I love the straightforward reading you gave. It is not God choosing who is going to be in Him. It is God choosing great blessings for those who are in Him.
God DOES choose who will be in Him. While Calvinists hold that only those whom God has picked can believe, Scripture teaches that God chooses to elect those who believe (the Gospel).
Great video. I recently came to fully appreciate this inside/outside Christ distinction more fully for myself. Even though I had the same belief as you in regard to Ephesians 1 for a long time, the power behind recognizing this distinction didn’t really hit me until recently. This is a wonderful “gotcha” to use against Calvinists because they are left with one of two options. They were either chosen to receive benefits outside of Christ which makes Christ less important or they were in Christ before the foundation of the world when they were chosen, somehow fell out of Him, only to be placed back in Him at some later point. So much for perseverance of the saints once in Christ.
Rather than responding individually to Calvinists making the same argument, I'm just going to post this. The bigger problem with this Calvinist interpretation of how faith works is that they have to immediately pretend not to be a Calvinist as soon as they read any other Bible story not relating to salvation. Why did God test Abraham's faith? Isn't God the one providing the faith? Was He testing His own ability to give Abraham faith? Why did God punish Moses for striking the rock? Isn't Moses by his nature incapable of faith? So then the difference between Moses being faithful and Moses striking the rock is in God's actions, not Moses' so why would God be any more upset by unfaithfulness if unfaithfulness is how men always behave? Shoot, what is even the point of a Bible existing under Calvinism if man is incapable of abiding by it? If God has to compel that faithful behavior anyway, then the entire Bible is pointless. Why would Satan make a wager with God about Job's faith if God is the one providing the faith, rather than Job? Was Satan just a blithering idiot, not knowing that God was cheating? Why would Jesus tell people to be faithful if He knew they were incapable of having faith? Was Jesus also an idiot who didn't understand faith so well as modern Calvinist pastors? Why did Jesus say the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak if the spirit was NOT willing? Why did God have to harden pharaoh's heart? If Calvinism is true, aren't all hearts hardened already? In passover, why would you give the instruction to smear lamb's blood on your door as a sign of faith if God is the one providing the faith? Doesn't God already know who He gave faith to? Calvinism doesn't withstand any scrutiny whatsoever, and even the Calvinist preachers must pretend not to be Calvinists on every other Sunday.
Why does God test anybody if He's the one supplying faith? Not only does it purify and sanctify us, but it's also part of God's plan for His glory. God punishes Moses because he sinned, it doesn't matter if he's *unwilling* (it's not as though Moses is willing but unable, the true and best definition of total depravity is that we are all *totally* unwilling, and God must soften our hearts if we are to do any good) he sinned and God can punish whomever He likes. The Bible exists because it has the power to convert the unsaved, teach the saved, can be preserved well (unlike memorization, can last longer than one lifetime), and is how God chose to reveal Himself, if He wants a book of books in His glory then He can well do what He likes, mine looks cool anyways. For one thing, I don't claim to know how much about the Christian (or godly, in any case) life Satan knew about, but Satan is essentially arguing that Job is "upright and innocent" because he has never been tested, and so God allows Satan to test Job. By no means is the point of the story how much faith Job maintains throughout the story, but rather it is a battle between thoughts on how God could do this or allow this to happen, Job isn't worried about how well he's going to endure these trials through faith, he's confused as to why the Lord is doing this to him. So, maybe Satan knew God was cheating, but in any case, he wanted to test how upright Job could be if he's pushed to his limits. God often tells people to do things they can't do (following all His commandments, for example) the point is to goad people into repentance, and realize they can't even think a good thought without God's grace. He's preaching the gospel, but to whom is His decision, whether He will(did) elect them or not. All hearts are totally depraved, but haven't you ever wondered why it is if Calvinism is true, that sinful people still do "good"? First of all, it's always selfish anyway, we do that good because God restrains us like we are a dog and he is the master, pulling on the leash to keep us in line, so hardening isn't that God squeezes all the good out of us until we're a rock hard sponge, He's allowing us to crumble from the inside out, into the cold dark creature we want to be. Of course, God knows to whom He gives faith, but God doesn't need physical signs so that all of the x's are crossed and He can get His taxes all in line either, it is a sign to the world, to the people, and to yourself that you have faith, there will be no earning salvation, or earning its grace either, God will never owe anybody anything, and we can't demand God's grace because we humbled ourselves or self-created faith in our hearts. As we can see, Calvinism is, in fact, standing up the scrutiny. Most of your questions are essentially the same, "why have (faith) if God makes (faith) and we can't make (faith)." We have the responsibility to do our best at obtaining salvation, but by no means can we, by our own merits or virtues (the Arminian understanding of faith would fit into this category), obtain it. How can these things be, Nicodemus? I, another Nicodemus, don't know, this is a truth the Bible doesn't tell of.
God chose "His People" to be "holy and blameless" before the foundation of the world. Who are His people? Those who place their faith in Christ, those who are "in Him."
@@beberean612 His people are the ones he chose to be holy and blameless before the foundation of the world. Those are the ones that will believe. You can’t be holy and blameless without believing. Duh
@@aletheia8054 Forgive me, but I believe the concept has completely escaped you. But I understand. It can be difficult to take off the Calvinistic lenes. But when the best argument you have is fallacious, it says a lot. Faith is only salvation if Calvinism is true, which is the very point that is up for debate. On our view, faith is the instrumental means through which we're saved, not salvation itself. This "begs the question" of whether or not Calvinism is true and is therefore fallacious. Also, this is the second time you have said, "Duh" when presenting your arguments. How old are you? I'm asking because this comes off as very immature and even childish. But more importantly, it is the sign of a weak argument, as someone who is confident in what they believe has no need to resort to this ridiculous type of behavior.
@@beberean612 I’m not a Calvinist. And I’m not making an argument. The people that God chose to be holy and blameless before the foundation of the world are going to be. That’s not my opinion. That’s what the Bible says.
Please don't springboard off a couple of verses to support your own beliefs to slam another Christian. It's the entirety of scripture we need to apply. Was Calvin perfect? No, neither are we.
We're not trying to slam anyone here, just trying to point out the inconsistences of Calvinism and demonstrate that all of these so-called Calvinistic "proof text" are not inherently Calvinistic in any way, and have multiple interpretations. Try not to take this stuff so seriously. Yes, I am strongly disagreeing with you, but as adults, we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
The bottom line is grammatically, whether it be in Greek or in English, the direct object of the God's choosing before the foundation of the world is us. It does not say God chose to give spiritual blessings to whoever by their free will choice becomes in Christ through faith. So that's right...Ephesians 1:4 says that from eternity past the triune God decreed that by His grace the Father would raise certain people from spiritual death to spiritual life by the Holy Spirit giving them the gift of faith, at which time the benefits of Jesus Christ's redemptive death on the cross would be applied to them, and the Holy Spirit would indwell them to seal them for everlasting life. That's why Calvinist believe in particular atonement - when Christ died he atoned for God's chosen people past, present and future. Matthew 1:21 "And she shall bear a son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
This is a meaningless point when discussing an entity that exists outside of time. You're not thinking fourth dimensionally. God knew what all men would choose when he bestowed upon them salvific grace. Bestowing salvation on whom He chooses and saving all who choose Him are the same exact thing from a nonlinear viewpoint. The bigger problem with this Calvinist interpretation of how faith works is that they have to *immediately* pretend not to be a Calvinist as soon as they read any other Bible story not relating to salvation. Why did God test Abraham's faith? Isn't God the one providing the faith? Was He testing His own ability to give Abraham faith? Why did God punish Moses for striking the rock? Isn't Moses by his nature incapable of faith? So then the difference between Moses being faithful and Moses striking the rock is in God's actions, not Moses' so why would God be any more upset by unfaithfulness if unfaithfulness is how men always behave? Shoot, what is even the point of a Bible *existing* under Calvinism if man is incapable of abiding by it? If God has to compel that faithful behavior anyway, then the entire Bible is pointless. Calvinism doesn't withstand any scrutiny whatsoever, and even the Calvinist preachers must pretend not to be Calvinists on every other Sunday.
