@@HarryNicNicholas Lol friend, I was an atheist and the shackles came off AFTER I said, Jesus You are Lord. Jesus said," I am the way,the truth and the life. When I became a christian it was like coming back to the place I should have been all along, like coming home. Hope you to can come home!!
@@GreatLightStudios yep, the more platforms atheists have, the sooner the churches will be totally empty, you do great work. next time you talk to god though can you ask how we get cold fusion working, all this peace and love stuff is all very well, but something practical for a change would help with my electricity bills? but don't be pushy, god has a short fuse.
I also think this is a contradiction. But for much different reasons. Not based on total depravity, but based on the doctrine of justification, this leaves both MacArthur and Warren McGrew bypassing the explicit biblical demand for salvation. They both bypass the Doctrine of Justification in favor of babies, where it seems an idol is exposed, where they both turn their backs on God’s method of salvation and lean into a sort of baby worship idolatry. To bypass justification by faith is textbook heresy, according to multiple ecumenical councils.
@@noahcole6856 the Eastern Orthodox church. It was never infected with Augustinian thinking, so it better reflects the understanding of the early church fathers in a lot of ways.
@@Dizerner That's not what they said which makes you a liar like most Calvinists. You're an idolater. Your god is the devil. You don't have Jesus. You have a demon--not the Holy Spirit. You went beyond dead in your sin and chose a cage of false doctrine and an accursed gospel. It's why you're a spiritual fraud and have no assurance nor love nor light nor grace of God in your life.
I wonder how many people read the Bible and say God is the potter and also say we are in the potter's house. we may be just a lump of clay, but we are in God's house and hands. Yet you, LORD, are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand. (Isaiah 64:8 NIV) The psalmist compares God to a potter. A potter who can take a simple lump of clay and form it into a variety of different vessels according to his need. I am one of those lumps of clay that God has formed, and continues to shape, as he chooses. He did not give me the talents and skills I admire in many others. But I am what he wanted to make. And that is true for each of us.
Point out which are problematic. I found that Calvinism draws some problematic conclusions at times. I do however agree with them on the issue of depravity, while I want' call it total rather pervasive and none-reversible. Which is why we need to be born again spiritually.
Warren if I may humbly possibly help in your new critique of total depravity is Genesis 3:22. If God says man knows good and evil like He knows it I don't think total depravity can stand on that.
My FAVORITE Calvinist Response: "NO Calvinist believes in infant damnation...This is why Infant Damnation MUST be true". They literally contradict themselves in the same paragraph, lying about their own position (denial), then affirming their own position affirming infant damnation. I see consistent Calvinism as a literal sowing & reaping fulfillment of the judgments in Romans Chapter 1, under slightly different circumstances.
@@ernestojlassus1354 "Real Terms" like "Gender Affirming Care", "Women's Health", "Pro-Choice", Doctrines of Grace", "Elect Infants"? Seriously, "Real Terms" are usually deceptions = lies. If you have a suggestion for a Real Term I should use, I will be happy to review, and perhaps explain how the "Real Term" is a method of deceiving vulnerable naive Christians.
Very good discussion and testimony! Answering Genesis 6:5, we have to keep in mind there is a unique connection to role of “the sons of God” (Gen. 6:2) and the Nephilim (Gen.6:4) in the immediate context. Gen. 6:5 is not a general commentary by God on biblical anthropology, but the unique role of divine beings in the three-part fall of man (Gen. 3, Gen. 6, and Gen. 11/Deut. 32). We tend to filter out this theme that is woven throughout the biblical story.
Also calling people names isn’t the way to discuss things. It’s always better to just have respectful dialogue. I enjoy talking with others calvinists included cause it can teach me things also.
If Calvinists use the story of Lazarus to show spiritual 'death,' and Jesus' voice could call him back to life, then why couldn't Jesus' voice call spiritually dead men like the pharisees back to life? Why would this not have been sufficient? Why would they need a 'regeneration' from the Spirit first? And doesn't this knock out the whole attempt to make the story of Lazarus a parallel to regeneration and salvation?
The discussion about how Calvinism seems to argue that slaves have no desire to be free eerily parallels the arguments made in America in the antebellum South...
That example would support the argument - look at the underground slave train. Or the innumerable slaves who made desperate escapes, knowing the risk of brutal punishment or death. I see what you’re saying if you look at that slavery through Gone With the Wind goggles.
You guys had me in agreement until Open Theism and Annihilationism was put forward. I don’t know if Warren is an Open Theist or if that was a joke. And I don’t see a Biblical case for temporary punishment. I don’t think every passage on the permanence of Hell is meant to be allegorized. I did enjoy the pushback on Original Sin, though. I’ve been watching more videos on challenges to that Augustinian doctrine.
I can't help but wonder if James White has ever had an in depth conversation with anyone - at this level; to tell us what he really believes (aka loves) about the Lord...
My personal opinion is that Dr. White is a blowhard who likes the sound of his own voice. I don't think he's a serious theologian in the least. I wish other Christian YT'ers would stop giving him so much exposure.
11:05 God has sovereignly decreeed that we can't boast about believing in Jesus for salvation. He doesn't consider it a work. He degree that we have a choice!
Paul is the one who said if anyone preaches a perverted God, Jesus or Gospel we are to mark and avoid and let them be accursed. Calvinism clearly falls into that category.
"Sinners loving their sin" is so strange. I've never heard of an unsaved drug addict that loves their addictions. People who make those stupid statements never have any interaction with ministry
Is it possible we all start out loving sins, even the drug user do it bc it feels good? But habitual sinning takes it's toll and sin is punishment in itself in some way. The conseqeunces are often dire. There is no blessing in living in sin, only sorrow and regret
19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. (John 3:19-20, NASB)
@@abuelb all that’s saying is people don’t like their sins being revealed (not in darkness). Why would they care unless they had a conscience convicting them? They love darkness, not the sins themselves
1:18:40 - Warren says, in relation to infant baptism, that baptism had more than one meaning in the early church. I would love to learn more about this. Currently something I am thinking through.
26 But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. (John 10:26-29, NASB)
15:20 Warren is right, IMO, to spend time focusing on Total Depravity. I always say that without the "T", "ULIP" is 'totally' unnecessary. Everything I can think of in Calvinism emanates from the false premise of man's inability to respond positively to God. If one becomes convinced of "T", the rest of the doctrine becomes logically necessary. I fail to see how discussing anything other than the "T" with a Calvinist accomplishes anything but confusion. They cannot help but impose it as the fundamental 'given' in all their arguments for any other part of their doctrine. I think this was perfectly illustrated recently in both Leighton Flowers' and Jason Breda's recent debates with James White on Unconditional Election as it relates to John 6:44 and Limited Atonement respectively. In the end, it was almost pointless because Dr. White presupposes Total Depravity as his foundation and literally dismisses anyone rejecting that as unworthy of a serious conversation. YET, few Calvinists will ever debate the "T" because they know there isn't a single verse or passage in proper context to support it anywhere in scripture.
Warren, just as you had Calvinism "instilled in you",, so did the children of the fathers of Israel who taught the law without the prophets to them. Instil: gradually but firmly establish (an idea or attitude, especially a desirable one) in a person's mind You swallowed what you were being fed which formed you into a Calvinist. Simple.
I think the biggest issue with calvinism is closed theism and the way they see TIME. This "God is outside of time" nonsense helps build to this garbage theology. Most people have a horrible conception of what time is. Its not some tangible thing or a dimension. Its nothing you can travel or "see down the corridor of "
If you believe in actual free will, then there is no logical way for God to know future decisions if he is time bound. People try to argue from predictive guessing based on behavioral patterns, but actual free will dictates and is shown that people can deviate from the norm.
@@DizernerI think people are very predictable. Time does not exist, there is just the present. There is no such thing as "time line". How can infinitely be all past?
@@Dizernerjust to clarify, I think, for you to say infinity has already happened is absurd if that's what you're saying. Which would mean that that would be the only way God could live outside of time
@@chrislucastheprotestantview If God is outside of time, we no longer need an infinity in the past, which I agree, is a logical problem. Because time had a beginning when God entered it. There was no time before that, else you are violated the definition of "outside" of time. People and be predictable, but not 100% and not all people are the same predictability. You're glossing over the logical problem there, because if there is a %.00000000000001 chance someone will change their mind, than God's predictions can fail.
- The logic of "original sin" doctrine, or any form of "because Adam sinned", is nonsensical to me, because it fails to account for Adam himself sinning. I believe we are sin prone because we are like Adam, not because Adam sinned. And I think He knew we would be sin prone all along, and that's just an aspect of being immature entities. The sixth day creation is very good, as He said, but we need to learn how to "operate" it properly. And we need His help for that.
