Romans 9 De-Calvinized
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- For centuries, Calvinism has shrouded certain passages in clouds of confusion and deceit. Romans 9 is one of the most Go-to passages used by Calvinists. This video uses basic biblical interpretation, context, and scripture with scripture comparisons to show that the Calvinist angle of this chapter is not sound at all. This video refutes both Calvinism and Arminianism.
Please support this channel via PayPal at kevin@beyondthefundamentals.com, or at the PayPal link on the home page of the website at www.beyondthefundamentals.com.
Or Venmo @kevin-thompson-418
Purchase the powerpoint slides displayed in this video here: www.etsy.com/B...
website: beyondthefundam...
Podcast: itunes.apple.c...
Facebook: www.facebook.c...
email: kevin@beyondthefundamentals.com
The old saying " The Devil made me do it!" Has been changed by Calvinists to "God made you do it!"
That wonderful loving Calvinist teacher John Piper said it best. QUOTE:
"God . . . brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other
words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our
world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself
brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. @-16; John 9:3)
and his people’s good "(see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4).
"This includes-as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem-God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child . .
RAPE OF CHILDREN......BROUGHT NAZIS .... KILLINGS....
Really John Piper! This is your god that plans the rape of children? "
If you call yourself a Calvinist you must stand proud behind these statements!
Did you know that this is what Calvinism endorses as your loving god?
If this is who you see as god, there is no hope for you! Your in a deadly Cult.
TRUTH IN LOVE
I agree with you! Piper is teaching the doctrine of devils in the quote you provided! The Bible literally states the opposite:
“(they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),”
Jeremiah 19:5 NKJV
God says He didn’t command, nor speak into existence, the sin of the Israelites when they presented their children as burnt offerings to Baal. Sorry Mr Piper, you’re a false teacher.
@@danielshaolin6053 That was a breath of fresh air to hear what you just said. Because it is true.
Thanks.
How anyone can follow these false teachers is beyond my understanding!
TRUTH IN LOVE
What about wiping out every single man, woman and child in the Flood? or killing all the firstborn of Egypt? or all of Pharaoh's army? Or, when God caused them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters? (Jerm 19:9)
I wish I could memorize this stuff, but since I can't, it helps to just keep watching it over and over.
Open God's Word, grab a pen and paper and take notes. You will be surprised at how much of this will come back to you during a discussion.
Listen. Pause. Search the scriptures. Write. Hit play. Repeat. 😊
No need because logic and common sense alone will tell you Calvinism is false. Now you might say we need to look to the scripture (which is true), but scripture will never contradict logical or rational thinking because the Bible makes it very clear that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and since god isn't illogical or irrational we can know through God given logic alone that Calvinism is false. I mean who would reason you are responsible for the evil you do, but God literally made you do it? Who would say you must repent, but you cannot unless God forces you to? Only someone who denies their God given faculties. Even a pagan who is made in God's image should be able to work this out.
No doubt that brother Kevin is being used by to strengthen all of us.
It shouldn't have to be "de-calvinized" since it was never Calvinist to begin with lol.
Aaron Kulukjian But it’s easier to not like Calvin than to not like God’s sovereignty.
1920s
Finding errors in the ideology of Calvinism has nothing to do with not “liking” God’s “sovereignty.”
I was the same at one time. I Naively ventured a "New Reformed " Church and it damaged me beyond belief. Please stay away.
@@KevinThompson1611 exactly
But unfortunately it does.
Thank you for this. I hang out in Calvinist circles and I was really starting to think I was missing something by not having read every systematic or the institutes. To the Word. God Bless You.
Fallen man's condition is well represented by what God said to Cain "If you do right you will be accepted, but if you don't, sin is at the door and you must master it." Genesis 4:7
John Fast well said
I had never taken time to know anything about Calvinism. but when i did, the scales fell down from my eyes. i now understand why i always saw that there was something wrong and unChristlike in my calvinist friends and in all these preachers and churches. Praise God. God is good.
I can't believe how much of a calvnistic mind-set I had, this is so good! The truth sets truely free.
Thank Jesus you got away from that cult.
Glad I found your blog---you are pretty amazing how you can talk for hours and obviously have little understanding of what you are talking about. You have a problem with third grade English much less the Greek. Can't wait to see you debate some people who actually know "what" the bible says and not what you think it means. You apparently have a KJV doctrinal mindset which distorts any kind of common sense much less an ability to think scripturally.
You are showing your teeth Calvinist.
No need to debate a Calvinist, Calvinism is not worthy. No need to debate. Examine yourself and see if you are in the faith. If you are a deceiver,
then the LORD rebuke you.
I feel this was a good teaching and I even learned something but I also feel a major point was missed that what Romans 9 is about is God having the right to choose the Israel of His choice. He chose the Israel of God to be the Children Of Promise and not the natural descendants of Israel. Know also that Isaac was the second born as was also Jacob, both representing the children of promise. As with Ishmael and Esau they were both the first born and both represent the natural descendants of Israel. This is the reason God chose both Issac & Jacob to represent the children of promise. So God did not choose Jacob over Esau because of anything they did good or bad but because of the promise so that God would still choose from the promise as He always has. It was God’s sovereign choice to choose to have His mercy rest on the Israel of His Choice, the children of promise. This is what God elected to do in this chapter.
Romans 9 is teaching about both Jews and gentile as it makes a comparison from the natural descendants of Israel to the Israel of promise. The address is more to the Jew yes, but nonetheless Paul is hoping to provoke the Jews to jealousy through the fact that God has chosen the Israel of God to NOT be the natural descendants of Israel. In 10 and 11 we see that the Jews can be grafted back in but it has to be through faith in the true Messiah, Jesus Christ.
This is a brief interpretation but I hope it helps.
Grace & Peace
I was an Arminian. I used to believed that the doctrine of election is an unjust proposition about God's salvation devised by Calvin et al. Then I stumbled on Romans 9. Then the whole problem of trying to avoid the clear revelation of the doctrine of election made me re-look at the Arminian perspective. There was too much effort to refute the clear exposition of Scripture on what God did to Israel with the illustration of his sovereign will over Jacob and Esau. It was not even a metaphor about God's favoritism of Israel over Edom because the natural interpretation of the passage did not draw such undertone. Paul is just saying that those who are the Israel of God is not born out of national privileges. Not all Israel is Israel. So the illustration of Jacob and Esau is not about national salvation which if so makes God even more unfair in such selection really. Esau had shown some tenderness of heart in their final meeting with Jacob who just been renamed Israel after a night of wrestling with God. So the Israel of God is chosen by sovereign grace alone on whom God had mercy, according to his elective grace before anyone had ever done right or wrong. It's the principle at work behind thework of salvation. To compound the illustration Jacob and Esau were twins. Born on the same day. Both sons of Isaac, the promise bearer after Abraham. Both are bad boys. Jacob's name means deceiver. A liar, schemer, cheater and shrewd businessman. How's that for qualification? But God made a promise not based on human merit. Hence, God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not Jacob and Esau. If we cross reference this in Malachi, Esau's standing before God is sealed by God with eternal rejection. In order that his purpose of election might stand. Nothing good foreseen by God was the basis of it. It was entirely the free sovereign choice of God, through his mercy and unconditional grace. Then where is human responsibility? Paul already proved that from Chapter 1-7 that humanity is in rebellion against God and deserves condemnation and death. God was entirely responsible to turn rebels like us to behold his majesty, quicken our hearts by grace to love him and adore his. God's responsibility was the cause of my salvation. And from the depths of my heart I thank God that he did, he violated my free will, he overcame my rebellion. I'm responsible to give my life to him after all he has done. But without his enabling by the Spirit I am hopelessly blind. So on this principle rebellious man will charge God with unfairness without realizing that none of us in our sinfulness ever wanted God. God did not owe anyone of us salvation. In fact by sinful men's constant refusal God will harden their hearts because that is the desire of their hearts. What right does God have to do that? Well he is the Potter right? He have all the right in the world to do as he will and pleases. Read Job 40-42. Elective grace benefits the undeserving sinner with an immense assurance that God is able to save the rebellious and give them his inheritance, purpose and secure future. To fulfill this he gave his only Son that WHOSEVER believed in him might not perish but have everlasting life. All of WHOSEVER he had chosen from the foundation of the world. In Romans 11:25-26, all Israel means the Israel according to the promise including those Gentiles God elected by grace. I look deep in my heart to say I do not deserve his salvation. But Im deeply humbled and thankful that God considered my lowly estate, lifted me up, gave me new birth, opened my eyes so that at last I behold my Father who is in heaven who summoned me to be with him forever through the blood of his Son whom he gave for my redemption. The reformed faith embraced Romans 9 in its entirety as God revealed himself and the might of his glorious grace. In his sovereign election, he is glorified in his mercy. He chose from the foundations of the world and that is a mystery he revealed enough in Scripture for finite creature like me to grasp. But even with my limited knowledge of this glorious grace it is an awesome thing to know that this salvation is all of God, not any of man. What participation we were able to assist grace to make it possible? None, whatsoever. Calvin was not the culprit of this doctrine. This is Romans 9 before our eyes. I never read any of Calvin's commentary. But on my own reading and study, it is evident that the Arminian view is severely flawed. Romans 9 is not about God's justice it was about his mercy.
