple yes or no question.
If God already knows I will go to hell, Can I be saved ?
Very unfair and inaccurate definition of Open theism at 00:40 a lot of the misunderstanding about open theism is because most folks who have a very weak interpretation of it are very vocal about it.
I can see that “middle knowledge” has turned the future into a mixed bag with God ordaining some events but not others. I know that this will please some who wish to cling to their idea of “free will,” but is there any point to it? Does “free will” or an autonomous will (independent of God) serve any purpose? R K McGregor Wright who wrote “No Place for Sovereignty,” has argued that Biblical responsibility does not require an autonomous will. Biblical responsibility is based upon a will that is tethered to God’s standards. It is the good tree that brings forth good fruit not a tree that acts randomly.
Let's do "Systematic Theology" and figure out the attributes of man. It is clear that man is omniscient, immutable, omnipotent, and pure actuality. Look at this:
2Sa ...But my lord has wisdom like the wisdom of the angel of God to know all things that are on the earth.”
King David, a man, knows all things on Earth.
Luk 1:3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus,
Here Luke says he has had "perfect understanding of all things from the very first" affirming his omniscience of all things from all eternity.
Eze 28:3 (Behold, you are wiser than Daniel! There is no secret that can be hidden from you!
Here God says to the Prince of Tyre that the prince knows all secrets of the heart.
Ecc 1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and indeed, all is vanity and grasping for the wind.
Here the author says he has seen everything.
It is obvious, most Christians just don't know that the Bible clearly teaches the omniscience of man. This is an omniscience that is eternal, and part of man's immutable character. We see immutability of man testified in the Bible:
Psa 55:19 God will give ear and humble them, he who is enthroned from of old, Selah because they do not change and do not fear God.
Notice the unchanging part. Man cannot change in any detail, but is always the same. This act is identical to man's omnipotence:
Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.
Man cannot be opposed and can do anything they wish. In fact, because man is pure actuality, all these attributes are identical to man's essence. We see the famous "I am who I am" in Paul:
1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am...
See! Systematic theology. You can't argue with those clear prooftexts. I can't wait for Mike's next sermon about the omniscience of man.
well played sir. You had me going there for a minute. Thank you for illustrating the fallacy of taking the Bible out of context and saying, "the inerrant word of God says..."
Christopher Fisher
You are stupid.
Dikobo Line Why would you say that? (Honest question)
Beautiful, this comment is Gold.
Here's what i think;
Because God exists outside of space and time I think God knows every possible choices you're going to make and already knows where it eventually ends up.
But you have the free will to choose. If you have a million choices and you can pick any one, God still knows where all of those choices will lead cos whatever way you take, God knows your end already.
God is never surprised because he already knows what you'll pick but still it's your choice which one ypu finally go with.
And thus even before the foundation of the world, God already knows who's going to be saved because he's seen all. But it's not predestination. It's pre-knowledge.
We'll never fully understand God's omniscience on this side of our existence.
Yes, I've heard it put very well.... foreknowledge is not the same as causation. HIS knowing what we are going to do, does not mean HE caused us to do so.
I always thought armeniesm, and calvibism were both true. But then i learned that armenisim goes so far to say that God is not all powerful. So some basic ideas are true. But I guess Calvinism is correct, while armenism just isn't.
Hello MegaMech
, when we use words like Calvinism and Armenian, and then lump certain Bible doctrines under one or the other we deny ourselves the ability to think outside those theologies. Our choices are not between two men or two ideologies but is still open as we study scripture.
Neither is correct. The Bible is the authority, not human theology or philosophy.
I’d love to see Mike Winger discuss Calvinism with Allie Beth Stuckey!
Hey brother. Love you a lot. I'd recommend not getting theological truth from jobs friends. They were condemned by god bc of how wrong they were and god wanted to kill them.
God*
Actually they were right about a lot of things about God, they were just wrong about condemning Job and assuming God's attitude toward Job, and that's the issue God had with them.
Thanks a lot for upstaging me Mike.
