วีดีโอ

Hey Dr, thanks for the comment! I never realized how fearsome a hermit crab could look up close lol. I hear your objection. I apologize if I caused any confusion. In His perfect foreknowledge, God elected the people who come to saving faith in Christ as they persevere, those while they have true faith and those who persevere unto the end. God decreed our election be conditioned by faith in Christ. We cannot be elected outside of faith in Christ. No one is temporally elect before conversion or after rejecting the faith. God foresaw our faith and elected us individually and conditionally and applies that election per His condition, faith in Christ. I hope this answers your objection. God bless and keep you.

@@ReArmApologetics If Bob was a Christian for 20 years and then becomes a Hindu, was Bob Elect? What was he for the 20 years?

@@ReArmApologetics We hermit crabs are indeed fearsome and powerful.

If Bob was a true believing Christian at any time, Bob was elect while he was a true believer. God had elected Bob upon his foreseen faith in Christ. That election from eternity past is temporally applied when and while that condition is met. If that condition is not met, at any time, that person is lost and reprobate. If Bob died while a true believing Christian, he would be saved. Now that Bob is a Hindu, he is lost and reprobate. To flip the question, would a Hindu be elect, temporally, before his conversion to true faith in Christ? Same answer, No. God bless and keep you.

Also, is your handle a nod to DBZ? lol

Hey Romans 9 Guy, thanks for the comment! I hear your concern. I will have to agree to disagree with you brother. Election is a thoroughly sound Biblical doctrine. Election is about God's terms of salvation. Meeting those terms, faith in the person and work Christ, are key. A person is elect when in union with Christ by faith. It is not arbitrary. It is not God randomly choosing people to be in Christ or be out of Christ, to give some faith and others not. God saw in ages past our future real faith in Christ, a faith drawn by a universal prevenient grace, and thusly elected us. Election is all about a conditional relationship with Christ. It is not about a forced or predetermined faith or reprobation. Reformed Arminian election is not High Calvinism election. I hope that helps answer your objections. God bless and keep you.

@@ReArmApologetics No, it doesn’t. And sure, Calvinism’s unconditional election is awful, but Jesus and the MT authors are not teaching that God elects SOME people to eternal life and others to eternal death. It’s just not a thing. At very turn, Romans, Ephesians, whatever, they’re correcting the bad Jewish doctrine of election by showing that God has elected everyone, Jew and Gentile. He hasn’t not-chosen anyone. That’s the point of why it’s called the “Gospel.” That’s what’s “good” about the good news.

@Dizerner Thanks for the comment! I'm glad you found some usefulness in it. 🙏

@@ReArmApologetics Very interesting, always wondered what distinctive you guys had. The foot washings, tithing, sabbath, are all a little legalistic for me, but the other doctrine is solid as a rock, very encouraging.

@thebark_barx6231 Hey barx, I would say that a faith tradition is analogous to any religious tradition. Perhaps I should have used that phrase instead. And an LDS member is not a Christian, period. The charity I wish to extend is not towards a recognition of any LDS position as Christian, but towards the person and the many masses leaving the LDS cult. When a worldview is shattered, we Christians have to step up with the Gospel and love. We do not compromise the true faith. And we show them guidance from a position of both truth and love. That's kinda what I was trying to get at. This interview should be viewed more as a testimonial of the falsehood of Mormonism than anything. We are working on content that will break down the major truth claims of the LDS and show where and how they are false. If you have any suggestions or further critiques, I appreciate the feedback and will take them seriously. I hope that answers your concerns.

@@ReArmApologetics ok. Yeah, I guess the term “faith tradition” has been used for The Faith in what I’m familiar with. Which is why I wanted to asked for some clarity

@@thebark_barx6231 Thanks for the feedback and support, brother! I'm excited for some of the content I've got planned. I hope it's engaging and helpful 🙏

@TheMOV13 Hey MOV, thanks for the thoughtful comment. First, the imago dei (image of God) does imply a functional component. That we are moral, capable of love, and desiring relationships. However, the imago dei is best understood as speaking to our relational status with God. We are made to be in a relationship with God and called to be His children. This is important below. Second, all creation testifies of the Creator. But all reflection of God in creation, including ourselves, is not on account of creation's goodness but His. Nothing and no one are good outside of Christ. Thirdly, thinking, reasoning, and even desiring relationships are not sole properties of man within creation. Be careful when leaning on this argument. Even animals display a primitive intelligence and socialization. An argument along these lines could be taken to mean that those with higher intelligence, reasoning, ability to be social, and self-sacrificing are the criteria for being in God's image. Would a mentally handicapped person qualify? I know you are not making this argument. But, following the flow of this logic can lead to categorizing traits that equate to having the imago dei that could both include animals and exclude people. Understanding the imago dei more as a relationship between God and man and less than the qualities man has been privileged with avoids this error. Finally, total depravity describes the Biblical condition of man found in Ephesians 2. Dead in our sin. By nature children of wrath. Saved by God's grace. Romans 5. Christ died for us even while we were hostile and enemies of God. And total depravity is not utter depravity. We are not as bad as we could be. And we are not without hope because of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Thanks again for the thoughtful comment. I pray this has been gentle and respectful. 🙏

@TNT1970RULES Hey TNT, thanks for the comment. That's a strawman. We are created after our kind and offered healing thru the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The correct formula is: "Created in Adam. Saved in Christ." God did not leave us helpless or hopeless. The Father sent the Son to die a propitiatory sacrifice that we may be offered salvation and not bear the just penalty for our sins. God loves you and desires your salvation. The North Korea analogy couldn't be further from the truth and is just petty scoffing. I will pray for you. 🙏

@fredparkinson1289 Hey Fred. What is truly unbelievable is that so many deny the Way, the Truth, and the Life found solely in Christ Jesus. Atheistic materialism is a failed worldview and false idol, full of inconsistencies and contradictions. This is why the worship of it leads to nihilism and solipsism. I urge you Fred, place your faith in the Savior Jesus Christ and His work and repent. God desires reconciliation and relationship with you. I will pray for you. 🙏

John Calvin is a brother in the faith. He made some great theological contributions and mistakes. Total Depravity was not a mistake. I challenge you to read John 6, Romans 5, 1. Cor. 2, and Ephesians 2 and not find the doctrine of Total Depravity. Total Depravity is not hopeless and describes man's heart, not God's.