+Lito Nosa
The Aminian view is severely flawed because Aminius was trained as a Calvinist, and never got away from the gnostic premises clouding his thought.
Arminianism and Calvinism are both wrong for the same reasons. Your Arminianism merely set you up to fall for Calvinism.
If Arminianism is wrong, then leave it toward scripture, not toward Gnosticism.
Romans 11:32 (KJV)
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
romans 11:32 - "....may have mercy on all" - as much as we want everyone saved, and God "desires" for everyone to come to a knowledge of truth, this verse doesn't mean that God wills to have mercy on all and give justice to no one - it simply says , God "may." Not "will." Jesus said no man can to come to Him unless the Father draws him. Jesus uses the word "can" which refers to ability and is different than may. There is so much taken out of context and i feel like there will always be this war on semi-pelagians and Augustinians till the end of the age hahah. i think God allows this to test us - will we love each other? also if we are saved by our works or by our own decision for christ, then its a gospel of works, not grace. we understand that true faith will always have works. good trees, good fruit.
obviously there is much dangers as our wicked nature can easily twist scripture to make ourselves all robots and use predestination to justify sin - that only proves if our faith is genuine, for me realising that God chose me and has loved me since the foundations of the world liberated me - although it can lead others to justify sin. calvinism will prove whtehr ones faith is genuine or not. anyhow. Great knowledge is not enough, and puffs us up with pride. unfortunately some calvinsits become prideful becasue of their knowledge. the same can go for anyone. its not hyper-calvinism (thats an insult to John) , its anti-calvinism if anything (when people claim we are robots and can sin without judgement)
"9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him" Hebrews 5:9
"34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." Acts 10:34-35.
I rejected Calvinism before understanding any of this. We had these house church Bible studies when we were college age and young singles. It was a beautiful experience in many ways, even with all our hang ups. A few convincing characters introduced Calvinism and it seemed to spread like a virus. I thought there was something strange about how fast it spread and took hold. I watched people who were once warm and kind become cold and harsh. I rejected it then.
calvinism or Augustinianism always exposes true faith. This is because the bible teaches we are not saved by works, but by grace. when people realise this, they usually stop doing works to try and please God and earn salvation. they show their true faith. their heart. you should tell them that. i realised that in my own soul. i found myself wretched and unable to please God by my own strength, unless i thought that i earnt God's grace and it wasnt a gift. but Eph. 2:8 stands true. all is a gift, even our faith. Now, we are called to use that gift, and not sit around. intellectual knowledge sometimes profits our relationship with God too little. man can rely on it too much and become prideful. this can happen to anyone, in any theologocial view. anyhow hope this makes sense.
also romans 11:32 gets taken out of context. the verse doesnt say God "will" have mercy on all. it says "may." "God may have mercy on all." God may have mercy, or may give justice. BUT GOD GAVE YOU MERCY EVEN THOUGH YOU DESERVED JUSTICE, AND THIS IS NOT YOUR OWN DOING, YOU DID NOT EARN THIS MERCY. how dare we steal glory from Christ. do you not see how much God loves you? - in that He chose you before the foudnations of the world? mankind is all evil, but He foreknew you, and chose to save you. "knew" refers to not just knowledge but a an intimate relationship. "Adam knew eve." adam loved eve (obviously this can refer to a sexual way, as well). the point is, God loved you before the foundations of the world, as Paul said. He didnt just know you and what you were going to do. You were going to reject Him your whole life, if He never intervened. i know i am this way. perhaps you felt like you chose God and you disagree with scripture saying "God chose you." but let it be known we should agree with scripture. we could spend a long time repeating the same things.
grace be with you brother. praise to the Saviour forever and ever. amen!
You sound so very much like they did.
This channel has been a blessing, i was introduced to Calvinism last year and since then ive been searching the scriptures to see if this doctrine was true.
It’s absolutely false!
And it’s completely true!
@@juaneato only if you turn your Bible upside down and read it backwards.
@@Creshex8
Calvinism is Christianised Gnosticism… Calvinism is so unbiblical that those who teach these false doctrines will be harshly rebuked on judgment day for maligning the Holy character of God.
@@danielshaolin6053 So you think Calvinists are heretics destined for hell?
Okay so 24:48 seconds into this video and you see the critical mistake made. The question is posed:
"Is this passage talking about New Testament, Church-age salvation, or is it talking about specific people in the same Old Testament?"
And folks the answer that is given totally ignores verse 6, and the statement that Paul makes. The statement Paul makes answers the question and warrants the reason of verses 7-9 (As Paul points back to the promise).
Here is what verses 6 says in a more literal translation, even though the same understanding is in the KJV:
Romans 9:6 NASB -
"But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;"
There you have it! In what way could Paul be referring to God word not failing? Because his Jews brethren are not BELIEVING and RECEIVING the PROMISE of SALVATION. Paul's entire argument here on out is to give reason to WHY God's promise of salvation is not failing even though not all of Paul's Jewish brethren are believing.
This very assertion is why Paul points back to the Promise seed Isaac and not just Jacob from the start.
Dude this explanation is PERFECT!!
And that is what the Calvinists are forgetting...
Love the ministry God has called you to manage Kevin. That being said, I find it astounding and a strong proof of the Divine influence of God in scripture that the word for "will be named" as found in Romans 9:7 also means "to invite". And this is not just in the Greek language but the Hebrew as well, see Genesis 21:12 to see my reasoning (and using an interlinear and strong concordance). Both passages are simultaneously declaring two truths in one sentence that through Isaac will Abraham's offspring be named and invited (or called) both physical and spiritual Israel. It took me twelve years of living in faith to finally see this! Have a blessed day your videos have helped greatly!
So, so, so many exegetical errors, misrepresentations, and blatant use of ad hominem in this video.
Thompson said this passage is dealing with Israel, not the Gentiles. If that's the case, then why does Romans 9:24 say, "even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles." In this passage, the Apostle is referring to vessels of mercy made by God for glory. Not to mention, this passage includes a reference to Pharaoh, who is, in fact, a Gentile.
Thompson said this passage is dealing with OT salvation, not NT salvation. First, that's an entirely unbiblical distinction. Salvation in the OT is the exact same as salvation in the NT: by grace through faith. The extent of the knowledge may have changed between the OT and the NT, but OT saints and NT saints are justified by the same means: grace through faith. Second, he wrongly reads the word "call" in Romans 9:11 and 9:24 and thinks it is referring to service. Is that how Paul uses the word "call" in Romans? Go back to Romans 8:29-30, which is the reason the Apostle had to write Romans 9 because the Jews appear to contradict his teaching in Romans 8:29-30, and you will see that "call" is part of the salvation process. Also, notice that God only calls the elect, because everyone who is called is also justified according to Romans 8:30. Therefore, Romans 9 is absolutely about NT salvation.