@@JD-xz1mx God not only knew what Abraham would do when he tested his faith by instructing him to sacrifice Isaac but He ordained it from before the foundation of the world for a purpose. The reason God does anything is to glorify Himself - make Himself known...His power, His justice, His righteousness, His grace and mercy, His plans and purposes, etc. Abraham taking His son Isaac to be sacrificed but providing a ram at the last minute instead was a type and shadow of the coming of the Messiah Jesus Christ. And of course God intended for everything that we have in scripture to be recorded for future generations to learn about who God is, and His plans and purposes. Y'all that hold to a simple God has perfect foreknowledge but doesn't ordain that anything occurs view to try to get around determinism don't seem to grasp that the mere fact that God knew in advance of anything happening in time was going to happen determines that it will happen exactly how He foreknew it would....that is unless you think God can be wrong about what He thought He knew.
@@Brenda-qo4ko This is impressive, you managed to completely ignore the argument, while through your teeth about what it was that I said. "The reason God does anything is to glorify Himself - make Himself known...His power, His justice, His righteousness, His grace and mercy, His plans and purposes, etc. " This makes no sense whatever. How does forcing Abraham to be faithful some times but not other times in any way glorify God? You're not answering the question, you're repeating a slogan. Yes, the Ram was foreshadowing of Jesus, I agree...... unfortunately for you that's completely and totally irrelevant to the question at hand. The sacrificial atonement of the ram did not necessitate God pretending to be testing Abraham's faith all the while Abraham is incapable of faith. After failing to answer one example, you then simply ignore the rest. "Y'all that hold to a simple God has perfect foreknowledge but doesn't ordain that anything occurs view to try to get around determinism don't seem to" Everything you say in this paragraph is a lie. I did not contend any of this. Instead I claimed that pre-ordination is not incompatible with free choice from the perspective of a God outside of time. You ought to repent for lying about what I said rather than dealing with the argument presented. Jesus said we should be faithful. Why would He say that if we can't? The Bible at every conceivable point but for one or two verses describes faith as though Calvinism is not true. Why is that?
@@JD-xz1mx God knew Abraham had faith in Him because God chose to reveal Himself to him granting Abraham faith when He made His covenant with Abraham. And God knew that Abraham would follow through with God's instructions to him by faith. Because God knew in advance of testing Abraham's faith that Abraham would follow through with God's instructions to Him, when the time came for it to happen Abraham could do nothing other than follow through with it unless God was wrong. It's apparent that you don't understand the meaning of God glorifying Himself. What that means is God does something to reveal who He is - His attributes, plans and purposes. God knew what Abraham was going to do before he did it but Abraham didn't until he did it. After the angel stopped Abraham from bringing the knife down on Isaac there was a ram caught in the thicket that Abraham would then use for the sacrifice. That's when Abraham names the mount "God will provide". Through that test of Abraham God not only continued to reveal Himself to Abraham but He also would reveal Himself to whoever read the scriptures.
@@JD-xz1mx One more thing I wanted to respond to in your prior comment. God gave 100's of laws/commandments after sin came into the world guaranteeing that there's no way human creatures would be able to keep them all perfectly. But God said that if we don't keep all His laws perfectly then we will be eternally punished. God set us all up for failure knowing full well that not everyone would express faith in Him/the coming Messiah/Jesus Christ which would send them to eternal damnation. And if God knew when He created not only that not everyone would express faith but exactly who in history would and wouldn't then because of God's perfect foreknowledge that determined when each individual lived in history what their choice would be. If that's the case then why would God desire all people come to a saving knowledge of Christ when it was already determined that not everyone would?
Are you saying that it is impossible to be blessed by God apart from faith in Christ? Do believe that Abraham, Noah, Moses or David were ever blessed by God? All were blessed, and it could be said were blessed by God in Christ, since Christ was before all of creation. And yet none of those had precedent knowledge of Christ at the time of that blessing. You are teaching something contrary to scripture.
I'm saying God doesn't bless people with spiritual blessings if they don't have faith. Their "faith" was credited to them as righteousness, not their "election," as Calvinist define that. In the new covenant, Paul says that God blesses those "in Christ" with every spiritual blessing. But if being connected to Christ is the means through which we receive every spiritual blessing, how can it be that the spiritual blessing of being chosen is the means through which we have always been connected to Christ? It's not that what I'm teaching is contrary to Scripture, it's just contrary to Calvinism.
You said: “it would have to be in the mind of Christ that we had the spiritual blessings” before the world began That’s correct . The children of God that he chose in union with Christ before the foundation of the world had the spiritual blessings in the mind of Christ before the union with Christ occurred in real time. We would say today, “it’s a done deal“ before it actually occurs in time.
The hoops to jump through to explain away the simplest reading of a text. God can’t possibly have meant “before the foundation of the world”… when he says… “before the foundation of the world”. God bless you brother. I still appreciate my non-calvinist brothers in Christ.
It says he chose us (in Him) to be holy and blameless... It doesn't say he chose us (to be in Him) to be holy and blameless. Choosing "us" or "those who are in Him," as the passage actually says, before the foundation of the world (to be holy and blameless), only sounds like Calvinism if you've been indoctrinated... as I was. It doesn't even come close to saying what Calvinist need it to say in order to support their claims. I.e., he chose us (to be) in Him. No chance this verse comes close to saying that.
Of course! Most of my family are Calvinist. I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters. That's why I'm subjecting myself to so many hateful comments, because I've been there, and I know how it affected my thinking.
So if I understand you correctly, being chosen by God is a spiritual blessing, but we can't receive spiritual blessings unless we are in Christ, so you are saying that when we place our faith in Christ, 'chose Him', we become one of His chosen people - He chooses us, so then we can receive the blessing of being chosen by God One question: where does our faith come from?
Yes, we become one of God's chosen people through faith. We receive this spiritual blessing just like every other spiritual blessing, through being in union with Christ through faith. I would say our faith comes from God, in as much as God has given us the ability to have faith and has reached out to us to respond in faith and be reconciled. But if you are asking where the decision to have faith comes from, I would say it comes from within each of us. In fact, the very question of "where does your decision to have faith come from" is based on the assumption that something outside of ourselves is responsible for the decision. In other words, it assumes a deterministic answer is required. It's like me asking you, "Why do you think God gave you libertarian free will?" This question also assumes a libertarian free will answer is required. The free will position rejects the notion that anything determines our choice and so your question, if I understand your implied argument correctly, self-destructs because it is based on circular reasoning.
@beberean612 autonomous free will, that is your argument. What do you do with Scripture such as this; dead in sins, spiritually dead, by nature children of wrath, slaves to sin. Does one's autonomous free will weigh so supreme and sovereign that it even overrides plain Scripture? Dead doesn't really mean dead. Slave to sin, slave doesn't really mean slave. How do you reconcile those things?
@@jtbtdlkt2012 How do you read the book of Job? Why would Satan make a wager with God about Job's faith if God is the one providing the faith, rather than Job? Was Satan just a blithering idiot, not knowing that God was cheating? Why would Jesus tell people to be faithful if He knew they were incapable of having faith? Was Jesus also an idiot who didn't understand faith so well as modern Calvinist pastors? Why did Jesus say the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak if the spirit was NOT willing? Why did God have to harden pharaoh's heart? If Calvinism is true, aren't all hearts hardened already? In passover, why would you give the instruction to smear lamb's blood on your door as a sign of faith if God is the one providing the faith? Doesn't God already know who He gave faith to? If you are a Calvinist, you have to pretend to not be a Calvinist for 99.9% of the Bible, and then switch back to Calvinism as soon as you get to two or three extremely specific verses.