That's a silly comment lol The NASB95 is a faithful and quite literal translation. And the commentaries I use rely heavily on the KJV and the RV. I pray you are not a Ruckmanite.

@@ReArmApologeticsi had to google that, and found something interesting. "QUESTION: What is a "Ruckmanite?" ANSWER: "Ruckmanite" is a name Bible critics call anyone who disagrees with them... Many Christians on their own, have concluded that the Bible (King James Bible) is the absolute perfect word of God. They, in complete innocence, will question their pastor's "improvements" on scripture and suddenly find themselves denounced as a "Ruckmanite. " In many cases they have never even heard of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman."

Another silly comment. Ah yes, I call all my enemies Ruckmanites no matter the topic (insert comedic evil laugh) lol Ruckman tried to argue that the KJV was a special and unique inspired translation, divinely superior to all others. A divine revelation, apparently given only to him. Listen, you can be a majority and received texts person. I have sympathies with the majority and received texts. The KJV faithfully transmits the Gospel, but it has its translation issues as well: mining "brass" and "unicorns" among them. The Anglican translators were doing the best they could with the Greek texts compiled by Roman Catholic monk Desiderious Erasmus. Those are just the facts. My question to you is, if you want the first English Bible then why not go for the Tyndale Bible? If you want what the KJV is based on, then purchase the Bishop's Bible. And if you must have a KJV, which version/revision do you prefer? Why trust the English at all and learn Greek? I hope I am not coming off too harsh. But KJV-only is purely a man-made tradition.

​@@ReArmApologeticstalking about Erasmus being a Roman Catholic? You don't know beans about the Bible version debate. If you use the NASB (or practically just about any modern Bible) you should send the Vatican a ' Thank You' note for providing that Bible to you.

🎯🎯🎯

Upon what foundation can you make such judgements? We are just star dust right? Where do you get the objectivity and certainty to make those claims? Nowhere. You just make them up. Because in an atheist materialist worldview, you are imprisoned in your fallible, finite, and irrational subjective experience. Your worldview gives no account of the consistency or coherency of the world around us. We have no reason to assume things will remain the same in the future because we have no reason to assume that the universe is actually consistent or coherent. You are stuck with the problem of induction. But why would that matter anyways. It doesn't matter. Nothing matters. Star dust has no quality of meaning or of assigning meaning. It can't be proven. This is the broken worldview of atheistic materialism. Solipsism at best. Nihilism at worst. Know that Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life. Only thru faith in Christ are you reconciled to the Creator who binds all existence into consistency and coherence, who assigns value and meaning, who grounds certainty and objectivity. I urge you to open your heart to Jesus, place your faith in Him, and repent of your sins. I will pray for you.

@@ReArmApologeticsyou prefer to argue over loving. God called us to love. You prefer to be right. Your intellectual pride is your downfall.

@fittyleben9680 Hey Fittyleben, thanks for the comment. The Gospel is not some sort of cheap grace. The Scriptures testify of God's love toward us and the nature of that love. And Jesus commands us to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves. You hate your neighbor if you do not desire him to come to the knowledge of the Gospel and faith in Christ. You hate your neighbor if you tell him that he is good enough without Christ. Would you not correct your child or even a dear friend if they were mistaken and all the more so if they were seriously mistaken? That is not love. If this is your honest view, you do not know how to love your neighbor. I urge and pray you recognize this and rethink your position.

@@ReArmApologetics there you go again. You’re deluded. There is a way that seems right to a man, but that way leads to destruction. Continue you in your self righteousness. You have your treasures laid up for you here on this earth.

@@fittyleben9680 You attempt to judge my heart and show yourself foolish and hypocritical. I will pray for you. 🙏

@@MiguelCervantes-o2x That's very encouraging. Thank you. 🙏

@@discipleslim9506 Thanks for the comment! I'm glad it was helpful. 🙏

@bdawg-qj9bq You cared enough to comment. How do you justify that from your worldview? You can't. Your worldview is broken, empty, inconsistent, and not life-giving. Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life.

God is real 😭 for a fact

@bdawg-qj9bq Your comment, It's fiction, who cares makes me sad. I had a very bad childhood, and when I was very young I remember going and hiding and crying. Many of those times I suddenly felt like someone was with me and I felt comforted. I knew nothing about God or the Bible. Years later I went to church and I realized it was God. When I was about 16 one of my friends brought up God and made the statement, I don’t believe there is a God, he has never done anything for me. I said nothing, did not agree or disagree, but by not saying anything I betrayed God, but God has never once betrayed me. I pray that through the Holy Spirit God softens your heart, opens your eyes and mind to the hope there is in Jesus Christ and the perfect love of God who does care very much.🙏

@@JES5181 may you be blessed.

Funny how you call it fictional, yet you are bothered enough to comment on this video. I wonder why.

Tell me, how does your worldview give you the certainty and objectivity to cast these ill-founded and ignorant judgements? You cannot. Because at the base of the atheist materialist worldview is nihilism or solipsism. The camp you find yourself in, is a camp of your own making. You are dead in your trespasses and sin, alienated from God and by nature a child of wrath. I tell you this not to hurt you but to exhort you to hear and accept your fallen standing before the Creator. But, even now as a sinner and enemy of God, Jesus died for you to offer you the free gift of salvation. He is long suffering for your account, calling you to faith, repentance, and reconciliation. I urge you to see your brokenness and the complete failure of your worldview and instead see the salvation that can only be found in Jesus Christ. I will pray for you Bill.

@3FreesApologetics we've all suffered more than he did. There is much more than nihilism for an atheist. We're social creatures, we love and make friends and start societies all in our own. We're not nearly as broken as you would suggest. There's scholarship, actual bi partisan secular and religious biblical scholarship. You can't possibly take a deep dive into it and come away with your perspective. There are over 5000 early manuscripts of the new testament from the first few centuries. Between them there are over 500,000 differences. You can chalk many of them up to spelling and grammar. The big ones you just can't. It's not gods book, it's extremely human. They break from the jews on concepts of satan and hell. Its because it was written by Greeks that didn't understand the previous religion.