Anyone know what Brenton was talking about when he stated he made a solid defense of infant damnation that preserves Gods character? I think he's likely wrong, but I think we should take time to interact with circumspect and reasonable interlocutors.
If you're speaking of tge brenton I know of it doesn't really matter what he's said because it's quite obvious that he's possessed with the spirit of calvinism . The spirit that causes folks to believe A=Non A isn't a contradiction. The spirit that fills people with arrogance and spiritual blindness .
I've pointed out to Warren several times (at least before he blocked me) that his objection is primarily to ECT or "one-sized-fits-all" (i.e. burn them all) view of damnation. A view that even he doesn't believe, but uses to tar and feather Calvinists. But damnation comes from the Latin "dampnare" which simply means to "inflict loss". It doesn't imply ECT. What do men lose? They lose the good that God has given to them (i.e. life, breath, and everything). By God's judgment, wicked men are "condemned". Think "condemning" a building. What happens to it? It is torn down, destroyed. Damnation is related to, but a separate, from "punishment". Punishment relates to retributive justice, i.e. men getting what they deserve as recompense based on their works. Punishment is "torment". For example, we might say that all men, apart from salvation in Christ, are condemned (i.e. destroyed), but not all will receive the same "punishment" or "retributive justice" for wrongs committed. In other words, not all men who are condemned need be "tormented". Indeed, it is conceivable that that some people who are condemned will not receive any "punishment" at all. For example: (1) Supposing Hitler is condemned (i.e. no deathbed conversion), he will be "beaten with many strips" (see Luke 12:47) for his great evil before his ultimate destruction... losing all of the good God had given to Him. Lots of torment. (2) Supposing a muslim woman in Afghanistan lives a relatively peaceful life but dies in her sin, she is condemned also but will be "beaten with few stripes" before her ultimate destruction... losing all of the good God had given to her. A little torment. (3) Supposing an infant dies, we can think that this infant will receive no punishment, but may nonetheless be condemned (i.e. destroyed)... losing all of the good God had given to him. No torment. The distinction here is between the "ultimate destruction" of the creature and the "retributive punishment" given to particular creatures given based on works before that destruction. You might ask: But why would God condemn an infant if they have no works? Why would He take away the good He has given to them? First, of course, we agree that God doesn't have to condemn them. He could save them, by grace, in Christ, just like He could the Muslim woman, or even Hitler. God is always free to give grace. But it would still be by grace. In the base case, all we have ever received from God (i.e. life, breath, and everything) we receive by grace. God is under no obligation to give any of it to us. We must keep grace central. Salvation always entails God's perpetual grace, i.e. giving to men good things, indeed Himself, forever. We cannot earn that. We do not deserve it because of what we have done. Second, although infants are not "guilty" of any actual sins that they have committed... and thus receive no punishment... are still sinners. As even Warren recognizes in this video, all men are prone to sin and will inevitably sin in this world. Infants, given the opportunity, will sin. As a result, they cannot enter into the perfected world God is creating in that condition. Infants, like everyone else, must either be excluded from the New Heavens and New Earth because of their sinfulness or changed (i.e. made new creatures, born again). In conclusion, from the first point above, if God were to "condemn" infants (i.e. take away life and existence) then there would be no injustice. God is not obligated to give perpetual life and existence to anyone. What He gives, he can take away (Job 1:21). In addition, if God is going to give them perpetual life and existence, then God must change them; He must give them a new nature, lest they sin and mar the New Heavens and New Earth. Of course, God may in fact change them all and save them. If He doesn't, then I trust there will be a good purpose in it. If He does, then I look forward to seeing these souls in Heaven. But I leave it to the goodness of God. Hope that helps. Let me know if anything is unclear.
He’s not only wrong but debates outside of what he actually believes. He is not a reasonable interlocutor. He is a closed theist and a determinists who believes that God willed and predetermined EVERYTHING but then will gaslight you speaking as-if that’s not what he believes. His arguments are no different than any other determinist.
@@brentonstanfield5198Correct no one in history who believed in closed theism (Platonism) was reasonable. Since none of the Biblical authors were closed theists you look silly ad hoc claiming that almost all historical Christian’s were. You literally demonstrated everything I said in your first reply to me.
Impossible. Calvinism is a cancerous tumor on the beautiful host body of Biblical Christianity. ALL the distinctives of Calvinism are lies and therefore evil. The entire foundation is built on evil foundation of a twisted definition of God's Sovereignty. In summary, "Good Calvinism" is an oxymoron equivalent to "Good cancer."
We need to admit our total depravity but do we need to judge salvation? According to the bible their is one faith and one judge. Do we show our love by judging salvation? James 4:11 [11] [m] Do not speak evil against one another, brothers.(4) The one who speaks against a brother or [n] judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. Footnotes (4) Or brothers and sisters Cross-references [m]: 2 Cor 12:20; 1 Pet 2:1; Jas 5:9 [n]: Mt 7:1 (ESV)
Yup sin as John the Baptist says Jesus comes to the root. A rebellion from the heart using God created ( but dying ) flesh. Then creating addiction to flesh or the old man of sin, or “sin in the members“. But for sure “Metaphysical stuff” is not sin. The Christian confession must be “all have sinned” not “all are sinners” . Or “I have sinned”, not “Adam or a nature sinned”. I don’t think we realise how completely opposite these ideas are. Otherwise we must change the incarceration into Jesus coming as “other than” human. The gnostic root of making “ stuff” sinful
2:21:45 I appreciate the sentiment of not limiting the faith to just affirming certain propositions. Sadly, this sounds like an overcorrection to me (as always).
Regarding infant d@mnation, recognizing that all people who are born from natural generation from Adam are appointed sinners, having sinned with Adam when he sinned (Romans 5:12, 15, 18-19, Cf. Hebrews 7:9-10), Jesus will not abandon those who have been given to Him by the Father in eternity (John 6:37, 44, 65, 10:26, Ephesians 1:4-6, Romans 8:28-30), and His eternal decree of election ensures their salvation whether they die in infancy or adulthood. Whether or not all children who die in infancy are elect is another topic altogether, and requires pure speculation.
According to Revelation 20:12-13, unbelievers will be judged in accordance to the record of what they did, not according to if they were preselected. Here’s your prooftext for your theory Warren. Also check out Daniel 12:2, the resurrection of the dead (righteous and wicked) for the purpose of judgment. “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.” Revelation 20:12-13 ESV
14:08 - 17:00 . Great argument. Two things Warren should consider in light of regeneration... 1. Regenerating dead people at their judgment just so they can finally understand why they are going to hell fits perfectly with Calvinism. They already believe Jesus knowingly performed miracles for reprobates SO THAT they would become guilty of rejecting them and could then be condemned. 🤮 2. Regeneration is from the Spirit, and Calvinists have been telling us forever that the natural man can't receive anything from the Spirit. So, if they're consistent, then all of humanity is going to hell anyway. 😵💫 🤣
I think the argument about the person claiming to have been born unable to understand spiritual truths can't tell whether or not they've been, in fact, regenerated is like insisting the man who was born blind can't tell if he can see after being healed because he wasn't born with vision. Edit: also about the new argument you've mentioned it assumes that regeneration is the only means god can use to accomplish that task.
This comparison misses some key distinctions for a few reasons: 1. The blind person still knows he is blind and wishes to see. He may not know what seeing feels like, but the desire is still there. Likewise, he can listen to others talk about how good it is, and come to trust that seeing is an enjoyable thing. Under total depravity, none of those truths cross over. The sinful man can't know he is sinful and/or desire to see the things of God. 2. A proper comparison would be if you told me that a blind person doesn't have the capacity to understand or care about anything related to see. He doesn't know he is blind. He doesn't wish to see. He is unable to even understand what other people tell him about seeing. This blind man then brushes his teeth and says, "Ah, now I can see!" .....There is no standard for him to know if he is "seeing" or not since he was born unable to discern or want anything related to "seeing". No analogy is perfect, but hopefully that helps to get to the core of his argument.
@@AllDayEveryDay1772That's fair, but I still think it misses the point of the analogy. It being the idea that the experience of going from blindness to sight is such that can't be missed.