Thompson said this passage is dealing with national service for Israel, not individual salvation. Again, completely false. What's Paul's thesis statement in Romans 9? Verse 6, "not all who are descended from Israel are of Israel." Or, to paraphrase, "Not every Jew by descent is a Jew by election." Remember, Romans 8:28-39 established wonderful truths about the elect, and Paul knew that someone would point out the problem of the Jews. After all, God elected the nation of Israel, but the vast majority of them are unbelievers. In response, Paul says not all Jews are saved by God because that's how it's been since the beginning. It makes no sense to say, as Thompson does, "Paul is talking about nations, not individuals," when Paul's thesis in Romans 9:6 is about individuals. Romans 9 is absolutely about individuals with national implications, as it will be seen in Romans 11 where the nation of Israel is promised to be saved. Notice, a nation cannot be saved unless its individuals are elected. Lastly, notice the pronouns used in Romans 9:15. It's "whom," and this word is in the singular, not plural. Paul cannot be referring to nations of people by using the singular. Paul is referring to individuals, just like he has been this whole chapter with Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael (implied), Jacob, and Esau.
Thompson said this passage teaches conditional election by referencing Esau's rejection of his birthright and the clay fighting against the potter in Jeremiah. Is that what Paul taught though? I will never understand how Thompson or any other Arminian can say Romans 9 teaches conditional election when verse 11 says, "They were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls." Don't give me this foreknowledge garbage. God didn't base His choice off of anything Jacob and Esau would do. God just chose Jacob to love, even though Jacob deserved to be hated, and God hated Esau like Esau deserved since he was in Adam. Thompson also said that the clay determines whether it is a vessel of wrath or mercy, but is that what Paul taught? Notice, Paul says the vessels of wrath were prepared beforehand for destruction. Prepared by who? It has to be God. It's hard to prepare yourself for destruction before you even exist. Paul then parallels this with the vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory. Again, who prepared them? It has to be God. It's hard to prepare yourself for glory before you even exist.
Also, Thompson's interpretations don't make any sense in light of the arguments Paul anticipates. Paul anticipates people saying God is unjust after saying God loved Jacob and hated Esau and chose Jacob over Esau before they did anything. If Paul were referring to nations and was teaching that God chose the nation of Israel over the nation of Edom because the nation of Edom was going to be wicked and because their forefather, Esau, sold his birthright, then no one would say God is unjust. No one would question that. However, if Paul is teaching that God chose Jacob for no other reason than grace and left Esau in his sorry, sinful state, then people would question God's justice. Ironically, Thompson is one of those objectors fighting against Paul! The same applies with the objection later in chapter 9. If Paul were teaching that every person can decide if he is a vessel of wrath or mercy based on how he responds to God, then no one would object and ask why God finds fault. However, if Paul is teaching that God prepared the vessels of wrath and mercy for the destinies based solely off of His will, then people would question why God finds fault with the vessels of wrath. This is the only way to make sense of the passage and Paul's train of thought.
Furthermore, Thompson said that everyone starts out as a vessel of wrath, which is true to an extent because Ephesians 2 says even the elect start life out as objects of wrath in need of salvation. However, Thompson misses the glaring truth that the elect are vessels of mercy that God prepared beforehand for glory. It's God who prepared them beforehand, and when that phrase is used, it is usually referring to before creation.
Lastly, Thompson makes Romans 9:21-25 about God incorporating the Gentiles into the promise. That's true, but it does not explain Paul's thesis, which is, "Not all who are descended from Israel are of Israel." Paul is not saying the Jews are vessels of mercy and the Gentiles are vessels of wrath. I mean, the end of that section says God called not only Jews but also Gentiles to be vessels of mercy. Both Jews and Gentiles make up the vessels of mercy, and both Jews and Gentiles make up the vessels of wrath. What determines if someone is a vessel of wrath or destruction? God's preparation of them beforehand. Why does that matter? Because Paul is explaining why most Jews don't believe. They're vessels of wrath that God is enduring with patiently until judgment day because He has vessels of mercy to save.
This is a classic example of how not to read the Bible. Just let the text speak for itself and stop jumping all over the Bible to make it say what you want it to say.
+Josh Peterson
Josh, The vessels of mercy and the vessels of wrath are both from Israel. God hardened Israel but saved a remnant out of Israel before her destruction in the year 70. The acts period is the 40 years of testing for Israel leading up to this time of total destruction in which we witness both the remnant elect of Israel being saved, and the Gentiles being grafted into Jesus, the "true vine".
[Rom 11:7 KJV] 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election (of Israel) hath obtained it, and the rest (of Israel) were blinded (parenthesis added)
The "afore prepared" in rom 9 23 are the "elect" taken out of a blinded nation.
Vs 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
This is why Paul tells the Ephesians in chapter 1 that the apostles were the ones who were made known the "riches of His glory" and then had to pass on that knowledge to the Gentiles.
[Eph 1:17-18 NKJV] 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the RICHES OF THE GLORY of His inheritance in the saints,
The next verse in romans 9 includes Gentiles into the riches of glory as Paul uses the word "Kai" meaning "also"
Vs 24 Even (Kai) us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
This is why Paul goes on to quote Hosea, a prophecy concerning Gentiles....and then says that only a remnant of Israel would be saved. The "remnant" is the "elect".
And so you see, the "election" are from Israel. But Israel is not blinded today; that is the misconception. Her blindness was only for a time, to bring about the cross of Christ. Read Isaiah 6. There, God tells Isaiah exactly when her blindness was to end.
Both you and Kevin are beholden to dispensationalism and that's why you are both misinterpreting the Word.
Peace
Romans 9 is all about God's right to save the gentiles; not His right to condemn. Romans 9 is also one of the few Scripture verses with an asterisk.
Saint Peter was referring to Romans 9 when he said in 2 Peter 3;15-17
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own steadfastness."
Excellent work in searching of the scriptures and speaking on the whole chapter and verses you didn't cherry pick at all. Great!!! We must be alert in all that bring the gospel we are in the last days and many are coming with their own twisted interpretation, sad thing how they manipulate their flock. I was a John McArther lover but after I listened to him more and more I realized he is a Reformed Calvinist..
This series of Bible study simply brought answers to all the questions that I had with regard to Calvinism ... I am happy and I feel blessed to be referred to this video by a brother ... Certainly, I will follow all the other videos to solidify the knowledge with respect to this theme! May God continues to bless you and give you the wisdom to share more with us!
Hey, is there a way you can post this PowerPoint somewhere? I'd love to use it for a discussion with a Calvinist.
Romans 9:32 ought to (but won't) kill Calvinism forever They'll find some other places to cherry-pick Scripture -- like Proverbs. Thank you so much for your insights and efforts against this fiendish pretense of piety.
This is not what Calvinism teaches, there is NOTHING you can do to save yourself, you are NOT saved by works, there is nothing you can do to be saved.
you are a Faith is a Work person ? the First born from the grave had faith he would be resurrected in three days. The empty tomb believers are putting faith in someone elses work. Please try not to stumble too many new believers that their new faith is a work. It is a plea, a command, a position a qualifier, a destination for those who chose to get on board.
@mineben256 that faith is granted by God, and not a work you perform. Also you are saved before you have faith thats whole point of Irrisistable grace.
@@christiandenbutter5597 except you will not see that anywhere in scripture. You believe first and then you receive the Holy Spirit.
I’m only 40 minutes into this but bravo
Well done
You may very well get to it but the reference to the potter and the clay, Paul referencing the OT, in context is God sovereignty to use or set aside Israel if he chooses, not to make some people for salvation and some for condemnation
The more i know of Calvinism, the less i see Gods hand in it.
I’m currently writing articles for grace evangelical society related to this subject
My Prayer is, if you get the chance to debate with James White I would Love to listen to it. Not because I think you are wrong, but that if you are right then it should be shown. Thank-you
James white was predestined ti get a tatoo
Thank you for telling me and showing me the truth... I have only been a christian for a year, and my buddy told me about predestination and election stuff... I thought it was true because god is sovereign and he can do whatever he wants. But then i have no peace about it... for three days i have been reading praying. I found some scripters that i thought support and i found some that contradicted. Thank you for what you are doing.... May the peace and grace of god be multiplied to you.... Do you have a video that tells you how to interpret scripture?
I sure do. It's called introduction to Biblical interpretation. It's probably due for an overhaul.