Thank you for replying Bill. No one can suffer more than an infinitely perfect, holy, and innocent God-man who bore the penalty for the sins of the whole world. The wrath of God passed onto Him that we may, by faith, be acquitted from our due penalty. No Bill. You did not suffer more than Christ. Not a drop in the ocean of comparison. Now you suggest we are social creatures, which I agree. Yet you cannot give me a plausible why. Why are we social creatures? Why do we love? Why do we start societies? Why value such things? Under the atheist model, when lightning struck the primordial goo, or something like that, and star dust somehow became alive, why would we presuppose value from that? Why is life/love/society valuable outside your subjective experience? You are imprisoned by the Problem of Induction and by your own fallibility, finiteness, irrationality. I do not mean to be harsh. But the limitations of the atheist worldview are crippling. No meaning. No value. No certainty. No objectivity. As for your take on the Bible, the differences in the 5000+ manuscripts are vastly scribal errors. There aren't "big" ones. The longer ending of Mark and the Pericope Adultrae do not convey any doctrine of the faith and the vast majority of witnesses attest them. No other ancient document has so many witnesses. The scribes left their marks, but the Word of God is faithfully preserved. Next, you claim Jews had a different concept of Hell and Satan. They had incomplete concepts of Hell and the afterlife because revelation was ongoing. They even admitted such. But they knew Satan as we know him, the adversary and enemy of God. Finally, because it was written by Greeks. Simply not true. The New Testament was written in Greek because it was the lingua franca, the language of commerce and government since Hellenization began. Your theory that the converts did not know the "previous religion" falls flat because the great majority of the first converts were from that "previous religion." I exhort you to open your heart. Do not resist the grace of God. He is calling to you even now for faith, repentance, reconciliation, and relationship.

@jessewallace12able Hey Jesse, thanks for your comment. Read Ephesians 2:1-3 and tell me you don't find the doctrine of Total Depravity. And honestly, this is just bad and lazy argumentation. I prayerfully hope you affirm the Trinity. Nowhere in Scripture are the words Trinity and Triune found. But that is the teaching of the Scriptures as is Total Depravity. Man is fallen and broken. Only God can save us, and He is the initiator and accomplisher of our salvation.

It is a concept, but it is not defined nor mentioned specifically. Does it mean that the text is not about that? There are arguments for and against it. If you study the Bible and apply your observations you will have your own. It is a process.

@Bensp88 Hey Ben, thanks for the input. The doctrine of Total Depravity is Biblically sound and defined. Naming a Biblical teaching does not make it unBiblical. It merely puts a name to the countless verses that teach man is both helpless and hopeless without the direct intervention of God. I urge you to watch my admittedly long winded presentation to see the vast Scriptural support for this teaching. It is both fundamental and foundational to understanding human nature and our relationship to creation and the Almighy. And I neither write nor preach anything novel. This teaching is ancient and grounded in the Word of God. I pray this meets you and touches your heart. God bless you 🙏

@Weavileiscool I'm glad it was helpful! Psalm 51:5 is another great verse supporting Original Sin and Total Depravity. I believe it is a central theme of the Scriptures that man is fallen (having Original Sin and a Totally Depraved nature), which emphasizes the fact that God is the sole initiator and accomplisher of our salvation. God bless and keep you 🙏

@syzygy21cm I see you are a religious person. Yet among your objects of worship, you have an altar in your heart to a God unknown to you. This I tell you. The one true God made the heavens and the earth and all in them. He lives not in temples made by man or is served by human hands. He gives to all mankind life, breath, and sustenance. He made from one man all the nations of the earth, that they should seek Him, and perhaps feel their way toward Him and find Him. But He is not far from anyone. In Him, we live and move and have our being. It is wrong to think of God as gold or stone or some image from the imagination of man. The past times of ignorance God overlooked, but He has since commanded everyone everywhere to repent and believe in His Son, the crucified and arisen Messiah, Jesus Christ. The Truth will set you free.

I see you are a religious person, Richard. Know that all people worship something. What or who do you worship? That which your soul is pining after and blindly searching for has been revealed. The idols that you have placed your trust in will always fail you because they are false. They cannot give you life and reconcile you back to the Almighty. Salvation lies in Christ Jesus alone. I urge you not to resist the God's grace, for Jesus suffered and died for you. Believe in Christ and His work, repent of your sins, and love and obey God. I'll pray for you Richard.

@richardlaiche8303 Your religiosity is showing Richard. You obviously care deeply for truth and morality. But where do you justify that. Under your atheist materialist worldview, we are just star dust, right? Who gives you the right to make a truth claim or judgment, one ball of star dust to another? You can't make a single objective truth claim or judgment from your worldview. You should study the problem of induction by Francis Bacon. You are imprisoned in your subjective experience with no reason to assume reliability, consistency, or even coherence from the natural world, because at the end of the day you can't prove you aren't just a brain in a vat. Yet, you'll claim fervently that you aren't. I hope I'm not coming off too harsh, but by engaging in truth claims and judgments, you show that your worldview is entirely bankrupt. Solipsism at best. Nihilism at worst. No meaning. No value. No objectivity. Only unjustified preferences. Only the True and Living God has the power and might to bind a near infinite universe into a consistency and coherence needed for life to function and thrive. Only the True and Living God who is perfectly just, wise, and holy can communicate to mankind the objective, allowing us to escape our subjective prison to see the Truth. Only the True and Living God can save us from our brokenness, our fallibility, our finiteness. I urge you to open your heart and mind to the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Atheistic materialism can not heal you. It can not save you. Only the power of Jesus Christ can. I say this humbly. It is not too late. Even now, Christ suffered and died for you. I pray your heart softens to the love of Jesus Christ. Prayer is powerful, Richard.

@@richardlaiche8303 If you are right about humans, why should I accept your conclusions? You are still one of us, yes? This isn't the cat finding the keyboard or anything eh? sometimes, like with Moses, He talks in a still, small voice. Easier for those who don't want to hear it to ignore it that way. The day will come when His voice will be heard plainly. Then men will say "rocks fall on us and hide us". Your hope is that in His Mercy the parable of the workers is true, so that even if you change and let Him work in you in this last hour you can share in the eternal reward of those of us who labored all day.