The comparison of religious enlightenment to a blind man being able to see is totally reversed from the type of argument Warren has made. What is being claimed is the gaining of an ability that all people are born without, not one that the vast majority of people possess. With vision, we have a near-universal human experience of vision which is so ubiquitous that we can all testify and find that our experience of this phenomenon is nearly identical across all people of all nations. Once someone who could not see is able to see, they can confirm that their experience of vision is correct through the universal consensus of the experience of vision across the world. Religious enlightenment, however, is the exact opposite, in which no human is born with it. There is no consensus on this experience and it is reported in wide variety across people of different nations. The proponent of total depravity does not merely need to prove that he has a similar experience of revealed spiritual truth to other Christians or even just other proponents of total depravity, he is forced to consider the religious truth claims of all people everywhere. If spiritual things cannot be understood by the natural man, and yet there are not only totally different religious claims between different religions but even vastly different religious claims within the same religions, then it's near impossible to gauge by mere consensus which claims are correct as it would be for the experience of vision. We have no consensus and no testable material substance to deduce what we should expect to see from a person with the proper ability to understand spiritual truths. Once someone who did not understand spiritual truths believes that they are now understanding them, if he were to ask a representative sample of all humans across the planet, he would not get a clear answer as to whether his experience was correct or not. Nearly everyone would tell him that he was wrong as well as claiming everyone else in the representative sample was also wrong. As for the second argument, the purpose of the argument is in fact to force the proponent of total depravity to accept that there is another way for unregenerate man to accept spiritual truths. The proponent of total depravity makes the claim that there is not another way for God to do this and only by regeneration can man understand the spiritual things of God. Even Arminians, as I understand prevenient grace, would affirm that God only enables man to be able to choose to believe, but he still does not understand the spiritual things until regeneration. The purpose of the argument is that the proponent of total depravity must either accept that God regenerates the unsaved prior to their eternal punishment or that there is another way for man to understand spiritual things without first being regenerated. If the latter is accepted, they must explain why total depravity is still true in spite of this.
@@pascalpowers I don't think the dissimilarity of the analogy matters in this context because it doesn't undermine the point being made. Just imagine if everyone were born blind, but for whatever reason, a part of the population at one point gained sight. Would you hold the view that they couldn't possibly know they were seeing simply because they were born without that ability? Regarding the second argument, my point was that not every other way God could use to make the unregenerate bow the knee and confess would be amenable to the non-Calvinist. This is because it wouldn't involve some natural free will act.
@@caiomorino8672 The analogy is not merely dissimilar, it's missing crucial aspects of the argument. We're not talking about a binary, sight on or sight off and we're not talking about one cohesive, measurable experience. Religious enlightenment is not based on material substances (eyeballs) but on wildly differing and subjective experiences in the brain matter of each person. The closest you could get with this senses argument is that every person is born deaf, blind, and dumb without taste buds or olfactory senses and random groups of people begin to experience just one of these sense, but refer to all of them as "the sight" and then report vastly different understandings of what the sight actually feels like to experience, and then they would all argue with each other over which group of people were right about what it was like the experience the sight. For this to work it would also require about twenty additional senses, for them to sometimes come and go, for some people to never get any, and for some people to experience a couple of them throughout their lifetime.
On Warren's new argument against total depravity regarding the need for regeneration in order to understand one's judgment by God, if I were a Calvinist, and I am not, though I have some sympathy towards some of tulip, I would respond that the resurrection of the wicked could function to bring them to a state of understanding without bringing them into regeneration in a salvific sense. Just something to think about Warren as you formulate your argument more.
What an odd thing for God to do... "I don't want you to possibly ve God, or ever repent ir believe.... but I want to resurect you and at thw last second, compell you to understand fully how bad I made you to be so you can fully process my condemnation of you... for some reason... 🤷♂️ "
You guys really did think hard, and you clearly explained the two systems, where Arminian view is boasting “I am wiser” versus the Calvinist boasting “God loved me more.” Yet 2nd Cor 11:30 says, “If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness” and 2 Cor 10:17, “HE WHO BOASTS IS TO BOAST IN THE LORD.” So of the two views you posted, only Calvinism fits 2 Cor 10:17 and 11:30. As you’re speaking I’m asking myself, “How do they miss this? They just refuted themselves.”
Hmmm... one thought can be John the Baptist's example. He was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb, sealed as a child of God by God Himself. Why couldn't the Lord do the same for babies set for abortion or dying infants? Is that too hard for God? He does knit us and know us before birth aye.
1:26:44-53 The Jesus of Geneva has more in common with the Devil than with the Jesus of scripture... but it's totally ok for Calvinists to preach the Jesus of Geneva because they're still our good Calvinist brothers and after all they're still going to heaven... huh??? I can preach a Jesus that has more in common with the Devil and still go to heaven?? That's wild, guys.
I strongly disagree with you guys on the eternal punishment of hell. Just as you point out the errors of double predestination so it is true with eternal life and eternal death. You say you are trying to be Biblical and therefore you do not believe in eternal damnation by fire. So why on earth should a Christian believe in eternal life. Why trust anything in scripture anymore. You cannot have it both ways and you cannot allegoricalize every verse of scripture dealing with eternal punishment. If we are to believe in an everlasting kingdom we must also believe in an everlasting Lake of fire. I can tell Warren is not as settled on this subject as he pretends to be. When he does a show with someone who believes in eternal torment he says he is not settled on this subject. When he does a show with an annialist he makes it sound like he has jumped in full throttle to that camp. If I were you I would stay away from this issue. It is a modern teaching and is not a calvinist doctrine. When you stand before Christ I can see nothing but rebuke coming your way for not believing His words. The reason you guys discuss feeling that this is heretical is because God has given you a conscious to know that you are going somewhere God does not want you to go. If God is truly punishing the sinner forever as every scripture indicated then you are truly teaching utter nonsense and something heretical. This is great news to the aethists who make their existence breaking God's law. Why on earth do you think they will ever accept Christ now? They hate God's laws and will not humble themselves because there deeds are evil as scripture teaches. Now you have taken all fear of punishment away from them and now they have nothing to worry about like paying back the debt they owe God. This debt can never be paid back so as christ taught, they must suffer forever in torment. They had their chance on earth and they chose to resist God and committed every carnal act imaginable. They even resort to things like euthanasia, the holocaust (which was spurred on by the philosophy of evolution, infanticide, abortion, rape, fornication, the list goes on and on and God will reward them for their deeds and the scripture is not silent on this punishment. Where it is silent is on annialism. People who do not want to accept eternal punishment and eternal torment always come up with something different than what Christ is getting at. Instead of looking at the millstone that christ refers to for those who teach little children to hate God you only want to look at the temporal picture when Christ is getting at something much deeper. Just as with the punishment of Sodom as an example you seem to blow it off that Christ is using the temporal judgement as a foreshadow of what is to come. This is what all people do who do not want to look at things for what they are. So it is with many of you guys when it comes to the worldwide flood of Noah. You are all so concerned about God's Character and really don't like the thought of God destroying men so you come up with some heretical nonsense of a local flood. So you make God into a liar when He promised never to flood the world again. You parce words to avoid the truth while putting on a pretense that you are smarter than others and have come to these decisions based upon Biblical study. At the heart of this is unbelief in scripture. If God says He made the earth in 6 days, evening morning 1st day, evening morning 2nd day, evening morning 3rd day, evening morning 4th day, ... (kind of repetitive like just maybe God knew evil men would come and distort what He was telling us), then folks like you guys parce the first sentence of scripture into ages and ignore the plain reading of the text all in the name of searching the scripture. This is why you guys are afraid of turning to universalism because that is where this kind of hermanutics leads you.
The punishment is Death not torment according to all scripture. The debt for sin is death not torment according to all scripture Hell is eternal yes; yet man is not . GOD Kindles the fire ,your corpse does not.
Once again calvinism corruptly portrays GOD and HIS righteousness and accuses CHRIST of hypocrisy when held in contrast to what HE said in scripture. It also denies the intent and accomplishment of the death and resurrection of CHRIST JESUS our SAVIOR. It denies the very intent of the incarnation .
@@benjismith2549 yes it is. Kind of like when Christ said this. John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. John 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? John 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
Does the maker of the video agree that the Bible teaches the concept of Penal Substitutionary Atonement? I'm asking because I know that McGrew denies PSA.
In the septuagint there's a story of David's mother sleeping with her new soon to be husband but not yet divorced from her old husband something like that.
it's okay, william lane craig says that babies drowned in the flood were really awful sinners who deserved what they got, and to bear in mind they also go straight to heaven, which is good news, sinners go to heaven now apparently. or don't you adhere to lane craig? more disagreement?
Why do you need to be born again if there is nothing wrong with your soul and mind? Nicodemus could not see the kingdom much less enter it without the new birth. He was dead in sin.
People are wicked because they go astray. They need pardoned and restored by God... i.e. returned to their past state of innocence and reliance upon God, or born again.