@@jtbtdlkt2012 _"autonomous free will"_ A bit redundant terminology there since "free" already means "autonomous". _"What do you do with Scripture such as this: dead in sins, spiritually dead, by nature children of wrath, slaves to sin."_ We toyally agree with those scriptures. We simply don't impose calvinistic definitions & presuppositions onto them. _"Does... free will... overrides plain Scripture?"_ Only if one reads scriptures Calvinistically. But since we don't read the Bible within Calvinism's framework, we don't see where it overrides it. _"Dead doesn't really mean dead."_ In Calvinism, "dead" means "innate moral incapacity to believe in God or anything of God". They liken "dead" to a "corpse". Death is inability. For non-Calvinists, "dead" means "separation from God due to rebellion". They liken "dead" to the "separation of body and soul". Death is separation. _"Slave to sin, slave doesn't really mean slave."_ Slave means slave. The difference is that Calvinism brings in an additional presupposition onto the word "slave" that non-Calvinists reject. In Calvinism, slavery implies that one is unable to recognize their slavery state and accept freedom when offered. Non-Calvinists claim that slavery does NOT imply inability to recognize that fact and receive freedom in light of the gospel. _"How do you reconcile those things"_ By simply not adopting Calvinism's definitions and presuppositions.
@gk.4102 it is important to be super specific and define terms, especially when discussing theology. Autonomous because you are saying that the will is free from the stain and effects of sin; while we would say the will is a slave to sin and therefore not totally Autonomous. Much in the same as, "I can will myself to flap my arms and fly but it isn't in my nature" (to use a poor analogy). What rights does a slave have and why does the Bible use that term? What ability does a dead man have and why does the Bible use that term? John 6:44, no man CAN come to Me unless the Father draws him. Words have meaning and specific meaning; the Bible could have said "may" or any other word, but it says can. The word "draw" has deep meaning as well, all meant for what purpose? Isn't this pointing to inability and pointing all praise to God? Hey if you want to grab some of that glory for yourself then that's on you, just be honest about it and don't pussyfoot around the notion by appealing to God's true love saying something about free will. Chapter and verse about this free will, if we're going to get technical.
your entire argument hinges on being chosen by God is a spiritual blessing we must merit by choice... I am not convinced also, explain john 6:37-47.... sounds exactly like the Father chooses who can come to Christ Unconditional election, Irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints all in those 10 verses 🤔🤔 also, God chose israel, no other nation and from israel, He kept a remnant for Himself... theres "calvinism" all over the old testament, and the new covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-33, Ezekiel 36:25-27 demonstrates irresistible grace and unconditional election too.... the only argument against calvinism is "if God ordains all, how isn't He responsible for evil?" if God made every atom and molecule of every being, how did He create something capable of evil if He Himself is incapable of evil?
You are quoting the Calvinistic interpretation of these passages as evidence for why Calvinism is true. We believe God chooses who will come, but who does he choose? Those unilaterally chosen before the foundation of the world, or those who listen and learn from the Father (John6:45)? God did not choose Israel to the neglect of all other nations, He chose Israel to be a blessing to all other nations. That through Abraham, and his (S)eed, all nations of the earth will be blessed. This was the promise God made to Abraham. God kept a remnant to preserve the lineage of Christ, as the means to bless all nations of the earth. Jeremiah and Ezekiel are simply speaking of God's new covenant. How we enter that covenant is the point that is up for debate. You can't just quote passages of Scripture that have multiple interpretation as evidence for why your interpretation is correct. You must provide passages that can only be interpretated in a Calvinist way, to disprove an opposing position. As far I can tell, a passage such as this does not exist. But I believe there are passages of Scripture that can only be interpreted from a non-Calvinist perspective. This is one reason after 18 years of being a Calvinist, I believe the Calvinistic interpretation is the weaker interpretation.
@@beberean612 and you read them with an anti Calvinist interpretation... and saying "I was a calvinist...." isn't a valid argument I used to be an ardent anti Calvinist for years before I actually developed a consistent hermeneutic that harmonzies the old and new testament
@@beberean612 you are separating Christ from His benefits... that is a very common error of modern evangelicalism must one forsake sin before coming to Christ? is there something you must do before Christ accepts you and saves you?
"is a spiritual blessing we must merit by choice..." You're straw manning the word "merit" into the conversation. My children have to open their Christmas presents in order to play with them. That does not mean they "merited" the presents.
@@JD-xz1mx so you compare God's salvation to a gift that someone can open or not open if they want to play with it? that's a bad analogy, God's salvation is the defibrillator that shocks a dead person back to life Read Ephesians 2:1-6 we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, where do you anything in there about our choice to accept or reject anything? we were by nature children of wrath like THE REST OF MANKIND BUT God made us alive together with Christ why? because He chose to, we were dead, we did nothing to make God do that to us, He simply chose to do that for us WHILE WE WERE DEAD IN OUR TRESPASSES not after we made a decision idk how you do all sorts of mental gymnastics to make that say "God made us alive together with Christ by my choice to accept His offer" Paul is talking to a group of believers in this letter, not unbelievers they are by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
You said “being chosen is a personal choice that happens in real time” Yes, it’s a personal choice. But it’s God’s personal choice from the beginning the Bible says. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: The Greek word there choice is a personal choice . It comes from the Greek word, hairesis which is where we get the word heretic actually. it means a personal choice. God’s people are his personal choice from the beginning to save them through setting them apart of the spirit and belief in the truth. And those people that God personally chose are held until the faith comes. Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. This is the real time when the faith comes that was already decided from the beginning. This is not a Calvinist thing. This is the truth of the Bible.
Another thing with Ephesians 1, is that when he says "us" he doesn't actually refer to all the Christians everywhere or the Ephesians he was addressing the letter to. When he says 'us' in the first chapter he's referring to himself and the other apostles and early believers in Christ. You can see this in verse 12, and then after that he starts referring to the Ephesians from verse 13 by now addressing them directly with 'you'. I think this context even makes the point better that the predestination he was talking about was for the apostles to service. Love your videos brother, God bless you.
I've never heard the "Provisionist" term before. I'd say this is just how Greek is supposed to be read. The practice of the reader including themselves when reading "us" or "we" or any 1st person verb is relatively recent and leads to all kinds of wrong interpretations (for example, we are not all 'ambassadors of Christ', as much as many Christians might want that to be true, there's a specific context carried with that phrase, but I digress). Greek should be read as if you're the audience member (you, in this case) listening to a speaker on stage (us/we) telling about their own experience. The text actually makes much more sense this way. For example, in Ephesians, Paul isn't by any means excluding the reader (Ephesians) from being without the spiritual blessings. In fact, he addresses them as "to the *holy ones* being in Ephesus" and "believing ones in Christ". He's simply relating his (and those with him - 'us') experience in Christ (whether the intention is for the spiritual blessings to be listed out starting in vs 4, or whether 'every spiritual blessing' is included as just one of many things he talks about starting in vs3 is up to interpretation. I tend to lean towards the latter because of the 'just as' at the beginning of 4. I think if the former was intended, he'd have used a relative pronoun 'which is...', but this is chasing a skinny rabbit...) Long story short, when I read Ephesians (or any epistle) as a 'you', I get much more out of it. I see how Paul is affirming their faith as believers in Christ, but also is inviting them to go deeper by addressing some of the things they might be lacking. Ephesians is meat, not milk, after all.