@@richardlaiche8303 I am not convinced that you already believe it. I am convinced that you do not believe it because you do not wish to. The rest is just cover for that. My tip to you is to treat others with respect, including our host here, if you expect it for yourself. Kind of like the Golden Rule. But maybe you don't know about that either.

@JohnKoenig-db8lk Though not an obsession, defining and explaining human depravity is important in understanding the complete necessity of Christ and His saving work. Man's works are as filthy rags apart from Christ. No work of man can be righteous if not done by faith in Christ. Thru that faith, we are redeemed, justified, sanctified, and delivered into the victory of life eternal. Thank you for your comment and I hope you find the materials helpful.

@@ReArmApologetics Created sick and commanded to be well.

​@blacbraun A cute rejoiner, with no real substance. It's as if we were provided no means of fulfilling that command: of being healed. Better understood and said, "Created in Adam. Redeemed in Christ." We are created after our kind, after Adam the fallen man. But since the fall, we were not left hopeless. God's justice demanded punishment for the transgression. God's mercy begged clemency. God's wisdom found the balance. All people born guilty and outside of Christ condemned, yet all are offered the free gift of God's grace leading to repentance, faith, and salvation in our Lord Christ Jesus. I hope this is helpful 🙏

@idkwhtmynameis1993 Don't fret, brother. Although this is heavy stuff, we aren't helpless or hopeless with the deeper theological positions. Study God's Word. Find a Scripturally sound and faithful church. And build your relationship with God our Savior. Although I and the other commenter may have some disagreements about some points of doctrine, I am confident we would agree on the Gospel and the core tenets of the faith. Brothers in Christ may disagree, and church families fight, but all our failings and shortcomings are absolved as children of God. We aren't doomed. We are victorious thru our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If you have any questions, I'll help any way I can. You are in my prayers. God bless and keep you 🙏

@3FreesApologetics thanks for the reply. Im like 45 mins into your video and literally pausing and rewinding every verse so I can really understand it. Theres so many foundational ways to split, like I just had to google manechaeism and pelagianism Edit: well nvm, you are explaining these things in detail in your video. Thank you!

​@@ReArmApologeticsI'm new here myself. I would go so far as to say that not vigorously debating our differences is more problematic than avoiding them. That goes for denominational differences, also. It seems to me that the NT sets an example of that, that we should follow. So long as we are in agreement on the fundamental Truth then we are simply 'sharpening our swords and fortifying our shields." I'm gonna enjoy this channel, I bet. 😁

@CynHicks hey there! I appreciate the comment. I agree 💯. There are reasons brethren have chosen different paths. And those points and paths are important and worth fighting for. But, all in the spirit of love and gentleness. As long as we agree on the authority of God's Word, the Gospel, and the person and work of Christ, we ought to have these conversations as among the family of God. I hope you find the channel and content here useful! 🙏

Bear in mind that Total Depravity is primarily a Calvinist doctrine which is a very modern doctrine and not the only interpretation. I advise you to read the church fathers

@Dizerner Hey man, thanks for the comment and criticism. I'll try to be succinct but text-wall incoming lol 1. I do not believe we should abandon the language of Adam's guilt being imputed. It is clearly Biblical language and teaching. Each person is guilty because of both Adam's sin, with which we are born with, and their own, because of their depraved nature. They aren't separable. Original Sin is transmitted to every person and works itself out, so to speak, resulting in man's total depravity. I don't see confusion or the claim that it causes a self-righteousness, or judging people to be not accountable, as that is directly contrary to the teaching. This is fundamental to the teaching and clear unless you, not you personally, are a Pelagian. 2. Sometimes, Calvinistic language is not a bad thing, lol. I think, at least I hope, we'd both agree that God has perfect foreknowledge. In His perfect foreknowledge, God knew man would fail and fall and thus decreed the plan of the cross. His foreknowledge of man's fall is not causal. Because nothing surprises God, He never needs nor creates a plan B. This is probably just some clarification of language, but the Cross is plan A because God always knew we would fail, and thus, it was not from an open theist position that the Fall caught God off-guard or unawares. I think we agree here, but perhaps not. 3. Here we might disagree, and that's okay. Animals cannot sin. But they are held accountable for the sins of man. See the Levitical codes of bestiality and an ox that gores. The animal is likewise held accountable for the heinous sin and punished as well. The argument the NET notes makes, which I highly recommend reading, is that as creation was thoroughly corrupted/ruined by man's sin, this is why the whole world is judged corrupt and "all flesh" destroyed. Indeed, why else must creation be accountable and punished with destruction, that which God once judged as good, if not by contamination from man's sin? 4. I think that is, at best, an uncharitable reading. Nowhere did I put man on a pedestal. God stays His righteous judgment on Noah and His family because He is faithful to His promise, not because of some goodness of man and in spite of man's complete wickedness. You won't find a hint of Pelagianism or Provisionism here. My focus is and has been consistently the intensity of man's corruption AND the faithfulness of God and His Promise. Thank you for your time and criticism. I'll gladly dialogue with you anytime. God bless and keep you 🙏

@@ReArmApologetics Thank you for your cordial answers. I found all 4 to be illogical, no disrespect intended. 1. It is not "clearly Biblical" that God personally holds every single soul accountable as if they turned the entire human race over to sin while in a state of perfect grace, you simply cannot support that! THAT is Adam's guilt. We have personal guilt because of Adam, NOT Adam's guilt, and conflation and equivocation on that matter only produce confusion for people. 2. You don't need a "surprise" to have a plan B, man, that is completely non sequitur. All a plan B necessitates is that it is a secondary desire, not that God doesn't know something. This kind of thinking imposes the limitations of humans onto God-he can only have a plan B if he doesn't know something, makes a mistake. It's a non sequitur. 3. Being judged for man's sin is different then being judged for the animal's own immorality, they are different things. Plants are judged for man's sin, it doesn't mean they are immoral. All of creation groans, yet that does not mean creation has a moral capacity. It is MAN'S SIN that is bringing the judgment, not the animals', not the plants'. 4. I'm not twisting what was said or imputing motives that were not given, nothing I said was taking the worst possible interpretation. I'm literally taking the reason stated, that the commentary you frequently used said the flood was for the purpose of saving the church, and logically extrapolating the values it contains-idolatry can be hard to see, and it's not just blatant declarations. Again, I really appreciate your cordiality, and my bluntness is a sign I respect you. Kind regards in Christ.