Warren, your regeneration at judgment in order to understand, then be cast into the lake of fire.....cannot be. Why, you ask? Because the sovereign, gracious act of regeneration would be a "good work" begun by God . And God, having begun a "good work" will not fail. But perform it to the end....which cannot be eternal domination.
So Robert do you believe that the unregenerate individual who's mouth will be "stopped" by God on judgment day will have an understanding of why he is under the wrath of God and condemned/guilty and sentenced to hell? Thanks 👍
@@seanvann1747 yes, per Rev. Great White Throne of Judgment, everyone is being judge for their works. The regenerate and unregenerate alike are aware of their works or lack of. That said, do you agree the act of spiritual regeneration by God is a good work?
@@robertdavis3285 So these reprobates on judgment day will have the ability to understand spiritual truths that they while alive on earth had no ability to understand correct? Thanks 👍
@@seanvann1747I never said anything about understanding "spiritual/divine truths". The GWT judgements is about works done or not done while living. The unregenerate will have no problem knowing they are liars, thieves, blasphemers.
@@robertdavis3285 Understanding that one is a sinner that has sinned against a holy God and because of this they are rightly condemned to hell I'm sure you would agree are spiritual truths.
No eternal conscious torment? So here's what happened... You ran away from the horrific God of Calvinism, right past the God of the Bible, to a God that won't punish anyone too harshly. Makes sense to me. It's an overcorrection. We should take care not to overcorrect when we're coming out of false doctrine.
This is so weeeeaaaaak psalm 51 David was confessing so he confesses that he is sinful to the core even from birth and he asks for a new heart. Of course psalm 51 teaches original sin. The torture of psalms 51:5 is sickening
It doesn't at all. The Hebrew word yâcham for "conceived" implies an animal-like heat. It's only ever used this one time to refer to human intercourse implying there was something sinful about David's conception. Jewish tradition holds that David's mother deceived his father into thinking she was a servant because he didn't want to impregnate her and that Jesse never thought David to be his child. So not only do you deny a literal reading of the passage, you refuse to even try to understand the context and instead blindly accept doctrines of demons from proven liars.
@@victortorres7314 - No doubt. It’s beyond silly. Here comes David, in agony about his own sin… confessing to God, and he just sidetracks and calls his mom a low down dirty woman of the night. Doesn’t make any sense. But hey, it can’t mean we are sinful from either so whatever works.
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me. Psalm 51:5 KJV You arent conceived at birth. You're conceived 9 months earlier. For thou hast possessed my reins: Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Marvellous are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well. Psalm 139:13-14 KJV
@@John17apologetics - Both verses shows we are morally significant beings even from conception. Heck, John the Baptist even had the Spirit in the womb and was able to recognize His Lord when His Lord’s mother spoke.
When are you going to try to have a serious discussion about some of these things rather than echo chamber high five sessions? I’ve offered to have a discussion with all of you and get nothing but crickets.
Do you remember them talking about that expressing love through faith is such a huge deal in scripture? May be why you’re not getting the responses you’re wishing for. Just a thought. God bless
Obviously you've presented yourself in a way that causes one to not take you seriously because both of these brothers haven't backed down from any legitimate challenge to debate for as long as I've been aware of them .
@@JohnK557 I’m fairly sure I’ve invited you to come on my channel, prerecorded and posted subject to your approval, to discuss Calvinism. I prefer that medium over the comments section. If I haven’t given you that opportunity, you have it now. Just let me know.
Look, this is still all so much noise. The argument is STILL over who loves ECT (or annihilationism) more: LFDrs or EDDrs. I appreciate the insight, but you guys are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Infernalist theology is the golden calf both camps are bowing down to.
iam surprised at yall 2 sound like yall don't like what God dose did sound like yall trying to understand him yall forgot the basics you can't see light unless God gives to you lost man ain't supposed to understand God's way are his word which is God all so Image father son holy sprit man body soul mind. same image humm
Watched the whole thing. Three observations: (1) We agree that to much emphasis is placed on mental affirmations and not enough on fruit of the Spirit. (2) It is always good to hear someone’s story to understand better what they are reacting against. (3) Unfortunately, these types of videos are you guys gas lighting yourselves. The misrepresentation of Calvinism is profound. It’s all beating up strawmen and then puffing your chest out as if you have killed a dragon. For example, the claim that “Calvinists don’t repent because that would be taking credit from God”. What? Who in the world says things like that? It’s echo chamber material. Finally, Warren’s “silver bullet” argument at the end (ie if your depraved brain can’t understand how do you know) doesn’t work. It misunderstands how the mind works and how total depravity works and is demonstrably false. First, it seems to prove that the human mind is somehow “independent” in its judgments. But this is obviously not true. Second, it pretends that total depravity holds that the minds of depraved men cannot know the truth. But this is also false. All men everywhere know the truth. The problem isn’t in the mind of men. It is in the heart of men. They hate the truth. They don’t want it to be true. They hate the idea that they depend on God, have no self righteousness, and deserve to be destroyed. So, they corrupt their mind and lie about the truth that they know.
3) That is quite the projection of your own determinism while at the same time being an exhaustive defeater of it. Appealing to people as-if they are doing something other than exactly what you think God willed and predetermined in eternity past for His own glory makes you seem unable to think rationally. Your only move from here is to say that you are also exhaustively predetermined by God which doesn’t help your position in anyway it just pushes the nonsense on to God and makes Him look like the one who is double minded. This collapses into nothing more than God using physical matter that He exhaustively predetermined in eternity past to argue with Himself. That is according to you what God willed and predetermined me to think about what you believe…….
@@brentonstanfield5198 No that is obviously false according to your own belief. Rejecting isn’t a word that you can coherently use in determinism. I can’t “reject” what you wrote I can merely do exactly what God has willed and predetermined me to do, nothing more nothing less. Everything I or anyone “accepts or rejects” is by God for God In determinism. Is a creature claiming that it is “independent of God” something that God actualized in time per His predetermined will or is it outside of that?
@@brentonstanfield5198 Notice how you couldn’t address a single point I made but you had to pretend like determinism is false and speak outside of your own foundational beliefs in order to even reply? Thats called cognitive dissonance. You can’t even accept your own beliefs as truth……. Why should anyone else?
A double blessing with two of my brothers. Thanks and God bless.
This is SO GOOD!!! The truth will set you FREE,not put you in more bondage!!
yes, so become atheist today and throw off the shackles that god hammered together.
@@HarryNicNicholas Lol friend, I was an atheist and the shackles came off AFTER I said, Jesus You are Lord. Jesus said," I am the way,the truth and the life. When I became a christian it was like coming back to the place I should have been all along, like coming home. Hope you to can come home!!
Great conversation, thank you both for your time you devote to this!
Thanks for watching!
This channel is such a blessing
Thank you very much 😊
@@GreatLightStudios yep, the more platforms atheists have, the sooner the churches will be totally empty, you do great work.
next time you talk to god though can you ask how we get cold fusion working, all this peace and love stuff is all very well, but something practical for a change would help with my electricity bills? but don't be pushy, god has a short fuse.
Warren nailed it about John Macarthur = double speak 1:12:36. More of this should be highlighted because I think many people miss the contradictions
I also think this is a contradiction. But for much different reasons. Not based on total depravity, but based on the doctrine of justification, this leaves both MacArthur and Warren McGrew bypassing the explicit biblical demand for salvation. They both bypass the Doctrine of Justification in favor of babies, where it seems an idol is exposed, where they both turn their backs on God’s method of salvation and lean into a sort of baby worship idolatry. To bypass justification by faith is textbook heresy, according to multiple ecumenical councils.
42:35 yes, this is why I've been so blessed in studying Orthodoxy. It's helped me weed out a lot of false ideas from Augustinianism.
What do you mean by orthodoxy
@@noahcole6856 the Eastern Orthodox church. It was never infected with Augustinian thinking, so it better reflects the understanding of the early church fathers in a lot of ways.
Just study the KJV!
Calvinism Corner, with Mr. Clippit and Dr. Potstirr
You don't look the part at all. 🤔🤣
🤣 😂
If God has already prejudged us before we're born, why is He holding a Judgment Day at the consummation of the world? Seems kind of redundant.
depravity is not total.
infants do not go to hell.
we have freewill.
no predestination to hell.
Jesus didn't suffer the punishment of sin.
We're really good people underneath.
We have "tiny" depravity.... wayyyyy in the back just a teeny bit.
