8:08 Why don't you have a problem explaining God ordained something evil? Doesn't that affects God's character? Could you expand your view on that? Not a Calvinist by the way, quite opposite
If you look at passages like Jer. 19:5, there are clearly some things that are not God’s works which he didn’t ordain or command or decree, depending on which translation you read. But also look at Leviticus 26. Or passages like this: Ezekiel 14:9 (KJV) 9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. Or this: 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 (KJV) 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. There are many others. Killing the first born in Egypt was pretty ruthless. So God does have a direct causal relationship with SOME pretty terrible things. But only the ones specified. Not all of them.
@@KevinThompson1611 Correct me if I'm wrong, so God is just when he sends plagues or something like that, because all of his purposes are just and justified? If He wants to bless all nations through Israel (good and just) it's no problem to do it killing first borns, because in the end, since we are all sinners and deserving of God's Wrath, that is not unjust. Is that right ?
@KevinThompson1611 It's interesting seeing Jordan Peterson dance around when Christians/conservatives want to push him into a corner to give a straight answer about his faith. But when he sits down with cosmic skeptic, who wants him to dance around, he gives a straight answer. He pulled a proverbs 26:4-5 😂 Would be interesting to see u do a reaction with Nick or FSI group to the Jordan Peterson interview with cosmic skeptic.
I wouldn’t characterize what JP does as “dancing round.” He’s not playing the “explanatory power” game. That’s a perverse way to view what he is doing.
@@KevinThompson1611 I don't mean it in a derogatory sense, just that he tends not to give a straight answer to people who want him to give a straight answer about Jesus. He usually responds in a way that an ideolog would still feel uncertain about his answers.
Idk if its in this video where you talk about total depravity but you say that they really believe in singular depravity. But you say that there is no biblical reason to believe this is the case. Well I think that there is one reason that calvanists try to give from scripture and that is that man cannot do what is pleasing to God and Believing in God would please him so we cannot do that. That's like the only sort of scriptural case that they try to make for singular depravity.
///“can’t do what is pleasing to God”/// They don’t realize this, but this line of argument shoots their other arguments in the foot. Their interpretation of Isaiah 46:10 indicates that all things without exception are pleasing to God. Thus, it is impossible to not please God because everything that comes to pass is his doing, his decree and his pleasure. So, their use of Romans 8:7-8 would have to mean that they are wrong about Isaiah 46:10, which would also cascade into them being wrong about total depravity.
You present a false dichotomy between the two. There's literally only one meaning behind predestination, and it's time to stop acting like there's a different definition.
We don’t do false dichotomies here. I advise you to take a class on epistemology. I also advise you to become educated in the subject of biblical interpretation. You can start with our playlist: Biblical Interpretation th-cam.com/play/PLY2G1Gk_v1wO5FgzE_HruB97empC5G3Jy.html You seem to be confused about the definition of a word versus the definition of a Gnostic doctrine labeled with that same word. Stick around here and you can learn a lot, but drop the attitude.
No he isnt. Just because you cant see it because of the indoctrination you've received, does not mean anyne here is stating another definition. "Predestination" literally means "a destination that has been determined beforehand". Nobody is changing the definition. What YOU fail to see, is WHO is predestined and WHEN that is applied. I suspect it is you who needs to understand definitions. You can start with the word "election", then the word "all".
That’s the exact definition that we use. The difference is that we aren’t confused about what the destination is or when the predetermination started as Calvinists are. Nobody changed the definition. In scripture, no lost people are ever predestinated to be converted. Only saved people are predestinated, and the predestination does not start until after conversion. Post-conversion Believers are predestinated to 3 future things according to scripture. 1. To be conformed to the image of Jesus (Rom. 8:29; 1 John 3:2). 2. The redemption of the body, called "adoption" (Eph. 1:5; Rom. 8:23). 3. Inheritance in heaven (Eph. 1:11 [KJV], 1 Pet. 1:1-9). All of these are future things that happen long AFTER conversion.
@@KevinThompson1611To be conformed to the image of Christ is listed before being called by the gospel in Romans 8:29. You said it is post conversion. Do you not believe that the 5 chains in Romans 8:29-30 occur in the order stated? Your list is : Foreknown -> called by the gospel -> justified -> predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ -> glorified. That list is altered from what the text reads.
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | เปิดใจ "อาจารย์ เบียร์ ฅนตื่นธรรม" นักสนทนาธรรมสายดุดัน!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vqaBI_mnoDk/mqdefault.jpg)
Calvin was a serial killer.😮
He caused heretics to burn at the stake, yes
Good to see you Kevin.
🤔Hmmm.... let's see, BIBLE or CALVINISM? You'd THINK that was a simple choice 😢
Hey Kevin, what is the best way to communicate with you.