Hey man, I hope this answers your four points of criticism and clears up any confusion. Text wall incoming lol 1. I’m not sure we are going to find agreement here, but I will try to press a little further. Romans 5:18-19. V18. One transgression (one sin) resulted condemnation to ALL men. The clear reference is Adam’s sin which resulted in the judgement (guilt) and punishment (condemnation). And this is of great importance when juxtaposed with Christ in the second part of 18: so that one act of righteousness (the cross) results in judgement (justification) and acquittal (life). V19. One man’s (Adam’s) disobedience made the many sinners. MADE them sinners. Thru the obedience of the One (Christ) the many are made righteous. MADE righteous. We are born in Adam (sinners). We are reborn into Christ (righteous). We have both imputed guilt thru Adam and the guilt earned thru the continued lack of faith and lawlessness. Cannot be separated. Romans 5:16 also and perhaps better explains. 2. The phrase “after thought” strongly implies at best a lesser thought and worst a surprise. That is all the commentary and myself were trying to convey. The Cross was plan A because Ephesians 1:4-5. Not that we were predestined to faith, but that God chose us in Christ BEFORE the foundation of the world. And thus V.5 we were predestined in Christ to be adopted as children of God. Before Eden, God chose to save us in Christ. Plan A. Making definitional statements are by their very nature limiting. God’s Word defines Himself. 3. Good and bad are moral judgements. Creation once declared “good” is now “corrupt/ruined” (i.e. bad). It is, indeed, by man that judgement fell upon all creation. I never said nor quoted anything that said animals can sin or have agency, but they can be moral or immoral, good or bad. Read the NET notes. But animals are held morally accountable for man’s sin. Guilt by man’s contamination, but guilt nonetheless. And creation doesn’t just groan. It was “subjected to futility, not willingly,” and is enslaved to corruption. These are all moral claims. This is a hard teaching, but creation is fallen with man too. 4. Idolatry? Come on brother. I even went back and checked. 1) One slide had the word “church” on it. 2) It is never idolatry to trust in God’s promise. His promise includes the “church” because all believers, the “body,” can trust in God’s faithfulness. He is faithful even when we are not. None of this should be controversial. 3) The commentator even qualifies his statements by “human apprehension,” which implies fallibility and is not dogmatic. But nothing in that quote even hints of idolatry. All the quote is saying is that according to human reason, God was fully just in His punishment of all people and had no other choice to save His people because faith was almost fully extinguished. To suggest that God could have allowed His people or even the totality of mankind to be fully destroyed would be to claim that He is unfaithful to His promise. I hope none of this comes across as rude. I do not take it personally but I do take it seriously. I hope my wall-of-text conveys my genuine interest in and care for our conversations. Thanks again. God Bless and Keep you.

Imputation of guilt for Adam's sin is not in the text. Augustine was probably using the bad translation in the Vulgate of Romans 5:12 when he came up with the doctrine. We fixed the text but never the bad doctrine. Eastern Orthodox knew the Greek so they never believed it. It matters because it is keeping us from seeing other things in Genesis.​@@ReArmApologetics

@@earlygenesistherevealedcos1982 I appreciate the comment, brother! While I grant the textual variant found in the Vulgate in Romans 5:12 (in whom all sinned), the doctrine remains in v. 17-19, particularly 19. Made/appointed sinners through Adam's disobedience. Made/appointed righteous through the obedience of Christ. Imputation in both cases. Further, from the narrative of Gen. 1-11 and other passages of Scripture listed in the presentation, the doctrine is further testified. God bless and keep you 🙏

Thank you for the question! The cultural question is a common myth that is almost always used to argue against head coverings, and I should have spent more time on it in my presentation. Please see slides "Ancient Corinth (2)" 12:16 and "Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians" 15:42 for where I address that in the slides. First, the cultural argument doesn't hold when we consider that women covering their head was counter cultural in worship generally. Men covered in worship. The argument that prostitutes or unseemly women wore short hair or were uncovered to stand apart from society for that purpose is not supported by actual historical evidence. The cultural argument was postulated by a theologian as a reason to disregard the apostle's command today and then accepted without any further study. (See Michael Marlow's work) Second and IMO most importantly, Paul doesn't reference the customs of Corinth once, which would make it a particular instance or "for them then." But instead appeals to the universals of faith that apply to all: such as creation orders, hierarchical statuses, and headship. These apply to all in all places at all times. The divinely inspired Paul had access to the words to say that something this "out of step" with modern culture wouldn't apply outside of ancient Corinth. But instead, he used universals. And to add weight, the church completely accepted this doctrine as uncontroversial from the very beginning up until the feminist movement, which challenges the very arguments Paul is making in 1st Cor. 11. (i.e., ordered creation, hierarchy, and headship). The quote by RC Sproul at 59:35 is very helpful here. God bless and keep you 🙏

​@@ReArmApologeticsthanks for answer, although i dont think i'd have a heart to argue over it, or even discuss deeply with potential wife, if she wouldnt want to i'd let her not wear it