I can't believe that anyone is falling for that "Ephesians 1:4-14 is only about Paul and the apostles" argument some are giving to try to get around the plain reading of that passage. There is absolutely no reason contextually in that letter to believe that Paul switched focus of the letter from him and the Ephesian believers in v. 1-3 to just him and the other apostles in v. 4-14 then goes back to directing the letter to him and the Ephesian believers again. What good would it do the Ephesian believers (or any future believers reading the letter) for Paul to tell them about experiences that only apply to the apostles?That makes no sense at all. That is unless someone thinks all those things Paul describes in that passage only applies to the apostles' salvation and doesn't apply to salvation of all believers. Because Paul's writing to the Ephesian church all the "we"s, "us"s and "you"s are all pronouns for Paul and the Ephesian believers. It amazes me the twisting and eisegeting people will do to God's word just to avoid Calvinism.
@@Brenda-qo4ko100%! If anything this just goes to show the damage of the fall and how invasive the sin nature is; even for believers, that a person who is saved would still subconsciously hold so dearly that notion of complete autonomy. To kick and scream against the notion that God is completely sovereign and chooses the elect, simply by His own good will; that this doctrine would trigger them so much and is such an affront to their autonomy.
Youre arguement just denied penal substitionary atonement. If all blessings can only be given if youre in christ. He couldnt have taken our sins on the cross. Theyre is no such thing as a former calvinist. Theyre are people who think they are calvinists but do not understand it and there are people who do understand it and reject it, aka apostates.
@@beberean612 He has a point though... would you defend against him even if just for me? Let me see if I can formulate it better: If all blessings can't be given to those who were currently not in Christ, including those who died before, and those who haven't yet come, and since salvation is one of those blessings, then how can salvation come to those people? He could have only died for those who believed in Him at the time of His death, which was a small number of people, no?
@@overcookedcooki5285 Sure, Christ can pay the penalty for everyone's sin on the cross, but this is not considered a spiritual blessing that we personally receive until we are in union with Christ through faith. Even those who lived at the time of Christ's death would not receive the spiritual blessing of forgiveness of sins unless they were in union with Christ through faith.
Proof text? The Calvinist is simply reading the text as it is while you seem to bring in the prejudice for wanting to reject Calvinism; and therefore rather than interpret the text as it stands you would find the need to muddy the water.
These are my conclusions after studying Calvinists as well as non-Calvinist scholars and theologians, reading the full context for myself, and determining which interpretations cause contradictions, and which ones do not. If you think a former dedicated Calvinist of 18 years is bias, I don't know what to say. Would it have been better if I were never a Calvinist? Would that make me less "bias" in your mind? Or do you only consider those who agree with you unbiased?
@beberean612 I'd be lying if I said none of us has a particular bias. When I was first saved and hadn't learned the doctrines of grace I 100% had the idea that God did most of the work and I did my part by making the right choice. I fought tooth and nail against people who were proponents of OSAS and Lordship Salvation; why did I hate those doctrines so much? It wasn't because I had researched them but because they went against my worldview and theology; they were affronts to my idea of free will and how that would comport with Scripture. Now I see Scripture through what i believe is a more Biblically accurate worldview and now those notions that I once held dear are an affront to Scripture.
Your video title is ironic proof that the Bible is an ever present and constant source of division in the body of Christ. Does the document not tell you that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand? Believing the book came from God is actually something Lucifer wants. For nothing divides the body of Christ better than the Bible. And nothing silences the Logos faster, than sacred regard for the writings of dead men.
No division here my friend, it's called iron sharpening iron. There is nothing wrong with having conversations like these, until someone like you comes along and makes a big deal out of nothing. Lighten up my brother.
@@beberean612A big deal out of nothing? Sacred regard for the Torah engendered murder in the hearts of the Pharisees, and they crucified the Logos because of it. But I should lighten up cause that's nothing. Got it.
@@beberean612 And you could claim it was all about iron sharpening iron if the various denominations didn't actually act like enemies, but they do. They compete with one another for the time and resources of the local people who call on the name of Jesus. We are divided as Lucifer planned. Jesus even prophesied it when he told us about the wheat and the tares. Sacred regard for the writing of dead men is one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity. Jesus prayed that we would be 1, just as he and the Father are 1. If there are two swords who are sharpening one another, then we are not one as Jesus and the father are one, are we? We are two. And in terms of the number of denominations, we are THOUSANDS. And the Bible is what divided us. We know the tree by what the tree produces. What tree produces division among those who believe in Jesus Christ?
@@beberean612 Stated another way. The human tendency to have sacred regard for ancient writing is an intricate part of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The book of Enoch explores Eve's apple from the perspective of what the watchers actually taught humanity that led to our downfall. What specifically the knowledge of good and evil was. What good? What evil? Mankind isn't the train wreck it is because we can't resist fruit. It was quite a bit more complicated than that. It included such things as the demon who taught us to make weapons so that we can wage war against one another. Or the demon who taught us to smite the unborn in the womb. One of the critical elements was the teaching of a fallen angel named Penemue from chapter 69. He taught humanity how to read and write, so that they could confirm their faith with pen and ink. And nearly all tribes of man follow Penemue's teaching. Christians are supposed to be a peculiar people, different, yet in this regard, we are the same as every other major religion on earth. We all have our sacred book that we gather around and deify, imagining that they can keep us warm at night. Penemue's purpose was to deafen humanity to the voice of the Logos. He succeeded spectacularly. The proof is simple. When the Logos became flesh and dwelled among us, the people of that day who upheld Penemu's teaching, the Pharisees, nailed the Logos to a tree. That is the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. That is the fruit of sin. That is the ironic fruit of the Bible. It silences the Logos. Thankfully, not even the Torah could silence the Logos forever. He rose from death. Isn't this why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees in John chapter 5 for their diligent study of the Torah? And even Paul understood some of this. How many times did he label the Torah as the "covenant of death" and the "power of sin"? If the first part of my Bible is indeed from God, how is it the covenant of death? How is it the power of sin? Such a thing should not come from the light of the world, from the way the truth and the life. The peculiar people live differently. They have conscious contact with the Logos inside themselves and have no need of a sacred book. The law is written on their hearts. You would ironically have to agree that the Logos is God is you believe John chapter 1. You would also ironically have to agree that he now lives in your heart through faith if you believe Ephesians chapter 3. But in believing the Bible is from God and in spending substantial time reading and interpreting what it says, you are like a man who is sitting down to lunch with Shakespeare, but speak not a word to him, for you are busy reading Romeo and Juliet.
@@beberean612 Enoch 69 records that the fruit of Penemue's doctrine was death. That we would not know death as a species if not for Penemue's teaching. You want to know the key to eternal life? Faith in the Logos. Faith in Christ. Rejecting Penenue's doctrine. Rejecting sacred writing. The proof is ironically in the Bible. Which 2 men never died? Enoch and Elijah, right? You believe that they were translated and did not see death. Why didn't they die? It's not because of faith in Jesus Christ, because they were both born a long time before Christ. Rather. It is because of faith in the Logos. Who is the Logos? JESUS CHRIST! Enoch learned what Penemu taught us and walked with God instead of walking with paper and ink. What about Elijah? I suspect he came to the same point in his walk with God. Remember in 1 King 19 when Elijah was hiding in the wilderness? The earth quake, the wind and the fire? And how God was not in them? Where was God? He was the "Still Small Voice". What is the Still Small Voice? The Logos.
Thank you everyone for watching and God bless!
I love the straightforward reading you gave. It is not God choosing who is going to be in Him. It is God choosing great blessings for those who are in Him.
That's it! Paul says we are chosen to be holy and blameless, not chosen to be saved salvation. Thank you for your comment and God bless!
God DOES choose who will be in Him. While Calvinists hold that only those whom God has picked can believe, Scripture teaches that God chooses to elect those who believe (the Gospel).