Super Chat ?
8:08 Why don't you have a problem explaining God ordained something evil?
Doesn't that affects God's character?
Could you expand your view on that?
Not a Calvinist by the way, quite opposite
If you look at passages like Jer. 19:5, there are clearly some things that are not God’s works which he didn’t ordain or command or decree, depending on which translation you read.
But also look at Leviticus 26.
Or passages like this:
Ezekiel 14:9 (KJV)
9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
Or this:
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 (KJV)
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
There are many others. Killing the first born in Egypt was pretty ruthless.
So God does have a direct causal relationship with SOME pretty terrible things. But only the ones specified. Not all of them.
@@KevinThompson1611 Correct me if I'm wrong, so God is just when he sends plagues or something like that, because all of his purposes are just and justified?
If He wants to bless all nations through Israel (good and just) it's no problem to do it killing first borns, because in the end, since we are all sinners and deserving of God's Wrath, that is not unjust. Is that right ?
@KevinThompson1611
It's interesting seeing Jordan Peterson dance around when Christians/conservatives want to push him into a corner to give a straight answer about his faith.
But when he sits down with cosmic skeptic, who wants him to dance around, he gives a straight answer.
He pulled a proverbs 26:4-5 😂
Would be interesting to see u do a reaction with Nick or FSI group to the Jordan Peterson interview with cosmic skeptic.
I wouldn’t characterize what JP does as “dancing round.” He’s not playing the “explanatory power” game. That’s a perverse way to view what he is doing.
@@KevinThompson1611 I don't mean it in a derogatory sense, just that he tends not to give a straight answer to people who want him to give a straight answer about Jesus.
He usually responds in a way that an ideolog would still feel uncertain about his answers.
Idk if its in this video where you talk about total depravity but you say that they really believe in singular depravity. But you say that there is no biblical reason to believe this is the case. Well I think that there is one reason that calvanists try to give from scripture and that is that man cannot do what is pleasing to God and Believing in God would please him so we cannot do that. That's like the only sort of scriptural case that they try to make for singular depravity.
///“can’t do what is pleasing to God”///
They don’t realize this, but this line of argument shoots their other arguments in the foot. Their interpretation of Isaiah 46:10 indicates that all things without exception are pleasing to God. Thus, it is impossible to not please God because everything that comes to pass is his doing, his decree and his pleasure. So, their use of Romans 8:7-8 would have to mean that they are wrong about Isaiah 46:10, which would also cascade into them being wrong about total depravity.
The strawman that is this 10 minute and 30 second video is nauseating.
You present a false dichotomy between the two.
There's literally only one meaning behind predestination, and it's time to stop acting like there's a different definition.
We don’t do false dichotomies here.
I advise you to take a class on epistemology.
I also advise you to become educated in the subject of biblical interpretation.
You can start with our playlist:
Biblical Interpretation
th-cam.com/play/PLY2G1Gk_v1wO5FgzE_HruB97empC5G3Jy.html
You seem to be confused about the definition of a word versus the definition of a Gnostic doctrine labeled with that same word. Stick around here and you can learn a lot, but drop the attitude.
No he isnt. Just because you cant see it because of the indoctrination you've received, does not mean anyne here is stating another definition. "Predestination" literally means "a destination that has been determined beforehand". Nobody is changing the definition. What YOU fail to see, is WHO is predestined and WHEN that is applied. I suspect it is you who needs to understand definitions. You can start with the word "election", then the word "all".
That’s the exact definition that we use. The difference is that we aren’t confused about what the destination is or when the predetermination started as Calvinists are. Nobody changed the definition.
In scripture, no lost people are ever predestinated to be converted.
Only saved people are predestinated, and the predestination does not start until after conversion.
Post-conversion Believers are predestinated to 3 future things according to scripture.
1. To be conformed to the image of Jesus (Rom. 8:29; 1 John 3:2).
2. The redemption of the body, called "adoption" (Eph. 1:5; Rom. 8:23).
3. Inheritance in heaven (Eph. 1:11 [KJV], 1 Pet. 1:1-9).
All of these are future things that happen long AFTER conversion.
As for “election,” we can offer you an education there as well.
ELECTION: It's Nothing Like You Were Told
th-cam.com/video/S0TUH60Cd78/w-d-xo.html
@@KevinThompson1611To be conformed to the image of Christ is listed before being called by the gospel in Romans 8:29. You said it is post conversion. Do you not believe that the 5 chains in Romans 8:29-30 occur in the order stated?
Your list is : Foreknown -> called by the gospel -> justified -> predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ -> glorified.
That list is altered from what the text reads.