@@Dizerner That's not what they said which makes you a liar like most Calvinists. You're an idolater. Your god is the devil. You don't have Jesus. You have a demon--not the Holy Spirit. You went beyond dead in your sin and chose a cage of false doctrine and an accursed gospel. It's why you're a spiritual fraud and have no assurance nor love nor light nor grace of God in your life.
@@Dizerner
Nice straw man ,
Build that all by yourself did you ?
@@markshaneh I'm sorry for adding the "tiny depravity."
I repent in dust in ashes.
@@Dizerner
🤡
I wonder how many people read the Bible and say God is the potter and also say we are in the potter's house. we may be just a lump of clay, but we are in God's house and hands.
Yet you, LORD, are our Father.
We are the clay, you are the potter;
we are all the work of your hand. (Isaiah 64:8 NIV)
The psalmist compares God to a potter. A potter who can take a simple lump of clay and form it into a variety of different vessels according to his need. I am one of those lumps of clay that God has formed, and continues to shape, as he chooses. He did not give me the talents and skills I admire in many others. But I am what he wanted to make. And that is true for each of us.
Very good discussion, guys. Keep up the good work. Calvinism's erroneous propositions are very troubling.
Point out which are problematic. I found that Calvinism draws some problematic conclusions at times. I do however agree with them on the issue of depravity, while I want' call it total rather pervasive and none-reversible. Which is why we need to be born again spiritually.
i do wish god would make up his mind, he looks so amateur don't you think?
@@HarryNicNicholas Explain why you say that.
Warren if I may humbly possibly help in your new critique of total depravity is Genesis 3:22. If God says man knows good and evil like He knows it I don't think total depravity can stand on that.
That's a good point.
Might want to edit your comment. It says total privacy the second time you mention it.
@@RoseniusChannel I forgot to mention that God says, "they know good and evil like He does," after they fell to sin.
Great conversation!
What a great Point warrant made at the 3rd hour and 5 minutes mark 3:05:00
My FAVORITE Calvinist Response: "NO Calvinist believes in infant damnation...This is why Infant Damnation MUST be true".
They literally contradict themselves in the same paragraph, lying about their own position (denial), then affirming their own position affirming infant damnation.
I see consistent Calvinism as a literal sowing & reaping fulfillment of the judgments in Romans Chapter 1, under slightly different circumstances.
Please, if you don't know how to define real terms, don't comment.
@@ernestojlassus1354 "Real Terms" like "Gender Affirming Care", "Women's Health", "Pro-Choice", Doctrines of Grace", "Elect Infants"?
Seriously, "Real Terms" are usually deceptions = lies. If you have a suggestion for a Real Term I should use, I will be happy to review, and perhaps explain how the "Real Term" is a method of deceiving vulnerable naive Christians.
Very good discussion and testimony! Answering Genesis 6:5, we have to keep in mind there is a unique connection to role of “the sons of God” (Gen. 6:2) and the Nephilim (Gen.6:4) in the immediate context. Gen. 6:5 is not a general commentary by God on biblical anthropology, but the unique role of divine beings in the three-part fall of man (Gen. 3, Gen. 6, and Gen. 11/Deut. 32). We tend to filter out this theme that is woven throughout the biblical story.
Also calling people names isn’t the way to discuss things. It’s always better to just have respectful dialogue. I enjoy talking with others calvinists included cause it can teach me things also.
I wonder how many people read the Bible and call God sovereign, almighty and creator of all ?
If Calvinists use the story of Lazarus to show spiritual 'death,' and Jesus' voice could call him back to life, then why couldn't Jesus' voice call spiritually dead men like the pharisees back to life? Why would this not have been sufficient? Why would they need a 'regeneration' from the Spirit first? And doesn't this knock out the whole attempt to make the story of Lazarus a parallel to regeneration and salvation?
Love it guys.
Interesting comment you made at 46:00 - 48:00 mark
The discussion about how Calvinism seems to argue that slaves have no desire to be free eerily parallels the arguments made in America in the antebellum South...
That example would support the argument - look at the underground slave train. Or the innumerable slaves who made desperate escapes, knowing the risk of brutal punishment or death.
I see what you’re saying if you look at that slavery through Gone With the Wind goggles.
You guys had me in agreement until Open Theism and Annihilationism was put forward. I don’t know if Warren is an Open Theist or if that was a joke. And I don’t see a Biblical case for temporary punishment. I don’t think every passage on the permanence of Hell is meant to be allegorized.
I did enjoy the pushback on Original Sin, though. I’ve been watching more videos on challenges to that Augustinian doctrine.
I can't help but wonder if James White has ever had an in depth conversation with anyone - at this level; to tell us what he really believes (aka loves) about the Lord...
My personal opinion is that Dr. White is a blowhard who likes the sound of his own voice. I don't think he's a serious theologian in the least. I wish other Christian YT'ers would stop giving him so much exposure.
This is why we need to constantly say no ism ever saved anyone just Jesus!!!
11:05 God has sovereignly decreeed that we can't boast about believing in Jesus for salvation. He doesn't consider it a work. He degree that we have a choice!
WT? Augustine was wrong on Romans 5? Because he placed the sin IN Adam, not BECAUSE of Adam? WT?
Paul is the one who said if anyone preaches a perverted God, Jesus or Gospel we are to mark and avoid and let them be accursed. Calvinism clearly falls into that category.
"Sinners loving their sin" is so strange. I've never heard of an unsaved drug addict that loves their addictions. People who make those stupid statements never have any interaction with ministry
Is it possible we all start out loving sins, even the drug user do it bc it feels good? But habitual sinning takes it's toll and sin is punishment in itself in some way. The conseqeunces are often dire.
There is no blessing in living in sin, only sorrow and regret
19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. (John 3:19-20, NASB)
@@abuelb all that’s saying is people don’t like their sins being revealed (not in darkness). Why would they care unless they had a conscience convicting them? They love darkness, not the sins themselves
1:18:40 - Warren says, in relation to infant baptism, that baptism had more than one meaning in the early church. I would love to learn more about this. Currently something I am thinking through.
I recall this being an argument for baby sprinkling. But it isn't really a good one. Children are still under grace.
regarding "dropping words", one possible side effect of statins is brain fog, including difficulty remembering words !
26 But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. (John 10:26-29, NASB)
Amen
15:20 Warren is right, IMO, to spend time focusing on Total Depravity. I always say that without the "T", "ULIP" is 'totally' unnecessary. Everything I can think of in Calvinism emanates from the false premise of man's inability to respond positively to God. If one becomes convinced of "T", the rest of the doctrine becomes logically necessary. I fail to see how discussing anything other than the "T" with a Calvinist accomplishes anything but confusion. They cannot help but impose it as the fundamental 'given' in all their arguments for any other part of their doctrine. I think this was perfectly illustrated recently in both Leighton Flowers' and Jason Breda's recent debates with James White on Unconditional Election as it relates to John 6:44 and Limited Atonement respectively. In the end, it was almost pointless because Dr. White presupposes Total Depravity as his foundation and literally dismisses anyone rejecting that as unworthy of a serious conversation. YET, few Calvinists will ever debate the "T" because they know there isn't a single verse or passage in proper context to support it anywhere in scripture.
Great to see you guys!😘
Warren, just as you had Calvinism "instilled in you",, so did the children of the fathers of Israel who taught the law without the prophets to them.
Instil:
gradually but firmly establish (an idea or attitude, especially a desirable one) in a person's mind
You swallowed what you were being fed which formed you into a Calvinist.
Simple.
I think the biggest issue with calvinism is closed theism and the way they see TIME. This "God is outside of time" nonsense helps build to this garbage theology.
Most people have a horrible conception of what time is. Its not some tangible thing or a dimension. Its nothing you can travel or "see down the corridor of "
If you believe in actual free will, then there is no logical way for God to know future decisions if he is time bound.
People try to argue from predictive guessing based on behavioral patterns, but actual free will dictates and is shown that people can deviate from the norm.
@@DizernerI think people are very predictable. Time does not exist, there is just the present. There is no such thing as "time line".
How can infinitely be all past?
@@Dizernerjust to clarify, I think, for you to say infinity has already happened is absurd if that's what you're saying. Which would mean that that would be the only way God could live outside of time
@@Dizerner if you believe God exists "outside of time" can you explain how it is possible for infinity to already be pass?
@@chrislucastheprotestantview If God is outside of time, we no longer need an infinity in the past, which I agree, is a logical problem. Because time had a beginning when God entered it. There was no time before that, else you are violated the definition of "outside" of time.
People and be predictable, but not 100% and not all people are the same predictability. You're glossing over the logical problem there, because if there is a %.00000000000001 chance someone will change their mind, than God's predictions can fail.