Thank you Pastor Mike
What is it - precisely , exactly , without exception - a person must believe in order to be born again ?
Thanks .
That Jesus died for our sins and rose again.
@@bramrawlings3051
Thanks Bram .
We don't find that articulated in the clearest evangelistic/justification passages (John 3:16,5:24,6:28-47,11:24-27,20:31 ; Acts 16:31 ; Romans 3:21-4:16 etc.) , nor did the Disciples believe that until after Jesus rose . They were regenerate in John 2:11 .
Jesus never made His work the object of saving faith , but rather His certain Guarantee of unending life to all who believe in Him for it - as Paul so clearly articulated (1 Timothy 1:16) .
To believe in Him is to believe that this doubtless guarantee is true , apart from any works whatsoever (Ephesians 2:8-9) .
I'm a Molinist and I don't think you mentioned it by name but it relies much on this idea of God's middle knowledge.
When it comes to the elect being predestined , God in Eph 1 . 4 just as he 'Chose' us past tense in him before the foundation of the world. The predestining of the Elect here are before the world began. Sounds like a consistent use of a relational foreknowledge that God had already began with us . We the Elect we're already Chosen are just being United with Christ now in this life. How glorious of an atonement that is sure and will not fail to accomplish the plans of the Lord.
We are not the elect. Read Ephesians 1 and pay attention to “we” versus “you.” “We” is referring to the apostles. He doesn’t use “you” until verse 13.
Read 2 Corinthians 1 for another example of this.
@Joseph L this is not correct because in verse 12 ..
so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 1:12 ESV
This is not just the apostles because jesus says in the Gospels, Abraham saw my day and was glad. Paul asserts in Romans that the old covenant members were saved in christ in the same way 'by faith' that the new covenant members are. So the apostles weren't the first to hope in christ , you are very wrong about this sorry. You have also broken the golden chain of redemption in Rom 8, God will bring his people through all of these stages until they are glorified.
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Romans 8:29-30 ESV
The use of the word WE here includes the church, the regenerated are the church . When Paul speaks of his apostleship, he is very obvious as in 2 Cor 11. In this sense the WE are all those who are in Christ.
I am sure someone else has already mentioned 1 Samuel 23:9 when David asked God about his battle plans. Best example of foreknowledge that I know.
What if God knew what the other army was planning and every detail and God knew that so He gave Israel the best way to defeat them. That’s why when they went to war without God and his proper timing they would lose. That’s why proverbs says to trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. But in all your ways acknowledge him and He will direct your paths.
My issue with Arminianism is that free will with foreknowledge is the philosophical equivalent of a square circle. Two mutually exclusive concepts. How can God know you will turn right in 5 minutes if you havent even thought about that movement. That movement doesn't yet exist and so God cannot know it. If He knows it then you have already thought to do it or you have no will to choose. Because when the time to make that turn comes, you literally CANNOT choose to go left instead or else God did not know your decision. And so, you never had a choice because in a world where God knows the future certainly, the future already as good as done.
I'm an Open Theist by the way. I also want to follow the Lord not due to fate but due to my own choice. The way i think is Calvinism is straight up heresy, and Arminianism tries to defend destiny and free will at the same time which cannot exist side by side. Regardless, I do not doubt God's prophecies because I know he has power to fulfil them.
Knowledge doesn't do anything but know.
If i know my brother would slap my sister.
I didn't cause her to slap, her
The Bible teaches sovereignty and free will and we must figure out how they work together.
The Bible exclusively teaches Sovereignty of God. We have entire chapters, like in Proverbs and Romans 9, for instance, that teaches the lack of a free, libertarian, will of man. Where do you believe free will is taught and explained in the Bible exactly?
@@Creshex8 every time a person is told to do something he is treated as a free agent who is capable of obeying the command. What else is wisdom if not the ability to decide what is best in a situation?
@@dahelmang “free agent” is the terminology Mormons use. I will ask again about what biblical verses or chapters talk about man’s inherent nature being free from God’s sovereign will. Throwing out nothing but your personal feelings or outside philosophy on this topic is just illustrating my point. Look at Romans 1. Man’s will and desires are clearly taught to be enslaved to evil. That is the opposite of free.