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

@@robertmiller812 damn

Hey Robert, thanks for your comment. It seems as though you have not actually watched the presentation or assessed the arguments made in it. I could be wrong, but that's what it seems from your response. I hope you do watch the presentation to hear the arguments made in long form and fully fleshed out. But I will respond to your critiques below. 1: The "Textus Receptus" is a Greek composite that was put together by a Roman Catholic monk Desiderious Erasmus in 1516. He was doing the best he could with what he had, about 12 manuscripts, none of which contained the last chapter of Revelation which he had to transcribe from the Latin Vulgate into Greek to complete the composite. In fact, the term "Textus Receptus" was not coined until several editions later as a marketing ploy. The history here is NOT controversial. 2: The KJV is an Anglican Bible based off of the "Textus Receptus" but it was not the first English Bible. Tyndale's Bible was the first. But the translators borrowed heavily from the Bishop's Bible that came before it as well. It is a good, faithful translation containing all the requirements of the Gospel. But it is not a perfect translation. Mining "bronze" and the appearance of "unicorns" show the limitations of the translators. The NASB95 is much more literal than the KJV and is rendered into English that is both accurate and understandable today. The Word of God is infallible and does not change. But language itself does. Have you heard what the kids are saying these days lol I digress. It is not wise to use a KJV nor any translation from the "Textus Receptus" for a study on precise exegesis today. If you are Byzantine Priority, then at least use a Majority Text based Bible. 3. In the verse-by-verse exegesis of the passage, I literally address every point you make and refute them ENTIRELY. For the sake of brevity, I will only comment that verse 15 fully undermines your entire argument. Long hair is...the glory to the woman. It is given to HER for a natural covering. The whole point of the covering is submitting to and glorifying your head. In this case it is man as head of the woman. Long hair cannot glorify man because it was given to woman to glorify herself and natural growth of long hair is not an act of submission. This fundamentally misunderstands headship. Nowhere in Scripture is a natural process given to account for an act of obedience and submission (see circumcision, baptism, etc.). Obedience always requires action, the living faith that the Apostle James speaks of. I don't just recognize the headship of Christ cause my hair is short, lest we say all men with short hair are recognizing Christ as their head. Same with women. Honestly, you have to try not to see this because the Scripture is plain. That's why many more people try the completely debunked cultural argument. Hence why this has been a universal teaching and practice up until very recently which leads to... 4: "We have no other practice, nor do the churches of God:" This was a universal Apostolic teaching. If you go to the history of head coverings section in the presentation, you will see that this was the teaching of ALL churches from the very beginning, my first citation is Clement of Alexandria (b.150AD) and continues down every church tradition (RC, Ortho, Reformed, Ana, etc.) up until Marxist feminism sought to upend Christian values, traditions, and faith. Our society today is the anomaly in Christian history, not the other way around. I sincerely pray you watch this presentation or another on the topic. ALL of your concerns are fully addressed and explained. Is this a salvific issue no. But all Christians should desire obedience and a thorough understanding of God's Word. I pray your heart is opened to this teaching. God bless and keep you 🙏

@Pastor.Mike.Napier Nice to meet ya brother! I'm over in East Tennessee at Wooddale FWB. God bless you and your ministry 🙏

@@ReArmApologetics my Mama ( My Dads mom) was from Knoxville. I know right where wooddale FWB is next time I’m in the area I’ll have to stop in

@@Pastor.Mike.Napier You are welcome any time! 😁

@@ReArmApologetics being a Pastor in Ormond Beach Florida I’m not able to get up that way often enough but next time I’m I definitely will.

A Commentary Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments: Volume VI Acts-Romans by Rev. David Brown and 1 Corinthians-Revelation by Rev. A.R. Fausset. Eerdmans Publishing Company. USA. 1967.

I appreciate it brother and I'm glad you liked it. I personally think that Reformed Arminianism (RA) corrects the TULIP while retaining most of the broader Reformed theological positions. I'm working on some more RA videos. I think the more exposure RA gets, the more people will see how well it connects and explains Scripture.

@@ReArmApologetics yeah I just subscribed. 👍

Sorry for the delay. I agree 100% and should have noted that in the video although I think their understanding of judicial hardening is quite flawed. I don't think Pelagian anthropology is compatible with judicial hardening without major theological contradictions.

Thanks brother, I appreciate it!

Thanks!

Thanks brother!

Funny! The Early Church Fathers were Catholic! Even St. Ignatious of Antioch, who used the word “catholic” to describe the universal church defends the Eucharist. And this is written in the turn of the second century!

@atgred I've been reading the writings of the church fathers for the last eight years. The church did teach the same things all over the world for three hundred years and was truly catholic and orthodox, but now it's only catholic in name, teaching many new doctrines. The early church condemned war, divorce and remarriage, sending children to secular schools, anyone holding government office, the theory of evolution, worldly entrainments, unsubmissive wives, jewelery, makeup, and gold. Women were required to wear full head-coverings that looked like burqas and have many children. The church never knew of Marian devotion. Both the pre-Nicene and post-Nicene fathers taught that Mary is recorded as having sinned three times in the scriptures. They taught that there will be no marriage in heaven nor any genitalia on our bodies. They taught that female bodies will no longer exist, and that all Christian women will be male in heaven. They believed Mary is a man now and has a beard. Do you believe this? No. You believe Mary is an immodest woman who showed her face in public like a prostitute. The early church never knew of a pope over the whole church. They also never knew of fancy clothing or cathedrals. They had no icons or expensive golden decorations. Your church is a heretical sect. I believe everything the early church fathers believed, not what the catholics believe. The catholics hate the pre-Nicene church fathers, and never considered them to be the doctors of the church. They added four women as doctors of their church before ever even considering adding a true church father. This is because they know the true church fathers condemned their beliefs. Catholics and orthodox prefer the absurd mysticism of crazed monks and paranoid women over the wisdom of the apostolic fathers and their successors.

Hey @gamewizdom, thanks for the comment. First, the Scriptures include the Old Testament which obviously predate the church. Secondly, 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 Paul says to hold fast to both the things taught in person and by letter from the Apostles. So Paul is clearly citing 1st Thessalonians as authoritative and foundational, not supplementary. Third, the idea we need a magisterium to understand God's Word is dangerously close to saying that God cannot infallibly communicate with His creations on His own. That limits the power of God. Just be aware of where that thinking leads. Finally, Sola Scriptura is a historical realization that with the ending of the Apostolic offices with their special revelation, today our sole infallible rule and practice of faith is the special revelation found in the Holy Scriptures. It just provides an infallible measuring stick to make sure we are in sound teaching and doctrine. Love and prayers to you.

@atgred So "catholic" just means universal. We could say the "universal church" and the "catholic church" interchangeably. Catholic simply means a member of the body of Christ, not Roman Catholic. And same as with gamewizdom, be very careful citing the early church fathers. They were doing the best they could, but they made many mistakes. Even Ignatius of Antioch affirmed a Eucharist that continually sacrifices our God when Hebrews 10:11-14 clearly speaks to the sacrifice of Christ, which was made once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. Love and prayers to you.