- The logic of "original sin" doctrine, or any form of "because Adam sinned", is nonsensical to me, because it fails to account for Adam himself sinning. I believe we are sin prone because we are like Adam, not because Adam sinned.
And I think He knew we would be sin prone all along, and that's just an aspect of being immature entities. The sixth day creation is very good, as He said, but we need to learn how to "operate" it properly. And we need His help for that.
Anyone know what Brenton was talking about when he stated he made a solid defense of infant damnation that preserves Gods character?
I think he's likely wrong, but I think we should take time to interact with circumspect and reasonable interlocutors.
If you're speaking of tge brenton I know of it doesn't really matter what he's said because it's quite obvious that he's possessed with the spirit of calvinism . The spirit that causes folks to believe A=Non A isn't a contradiction. The spirit that fills people with arrogance and spiritual blindness .
I've pointed out to Warren several times (at least before he blocked me) that his objection is primarily to ECT or "one-sized-fits-all" (i.e. burn them all) view of damnation. A view that even he doesn't believe, but uses to tar and feather Calvinists.
But damnation comes from the Latin "dampnare" which simply means to "inflict loss". It doesn't imply ECT. What do men lose? They lose the good that God has given to them (i.e. life, breath, and everything). By God's judgment, wicked men are "condemned". Think "condemning" a building. What happens to it? It is torn down, destroyed.
Damnation is related to, but a separate, from "punishment". Punishment relates to retributive justice, i.e. men getting what they deserve as recompense based on their works. Punishment is "torment". For example, we might say that all men, apart from salvation in Christ, are condemned (i.e. destroyed), but not all will receive the same "punishment" or "retributive justice" for wrongs committed. In other words, not all men who are condemned need be "tormented". Indeed, it is conceivable that that some people who are condemned will not receive any "punishment" at all. For example:
(1) Supposing Hitler is condemned (i.e. no deathbed conversion), he will be "beaten with many strips" (see Luke 12:47) for his great evil before his ultimate destruction... losing all of the good God had given to Him. Lots of torment.
(2) Supposing a muslim woman in Afghanistan lives a relatively peaceful life but dies in her sin, she is condemned also but will be "beaten with few stripes" before her ultimate destruction... losing all of the good God had given to her. A little torment.
(3) Supposing an infant dies, we can think that this infant will receive no punishment, but may nonetheless be condemned (i.e. destroyed)... losing all of the good God had given to him. No torment.
The distinction here is between the "ultimate destruction" of the creature and the "retributive punishment" given to particular creatures given based on works before that destruction.
You might ask: But why would God condemn an infant if they have no works? Why would He take away the good He has given to them?
First, of course, we agree that God doesn't have to condemn them. He could save them, by grace, in Christ, just like He could the Muslim woman, or even Hitler. God is always free to give grace. But it would still be by grace. In the base case, all we have ever received from God (i.e. life, breath, and everything) we receive by grace. God is under no obligation to give any of it to us. We must keep grace central. Salvation always entails God's perpetual grace, i.e. giving to men good things, indeed Himself, forever. We cannot earn that. We do not deserve it because of what we have done.
Second, although infants are not "guilty" of any actual sins that they have committed... and thus receive no punishment... are still sinners. As even Warren recognizes in this video, all men are prone to sin and will inevitably sin in this world. Infants, given the opportunity, will sin. As a result, they cannot enter into the perfected world God is creating in that condition. Infants, like everyone else, must either be excluded from the New Heavens and New Earth because of their sinfulness or changed (i.e. made new creatures, born again).
In conclusion, from the first point above, if God were to "condemn" infants (i.e. take away life and existence) then there would be no injustice. God is not obligated to give perpetual life and existence to anyone. What He gives, he can take away (Job 1:21). In addition, if God is going to give them perpetual life and existence, then God must change them; He must give them a new nature, lest they sin and mar the New Heavens and New Earth. Of course, God may in fact change them all and save them. If He doesn't, then I trust there will be a good purpose in it. If He does, then I look forward to seeing these souls in Heaven. But I leave it to the goodness of God.
Hope that helps. Let me know if anything is unclear.
He’s not only wrong but debates outside of what he actually believes. He is not a reasonable interlocutor. He is a closed theist and a determinists who believes that God willed and predetermined EVERYTHING but then will gaslight you speaking as-if that’s not what he believes. His arguments are no different than any other determinist.
@@JohnK557 - No one is reasonable unless they agree with you on open theism? So almost no one in Christian history is reasonable? Got it.
@@brentonstanfield5198Correct no one in history who believed in closed theism (Platonism) was reasonable. Since none of the Biblical authors were closed theists you look silly ad hoc claiming that almost all historical Christian’s were. You literally demonstrated everything I said in your first reply to me.
2:27:33. A doctrine of demons? But I can go to heaven believing this doctrine of demons?
Love your content. I like to think there is good Calvinism out there. But interested to learn more.
Impossible. Calvinism is a cancerous tumor on the beautiful host body of Biblical Christianity. ALL the distinctives of Calvinism are lies and therefore evil. The entire foundation is built on evil foundation of a twisted definition of God's Sovereignty.
In summary, "Good Calvinism" is an oxymoron equivalent to "Good cancer."
Good calvinists, but I've seen no version of the ism that doesn't provide some problematic barrier to biblical sense making.
We need to admit our total depravity but do we need to judge salvation? According to the bible their is one faith and one judge. Do we show our love by judging salvation?
James 4:11
[11] [m] Do not speak evil against one another, brothers.(4) The one who speaks against a brother or [n] judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.
Footnotes
(4) Or brothers and sisters
Cross-references
[m]: 2 Cor 12:20; 1 Pet 2:1; Jas 5:9
[n]: Mt 7:1
(ESV)
Yup sin as John the Baptist says Jesus comes to the root. A rebellion from the heart using God created ( but dying ) flesh. Then creating addiction to flesh or the old man of sin, or “sin in the members“. But for sure “Metaphysical stuff” is not sin. The Christian confession must be “all have sinned” not “all are sinners” . Or “I have sinned”, not “Adam or a nature sinned”. I don’t think we realise how completely opposite these ideas are. Otherwise we must change the incarceration into Jesus coming as “other than” human. The gnostic root of making “ stuff” sinful
What do u say to:If all babies are guaranteed salvation then abortion is the most merciful thing one can do
2:21:45 I appreciate the sentiment of not limiting the faith to just affirming certain propositions. Sadly, this sounds like an overcorrection to me (as always).
Regarding infant d@mnation, recognizing that all people who are born from natural generation from Adam are appointed sinners, having sinned with Adam when he sinned (Romans 5:12, 15, 18-19, Cf. Hebrews 7:9-10), Jesus will not abandon those who have been given to Him by the Father in eternity (John 6:37, 44, 65, 10:26, Ephesians 1:4-6, Romans 8:28-30), and His eternal decree of election ensures their salvation whether they die in infancy or adulthood. Whether or not all children who die in infancy are elect is another topic altogether, and requires pure speculation.
According to Revelation 20:12-13, unbelievers will be judged in accordance to the record of what they did, not according to if they were preselected. Here’s your prooftext for your theory Warren. Also check out Daniel 12:2, the resurrection of the dead (righteous and wicked) for the purpose of judgment.
“And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.”
Revelation 20:12-13 ESV
RIGHT!!! 3:06:00
14:08 - 17:00 . Great argument.
Two things Warren should consider in light of regeneration...
1. Regenerating dead people at their judgment just so they can finally understand why they are going to hell fits perfectly with Calvinism. They already believe Jesus knowingly performed miracles for reprobates SO THAT they would become guilty of rejecting them and could then be condemned. 🤮
2. Regeneration is from the Spirit, and Calvinists have been telling us forever that the natural man can't receive anything from the Spirit. So, if they're consistent, then all of humanity is going to hell anyway. 😵💫 🤣
I think the argument about the person claiming to have been born unable to understand spiritual truths can't tell whether or not they've been, in fact, regenerated is like insisting the man who was born blind can't tell if he can see after being healed because he wasn't born with vision.
Edit: also about the new argument you've mentioned it assumes that regeneration is the only means god can use to accomplish that task.
This comparison misses some key distinctions for a few reasons:
1. The blind person still knows he is blind and wishes to see. He may not know what seeing feels like, but the desire is still there. Likewise, he can listen to others talk about how good it is, and come to trust that seeing is an enjoyable thing. Under total depravity, none of those truths cross over. The sinful man can't know he is sinful and/or desire to see the things of God.