I also tough on it in the first segment of my new series on why regeneration cannot precede faith.
Praise God for your conversion.
@@KevinThompson1611 Read John 17, Jesus himself said those that you have given me. Those I laid down my life for. Those are yours and the same are mine.
Kevin you’ve done some great videos, and I’ve watched a lot of them. This one is one of the best. Thank you so much
im sure he is a great guy and loves Christ and i hope he receives this correction and simple meaning of the word "may" in rom 11:32.
he may reply. not will. the "may" is not definite. the word "will" is definite. the same way God may have mercy, or may have justice. is there any injustice here? certainly not. God is not a God of confusion.
This is a muddled attempt to exegete a simple passage beginning about the 24 minute mark. In v1-5, Paul expresses his anguish over the failure of the Jews to be saved. In v6-8, Paul explains why this is so. It is not the children of the flesh who were to be saved but the children of promise were to be saved. From this point on, Paul is dealing with the children of promise. v9-13 support Paul’s argument. First, Isaac and then Jacob are identified as children of promise. At the end, Paul sums it up saying, “Jacob, I loved [He is a child of promise), Esau, I hated (Esau is not a child of promise). The child of promise is saved; the child of the flesh is not saved.
Having established his point about the child of promise being saved, Paul then addresses objections to this. The first objection is that this is not fair and God is not just - "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!” This leads to the second objection, "How can God judge the one who is not a child of promise - “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
The explanation offered in this video is convoluted and misses Paul's argument entirely.
Exactly. I find it interesting that Paul himself knew that people would have a problem with God’s sovereignty. He beats everyone to the question, then answers it for them.
I have been sitting on the fence for some time around these issues. Thank you Kevin for your ministry in expounding these things. I am very clear now. I have listened to your messages a couple of times and i get it. For some time i was thinking it was just academic but i can see how much more there is to it now. I have a couple of friends who are calvinist who are so zealous for street evangelism its amazing. I don't get how that works. We all go out and do the street witness and yet these guys are very staunch Calvinists.
It's because they don't fully contemplate how if God has predestined every single person's all decisions, how He would not be the loving God of Scripture. The Calvinists that have mulled over these things and reflected on them will end up stale and quenched of the Spirit.
“Calvinism is a blinding doctrine” - Ain’t that the truth!
Praise GOD for using you brother, this is exactly what my conclusion is, you nailed it. To GOD be the GLORY alone.
I would thoroughly enjoy watching KT destroy Dr. James White in a debate!
How is this a Christian attitude?
Do you believe that James White is a Christian? If Calvinism is indeed false doctrine (I do not believe that it is) then he would be in need of truthful instruction and not destruction in a debate.
One of the problems that I have with these videos is not so much that I disagree with their teaching (I do) but rather the kind of reactions they inspire.
We are told that Calvinism is of the devil, that those who teach it are of the devil and that those who believe it are ensnared by the devil.
Jesus himself was accused of doing the work of the devil and non other accusation could be more profoundly wrong.
Jesus taught us that we should have love for one another and that the world would know that we are his disciples because of that love. How does condemning one another because of a difference in understanding of Scripture demonstrate love?
Last night I was reading a passage from the writings of Herman Bavink wherein he was discussing the distinctions between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism and I was surprised at how he could misunderstand one of the fundamental points of the latter. I did not accuse him of being of the devil. He is a brilliant theologian who just happens to be human and capable of error.
I mean have you read Augustine? Have you read Calvin? Have you read James White? These are smart men deserving of our respect. That does not place them above reproach but it does mean we should rebuke them as brothers when we disagree on something.
James White is the one who goes around challenging “non-calvinists” to debates. In the past, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed watching James White “destroy” Muslims and other false religions in debates. It’s a figure of speech I’m using, nothing personal. I’m just saying it would be entertaining to see James White finally meet his match in KT. Compete in the arena of ideas and defend your beliefs with correct exegesis of the Bible. Don’t spend your life looking for reasons to be offended.
In your video you stated that Arminianism and Calvinism are both faulty theological positions. Are you planning on posting videos such as "John 3:16 De-Arminianized"?
Jesse Lazo
Thanks for watching and thanks for the comment. Arminianism of late is in reality nothing more than a faux Calvinist construct - a "Washington Generals," if you will.
It is mostly Calvinists who even think in that type of fabricated duality. So labeling something as de-arminianized would most likely convey to people that a Calvinist perspective would be presented, and that the text would be ignored and substituted with nonsensical philosophy.
Arminianism is closer to Calvinism than it is to scripture. It is based on Calvinist presuppositions and shares the same hermeneutical mistakes on most concepts. One might aptly refer to both systems jointly as Calvo-Arminianism. Therefore, to decalvinize something is also to dearminianize it. It is essentially one in the same.
If you believe there is a lie commonly taught about John 3:16 other than the Calvinist lie, I would happily look into it and consider doing a video on it.
May God bless your ministry brother Kevin! This video pick apart Calvanism at such a simple and Scriptural level, great work! I was really strugging with Calvanism, they go as far to deny freewill so I figured if I am condemned than I am condemned if I am saved I am saved essentially I could do whatever I wanted in the mean time. I knew this doctrine and logic is wrong I just couldn't pick it apart as well as you did! May God bless you amd yours bro!
Thank you for the great teaching. I never believed in predestination, but I was confused by these verses.
Predestination is taught in the bible.
nickev96 Romans 8:29
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Romans 8:30
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Ephesians 1:4-6
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
Ephesians 1:11
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will
You never believed in predestination? Predestination is entirely biblical… The Calvinistic twist (which is determinism/compatibilism) on predestination is unbiblical. God has predestined, but He has not predestined all things that come to pass.
pastor lease look at Romans 9 the first verse.... The Holy Spirit witnesses the same sorrow Paul is feeling for those who go lost... i feel this can be used as Scripture to prove predestinatio wrong . please go read this verse and see if you can try and figure out what im trying to say here. its in my head i just cant find the words
Thank you for posting this series of videos on the errancy of Calvinism and Arminianism. By the way, I keep seeing the misspelling of the word, "Arminianism", both in these comments and in the slides of the video. "Armenians" are an ethnic group from the Armenian Highlands. "Arminianism" is based on theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). I hope you'll correct this on your slides so as not to propogate this error.
I'm trying to put you on a pedestal brother but you're up there. Thank you! Kevin 🙏🏽🫶🏽
what does "may" mean?
:)
On the issue of 'fruit', what fruit did the thief on the cross produce? With mere hours of life remaining, how much fruit do Calvinist's require of him? He knew he deserved punishment, he knew Jesus was innocent, and he knew that he IS the living God. SAVED. At that point, the thief could not have known about the resurrection of Christ, is this a requirement as well?
)9
@@dalecleveland9629 ???
joeashbubemma Looks like God had mercy on him. Pretty amazing.
That's a good decalvinizing of Romans 9. I do have one concern: every time you refer to "salvation in the church age", flags go up. I believe that eternal salvation of the individual is by grace alone through faith alone and not of works in all ages (old testament, tribulation, millennium, etc.). Do you teach something that's opposed to that?
seasharpdeflat No one in any age can ever work to earn salvation. Salvation is always a gift of grace. But there are different realities. For example, see John 7:39. The Holy Spirit was not yet given. In other words, the Holy Spirit did not do before that time what he does after Acts 2. The Holy Spirit plays a huge role in salvation, and it was not doing in the church age what it is doing today. Also, no one in the Old Testament appropriated salvation by means of Romans 10:9-10.
Thank you so much, as a young person trying to seek wisdom I can see where some of the people have been reading, have been putting it in my head this thinking. So thankful for this video as well as the spirit of God telling me it wasn't true. Where did you learn to develop your way of readingTechniques? Is there a book maybe that you can refer?
You may have already found some good books, but I recommend "The Potters Promise" by Leighton Flowers and "The Dark Side of Calvinism" by George Bryson.