​@@ReArmApologetics You're not listening. The NEW TESTAMENT (which you think is the foundation of Christianity) was written AFTER Christianity was already established throughout the world. Therefore, the new testament is not the foundation of Christianity. The verbal preaching of the apostles is the foundation of Christianity. Have you not read in the new testament that Paul and Peter command us to submit to the rulers of the church, the bishops and presbyters? Do you submit to them? Or do you disregard their teachings in favor of your own brand-new interpretation of Scripture? Paul says he spent three years in Ephesus, preaching day and night to his disciples. That's over 1000 days of hearing an apostle teach through all hours of the day. That's 1000s of hours of teaching on every conceivable subject. The New Testament takes about 15 hours to read. So which would you rather have: the New Testament, or an apostle teaching you in person day and night for three years? The answer is obvious. The early church fathers understood the faith much better than you do, and they even understood all of the New Testament better than any of us because 1) Greek was their native language, 2) they were taught the meaning of the Scriptures (new and old) by the apostles themselves, and 3) they lived before all of the ridiculous denominations came around with new interpretations of Scripture. Scripture alone is not the only authority. Read the church fathers' writings. Flee the heresies of the Catholic and Orthodox denominations.

Hey brother, thank you for your thoughtful response. I want to say first that I appreciate this conversation and hope and pray that we have a loving and edifying talk between two brothers in Christ. I will address each point in turn. 1. The “halo” effect. I truly hope this wasn’t a tongue in cheek attempt to say that I am trying to portray myself as being self-righteous. I’m not about that. My mother bought me that globe with John 3:16-17 on it and thought it would make a nice backdrop to my videos. Just wanted to address that because I’m not into iconography or anything like that lol 2. “fishy” ; “weak sauce” ; double-speak.” I don’t take issue with any loving correction. I admit I am not a great thinker or consider myself a theologian. If I am wrong, I will accept it as a blessing for learning and growth. Also, I prefer teriyaki sauce, just saying lol 3. Now on to the main points. Original Sin. I affirm Total Depravity. All mankind is born in and remain in a total unwillingness and total inability to seek after and follow God in and of themselves. I think we agree here, so I won’t linger. I mention this many times in my video, which you mention and I appreciate that. A key difference between us might be Utter Depravity. I am not sure what you believe, but Total Depravity does not say that all are Utterly Depraved, or as bad as we could be, and thanks be to God for that lol. We did not lose the Imago Dei with the Fall. The unregenerate can do acts of kindness, love, and sacrifice. Although none of this is good apart from Christ, these are shadows of the good works we are called to when we are in Christ and an expression of the Imago Dei, what we are called to be. 4. Now I will apologize and repent if I did not give God’s grace its due respect and place in salvation. I am Reformed and a Monergist. All glory to God that His grace is sufficient for all who do not resist and believe in Him. If I poorly articulated or communicated that, I apologize. I would never want anyone to walk away from this video thinking I believe a “work” or inherent “goodness” puts a person in right relationship with God. That is false. Salvation is by God’s grace, that grace being the unmerited love and favor for a creature and creation in rebellion to Him. 5. From Total Depravity, how did I present the doctrine that infants and little ones are safe and saved? I presented two arguments. The first was that prevenient grace, which extends from the unlimited atonement of Christ, is sufficient for infants and the very young. The second is that, combined with the unlimited atonement of Christ, there could be a lack of accountability stemming from the unrecognition of general revelation, see Romans 1:20. I cited Forlines for this I believe. 6. Now you mentioned several things (“sin nature rules out the idea that children inherently possess any virtues” ; “that children are somehow automatically part of the kingdom due to their inherent virtues” ; “Jesus clearly says "Whichever one of these little ones WHO BELIEVE IN ME." Now this drastically alters the point of the passage” ; “This destroys the whole concept of "little children are inherently pure and you should emulate them to be in God's kingdom") I will address these as a whole because it all relates to the Scriptures I cited, specifically Matthew 18. First, children inherently have some virtue because they have value in the eyes of God. We are all created in the Image of God. All human life is special. That doesn’t make them righteous, justified, or godly. That does not save them. And I make that distinction. The specific virtue they have that I reference here is that they are less experienced in sin than adults. That is a virtue. The exact virtuous qualities of children I cite (13:44) are making oneself lowly, without pride and ambition, and humility. These are specifically drawn from children as an example of children as a state of age. It is why Jesus called a child forth and not an adult. And here is the huge problem you have if you say that Jesus was using a believing child. If Jesus is saying that you must attain the qualities of a child who believes vs. childhood in general, then you must ask why a believing child is the most sanctified and the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Paul explicitly talks about sanctification as a process. You are forced to ask, “Why would a child be more sanctified than other believers?” It makes no sense in context and really opens up a theological can of worms that goes against Scripture. Here’s the point, Jesus shows children as an example to the Apostles. If you try to read that the children are regenerate, why would newly regenerate believers be more sanctified than saints who have been progressed beyond the milk, so to speak lol. And finally on this point, I do not believe at all the premise that children (in or outside of Christ) are moral arbiters or guideposts. I don’t care of children preaching in Church or on TV. 7. “Whichever one of these little ones who believe in me.” NKJV “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,” This by no means is clear that all of the little ones present believe in Jesus. What is clear is that whoever causes littles ones who believe to stumble, that offense is great indeed. But the sentence structure here, I believe, supports the reading that “whoever causes one (of these little ones) who believe in Me to sin” not “whoever causes (one of these) little ones who believe in Me to sin.” The subject of the sentence is the “one” not the “little ones.” 8. I addressed @16:00 above. @17:00 Matthew 18:10-14. Parable of the Lost Sheep. In context, the Parable of the Lost Sheep is in the midst of Jesus talking about children. No where outside of verse 6 does Jesus mention believing children. And it wouldn’t make sense in light of verse 11. Why would the reference of Jesus coming to save that which was lost be in reference to believing children? The Parable explains that the Good Shepherd goes out to find the straying sheep. Weren’t we all straying sheep at one time? This is an important part of Reformed Arminianism. We recognize the extent of the atonement and reconciliation, that Jesus died for everyone and the world and is actively reconciling both back to Him. We, Imagers of God, destined to be in communion with Him yet were Lost thru Adam but now Redeemed Thru the work of Christ on the Cross. That is why our Good Shepherd rejoices on our return to the state we were supposed to be in, in right relationship with God. Verse 14, It is not the will of your Father, God does not will little ones should perish. He does not will something without making, to borrow a word from our Provisionist brothers and sisters, provision or means for it to happen. We can chock it up to supernatural divine mystery for their salvation, indeed grace is somewhat in my opinon lol, but we cannot, from the Calvinist formula, get to children being hated and reprobated. 9. Finally, you used several phrases that I thought were uncharitable and wrong. ("give ourselves a doctrine that we inherently think "should" be true, we have come with impure motives ; instead of humbling coming and saying "whatever it says, it says ; elaborately re-explain the concepts, my dear sir, that is Pelagian ; you make a really underhanded move ; children being loved" to "children being inherently good ; so we can "feel better" about God ; “tweaking” God’s revelation) You are imputing a motive on me that is false. I am careful not to do eisegesis. I have changed my thoughts on several different doctrines based upon exegesis. So please, none of this “underhanded” stuff. If I am wrong, I am wrong. But you are false to imply I am willfully being deceptive. The Pelagian charge. I affirm Total Depravity not Utter Depravity. That’s not Pelagian. I never said “children being inherently good.” I’m sorry you took that away from my video. All I was doing was showing, in contrast to High-Calvinism, that God loves Children, which according to their logic, He can’t do and damn them too. According to High-Calvinism, God does not love the reprobate. This was longer than I thought it would be but I wanted to try and do justice to your time and response. Again, apologies for my lack of clarity and poor communication. I am always open to edification and sanctification and appreciate the time you took in engaging on this level and topic. Love and prayers to you, brother in Christ. God bless and keep you.

