วีดีโอ

Great discussion... I bought that Piper book. Also.. My book on Romans 9 (currently underway) has an excursus where I tackle this very heady topic under the "divine concurrence" model of providence. You'll find that most Christians in history ascribe to some form of providence. At around minute 50 Mitch discusses the permissive providence of God. This is only one view of the mechanic behind it often seen in latter theologians like Sproul. I happen to disagree with bare permission as I tackle that in my section on the mechanics behind the hardening of Pharaoh which follows the section I am sending in the link below. Calvin also rejected a permissive view for God's determinative activities. It's important since Arminians hold a very strong historical view of providence characterized predominately by the rubric of "permission." Here's a quote by Olson in Arminian Theology: "...whatever happens, including sin (e.g., the Fall of Adam), is at least allowed by God, but if it is positively evil, and not only evil to a mistaken understanding, it is not authored or authorized by God. God permits it ‘designedly and willingly,’ but not efficaciously. Furthermore, God controls (ordains, appoints, limits, directs) it in the sense that he points it to a good end.” This runs counter to what I call and am arguing for as Reformed Divine Concurrence. Here's the link to the subsection of an excursus on divine hardening which I find that God has providentially done... not passively as though he merely is allowing Pharaoh to harden himself. Check it out and let me know what you think! The book is coming along slowly because I'm going into everything implicated in that chapter. docs.google.com/document/d/10ZPtcD5gDq4orRDt2LIvdSHazYiCO_I44XjsqTKgRJU/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.roe8f5glyt

Great episode guys!

Lmao "wokest agenda" says the white bread who thinks mayo is spicy lol

Lmao yall completely missed the point...per usual. Lmaoooo

White John Lewis Robert Moore Ronald

Miller Sarah White Melissa Robinson Joseph

Rfk jr will surprise all. He will be the next president

The polls are rigged by the corporateation parties… Kennedy way pass 10%… try 39% and above

Kennedy has my vote ❤from Texas!

❤vote for Robert F🤍Kennedy Jr💙President🇺🇸2024🇺🇸

❤vote for Robert F🤍Kennedy💙Jr🇺🇸

It's KENNEDY for me!

RFK is the best candidate and he can win the election as long as the people of this great nation have the ability to vote for there own choice. I firmly believe that independent voters outnumber both democrats and republican for first time and RFK is pulling from both of those bases and possibly a HUGE chunk of dems if they wake up to the fact that RFK is the only way trump isn't elected and a coalition of "double haters" that won't vote for either no matter what and then a contingent that isn't even being discussed is the people that don't normally vote are going to stand up this year and vote for RFK as well. I believe in my heart and soul RFK wants to heal and unite our people and is the only candidate that is trying to bring us all together and has actual plans for a ton of different issues that will help ourselves our children our nation and the world #Kennedy24 🇺🇸

Key comment: "I don't trust poles."

Vote Kennedy for president 2024!!! He is the leader we need to unify our country and bring us back to prosperity!

If I died and went to hell I'd grab a banner and lead the charge on heavens hypocritical gates myself.

These guys would love Hell Is Forever. They might even put it on repeat.