Thank you so much for your diligent research; I hope to pass along the links of your videos to my friends. There is no substitute for loving God's word...if we say we love Jesus, and we love the truth, we will be relentless in probing the scripture and trusting the Holy Spirit to shed light on what we read. I do not intend on being one of the 5 foolish virgins who have no oil in their lamps...(lamp being the Word) Those who entangle themselves with philosophy like Calvinism are not embracing the true nature and character of God; and there is a price to pay for that.
by the way...a "dead body in the morgue" did ask for help: see Lazarus and the rich man...The rich man died, and, finding himself in torment, asked for help. His request was denied.
I wish you were my next door neighbor. I have learned so much finding your videos through Josh N. As through you God has shown me so much. If it be God's will for me to show someone the error in their doctrine, the HS will put the words in the right order, as I am one who has to look up what many words you us, mean! Not versed in speech. Thanks for Sharing what God has taught you!
This is a very important biblical explaination of Romans 9. I like how you compare what the Bible says against what Calvinism teaches. These are valuable insights and specific examples of how Calvinism twists the Scriptures to fit their Gnostic, man-made philosophy
Thanks for clearing things up. You’re very good at studying the word.
Would to God that we could de-calvinize all of modern day Christianity. His doctrine smears and blasphemes God and calls Him a liar. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and He certainly never created anyone for the express purpose of damning their soul.
I really appreciate all the info here, you did a great job. Ive taken a lot of notes. I definitely plan to watch this again. I might would try to be a little more cordial towards calvanists. I believe they are our brothers as well. A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city. It may cause some to be more hardened in their error. Keep up the good work brother.
Really nice presentation. Looks like a lot of effort went into it. Not sure if I agree with it all or not. Am not Calvinist nor arminian. I believe, and hope I have a proper understanding of scripture in this, that the trinity abide in eternity in perfect love and unity. Eternity is not simply extension of time forwards and backwards but outside of time altogether. Christ entered time, paid the debt of sin for the whole world, redeeming those who believe., and conquering death and hell. That redemption is immediate spiritually, giving believers the Holy Spirit. That redemption is applied in the future in man receiving a new body and soul. Christ is the elect, the chosen one, fore known of God. Those who believe in the faithfulness of Christ have his faithfulness applied to them; they become hidden in Christ and they too become chosen, elect, and fore known of God in eternity. God now no longer sees us in our sinful state, but sees us through Christ.
This video never gets old. 💪
what does "may" mean?
Best refutation of the Calvinist's twisting of Roman's 9 I've heard in my life!!! Long video, but I will be watching it over and over again! Thanks!
+Tyehimba Jahsi So reading Romans 9 in context is twisting it?
Hahahha, of course he didn't mean that. You are fishing for a debate :D
@@williamspencer1351
I'm not sure you know what "in context" means.
Calvinism: In context means reading Romans 9 in context of itself and separating it from the whole of scripture.
In context: Reading Romans 9 in context with the Word of God as a whole and not as a stand alone chapter that requires the calvinist interpretation to remain in the realm of chapter 9 only for the purpose of making the chapter appear to say something it doesn't for the sole purpose of propping up a false doctrine.
Calvinist' are operating under a strong spirit of error, so they are evidently unable to read
(Romans 9) - and see the love of the truth in it.
Hi Kevin, I do have a question for you, do you physically attend a local church outside of your own home in fellowship with others on Sundays (or Saturdays)? Please don't take this as mean spirited, it is actually just curiosity.
Yes, I do.
One of the best and most important Christian videos on TH-cam
Wow! This was excellent! Bye, bye Calvinism!!
Thank you Kevin! What is Paul trying to state when he brings up Jacob and Esau. He chose Jacob over Esau by showing mercy and calling Jacob over Esau Romans 9:16 and now He has the same right to call the gentiles over the Israelites ? Also, He can harden Israel just like he did to Pharaoh? My struggle in this passage why is Paul brining up Isaac, jacob and Esau and Pharaoh in Romans 9.
Can someone maybe shed some light on my situation?
I had been dramatically and drastically changed in one moment by the love of God. I was about to die one night because of drug overdose and I woke up the next day after an encounter with God and was a completely new person. I started reading my Bible, stopped cussing, had no withdrawals, no cravings for drugs and just wanted to learn about God! anyways, apparently I had become a "false Christian" because I had no idea about the doctrines of grace. until one day (about 2 months ago) we met with someone who was protesting outside of our charismatic church. we has dinner with him and his wife and they explained to us what I now know as Calvinism. (Please note that I was completely ignorant to Calvinism and armininism, and theology in general... all I knew is that God had saved me and I just wanted the truth about Him!)
anyways, my husband and I began to see the falsity of our church and the the charismatic movement as a whole. We were hardcore Todd white followers and our eyes were opened to how false those beliefs were. We also were awakened to God's wrath, which is something I personally never knew any depth about because God had shown me so much love and favor. So my life drastically changed again. we began meeting with the protester and his wife regularly and they began teaching us the importance of the doctrines of grace. Him and his wife both seperated from family and basically preach about fleeing from the wrath to come and they try and pinpoint professing Christians folly and where they don't agree with and then assume that they are not of the truth. I will admit boldly I am having a hard time discerning what is true. my husband is weary of separating from professing Christians just because they don't agree with the doctrines of grace and i am honestly afraid to not separate because it seems like those who are of the truth separate from those who are not of the truth.
anyways (first of all if you're still reading, thank you!)
even though I am ignorant in many ways, I truly want to please God. I know im absolutely incapable of pleasing Him without His grace upon me. I make many mistakes. I just want Truth!
my question is, does my story soind familiar? does it sound like something that happens often?
after we learned about the wrath of God there was some serious godly sorrow for weeks. like up all night terrified and so aware of my sin. and it created at ravenous hunger for His word and Truth.
but now I am afraid that "Calvinism" or more specifically the doctrines of grace might just be another philosophy.
I absolutely do not call myself a Calvinist, after researching John Calvin's life I am absolutely appalled at his approach. so ungodly.
the protester, who we meet with at least once a week is huge on supralapsarianism, doctrines of grace, God hardening and forming certain people to make them more worthy of damnation,.. or even if someone has one thing wrong like choosing infralapsarianism over supra, they are decieved. the way is truly narrow and if you're not consistently killing your sin and striving in the word and bearing fruit that is worthy of the world hating you there is a problem.
also how do you view the many scriptures talking about how the world will hate us? why would they hate us if we don't preach things that are hate-worthy to those who are perishing, and why is it hate worthy to some but not all?
again, thank you for reading! if anybody has any insight I would greatly appreciate it!
Jessica Rhodes just read your account. First I’m going to address the method used to convince you of Calvinism, then I’ll show you what the bible actually says.
What did the protestor and his wife do to make you more open to receiving Calvinism, after all, if he had simply come up to you and said that God created most people to burn in Hell for eternity, you would not have accepted it, because God is a good God.
So how did this man get you to a point of accepting this?
He made you vulnerable. He took your mind off of the hope you have in Jesus, and cause you to look at your sin, your unworthiness, causing you to feel stressed, anxious, worried. He got you convinced that God doesn’t see you through Jesus, but that God sees you as a worthless sinner.
What happened then? You seek to be rid of this anxiety, get some comfort, some hope back. Who do you turn to? The one who took away your hope to begin with, the calvinist. Now you are ready to be indoctrinated into Calvinism.
Let me ask you something? Did you experience the joy, love and peace of Jesus in greater abundance before, or now?
Jessica Rhodes May God continue to pour out His grace upon you. So glad you left the charismatic movement. Praise God! The good Lord showed you mercy and compassion.