Thanks brother!

NKJV Romans 3:27-31 27) Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29) Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30) since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31) Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. NKJV Romans 5:9 9) Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. We are justified by the law of faith in Christ, by His blood. You actually contradicted yourself when you said that Christ did nothing but was an atonement for our sins. Read Galatians chapters 2 and 3 for a better understanding of the law and how we are justified by faith. We are saved by God's Grace, Thru Faith, in Christ alone. Please see Ephesians 2. Love and Prayers.

@@ReArmApologetics Paul is a the false Apostle as it is written in Revelation 2:2 Find out what Jesus taught, instead of Paul because they are not the same 99.9 % of Christians will not be saved because they follow Paul instead of Jesus

@@onejohn2.26.how do you know what Jesus said? We have Apostles and prophets who have been carried along by the Holy Spirit to give us God’s Word. Your claiming that Jesus teaches differently than Paul but must stand on the fact that Jesus our Lord and Saviors words were recorded by His apostles, disciples, or an apostle close acquaintance. No God’s Word is consistent from the Tanak to and throughout the New Testament. Reevaluate why you believe what you do and how you come to that and by what standard do you base it on, my friend. Let God be true and every man a lier

@@thebark_barx6231 In the first place, there is a lot of corruption in the New Testament In the second place, if you really think that Paul taught the same gospel as Jesus and the other Apostles did, you need to do research

@@thebark_barx6231 th-cam.com/video/w7ef7iLaE_k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ZEBySG52WC-QrkCd

Hey brother, I hear you. I think Prevenient Grace hinges on the resistible vs irresistible argument. All Protestants believe that God's Grace is our first set in salvation. But, if you believe that the first grace that leads you to faith is irresistible, then you have to adopt unconditional election and full perseverance of the saints to prevent the heresy of universalism. I think the Scriptures are completely supportive of the doctrine that grace is resistible and that harmonizes passages like Titus 2:11, John 12:32, and Romans 5:18. And I believe that we can read the Scriptures as saying that by a first Grace, which I would call resistible and Prevenient, we are brought (Ephesians 2:8) or drawn (John 12:32) to Christ and that in Christ we are given access to exceeding riches of grace (Romans 5:1-2) that aids in sanctification (1st Corinthians 15:10). Thats my formulation anyways. Thanks for the comment and input! Soli Deo Gloria.

When you look at the Reformation, the main difference in the reformation was the separation from the Roman Catholic Church that prevenient Grace is true. The reformers drew that distinction from the RCC and believed rightly scripture gave all glory to God even in his election. Btw, there are no “reformed” arminians. Reformed is specifically referring to the reformation and its doctrines. Some may attempt to hijack the term but 16th century reformers and those that followed their teachings are “reformed” Arminians or Protestants who adopted the RCC teaching of prevenient grace didn’t come about until the 17th century. They are NOT reformed.

Hey Samuel, your assertion that the Protestant Reformation was about Prevenient Grace is terribly wrong. The Reformation stemmed from a desire to reform the church after centuries of Roman Catholic abuses and totalitarian control. At heart were the doctrines of salvation, church authority, and scriptural authority. The Reformers held in common what would be known as the 5 Solas, Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria. The Protestant Reformation was not and is not a monolith and had many developments in its history. Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) was a student of Beza, Calvin's direct successor and received excellent letters of recommendation from him. Where Arminius disagreed with Calvin was in certain doctrines of soteriology. It is important to note that in the thoroughly "Reformed" States of Holland, Arminius was completely cleared of any charges of incorrect teachings several times throughout his life and taught at a "Reformed" university until he died. He was invited to a general conference to present and defend his views but died before he could. The later Synod of Dort (1618-1619) was where the 5 points of Calvinism were finally and systematically formed. As Reformed Arminians, we hold the 5 Solas, the Reformed view on church life and authority, the fall of man, original sin, and Total Depravity. This isn't hijacking, brother. This is history. For more information, please read "Arminian and Baptist" by Dr. Matthew Pinson. Love and Prayers.

I do too. The more I read Arminius, the more I like lol I don't have any formal schooling in this topic. I really like how Arminius balances the Sovereignty of God with the outworking's of His will. Soli Deo Gloria.