i mean satan is atualy HELPING God, resistance is assistance, notice th ebible says satan can NOT do ANYHTING UNLESS God gives him permission! so really the devil onyl dose waht it dose because God allows it. and i am still trying fiigure out WHY chist 1k year rule jsut to RELEASE satan for him to device peaople and they can goto effing hell for all effing eternith that truly sucks alot. i LOVE jesus biut tryign to figure out how the creator of hearth (nuterality) heaven (good) and hell (bad) is PURE LOVE with ZERO fear! and then yea dose NOT want humans in hell but builds a system in which can goto hell for simpel belief? then how is "choosing right" not a GAMBLE a GAMBLE with your soul? idk bible says not to sin and GAMBLE but seems i am FORCED to GAMBLE if dont wanto goto hell, i saw hell and its TRULY AWEFUL, i could not tell angels, humans, demons, angels eta apart chained on a cube with invisable lightining licking them that would make a level 999999999999999999999999999999999 goku super sayan cry like a mere baby. yet humasn are thrown into the SAME hell that the Devil is (who KNOWS what they are doing) and the huemasn who do NOT know what they are doing! no wonder jesus says "forgive them for they do not know" like i understand free will, and that SOME WILL choose to be evil but fact its on FAITH alone! before i saw hell i LOVEd God because i Love life and love God, but now i have almost nothign but FEAR and a false love to not goto hell :( can SOMEBODY make a VALID argument on this 5 min video? th-cam.com/video/BqcDXIx6CA8/w-d-xo.html and fact that God essentualy had to beat himself up to appease his WRATH liek why so WRATHFUL? perhaps even more WRATH than "satan"? satan: worship me or DIE (and goto heaven) God: worship me or SUFFER ETERNALY!!!!! idk satan looks liek he has the better deal to DENY.

FYI, in the show, Lucifer and Satan are separate characters

My reading says that only "children" were born to Sons of God and daughters of men who were mighty, I don't read that "Nephilim children" were born of them, only "children", I think the text is literal, Reads to me that mighty Sons of God had "children" born to them, NOT Nephilim were born to them. Neither can I see it read that Children of Nephilim were born or Nephilim children were born (just that "children" were born), I am also not sure that one should assume that the Sons of God will only procreate Nephilim children, when the sentence says only children were born and not that "Nephilim children" were born. Children and Nephilim are the two different predicates nestled in the passages paragraph sentences. Seems to me fringe evangelicals have confusingly smashed the sentences with two different predicate meanings into one theory; And that theory is to justify the horror of the flood and later the genocide of Canaanite people groups in the OT when Joshua takes back the promised land by killing people. This theory (a-la Michael Heiser) says that killing everything was okay cause Joshua was just killing "soul-less" Nephilim demi-gods, which is a quantum leap and a non-sequitur.. The passage just says Nephilim were around back then, and after-- it does not say the product of the Sons of God were Nephilim, it just says Nephilim were around back then.. unfortunately the sentencing structure looks to be a non-sequitur sentence in the middle of two different predicates, which can be confusing if not read properly. Sons of God mating with daughters to make mighty Children, not that these Children were Nephilim... but they were just "children" of the Sons of God -- again they were not Nephilim... But the Nephilim were around back then and after.. but that's a sentence that stands by itself and should not be mixed in with the "children" or that even Nephilim were might men of renown. Sons of God were the mighty men--no? Hopefully I have made the case plain as I know there are so many who read these sentences and inject their interpretation that the "children" were "Nephilim children", which is not the case when read properly...please read more closely

So this whole video is to try and say that Viv was controlled by demons to make this? if so you failed, its just a story using public Domain characters and setting

Sounds like Mitch got my laryngitis... felt that. Interesting discussion... I have a lot of hope for the upcoming election, not as though someone may "save us" but because the path forward seems so clear. I'll be stuck like glue watching... Trump was masterful in Iowa and said a lot of moderate things I thought would go over well with the general populace. Can he get out of his own way? After Iowa... maybe!

*Promosm*

Was thinking about Genesis 50 from the question presented. I think in that context Joseph is ultimately intending that the good God intended is grammatically parallel to what evil was occurring. I think we can see that whereas the brothers had one purpose (evil, namely to kill or be rid of Joseph), God had another purpose in their actions which was intended by the ordaining of their actions. This purpose is ultimately the faithfulness to his own word to preserve a nation to shepherd and protect the people of God, the city set on a hill for HIS namesake, not the mere protection of Jews. We see this theme come again in Romans 9 where the rejection of these same Jews has called into question God’s faithfulness to his word… and Paul defends God’s righteousness by showing his good intent in the ordaining of something not good. Great discussion!