Great video. I recently came to fully appreciate this inside/outside Christ distinction more fully for myself. Even though I had the same belief as you in regard to Ephesians 1 for a long time, the power behind recognizing this distinction didn’t really hit me until recently. This is a wonderful “gotcha” to use against Calvinists because they are left with one of two options. They were either chosen to receive benefits outside of Christ which makes Christ less important or they were in Christ before the foundation of the world when they were chosen, somehow fell out of Him, only to be placed back in Him at some later point. So much for perseverance of the saints once in Christ.
Rather than responding individually to Calvinists making the same argument, I'm just going to post this.
The bigger problem with this Calvinist interpretation of how faith works is that they have to immediately pretend not to be a Calvinist as soon as they read any other Bible story not relating to salvation. Why did God test Abraham's faith? Isn't God the one providing the faith? Was He testing His own ability to give Abraham faith? Why did God punish Moses for striking the rock? Isn't Moses by his nature incapable of faith? So then the difference between Moses being faithful and Moses striking the rock is in God's actions, not Moses' so why would God be any more upset by unfaithfulness if unfaithfulness is how men always behave?
Shoot, what is even the point of a Bible existing under Calvinism if man is incapable of abiding by it? If God has to compel that faithful behavior anyway, then the entire Bible is pointless.
Why would Satan make a wager with God about Job's faith if God is the one providing the faith, rather than Job? Was Satan just a blithering idiot, not knowing that God was cheating?
Why would Jesus tell people to be faithful if He knew they were incapable of having faith? Was Jesus also an idiot who didn't understand faith so well as modern Calvinist pastors?
Why did Jesus say the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak if the spirit was NOT willing?
Why did God have to harden pharaoh's heart? If Calvinism is true, aren't all hearts hardened already?
In passover, why would you give the instruction to smear lamb's blood on your door as a sign of faith if God is the one providing the faith? Doesn't God already know who He gave faith to?
Calvinism doesn't withstand any scrutiny whatsoever, and even the Calvinist preachers must pretend not to be Calvinists on every other Sunday.
Your point about Satan's wager could be taken further. Because the angels are also created beings, Calvinism must also apply to them.
Why does God test anybody if He's the one supplying faith? Not only does it purify and sanctify us, but it's also part of God's plan for His glory. God punishes Moses because he sinned, it doesn't matter if he's *unwilling* (it's not as though Moses is willing but unable, the true and best definition of total depravity is that we are all *totally* unwilling, and God must soften our hearts if we are to do any good) he sinned and God can punish whomever He likes.
The Bible exists because it has the power to convert the unsaved, teach the saved, can be preserved well (unlike memorization, can last longer than one lifetime), and is how God chose to reveal Himself, if He wants a book of books in His glory then He can well do what He likes, mine looks cool anyways.
For one thing, I don't claim to know how much about the Christian (or godly, in any case) life Satan knew about, but Satan is essentially arguing that Job is "upright and innocent" because he has never been tested, and so God allows Satan to test Job. By no means is the point of the story how much faith Job maintains throughout the story, but rather it is a battle between thoughts on how God could do this or allow this to happen, Job isn't worried about how well he's going to endure these trials through faith, he's confused as to why the Lord is doing this to him. So, maybe Satan knew God was cheating, but in any case, he wanted to test how upright Job could be if he's pushed to his limits.
God often tells people to do things they can't do (following all His commandments, for example) the point is to goad people into repentance, and realize they can't even think a good thought without God's grace. He's preaching the gospel, but to whom is His decision, whether He will(did) elect them or not.
All hearts are totally depraved, but haven't you ever wondered why it is if Calvinism is true, that sinful people still do "good"? First of all, it's always selfish anyway, we do that good because God restrains us like we are a dog and he is the master, pulling on the leash to keep us in line, so hardening isn't that God squeezes all the good out of us until we're a rock hard sponge, He's allowing us to crumble from the inside out, into the cold dark creature we want to be.
Of course, God knows to whom He gives faith, but God doesn't need physical signs so that all of the x's are crossed and He can get His taxes all in line either, it is a sign to the world, to the people, and to yourself that you have faith, there will be no earning salvation, or earning its grace either, God will never owe anybody anything, and we can't demand God's grace because we humbled ourselves or self-created faith in our hearts.
As we can see, Calvinism is, in fact, standing up the scrutiny. Most of your questions are essentially the same, "why have (faith) if God makes (faith) and we can't make (faith)." We have the responsibility to do our best at obtaining salvation, but by no means can we, by our own merits or virtues (the Arminian understanding of faith would fit into this category), obtain it. How can these things be, Nicodemus? I, another Nicodemus, don't know, this is a truth the Bible doesn't tell of.
Thank you for your comment!
When did God choose his people in Christ?
God chose "His People" to be "holy and blameless" before the foundation of the world. Who are His people? Those who place their faith in Christ, those who are "in Him."
@@beberean612 His people are the ones he chose to be holy and blameless before the foundation of the world.
Those are the ones that will believe. You can’t be holy and blameless without believing. Duh
@@aletheia8054 Forgive me, but I believe the concept has completely escaped you. But I understand. It can be difficult to take off the Calvinistic lenes. But when the best argument you have is fallacious, it says a lot. Faith is only salvation if Calvinism is true, which is the very point that is up for debate. On our view, faith is the instrumental means through which we're saved, not salvation itself. This "begs the question" of whether or not Calvinism is true and is therefore fallacious. Also, this is the second time you have said, "Duh" when presenting your arguments. How old are you? I'm asking because this comes off as very immature and even childish. But more importantly, it is the sign of a weak argument, as someone who is confident in what they believe has no need to resort to this ridiculous type of behavior.
@@beberean612 I’m not a Calvinist. And I’m not making an argument. The people that God chose to be holy and blameless before the foundation of the world are going to be. That’s not my opinion. That’s what the Bible says.
@@beberean612 “faith is the instrumental means by which we are saved”. That is exactly what I believe too.
Please don't springboard off a couple of verses to support your own beliefs to slam another Christian. It's the entirety of scripture we need to apply. Was Calvin perfect? No, neither are we.
We're not trying to slam anyone here, just trying to point out the inconsistences of Calvinism and demonstrate that all of these so-called Calvinistic "proof text" are not inherently Calvinistic in any way, and have multiple interpretations. Try not to take this stuff so seriously. Yes, I am strongly disagreeing with you, but as adults, we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
The bottom line is grammatically, whether it be in Greek or in English, the direct object of the God's choosing before the foundation of the world is us. It does not say God chose to give spiritual blessings to whoever by their free will choice becomes in Christ through faith. So that's right...Ephesians 1:4 says that from eternity past the triune God decreed that by His grace the Father would raise certain people from spiritual death to spiritual life by the Holy Spirit giving them the gift of faith, at which time the benefits of Jesus Christ's redemptive death on the cross would be applied to them, and the Holy Spirit would indwell them to seal them for everlasting life. That's why Calvinist believe in particular atonement - when Christ died he atoned for God's chosen people past, present and future. Matthew 1:21 "And she shall bear a son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
This is a meaningless point when discussing an entity that exists outside of time. You're not thinking fourth dimensionally.
God knew what all men would choose when he bestowed upon them salvific grace. Bestowing salvation on whom He chooses and saving all who choose Him are the same exact thing from a nonlinear viewpoint.
The bigger problem with this Calvinist interpretation of how faith works is that they have to *immediately* pretend not to be a Calvinist as soon as they read any other Bible story not relating to salvation. Why did God test Abraham's faith? Isn't God the one providing the faith? Was He testing His own ability to give Abraham faith? Why did God punish Moses for striking the rock? Isn't Moses by his nature incapable of faith? So then the difference between Moses being faithful and Moses striking the rock is in God's actions, not Moses' so why would God be any more upset by unfaithfulness if unfaithfulness is how men always behave?