This is painful. No Greek exegesis of the text. No structural work of any text. Notice how he assumes a paranthetical at the outset without any textual proof. Paul does not hit the pause button to address Israel for that would go against his greeting in the introduction (to whom he is addressing). The book has a structure and it is clearly addressed "to those in Rome, called by God to be Saints." Romans is addressed to Christians, plain and simple. Saints, the called, the ekklesia "the called out ones" There is no middle section just for the Jews. Even the end of the book highlights many of the non-Jewish people in the Roman church to whom Paul is specifically addressing throughout. The top/tail of the text tells us plainly in 1:5 and 16:26 the purpose of Romans "to bring about the obedience of faith" from the Gospel. This means that everything in the book is tied to that melodic line of the Gospel message, to bring the church into obedience that comes from faith in the Gospel. Every example Paul uses from the O.T. is not addressing Jews, rather he builds his case that the Gospel is for God's church and her persevering obedience. This also means that Romans 5-10 is about salvation and is tied to the Gospel. Paul even says that the OT examples he uses throughout the book are for Christians. Clearly said in Romans 15:4, "Whatever things were written before were written for OUR learning...". The OT has a "to us" (church) trajectory. You have bifurcated Paul's letter to the Romans. Paul is making an argument for the indestructible Gospel and God's will to carry out His Sovereign plan and revealed mystery to the Church. You are also rambling on , not exegeting the text and unable to set forth the Scriptures clearly. You cannot make a valid point without clubbing Calvinism. This ruins your credibility and shows that you are moreso on a witch hunt than concerned with what the Bible says in It's Biblical and redemptive EVEN canonical context. It's like the atheist who can't stop talking about God to disprove God's existence. If you want to be honest, teach Romans exegetically on its own merit and see what your audience thinks then.
thank you.
Lolol no it’s literally addressed to the JEWS IN ROME 😂 it’s right in the book
Not a Calvinist but you say that Pharoah hardened his heart prior to G d hardening it, yet...
Exodus4:21 The Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.
Mr Constantin Say God it isn't going to kill you.
he said that and thats what happened at a certain point
Because Pharaoh was already not going to let his people go but then God yet still hardened his heart.. so it doesn't align with calvanism since calvanist don't believe that a person who is not a believer can soften their own hearts by their own free will... so why would God harden it?
So you think God shouldn't have hardened him? Miracles are usually a sign of judgement. Pharaoh should have let Israel go or at least didn't abuse them instead of waiting for a miracle to do what is right. He was already hardened before God came to the scene. The extra hardening God did was to confront him and make his name known for the sake of others.
Every example of God hardening people/nations in scripture that I can think of, is done as a result of judgement, not arbitrarily. The people being hardened were already rebelling against God.
Calvinists have to take the verses out of their context to give them their new meanings. I noticed also that they will substitute terms like "mysteries of God" with "the Gospel" which is a false equivalency. Those 2 terms have different meanings. Calvinists take the verse out of its context then equate terms falsely to give the verses completely new meanings. Its ironic that Romans 10 completely refutes the Calvinistic understanding of Romans 9. Keep reading people. Dont take the verses out of their context.
Hello sir. I have a question. Did Jesus who is God, hate me before I was saved? A word of knowlege: When I was 15, I repented of all sin, and received Jesus as my God, Lord, and Savior. I feel confused right now.
1 John 4:10 (NKJV) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.
Are the slides from this presentation available somewhere?
Election is biblical, romans 9 isn't necessary to show election, God chooses his people, from eternity.
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Biblical election is Biblical. Calvinistic election is not.
The presumptions you pre-load into the verse you cited do not jive well with the rest of scripture.
Matthew 22:14 (KJV)
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Ephesians 4:1 (KJV)
1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
@@KevinThompson1611 biblical election is God choosing his people, not the other way around, the entire bible can be used to show election and the soveriegnty of God, man doesn't choose God, and this has nothing to do with "calvinism", its simply a biblical doctrine.
Kevin, I commend you on doing a very thorough job of examining Romans 9 in a way that makes a clear distinction between what Calvinists believe and what the Bible actually says.
Full disclosure, though: my beliefs lean more toward Arminianism, although I don't go around calling myself an Arminian.
You mention that "This video refutes both Calvinism and Arminianism." And indeed, you touch on both in the video, but not much time is spent on Arminianism. Do you have any other videos where you teach on what is wrong with Arminianism in more detail? Although my beliefs lean toward Arminianism, I'm not necessarily "married" to it, so I believe I am at least teachable in that regard.
Arminianism is wrong in that it falsely teaches that if saved Christians don't persevere to the end that they will "lose" their salvation and go to hell. They also teach that if saved Christians commit apostasy that they will also "lose" their salvation and go to hell. These false teachings are based upon an eisegesis of Matthew 24:13, Matthew 10:22, Hebrews 6:4-8, Hebrews 10:26-27, John 15:6, 1 John 2:18-19 just to name a few.
I am not defending Arminianism, per se, but "once saved, always saved" is unscriptural. In fact, the only way someone can advocate that is through eisegesis, not exegesis. Just to clarify, I don't believe a person can be saved and lost and saved again and lost again, etc., etc. I don't see any scripture to support that. And I do believe that once a person has legitimately accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, they are saved, and God is not going to change his mind about that and sovereignly "unsave" someone who is saved. That said, I see no legitimate way to interpret some of the scriptures you referenced as supporting "once saved, always saved." I'd be curious to hear how you think Hebrews 6:4-8 proves "once saved, always saved," when it is clearly indicating something else.
ticktock76 Your comment - "I am not defending Arminianism, per se, but "once saved, always saved" is unscriptural. In fact, the only way someone can advocate that is through eisegesis, not exegesis. Just to clarify, I don't believe a person can be saved and lost and saved again and lost again, etc., etc. I don't see any scripture to support that. And I do believe that once a person has legitimately accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, they are saved, and God is not going to change his mind about that and sovereignly "unsave" someone who is saved. That said, I see no legitimate way to interpret some of the scriptures you referenced as supporting "once saved, always saved." I'd be curious to hear how you think Hebrews 6:4-8 proves "once saved, always saved," when it is clearly indicating something else."
My comment - You are clearly contradicting yourself. First you say, ""once saved, always saved" is unscriptural ", but then you turn around and say, "And I do believe that once a person has legitimately accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, they are saved, and God is not going to change his mind about that and sovereignly "unsave" someone who is saved"
The following Biblical passages and examples refute your errant belief:
Samson is a true man of God and at the same time a FORNICATOR - Judges 16:1, then in Judges 16:28-30, Samson commits a simultaneous MURDER/SUICIDE. Yet Samson is listed as a Godly man of faith in Hebrews 11:32. Samson would not be listed there if he was unsaved.
People in the Old Testament were saved the exact same way as people in New Testament times, otherwise the apostle Paul would not have quoted Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:2-5 in support of the gospel.
King Solomon is a true man of God, but became a serial polygamist and demon worshiper at the end of his life - 1 Kings 11:1-13. Solomon even built 2 altars to the 2 demon gods, Chemosh and Molech in 1 Kings 11:7. Molech was a demon god that required child sacrifices - a Satanic practice. (The practice of sacrificing one's sons/daughters in the fire - Leviticus 18:21, 2 Kings 23:10) This was King Solomon. Solomon persisted in his sins despite God warning him TWICE - 1 Kings 9:2 - 6, 1 Kings 11:9-11. Because of Solomon's defiance, God declared to Solomon that He would tear away a major portion of his kingdom, but do it in his son's generation because of God's covenant with Solomon's father, King David.
God then brought 3 adversaries against Solomon - 1 Kings 11:14, 23, 26. Then we read that Solomon tried to commit MURDER in 1 Kings 11:40. Nowhere in Scripture does it ever say that Solomon "lost his salvation" or "never had it to begin with."
Eternal life CANNOT be lost no matter what the Christians does or does not do down the line after salvation:
John 5:24 - 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is PASSED from death unto life.
The word "passed" is in past tense indicating that eternal life is a PERMANENTLY done deal at the very moment of faith/belief.
John 10:28-29 - 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Romans 8:38-39 - 38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, NOR THING TO COME,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Ephesians 1:13 - 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were SEALED with that Holy Spirit of promise,
2 Timothy 2:13 - 13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
I will continue in my next comment regarding Hebrews 6:4-8.
ticktock76 In regards to Heb 6:4-8, I was once a former living example of Heb 6:4-8, and Heb 10:26-27 for 9 long years. I became angry and discouraged at God and Christians in my church and I left and cursed God and destroyed my Bible. I lived for the next 9 years in sin, rebellion, fornication, pornography and at one point I was so lost that I even bowed down to a demon god just like what the Israelites did in the OT time and again provoking God to anger.
I became a Christian at age 19, and for the first year I was a very joyful person and I was growing spiritually. One year later, my mother dies of terminal cancer, and shortly afterwards, I suddenly came down with an illness that would not respond to any medication or therapy. I was in a LOT of pain and emotional and mental anguish. I prayed and prayed to God, the church members prayed for me over and over, but there was no response or help from God.