You are also wrong in saying a command implies the ability to obey. Christ commanded us to be perfect. Can you do that? Pharaoh was commanded to let the Hebrews go. God hardened his heart to prevent that. So you are biblically wrong on that point.
@@Creshex8 God is sovereign, that doesn't mean we don't have freedom. God allows us freedom. Otherwise you would be arguing with God, not with me.
@@dahelmang so are you going to give me the biblical teachings on man’s freedom or not? You have already made my point that your views aren’t biblical.
Is. 41 challenges idols to predict the future and to DO it, whether good or evil. It does not say that God achieves this by knowing all the future. He could achieve this by exercising His omnipotence to direct enough precursor events to cause the prophecy to come true. This would comport with open theism. Your assumption that God must have exhaustive foreknowledge to achieve this feat is false, especially as these idols are idols wood and stone and can neither hear, speak or move.
Open Theism (God can learn, he does not know everything, he doesn't actually know all the details of the future)
Hebrews 13:8 - God Does Not Change (If someone can learn, they can change)
Or just choose Hard Determinism
God often changes His mind and plans in scripture. Exodus 32:1-14, Jeremiah 18:1-10, 2 Kings 20:1-6
Would love to see Mike Winger interview a Molinist like William Lane Craig. The Molinist view of God's knowledge is extremely interesting
Inability to distinguish between “their” - as in “Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called *their* name Adam, in the day when they were created”
and “there”, as in “Therefore, *there* is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”, is a red flag. Christians, whose Word-centred religion emphasises the importance of words very highly, have a strong motive to respect and value words. Perhaps especially when others do not.
Maybe "what if" doesn't exists to God, it exists with humans because we have limited knowledge and lack knowledge of the future. With omniscience and perfect foreknowledge there is no "what if". What if a square was a circle? You cannot have knowledge of a square circle because that does not exist. I'm probably wrong just some thoughts.
There are plenty of "What ifs" in God's foreknowledge
Does God voluntarily and graciously choose to not know something, resulting in a body of knowledge that is less than the universal set of everything that could be known?
"And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."
When Isaac had seconds to live on Mount Moriah and Abraham heard, "...FOR NOW I KNOW that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" does your systematic require the capitalized words to mean, "I always knew..."? If so, I understand to motive for such interpretation by Bible correction. But I cannot identify.
""And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.""
just use common sense here. can you choose to not remember something? no, that's not possible. then it's obvious that god means he will never use it against you going forward.
"FOR NOW I KNOW that thou fearest God"
the word "know" is sometimes used to establish a relationship. for example, genesis 4:1 says "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived". in that context, it's talking about sexual relationship. john 14:7 says "If you really know me, you will know my Father as well". in that context, it's talking about a general human relationship established through spending time and conversing with each other. the context of genesis 22:12 is God providing justification for choosing abraham to be the "father of many nations".
@@joegame4576 The logic of "can you choose not to remember?, impossible, therefore God must not either" is faulty in the extreme. There has to be a better way to gauge God's ability to do just as He says than compare to me. Besides, when you reach my age, you'll be amazed how easy it is to forget.
It is agreed that the english verb, "to know," is overloaded and can communicate relationship or familiarity. Yet in each example you provide, the direct object is a person (mortal or divine.) Genesis 22:12 follows "Now I know that" with an observation of fact, however, which suggests and apples/oranges comparison concerning the examples provided. As for Abraham's justified standing with God - he was in a right relationship since 15:6 (at least) and probably since chapter 13 (in which he constructs and altar.) As for Abraham's seed being multiplied, that's a reminder (from a second message from the Angel) from 10 chapters prior. Yet Genesis 22:12 says, "Now..." If you wish to offer course correction that addresses that word in context then I'm all ears.