Shoot, what is even the point of a Bible *existing* under Calvinism if man is incapable of abiding by it? If God has to compel that faithful behavior anyway, then the entire Bible is pointless.
Calvinism doesn't withstand any scrutiny whatsoever, and even the Calvinist preachers must pretend not to be Calvinists on every other Sunday.
@@JD-xz1mx God not only knew what Abraham would do when he tested his faith by instructing him to sacrifice Isaac but He ordained it from before the foundation of the world for a purpose. The reason God does anything is to glorify Himself - make Himself known...His power, His justice, His righteousness, His grace and mercy, His plans and purposes, etc. Abraham taking His son Isaac to be sacrificed but providing a ram at the last minute instead was a type and shadow of the coming of the Messiah Jesus Christ. And of course God intended for everything that we have in scripture to be recorded for future generations to learn about who God is, and His plans and purposes.
Y'all that hold to a simple God has perfect foreknowledge but doesn't ordain that anything occurs view to try to get around determinism don't seem to grasp that the mere fact that God knew in advance of anything happening in time was going to happen determines that it will happen exactly how He foreknew it would....that is unless you think God can be wrong about what He thought He knew.
@@Brenda-qo4ko
This is impressive, you managed to completely ignore the argument, while through your teeth about what it was that I said.
"The reason God does anything is to glorify Himself - make Himself known...His power, His justice, His righteousness, His grace and mercy, His plans and purposes, etc. "
This makes no sense whatever. How does forcing Abraham to be faithful some times but not other times in any way glorify God? You're not answering the question, you're repeating a slogan. Yes, the Ram was foreshadowing of Jesus, I agree...... unfortunately for you that's completely and totally irrelevant to the question at hand. The sacrificial atonement of the ram did not necessitate God pretending to be testing Abraham's faith all the while Abraham is incapable of faith.
After failing to answer one example, you then simply ignore the rest.
"Y'all that hold to a simple God has perfect foreknowledge but doesn't ordain that anything occurs view to try to get around determinism don't seem to"
Everything you say in this paragraph is a lie. I did not contend any of this. Instead I claimed that pre-ordination is not incompatible with free choice from the perspective of a God outside of time. You ought to repent for lying about what I said rather than dealing with the argument presented. Jesus said we should be faithful. Why would He say that if we can't? The Bible at every conceivable point but for one or two verses describes faith as though Calvinism is not true. Why is that?
@@JD-xz1mx God knew Abraham had faith in Him because God chose to reveal Himself to him granting Abraham faith when He made His covenant with Abraham. And God knew that Abraham would follow through with God's instructions to him by faith. Because God knew in advance of testing Abraham's faith that Abraham would follow through with God's instructions to Him, when the time came for it to happen Abraham could do nothing other than follow through with it unless God was wrong.
It's apparent that you don't understand the meaning of God glorifying Himself. What that means is God does something to reveal who He is - His attributes, plans and purposes. God knew what Abraham was going to do before he did it but Abraham didn't until he did it. After the angel stopped Abraham from bringing the knife down on Isaac there was a ram caught in the thicket that Abraham would then use for the sacrifice. That's when Abraham names the mount "God will provide". Through that test of Abraham God not only continued to reveal Himself to Abraham but He also would reveal Himself to whoever read the scriptures.
@@JD-xz1mx One more thing I wanted to respond to in your prior comment. God gave 100's of laws/commandments after sin came into the world guaranteeing that there's no way human creatures would be able to keep them all perfectly. But God said that if we don't keep all His laws perfectly then we will be eternally punished. God set us all up for failure knowing full well that not everyone would express faith in Him/the coming Messiah/Jesus Christ which would send them to eternal damnation. And if God knew when He created not only that not everyone would express faith but exactly who in history would and wouldn't then because of God's perfect foreknowledge that determined when each individual lived in history what their choice would be. If that's the case then why would God desire all people come to a saving knowledge of Christ when it was already determined that not everyone would?
Are you saying that it is impossible to be blessed by God apart from faith in Christ? Do believe that Abraham, Noah, Moses or David were ever blessed by God? All were blessed, and it could be said were blessed by God in Christ, since Christ was before all of creation. And yet none of those had precedent knowledge of Christ at the time of that blessing. You are teaching something contrary to scripture.
I'm saying God doesn't bless people with spiritual blessings if they don't have faith. Their "faith" was credited to them as righteousness, not their "election," as Calvinist define that. In the new covenant, Paul says that God blesses those "in Christ" with every spiritual blessing. But if being connected to Christ is the means through which we receive every spiritual blessing, how can it be that the spiritual blessing of being chosen is the means through which we have always been connected to Christ? It's not that what I'm teaching is contrary to Scripture, it's just contrary to Calvinism.
So how did Moses obtain his faith?
All that the Father gives to Christ will come to Him.
You said: “it would have to be in the mind of Christ that we had the spiritual blessings” before the world began
That’s correct . The children of God that he chose in union with Christ before the foundation of the world had the spiritual blessings in the mind of Christ before the union with Christ occurred in real time.
We would say today, “it’s a done deal“ before it actually occurs in time.
The hoops to jump through to explain away the simplest reading of a text. God can’t possibly have meant “before the foundation of the world”… when he says… “before the foundation of the world”. God bless you brother. I still appreciate my non-calvinist brothers in Christ.
It says he chose us (in Him) to be holy and blameless... It doesn't say he chose us (to be in Him) to be holy and blameless. Choosing "us" or "those who are in Him," as the passage actually says, before the foundation of the world (to be holy and blameless), only sounds like Calvinism if you've been indoctrinated... as I was. It doesn't even come close to saying what Calvinist need it to say in order to support their claims. I.e., he chose us (to be) in Him. No chance this verse comes close to saying that.
Do you- do you appreciate your Calvinist brothers?
@@beberean612 yeah I’m not sure your parentheses are making a difference. What is the difference brother?
@@overcookedcooki5285 do I? Yes them too
Of course! Most of my family are Calvinist. I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters. That's why I'm subjecting myself to so many hateful comments, because I've been there, and I know how it affected my thinking.
So if I understand you correctly, being chosen by God is a spiritual blessing, but we can't receive spiritual blessings unless we are in Christ, so you are saying that when we place our faith in Christ, 'chose Him', we become one of His chosen people - He chooses us, so then we can receive the blessing of being chosen by God
One question: where does our faith come from?
Yes, we become one of God's chosen people through faith. We receive this spiritual blessing just like every other spiritual blessing, through being in union with Christ through faith. I would say our faith comes from God, in as much as God has given us the ability to have faith and has reached out to us to respond in faith and be reconciled. But if you are asking where the decision to have faith comes from, I would say it comes from within each of us. In fact, the very question of "where does your decision to have faith come from" is based on the assumption that something outside of ourselves is responsible for the decision. In other words, it assumes a deterministic answer is required. It's like me asking you, "Why do you think God gave you libertarian free will?" This question also assumes a libertarian free will answer is required. The free will position rejects the notion that anything determines our choice and so your question, if I understand your implied argument correctly, self-destructs because it is based on circular reasoning.
@beberean612 autonomous free will, that is your argument. What do you do with Scripture such as this; dead in sins, spiritually dead, by nature children of wrath, slaves to sin.
Does one's autonomous free will weigh so supreme and sovereign that it even overrides plain Scripture?
Dead doesn't really mean dead.
Slave to sin, slave doesn't really mean slave.
How do you reconcile those things?
@@jtbtdlkt2012
How do you read the book of Job?
Why would Satan make a wager with God about Job's faith if God is the one providing the faith, rather than Job? Was Satan just a blithering idiot, not knowing that God was cheating?
Why would Jesus tell people to be faithful if He knew they were incapable of having faith? Was Jesus also an idiot who didn't understand faith so well as modern Calvinist pastors?
Why did Jesus say the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak if the spirit was NOT willing?