2. A proper comparison would be if you told me that a blind person doesn't have the capacity to understand or care about anything related to see. He doesn't know he is blind. He doesn't wish to see. He is unable to even understand what other people tell him about seeing. This blind man then brushes his teeth and says, "Ah, now I can see!" .....There is no standard for him to know if he is "seeing" or not since he was born unable to discern or want anything related to "seeing".
No analogy is perfect, but hopefully that helps to get to the core of his argument.
@@AllDayEveryDay1772That's fair, but I still think it misses the point of the analogy. It being the idea that the experience of going from blindness to sight is such that can't be missed.
The comparison of religious enlightenment to a blind man being able to see is totally reversed from the type of argument Warren has made. What is being claimed is the gaining of an ability that all people are born without, not one that the vast majority of people possess. With vision, we have a near-universal human experience of vision which is so ubiquitous that we can all testify and find that our experience of this phenomenon is nearly identical across all people of all nations. Once someone who could not see is able to see, they can confirm that their experience of vision is correct through the universal consensus of the experience of vision across the world.
Religious enlightenment, however, is the exact opposite, in which no human is born with it. There is no consensus on this experience and it is reported in wide variety across people of different nations. The proponent of total depravity does not merely need to prove that he has a similar experience of revealed spiritual truth to other Christians or even just other proponents of total depravity, he is forced to consider the religious truth claims of all people everywhere. If spiritual things cannot be understood by the natural man, and yet there are not only totally different religious claims between different religions but even vastly different religious claims within the same religions, then it's near impossible to gauge by mere consensus which claims are correct as it would be for the experience of vision. We have no consensus and no testable material substance to deduce what we should expect to see from a person with the proper ability to understand spiritual truths. Once someone who did not understand spiritual truths believes that they are now understanding them, if he were to ask a representative sample of all humans across the planet, he would not get a clear answer as to whether his experience was correct or not. Nearly everyone would tell him that he was wrong as well as claiming everyone else in the representative sample was also wrong.
As for the second argument, the purpose of the argument is in fact to force the proponent of total depravity to accept that there is another way for unregenerate man to accept spiritual truths. The proponent of total depravity makes the claim that there is not another way for God to do this and only by regeneration can man understand the spiritual things of God. Even Arminians, as I understand prevenient grace, would affirm that God only enables man to be able to choose to believe, but he still does not understand the spiritual things until regeneration. The purpose of the argument is that the proponent of total depravity must either accept that God regenerates the unsaved prior to their eternal punishment or that there is another way for man to understand spiritual things without first being regenerated. If the latter is accepted, they must explain why total depravity is still true in spite of this.
@@pascalpowers I don't think the dissimilarity of the analogy matters in this context because it doesn't undermine the point being made. Just imagine if everyone were born blind, but for whatever reason, a part of the population at one point gained sight. Would you hold the view that they couldn't possibly know they were seeing simply because they were born without that ability?
Regarding the second argument, my point was that not every other way God could use to make the unregenerate bow the knee and confess would be amenable to the non-Calvinist. This is because it wouldn't involve some natural free will act.
@@caiomorino8672 The analogy is not merely dissimilar, it's missing crucial aspects of the argument. We're not talking about a binary, sight on or sight off and we're not talking about one cohesive, measurable experience. Religious enlightenment is not based on material substances (eyeballs) but on wildly differing and subjective experiences in the brain matter of each person. The closest you could get with this senses argument is that every person is born deaf, blind, and dumb without taste buds or olfactory senses and random groups of people begin to experience just one of these sense, but refer to all of them as "the sight" and then report vastly different understandings of what the sight actually feels like to experience, and then they would all argue with each other over which group of people were right about what it was like the experience the sight. For this to work it would also require about twenty additional senses, for them to sometimes come and go, for some people to never get any, and for some people to experience a couple of them throughout their lifetime.
On Warren's new argument against total depravity regarding the need for regeneration in order to understand one's judgment by God, if I were a Calvinist, and I am not, though I have some sympathy towards some of tulip, I would respond that the resurrection of the wicked could function to bring them to a state of understanding without bringing them into regeneration in a salvific sense. Just something to think about Warren as you formulate your argument more.
What an odd thing for God to do... "I don't want you to possibly ve God, or ever repent ir believe.... but I want to resurect you and at thw last second, compell you to understand fully how bad I made you to be so you can fully process my condemnation of you... for some reason... 🤷♂️ "
You guys really did think hard, and you clearly explained the two systems, where Arminian view is boasting “I am wiser” versus the Calvinist boasting “God loved me more.” Yet 2nd Cor 11:30 says, “If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness” and 2 Cor 10:17, “HE WHO BOASTS IS TO BOAST IN THE LORD.” So of the two views you posted, only Calvinism fits 2 Cor 10:17 and 11:30.
As you’re speaking I’m asking myself, “How do they miss this? They just refuted themselves.”
Hmmm... one thought can be John the Baptist's example. He was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb, sealed as a child of God by God Himself. Why couldn't the Lord do the same for babies set for abortion or dying infants? Is that too hard for God? He does knit us and know us before birth aye.
1:26:44-53 The Jesus of Geneva has more in common with the Devil than with the Jesus of scripture... but it's totally ok for Calvinists to preach the Jesus of Geneva because they're still our good Calvinist brothers and after all they're still going to heaven... huh???
I can preach a Jesus that has more in common with the Devil and still go to heaven?? That's wild, guys.
I strongly disagree with you guys on the eternal punishment of hell. Just as you point out the errors of double predestination so it is true with eternal life and eternal death. You say you are trying to be Biblical and therefore you do not believe in eternal damnation by fire. So why on earth should a Christian believe in eternal life. Why trust anything in scripture anymore. You cannot have it both ways and you cannot allegoricalize every verse of scripture dealing with eternal punishment. If we are to believe in an everlasting kingdom we must also believe in an everlasting Lake of fire.
I can tell Warren is not as settled on this subject as he pretends to be. When he does a show with someone who believes in eternal torment he says he is not settled on this subject. When he does a show with an annialist he makes it sound like he has jumped in full throttle to that camp. If I were you I would stay away from this issue. It is a modern teaching and is not a calvinist doctrine. When you stand before Christ I can see nothing but rebuke coming your way for not believing His words. The reason you guys discuss feeling that this is heretical is because God has given you a conscious to know that you are going somewhere God does not want you to go. If God is truly punishing the sinner forever as every scripture indicated then you are truly teaching utter nonsense and something heretical. This is great news to the aethists who make their existence breaking God's law. Why on earth do you think they will ever accept Christ now? They hate God's laws and will not humble themselves because there deeds are evil as scripture teaches. Now you have taken all fear of punishment away from them and now they have nothing to worry about like paying back the debt they owe God. This debt can never be paid back so as christ taught, they must suffer forever in torment. They had their chance on earth and they chose to resist God and committed every carnal act imaginable. They even resort to things like euthanasia, the holocaust (which was spurred on by the philosophy of evolution, infanticide, abortion, rape, fornication, the list goes on and on and God will reward them for their deeds and the scripture is not silent on this punishment. Where it is silent is on annialism.
People who do not want to accept eternal punishment and eternal torment always come up with something different than what Christ is getting at. Instead of looking at the millstone that christ refers to for those who teach little children to hate God you only want to look at the temporal picture when Christ is getting at something much deeper. Just as with the punishment of Sodom as an example you seem to blow it off that Christ is using the temporal judgement as a foreshadow of what is to come. This is what all people do who do not want to look at things for what they are. So it is with many of you guys when it comes to the worldwide flood of Noah. You are all so concerned about God's Character and really don't like the thought of God destroying men so you come up with some heretical nonsense of a local flood. So you make God into a liar when He promised never to flood the world again. You parce words to avoid the truth while putting on a pretense that you are smarter than others and have come to these decisions based upon Biblical study. At the heart of this is unbelief in scripture.
If God says He made the earth in 6 days, evening morning 1st day, evening morning 2nd day, evening morning 3rd day, evening morning 4th day, ... (kind of repetitive like just maybe God knew evil men would come and distort what He was telling us), then folks like you guys parce the first sentence of scripture into ages and ignore the plain reading of the text all in the name of searching the scripture.
This is why you guys are afraid of turning to universalism because that is where this kind of hermanutics leads you.
Where do they say they don't believe in eternal damnation by fire?
That's exactly what conditional immortality/annihilationism teaches.
The punishment is Death not torment according to all scripture.
The debt for sin is death not torment according to all scripture
Hell is eternal yes; yet man is not . GOD Kindles the fire ,your corpse does not.
Is evil inclinations are not sin, did Jesus have evil inclinations? Will the glorified saints have evil inclinations in eternity?
This is a Christian debate channel.