Eventually, the church members got tired of seeing me in the condition that I was in, and basically just pushed me off to one side to let me suffer ALONE. That was very cold and cruel of them to do that to me. The pain continued with no relief or response from God and I finally snapped. YOU would too if that was YOU!
I didn't care anymore and just lived in willful sin and did as I pleased for 9 long years. At the 9 year mark, God chastised me through a paranormal experience that I will never forget for the rest of my life. I thought I was going to die on that particular night. God had mercy and brought me back to fellowship with Him. That was 23 years ago and He has been gracious to me ever since. God blessed me with a loyal and faithful wife and son and we've been together for 30 years.
Now, if I "lost" my salvation based upon your eisegesis of Hebrew 6:4-8, then God would have never even bothered to chastise me to bring me back to fellowship with Him.
God chastises, but He does not take back His free gift of eternal life from an apostate Christian. This verifies ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED.
Hebrews 6:4-8 is to be understood in a way that is free from the contaminations of Calvinism/Lordship Salvation, Arminianism, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses theology and any theology that does not line up with true Biblical doctrine. The above mentioned are all FALSE DOCTRINES that are works-based.
There is a world of difference between the true Biblical interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-8 versus Calvinism/Lordship Salvation and Arminianism's interpretation of that passage. False doctrine will ALWAYS eisegete that passage in an attempt to "prove" that saved Christians can "lose" their salvation or "never had it to begin with." Both are lies devised by Satan to erode away assurance of eternal life.
Hebrews 6:4-8 - 4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.
The "impossibility" in verse 4 refers to a human impossibility but not impossible for God. When a Christian defects from the faith out of anger, discouragement and that is usually the case, the heart becomes very hardened and bitter that it resists all human attempts from fellow believers to try to persuade the discouraged and angry Christian to come back to the faith.
This was true of me when I fell away for 9 years out of anger and discouragement. All human attempts from fellow believers at trying to bring me back failed. They knew the horrible condition I was in. I was living in sin and rebellion and even cursed God and destroyed my Bible. I personally communicated with 2 former Christian apostates on TH-cam who were once in the same condition I was in. Today after being chastened by the Lord, they are back in fellowship.
Verse 7 symbolizes the life of a vibrant Christian who is in fellowship with God whose life is blessed. Verse 8 symbolizes the life of a fallen Christian who has defected from the faith and is living in sin. This fallen Christian is imminently facing God's temporal judgment and chastisement for defecting from the faith - Proverbs 15:10, Jeremiah 2:19, Hebrews 12:5-11. "Cursed" and "burned" is not referring to hell, but those 2 words are referring to God's anger and imminent chastisement which the apostate Christian will sooner or later face. There is absolutely no reference to the Lake of Fire in Hebrews 6:4-8.
Back in ancient times, it was a common agricultural practice for farmers to burn fields. If a farmer had a field that yielded nothing but thorns, thistles, weeds, and unwanted growth, the field would be burned. The purpose of the burning was to destroy the unwanted growth, not the field itself. After burning, the unwanted growth of weeds, etc, would be destroyed, but the field would remain intact despite being scorched.
The farmer would then make preparations to the field to make it fertile again bearing useful and edible crop. This is what God did to me and to the 2 other Christians who fell from the faith. We were chastised. I had a paranormal experience that I will never forget for the rest of my life because I thought I was going to die that one particular night.
The 2 other Christians described chastening experiences similar to mine. God chastises Christians who defect from the faith, but He also restores. His punishment is both punitive and restorative. He does NOT take back His free gift of eternal life which remains intact.
Job 5:17-18 - “Blessed is the one whom God corrects; so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty. For he wounds, but he also binds up; he injures, but his hands also heal.
Your comment - You are clearly contradicting yourself. First you say, ""once saved, always saved" is unscriptural ", but then you turn around and say, "And I do believe that once a person has legitimately accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, they are saved, and God is not going to change his mind about that and sovereignly "unsave" someone who is saved."
My response: There is no contradiction. The reason you see a contradiction is because there are assumptions that you are making about salvation that I am not making. And there are several other incorrect assumptions you appear to be making regarding my beliefs.
You are assuming that my second statement about God not "unsaving" people essentially reinforces the "once saved, always saved" concept, and you are assuming that if it were possible for a saved person to be lost, that would be God's decision. Neither assumption is correct.
No man can pluck a believer out of the Father's hand, but it is possible for a believer to free himself from the Father's hand. It isn't easy, nor is it common. But it is possible.
I might be inclined to believe the same way you do. One reason I don't is because Hebrews 6:4-8, among other scripture passages, disproves "once saved, always saved."
Hebrews 6:4-8 (NIV) 4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
Hebrews 6:4-8 (KJV) - For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
If you have "tasted of the heavenly gift," that is referring to salvation. According to John 14:17, the world cannot receive the Holy Spirit, so when Hebrews 6 refers to being "made partakers of the Holy Ghost," there is no way that can be referring to an unbeliever. That is a reference to the baptism with the Holy Spirit, with the Bible evidence of speaking with other tongues.
Hebrews 6:5 is describing a mature believer who is living his life in accordance with the Word of God and who has been used by God in the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit described in 1 Corinthians 12 (e.g., working of miracles, gifts of healings, etc.).
Side note: You are probably tempted to call that an "eisegetical" interpretation, but I believe that would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Or the pot calling the snowball black, to be more accurate. You said that the "impossibility" in verse 4 refers to a human impossibility but not impossible for God. That is clearly eisegetical, as the passage does not say that, and verse 6 is painting an entirely different picture.
It is clear in Hebrews 6:6 (or SHOULD be clear, at least) that this person can indeed lose their salvation. If they are "crucifying to themselves the Son of God afresh," how does that add up to salvation? How does that add up to "not impossible for God"?. If they can't be renewed again to repentance, how does that add up to salvation? How does that add up to "not impossible for God"? As for Hebrews 6:7-8, it has to be interpreted in the context of Hebrews 6:6.
(to be continued)
When I listen to Calvinistic preaching, I know in my heart there is something amiss that gave me the impression that the god of Calvinism is exponentially worst than Satan. Romans and Ephesians are two epistles that was seaming difficult to understand. It takes the active workings of the Holy Spirit to unkink the carnal view of scriptures. Thank you so much for your online ministry.
You think only Romans and Ephesians are the only Calvinistic parts? Better not look at John and the entire Old Testament, too.
Lastly, you keep referring to Ezekiel. I believe you are referring to Ezekiel 36:25-28 NASB -
"Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. 28You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God"
This is a Soteriology passage if you read the surrounding passages or just the immediate passage, it is very clear on that.
Seems like you need to spend more time studying, instead of falsely teaching. Not everyone should teach.
read Jeremiah 7 and see that God does not ordain everything
According to your interpretation of the potter passage, if a man is obedient God will....make him obedient. And if a man is disobedient the God makes him further disobedient.
Makes no sense. He didnt say the potter can change a dishonorable vessel into an honorable vessel if it makes itself honorable. He gave 2 examples, one honorable and another dishonorable and it is God Who made both what they are and neither can sayto God " why have you made me this way."
But, by your view, no man would ever question God that way since each man makes himself the way he is. Man either makes himself obedient or disobedient and God either rewards of punishes.
I agree wholeheartedly
The hardening of the heart isn't necessarily hardening persay but its turned over to itself doesn't regenerate and become flesh and therefore continues to harden from that point on
A truly terrifying and terrible place to be
The whole romans 9 passage is about Paul explaining to people that Gods salvation has always been by ELECTION and so he starts by giving us a few exampels starting with rebekah who had 2 sons Jacob and Esau ( you can even go back one more generation to show ELECTION by looking at Abrahams two sons , Ismael was the first born but yet Isaak was the one who got the blessing by Gods choise) , Jacob was chosen not because he was better but it was to show again that it doesnt depend on human desire or effort , but on Gods mercy. He goes on to show the exampel of the farao and Moses , just look how God showed love to one and not the other , he destroyed farao and rescued Moses and Israel not because they where better " The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations" Deuteronomy 7:7-9). The whole idea of Romans 9 is to show that the doctrine of ELECTION is not a new concept it is everywhere trough out the bibel in the OT and the NT. Paul even knew before hand that people like this fool who made this video was going to object to the ide , to him it is written : "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me." Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God." By trying to "de-calvinise" people he is actualley leding people astry from the truth.
bernardito You are exactly correct. They add Calvin to it themselves so they have an excuse to not like the sovereignty of God. Throughout the entire Bible God chooses certain people over others. People love to choose, but hate when God does it.