Why did God have to harden pharaoh's heart? If Calvinism is true, aren't all hearts hardened already?
In passover, why would you give the instruction to smear lamb's blood on your door as a sign of faith if God is the one providing the faith? Doesn't God already know who He gave faith to?
If you are a Calvinist, you have to pretend to not be a Calvinist for 99.9% of the Bible, and then switch back to Calvinism as soon as you get to two or three extremely specific verses.
@@jtbtdlkt2012 _"autonomous free will"_
A bit redundant terminology there since "free" already means "autonomous".
_"What do you do with Scripture such as this: dead in sins, spiritually dead, by nature children of wrath, slaves to sin."_
We toyally agree with those scriptures. We simply don't impose calvinistic definitions & presuppositions onto them.
_"Does... free will... overrides plain Scripture?"_
Only if one reads scriptures Calvinistically. But since we don't read the Bible within Calvinism's framework, we don't see where it overrides it.
_"Dead doesn't really mean dead."_
In Calvinism, "dead" means "innate moral incapacity to believe in God or anything of God". They liken "dead" to a "corpse". Death is inability.
For non-Calvinists, "dead" means "separation from God due to rebellion". They liken "dead" to the "separation of body and soul". Death is separation.
_"Slave to sin, slave doesn't really mean slave."_
Slave means slave. The difference is that Calvinism brings in an additional presupposition onto the word "slave" that non-Calvinists reject.
In Calvinism, slavery implies that one is unable to recognize their slavery state and accept freedom when offered.
Non-Calvinists claim that slavery does NOT imply inability to recognize that fact and receive freedom in light of the gospel.
_"How do you reconcile those things"_
By simply not adopting Calvinism's definitions and presuppositions.
@gk.4102 it is important to be super specific and define terms, especially when discussing theology. Autonomous because you are saying that the will is free from the stain and effects of sin; while we would say the will is a slave to sin and therefore not totally Autonomous. Much in the same as, "I can will myself to flap my arms and fly but it isn't in my nature" (to use a poor analogy).
What rights does a slave have and why does the Bible use that term?
What ability does a dead man have and why does the Bible use that term?
John 6:44, no man CAN come to Me unless the Father draws him.
Words have meaning and specific meaning; the Bible could have said "may" or any other word, but it says can. The word "draw" has deep meaning as well, all meant for what purpose? Isn't this pointing to inability and pointing all praise to God?
Hey if you want to grab some of that glory for yourself then that's on you, just be honest about it and don't pussyfoot around the notion by appealing to God's true love saying something about free will. Chapter and verse about this free will, if we're going to get technical.
your entire argument hinges on being chosen by God is a spiritual blessing we must merit by choice...
I am not convinced
also, explain john 6:37-47.... sounds exactly like the Father chooses who can come to Christ
Unconditional election, Irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints all in those 10 verses 🤔🤔
also, God chose israel, no other nation
and from israel, He kept a remnant for Himself...
theres "calvinism" all over the old testament, and the new covenant, Jeremiah 31:31-33, Ezekiel 36:25-27 demonstrates irresistible grace and unconditional election too....
the only argument against calvinism is "if God ordains all, how isn't He responsible for evil?"
if God made every atom and molecule of every being, how did He create something capable of evil if He Himself is incapable of evil?
You are quoting the Calvinistic interpretation of these passages as evidence for why Calvinism is true. We believe God chooses who will come, but who does he choose? Those unilaterally chosen before the foundation of the world, or those who listen and learn from the Father (John6:45)? God did not choose Israel to the neglect of all other nations, He chose Israel to be a blessing to all other nations. That through Abraham, and his (S)eed, all nations of the earth will be blessed. This was the promise God made to Abraham. God kept a remnant to preserve the lineage of Christ, as the means to bless all nations of the earth. Jeremiah and Ezekiel are simply speaking of God's new covenant. How we enter that covenant is the point that is up for debate. You can't just quote passages of Scripture that have multiple interpretation as evidence for why your interpretation is correct. You must provide passages that can only be interpretated in a Calvinist way, to disprove an opposing position. As far I can tell, a passage such as this does not exist. But I believe there are passages of Scripture that can only be interpreted from a non-Calvinist perspective. This is one reason after 18 years of being a Calvinist, I believe the Calvinistic interpretation is the weaker interpretation.
@@beberean612 and you read them with an anti Calvinist interpretation...
and saying "I was a calvinist...." isn't a valid argument
I used to be an ardent anti Calvinist for years before I actually developed a consistent hermeneutic that harmonzies the old and new testament
@@beberean612 you are separating Christ from His benefits... that is a very common error of modern evangelicalism
must one forsake sin before coming to Christ? is there something you must do before Christ accepts you and saves you?
"is a spiritual blessing we must merit by choice..."
You're straw manning the word "merit" into the conversation. My children have to open their Christmas presents in order to play with them. That does not mean they "merited" the presents.
@@JD-xz1mx so you compare God's salvation to a gift that someone can open or not open if they want to play with it? that's a bad analogy, God's salvation is the defibrillator that shocks a dead person back to life
Read Ephesians 2:1-6
we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
where do you anything in there about our choice to accept or reject anything? we were by nature children of wrath like THE REST OF MANKIND
BUT God made us alive together with Christ
why? because He chose to, we were dead, we did nothing to make God do that to us, He simply chose to do that for us WHILE WE WERE DEAD IN OUR TRESPASSES
not after we made a decision
idk how you do all sorts of mental gymnastics to make that say "God made us alive together with Christ by my choice to accept His offer"
Paul is talking to a group of believers in this letter, not unbelievers
they are by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
You said “being chosen is a personal choice that happens in real time”
Yes, it’s a personal choice. But it’s God’s personal choice from the beginning the Bible says.
2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
The Greek word there choice is a personal choice . It comes from the Greek word, hairesis which is where we get the word heretic actually. it means a personal choice.
God’s people are his personal choice from the beginning to save them through setting them apart of the spirit and belief in the truth.
And those people that God personally chose are held until the faith comes.
Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
This is the real time when the faith comes that was already decided from the beginning.
This is not a Calvinist thing. This is the truth of the Bible.
Another thing with Ephesians 1, is that when he says "us" he doesn't actually refer to all the Christians everywhere or the Ephesians he was addressing the letter to. When he says 'us' in the first chapter he's referring to himself and the other apostles and early believers in Christ. You can see this in verse 12, and then after that he starts referring to the Ephesians from verse 13 by now addressing them directly with 'you'. I think this context even makes the point better that the predestination he was talking about was for the apostles to service.
Love your videos brother, God bless you.
This is the view that Provisionist Perspective takes. Thank you for your kind comment and God bless!
I've never heard the "Provisionist" term before. I'd say this is just how Greek is supposed to be read. The practice of the reader including themselves when reading "us" or "we" or any 1st person verb is relatively recent and leads to all kinds of wrong interpretations (for example, we are not all 'ambassadors of Christ', as much as many Christians might want that to be true, there's a specific context carried with that phrase, but I digress). Greek should be read as if you're the audience member (you, in this case) listening to a speaker on stage (us/we) telling about their own experience. The text actually makes much more sense this way. For example, in Ephesians, Paul isn't by any means excluding the reader (Ephesians) from being without the spiritual blessings. In fact, he addresses them as "to the *holy ones* being in Ephesus" and "believing ones in Christ". He's simply relating his (and those with him - 'us') experience in Christ (whether the intention is for the spiritual blessings to be listed out starting in vs 4, or whether 'every spiritual blessing' is included as just one of many things he talks about starting in vs3 is up to interpretation. I tend to lean towards the latter because of the 'just as' at the beginning of 4. I think if the former was intended, he'd have used a relative pronoun 'which is...', but this is chasing a skinny rabbit...) Long story short, when I read Ephesians (or any epistle) as a 'you', I get much more out of it. I see how Paul is affirming their faith as believers in Christ, but also is inviting them to go deeper by addressing some of the things they might be lacking. Ephesians is meat, not milk, after all.