Also for your consideration: The use of the infinitive "to know" in Deut 8:2, "...the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart..." conveys the idea an infinitely intelligent Creator, who knows every possibility that may happen, who knows how to push the right buttons to bring to pass His will as expressed in prophecy of specific events in spite and in response to free choices of His created beings, but is open to how the future actually unfolds. I consider that representation of deity far more capable and intelligent than the one whom, so we are told at times, needs to predetermine every minute detail or else there's no certainty of His prophetic will coming to pass.
Thanks for the response, the first one I noticed on this topic...
@@williammarinelli2363
"The logic of ... is faulty in the extreme. There has to be a better way to gauge God's ability to do just as He says"
god uses human language to convey messages. lot of times he uses them as metaphor or hyperbole just like humans do. when people say "hey, let's just forget it", they don't mean literally forget it (they can't), they just mean stop talking about it. also, i'm not sure if you're one of those people who take the meaning of "nothing is impossible with God" to the extreme and say that God can do things that are logically impossible. for example, god cannot draw a round square. one classic example is "can god create a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?" forgetting things when you get old is due to physical deterioration of your body. did you choose to forget those things you forgot? this has nothing to do with the logical impossibility of forgetting something by will.
"he was in a right relationship since 15:6"
we are not in a position to tell god whether abraham was justified at that point or not. god decides the requirements for justification and god tested abraham according to his requirements. this is encroaching god's sovereignty and while we can discuss about them, we're not in liberty to question them. having said that, it all has to do with justification. read James 2:14-26 and tell me what you think and how it relates to what we're talking about.
i interpret deut 8:2 the same way. it means that god tested them to justify god's actions for them afterwards (either to bless them or punish them). while it would be logically fair for god to create billions of humans all at once and immediately send them to either heaven or hell according to what they would have done, humans would have a very hard time understanding what has happened to them. like i said before, it all comes down to justification. god is god of love and god of justice. now on predetermination, the only issue i have with it is that it can imply that god is held responsible for evil depending on how you define that word. my own understanding is that god created the world with full knowledge of what will happen in the future but the evil done by free creatures, whether angels or humans, are their responsibility and not god's. you can use whatever word you want to use, if your word fits this description, then i agree with you. i personally like to use the word foreknowledge.
@@joegame4576 My response to inquiry on where I stand on James 2: It speaks of justification in the sight of man. Example verses from context:
2:18 - SHEW ME thy faith without thy works, and I will SHEW THEE my faith by my works.
2:22 - SEEST THOU how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
2:24 - YE SEE then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
In this passage we are told that the offering of Isaac *fulfilled* Gen 15:6, which communicates to any who reads with open eyes that Abraham was in a right relationship with the Lord.
This is set in contrast to the justification in the sight of God put forth in Romans 4, in which declares Abraham had righteousness imputed to him in Gen 15:6.
If I understand your writing, Abraham was lost, or may have been lost, prior to trial of Genesis 22. If so, we are very much in dispute, but I have zero interest in a tis-so/tis-not.
Thanks Pastor Mike
The Almighty has a purpose for this earth in spite of our free will. Mike. do you know how
Whos will is going to be done on earth as it is in heaven?
Do you know how those with free will are going to be judged righteously?
Mike, are you from calvary chapel?
Yes he is
I don't know... What is the point of any of this? Do we have free will or not? If God knows all, what we are going to do and what we think (and why) and guides the future to fruition then it seems we do not have any will at all. I'm little dubious on this lecture. I am open to open theism, but I'm not settled - which is why I'm here to learn...
i think we need to first define what "free will" is. before defining that though, we should first establish that humans do have a will. humans have a will, that is an obvious fact from observation and experience. whether we were created to think we have a will is irrelevant. will comes from thinking and as long as we can think, we have a will. so what is "free will" then? i think it's not so easy to define it in simple words so i think we should give examples of what we think is and is not a free will. if someone points a gun to my head and "makes" me do something, i still have a free choice to decide if i'd rather listen to him and not die or if it's better not to listen to him and die. what would you give as an example of not having free will?
God knows the future but he knows it on context as it is happening with humans having freewill by the actions he allows. I think.