I recommend "Mindshift" for an outsiders view of Christianity.
Once again calvinism corruptly portrays GOD and HIS righteousness and accuses CHRIST of hypocrisy when held in contrast to what HE said in scripture. It also denies the intent and accomplishment of the death and resurrection of CHRIST JESUS our SAVIOR. It denies the very intent of the incarnation .
Free will portrays God to be same as a themselves. That’s disgusting.
@@aletheia8054So is the Bible disgusting when it says we are made in the image of God?
@@benjismith2549 the Bible is always disgusting to you.
@@aletheia8054 very Christ-like response.
@@benjismith2549 yes it is. Kind of like when Christ said this.
John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
John 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
John 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
John 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
so you got the typical canned calvinist responses
That’s all they have…
Does the maker of the video agree that the Bible teaches the concept of Penal Substitutionary Atonement? I'm asking because I know that McGrew denies PSA.
Are either of these actually Christian?
In the septuagint there's a story of David's mother sleeping with her new soon to be husband but not yet divorced from her old husband something like that.
it's okay, william lane craig says that babies drowned in the flood were really awful sinners who deserved what they got, and to bear in mind they also go straight to heaven, which is good news, sinners go to heaven now apparently. or don't you adhere to lane craig? more disagreement?
Why do you need to be born again if there is nothing wrong with your soul and mind? Nicodemus could not see the kingdom much less enter it without the new birth. He was dead in sin.
People are wicked because they go astray. They need pardoned and restored by God... i.e. returned to their past state of innocence and reliance upon God, or born again.
Warren, your regeneration at judgment in order to understand, then be cast into the lake of fire.....cannot be. Why, you ask? Because the sovereign, gracious act of regeneration would be a "good work" begun by God . And God, having begun a "good work" will not fail. But perform it to the end....which cannot be eternal domination.
So Robert do you believe that the unregenerate individual who's mouth will be "stopped" by God on judgment day will have an understanding of why he is under the wrath of God and condemned/guilty and sentenced to hell?
Thanks 👍
@@seanvann1747 yes, per Rev. Great White Throne of Judgment, everyone is being judge for their works. The regenerate and unregenerate alike are aware of their works or lack of.
That said, do you agree the act of spiritual regeneration by God is a good work?
@@robertdavis3285 So these reprobates on judgment day will have the ability to understand spiritual truths that they while alive on earth had no ability to understand correct?
Thanks 👍
@@seanvann1747I never said anything about understanding "spiritual/divine truths". The GWT judgements is about works done or not done while living. The unregenerate will have no problem knowing they are liars, thieves, blasphemers.
@@robertdavis3285 Understanding that one is a sinner that has sinned against a holy God and because of this they are rightly condemned to hell I'm sure you would agree are spiritual truths.
Someone should find and interview Magrews family and former church members to verify these grand stories. I don’t believe more than half of them …
I'll see how my mother feels about being on camera!
No eternal conscious torment?
So here's what happened... You ran away from the horrific God of Calvinism, right past the God of the Bible, to a God that won't punish anyone too harshly. Makes sense to me.
It's an overcorrection. We should take care not to overcorrect when we're coming out of false doctrine.
This is so weeeeaaaaak psalm 51 David was confessing so he confesses that he is sinful to the core even from birth and he asks for a new heart. Of course psalm 51 teaches original sin. The torture of psalms 51:5 is sickening
It doesn't at all. The Hebrew word yâcham for "conceived" implies an animal-like heat. It's only ever used this one time to refer to human intercourse implying there was something sinful about David's conception. Jewish tradition holds that David's mother deceived his father into thinking she was a servant because he didn't want to impregnate her and that Jesse never thought David to be his child.
So not only do you deny a literal reading of the passage, you refuse to even try to understand the context and instead blindly accept doctrines of demons from proven liars.
@@tannerfrancisco8759 why would David say that in the middle of coffessing his sin? To minimize or ratinonalize his sin?!?!?
@@victortorres7314 - No doubt. It’s beyond silly. Here comes David, in agony about his own sin… confessing to God, and he just sidetracks and calls his mom a low down dirty woman of the night.
Doesn’t make any sense. But hey, it can’t mean we are sinful from either so whatever works.
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 51:5 KJV
You arent conceived at birth. You're conceived 9 months earlier.
For thou hast possessed my reins: Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Marvellous are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well.
Psalm 139:13-14 KJV
@@John17apologetics - Both verses shows we are morally significant beings even from conception.
Heck, John the Baptist even had the Spirit in the womb and was able to recognize His Lord when His Lord’s mother spoke.
When are you going to try to have a serious discussion about some of these things rather than echo chamber high five sessions? I’ve offered to have a discussion with all of you and get nothing but crickets.
Do you remember them talking about that expressing love through faith is such a huge deal in scripture?
May be why you’re not getting the responses you’re wishing for.
Just a thought. God bless
Obviously you've presented yourself in a way that causes one to not take you seriously because both of these brothers haven't backed down from any legitimate challenge to debate for as long as I've been aware of them .
I’ve tried to have several conversations with you in the comments but you couldn’t defend Calvinism?
You even blocked me once in a live chat because you couldn’t answer my questions?
@@JohnK557 I’m fairly sure I’ve invited you to come on my channel, prerecorded and posted subject to your approval, to discuss Calvinism. I prefer that medium over the comments section. If I haven’t given you that opportunity, you have it now. Just let me know.
Look, this is still all so much noise. The argument is STILL over who loves ECT (or annihilationism) more: LFDrs or EDDrs. I appreciate the insight, but you guys are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Infernalist theology is the golden calf both camps are bowing down to.
iam surprised at yall 2 sound like yall don't like what God dose did sound like yall trying to understand him yall forgot the basics you can't see light unless God gives to you lost man ain't supposed to understand God's way are his word which is God all so
Image father son holy sprit
man body soul mind. same image humm
Same old... same old...Don't waste 3 hours folks
Don't waste your life in calvinism reformed theology. Cults are difficult to break from, yet, certainly can and has been done.
I actually enjoyed the three hours, brother! We need more of it.
You just don't understand non-reformed theology
Watched the whole thing. Three observations:
(1) We agree that to much emphasis is placed on mental affirmations and not enough on fruit of the Spirit.
(2) It is always good to hear someone’s story to understand better what they are reacting against.
(3) Unfortunately, these types of videos are you guys gas lighting yourselves. The misrepresentation of Calvinism is profound. It’s all beating up strawmen and then puffing your chest out as if you have killed a dragon. For example, the claim that “Calvinists don’t repent because that would be taking credit from God”. What? Who in the world says things like that? It’s echo chamber material.
Finally, Warren’s “silver bullet” argument at the end (ie if your depraved brain can’t understand how do you know) doesn’t work. It misunderstands how the mind works and how total depravity works and is demonstrably false. First, it seems to prove that the human mind is somehow “independent” in its judgments. But this is obviously not true. Second, it pretends that total depravity holds that the minds of depraved men cannot know the truth. But this is also false. All men everywhere know the truth. The problem isn’t in the mind of men. It is in the heart of men. They hate the truth. They don’t want it to be true. They hate the idea that they depend on God, have no self righteousness, and deserve to be destroyed. So, they corrupt their mind and lie about the truth that they know.
3) That is quite the projection of your own determinism while at the same time being an exhaustive defeater of it. Appealing to people as-if they are doing something other than exactly what you think God willed and predetermined in eternity past for His own glory makes you seem unable to think rationally. Your only move from here is to say that you are also exhaustively predetermined by God which doesn’t help your position in anyway it just pushes the nonsense on to God and makes Him look like the one who is double minded. This collapses into nothing more than God using physical matter that He exhaustively predetermined in eternity past to argue with Himself. That is according to you what God willed and predetermined me to think about what you believe…….
@@JohnK557 - Rejecting what I described above is just claiming that you are somehow independent of God, ie not His creature. It’s obviously false.
@@brentonstanfield5198 No that is obviously false according to your own belief. Rejecting isn’t a word that you can coherently use in determinism. I can’t “reject” what you wrote I can merely do exactly what God has willed and predetermined me to do, nothing more nothing less. Everything I or anyone “accepts or rejects” is by God for God In determinism. Is a creature claiming that it is “independent of God” something that God actualized in time per His predetermined will or is it outside of that?
@@brentonstanfield5198 Notice how you couldn’t address a single point I made but you had to pretend like determinism is false and speak outside of your own foundational beliefs in order to even reply? Thats called cognitive dissonance. You can’t even accept your own beliefs as truth……. Why should anyone else?
@@JohnK557 - 😂. Rejecting what I wrote is exactly what God has willed.