@@tonewise2well said. 👏
I can't believe that anyone is falling for that "Ephesians 1:4-14 is only about Paul and the apostles" argument some are giving to try to get around the plain reading of that passage. There is absolutely no reason contextually in that letter to believe that Paul switched focus of the letter from him and the Ephesian believers in v. 1-3 to just him and the other apostles in v. 4-14 then goes back to directing the letter to him and the Ephesian believers again. What good would it do the Ephesian believers (or any future believers reading the letter) for Paul to tell them about experiences that only apply to the apostles?That makes no sense at all. That is unless someone thinks all those things Paul describes in that passage only applies to the apostles' salvation and doesn't apply to salvation of all believers. Because Paul's writing to the Ephesian church all the "we"s, "us"s and "you"s are all pronouns for Paul and the Ephesian believers.
It amazes me the twisting and eisegeting people will do to God's word just to avoid Calvinism.
@@Brenda-qo4ko100%! If anything this just goes to show the damage of the fall and how invasive the sin nature is; even for believers, that a person who is saved would still subconsciously hold so dearly that notion of complete autonomy. To kick and scream against the notion that God is completely sovereign and chooses the elect, simply by His own good will; that this doctrine would trigger them so much and is such an affront to their autonomy.
Youre arguement just denied penal substitionary atonement. If all blessings can only be given if youre in christ. He couldnt have taken our sins on the cross. Theyre is no such thing as a former calvinist. Theyre are people who think they are calvinists but do not understand it and there are people who do understand it and reject it, aka apostates.
Lol. So you're one of those who believe Calvinism is the gospel.
You are silly.
@@beberean612 He has a point though... would you defend against him even if just for me? Let me see if I can formulate it better: If all blessings can't be given to those who were currently not in Christ, including those who died before, and those who haven't yet come, and since salvation is one of those blessings, then how can salvation come to those people? He could have only died for those who believed in Him at the time of His death, which was a small number of people, no?
@@overcookedcooki5285 Sure, Christ can pay the penalty for everyone's sin on the cross, but this is not considered a spiritual blessing that we personally receive until we are in union with Christ through faith. Even those who lived at the time of Christ's death would not receive the spiritual blessing of forgiveness of sins unless they were in union with Christ through faith.
Proof text? The Calvinist is simply reading the text as it is while you seem to bring in the prejudice for wanting to reject Calvinism; and therefore rather than interpret the text as it stands you would find the need to muddy the water.
These are my conclusions after studying Calvinists as well as non-Calvinist scholars and theologians, reading the full context for myself, and determining which interpretations cause contradictions, and which ones do not. If you think a former dedicated Calvinist of 18 years is bias, I don't know what to say. Would it have been better if I were never a Calvinist? Would that make me less "bias" in your mind? Or do you only consider those who agree with you unbiased?
@beberean612 I'd be lying if I said none of us has a particular bias. When I was first saved and hadn't learned the doctrines of grace I 100% had the idea that God did most of the work and I did my part by making the right choice. I fought tooth and nail against people who were proponents of OSAS and Lordship Salvation; why did I hate those doctrines so much? It wasn't because I had researched them but because they went against my worldview and theology; they were affronts to my idea of free will and how that would comport with Scripture.
Now I see Scripture through what i believe is a more Biblically accurate worldview and now those notions that I once held dear are an affront to Scripture.
Your video title is ironic proof that the Bible is an ever present and constant source of division in the body of Christ. Does the document not tell you that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand? Believing the book came from God is actually something Lucifer wants. For nothing divides the body of Christ better than the Bible. And nothing silences the Logos faster, than sacred regard for the writings of dead men.
No division here my friend, it's called iron sharpening iron. There is nothing wrong with having conversations like these, until someone like you comes along and makes a big deal out of nothing. Lighten up my brother.
@@beberean612A big deal out of nothing? Sacred regard for the Torah engendered murder in the hearts of the Pharisees, and they crucified the Logos because of it. But I should lighten up cause that's nothing. Got it.
@@beberean612 And you could claim it was all about iron sharpening iron if the various denominations didn't actually act like enemies, but they do. They compete with one another for the time and resources of the local people who call on the name of Jesus. We are divided as Lucifer planned. Jesus even prophesied it when he told us about the wheat and the tares. Sacred regard for the writing of dead men is one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity.
Jesus prayed that we would be 1, just as he and the Father are 1. If there are two swords who are sharpening one another, then we are not one as Jesus and the father are one, are we? We are two. And in terms of the number of denominations, we are THOUSANDS. And the Bible is what divided us. We know the tree by what the tree produces. What tree produces division among those who believe in Jesus Christ?
@@beberean612 Stated another way. The human tendency to have sacred regard for ancient writing is an intricate part of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The book of Enoch explores Eve's apple from the perspective of what the watchers actually taught humanity that led to our downfall. What specifically the knowledge of good and evil was. What good? What evil? Mankind isn't the train wreck it is because we can't resist fruit. It was quite a bit more complicated than that. It included such things as the demon who taught us to make weapons so that we can wage war against one another. Or the demon who taught us to smite the unborn in the womb. One of the critical elements was the teaching of a fallen angel named Penemue from chapter 69. He taught humanity how to read and write, so that they could confirm their faith with pen and ink. And nearly all tribes of man follow Penemue's teaching. Christians are supposed to be a peculiar people, different, yet in this regard, we are the same as every other major religion on earth. We all have our sacred book that we gather around and deify, imagining that they can keep us warm at night. Penemue's purpose was to deafen humanity to the voice of the Logos. He succeeded spectacularly. The proof is simple. When the Logos became flesh and dwelled among us, the people of that day who upheld Penemu's teaching, the Pharisees, nailed the Logos to a tree. That is the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. That is the fruit of sin. That is the ironic fruit of the Bible. It silences the Logos. Thankfully, not even the Torah could silence the Logos forever. He rose from death.
Isn't this why Jesus rebuked the Pharisees in John chapter 5 for their diligent study of the Torah? And even Paul understood some of this. How many times did he label the Torah as the "covenant of death" and the "power of sin"? If the first part of my Bible is indeed from God, how is it the covenant of death? How is it the power of sin? Such a thing should not come from the light of the world, from the way the truth and the life.
The peculiar people live differently. They have conscious contact with the Logos inside themselves and have no need of a sacred book. The law is written on their hearts.
You would ironically have to agree that the Logos is God is you believe John chapter 1. You would also ironically have to agree that he now lives in your heart through faith if you believe Ephesians chapter 3. But in believing the Bible is from God and in spending substantial time reading and interpreting what it says, you are like a man who is sitting down to lunch with Shakespeare, but speak not a word to him, for you are busy reading Romeo and Juliet.
@@beberean612 Enoch 69 records that the fruit of Penemue's doctrine was death. That we would not know death as a species if not for Penemue's teaching. You want to know the key to eternal life? Faith in the Logos. Faith in Christ. Rejecting Penenue's doctrine. Rejecting sacred writing. The proof is ironically in the Bible. Which 2 men never died? Enoch and Elijah, right? You believe that they were translated and did not see death.
Why didn't they die? It's not because of faith in Jesus Christ, because they were both born a long time before Christ. Rather. It is because of faith in the Logos. Who is the Logos? JESUS CHRIST! Enoch learned what Penemu taught us and walked with God instead of walking with paper and ink. What about Elijah? I suspect he came to the same point in his walk with God. Remember in 1 King 19 when Elijah was hiding in the wilderness? The earth quake, the wind and the fire? And how God was not in them? Where was God? He was the "Still Small Voice". What is the Still Small Voice? The Logos.