@@1920s if your mother isn't among the elect then God has already condemned her to hell and you better be okay with that... otherwise you're a filthy hypocrite
How many believed Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost?
As many as it had been granted.
amen brother. correct with truth and love.
Kevin, you seem to use the titles "Jew", and "Israelite", synonymously. Not all Jews, are Israelites. Setting the stage: The Israelite Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Gen 49:10; Isa 65:9) married a Canaanitess (1Chr 2:3) contrary to Abraham (Gen 24:3), Isaac (Gen 28:1-4), God/Moses (Deu 7:1-4), and considered a "great trespass" according to Ezra, some 1.2k years later (Ezra 9:1, 2, 7).
In fact, some 1.5k years after Judah's "great trespass", Malachi said Judah's marriage to a Canaanitess was an "abomination... committed in Judah and in Jerusalem", and for that marital infraction Judah was personally disowned (Mal 2:11, 12). Was Judah's third and surviving (HINT) son Shelah (Gen 38:5, 26), an Israelite? Were Judah's "Shelanite" descendants, Jews (Num 26:20)? Where those circumcised Shelanites rightful heirs to Judah's portion of Promised Land in Judah/Judea and Jerusalem? Where they rightful heirs to the Abrahamic Covenant, including heirs to the lineage to produce God's Messiah? That was the false gospel of those days.
So, guess who usurped the title "Jew", the land of Judah/Judea and Jerusalem, and the prophesied Messianic lineage some 2k years after Judah's "abomination", when Jesus arrived? Romans 9 KJV (my parentheses):
6. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel(ites), which are of Israel:
Those NON-Israelite, circumcised Shelanites 'got religion', and were the "Jewish" Pharisees that instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 11:45-53). No? I beg your patience, the plot thickens looking at the next verse in Romans 9 (my parentheses):
7. Neither, because they (the aforementioned) are the seed of Abraham, are they all children (of Abraham): but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Please allow me to connect the dots here, Kevin. Those circumcised Shelanite "Jewish" Pharisees instigating Jesus' crucifixion, were NOT Israelites (John 8:33). According to Jesus, they were indeed "Abraham's seed" (John 8:37); they just weren't "Abraham's children" (John 8:39). According to Moses, Judah's Canaanite father-in-law Shuah (Gen 38:2), was one of the "sons of Keturah", Abraham's wife, NOT one of "Abraham's children" as Jesus said (Gen 25:1-4). Furthermore, some 1.2k years later, Ezra said Judah's father-in-law Shuah, was one "of the sons of Keturah", NOT Abraham (1Chr 1:32). Being those impostor "Jewish" Pharisees were descendants of Judah and his WIFE, that was a descendant of Abraham's WIFE, those crucifixion instigators "... be not born of fornication" (John 8:41).
In Romans 9:6, 7, Paul was exercising the family division Jesus spoke of as being 'baptized with fire' in Luke 12:49-53. And, reflecting on Rev 2:9, 3:9 when Jesus referred to the 'liar' Jews, such might even impact Paul's declaration, if you will entertain my humor:
6. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect (Gen 21:12). For they are not all JEWS, which are of Israel.
7. Neither, because they (those impostor Shelanite Pharisee "Jews") are the SEED of Abraham (John 8:37), are they all children (of Abraham) (THEY were Keturah's children, NOT Abraham's, Gen 25:1-4; John 8:39).
Those impostors were descendants of Judah and his forbidden Canaanitess wife, granddaughter of Abraham's wife. While, Jesus descended through Pharez, the eldest twin son of Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar (Gen 38:24, 29, 30; Mat 1:3; Luke 3:33). In fact, those Pharzite and Zarhite (Num 26:20) descendants of Judah were fatherless (Gen 38:26), homeless (ineligible heirs according to the Law), nameless, conceived in harlotry, and born out of wedlock... they were the Lost Sheep of the house of Jacob-Israel (via Judah and Tamar). They were indeed Jesus' own, to whom He was sent (Mat 15:24), and to whom Jesus commissioned His disciples (Mat 10:5-7). Jesus set them free from bastardization according to the Law, and Jerusalem fell, 70 AD.
Please check my references in this exegetical exposition on family semantics delineating between impostor Jews, and Israelite Jews. Those titles are not synonymous in my fallible mind.
Furthermore, it is commonly held, as you suggest at minutes 11:50, that Paul was trying to "provoke the Jews to emulation" in Romans 11:13, 14. I beg to disagree... Apostle Paul's mother was Gentile; and, if I may be so presumptuous... I'd be happy to provide a pretty strong circumstantial case to corroborate this. Therefore, Paul was trying to provoke the Gentiles, not Israelite Jews in that case, to attain salvation.
Then, appreciating very much your refutation of Calvinism, I tend to rattle the timbers in all denominations (Matthew 8:19, 20).
Everything that happens in history has been decreed/Predestined before the world was created see Eph 1:11, Proverbs 16:33 and Amos 3:6. And yes even when terrible things happen, I know it's hard for some people to accept but look what happened when David sinned against God and one of Davids punishments was that God told him that he was going to use Davids own son to shame his Father by Absalom Absalom doing something immoral to his Fathers concubines in front of all of Israel, see 2 Samuel 12:11-12 God said "Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun." Notice how God said "I WILL DO THIS THING."That was fulfilled in 2 Samuel 16:21-22. Jesus did not die for every single person ever and Jesus didn't die to make people savable. He died to save his elect. In John 17:9 Jesus said that he does not pray for the world. The word world is used in different contexts, in that context he's talking about the non elect. In John 3:16 world means that he purchased people from every tribe, tongue and nation Rev 5:9 and for the children of God scattered abroad John 11:52. Some have been "long beforehand marked out for condemnation" Jude 4 and "appointed to doom." 1 Peter 2:8. About Pharaoh God said “For this VERY PURPOSE I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Rom 9:17-18. Jesus said "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." Matthew 11:25-27. So, 2 Pet 3:9 the "not willing that any should perish" if you read that letter in context, 2 Pet 1:1 says "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." As far as salvation for all men verses, Paul was refuting the false notion of his time that God was only desiring to save just the Jews and 1 Tim 2:2 says to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" because as humans WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE ELECT ARE SO WE PRAY FOR EVERYONE! That's what it means in verse 4 by saying "all men." Amos 3:2 God said "of all the nations of the earth I have only known you." For centuries God passed over the majority of humankind because this verse isn't about knowledge it's about relationship. And it isn't because God foresaw Israel was more righteous then the other nations because sometimes Israel was more sinful then the pagan nations see 2 Kings 21:9. Only those who were predestined to be saved will be see Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:4-5, Eph 1:11, Romans 9:11-23, John 6:37.
Kevin Thompson this is excellent! thank you,
Man has a will and with his will he will never freely choose God. God plainly said there is NONE who seeks after God.
So the author of Hebrews uses Esau's inability to find repentance clearly in the context of salvation, but you assert he simply wanted his birthright back? I think I'll trust the author of Hebrews on this one.
Excellent work!
One thing we need to keep in mind is this: we debate with brothers and sisters in Christ, and we should do so in LOVE. If I have correct theology but not love, I'm nothing. The author of this video is doing quite a good job at being respectful towards the other party, although a bit to strong to claim that the God of the Calvinist is a different God!
+Florin Mocanu "The author of this video is doing quite a good job at being respectful towards the other party"
He called the God of Calvinism an imbecile and used a lower case 'g' for 'god'....
True. And yet when you compare them with other folk on TH-cam....
+Florin Mocanu One thing I have noticed is Arminians race to terms like Satanic, heresy and apostasy to describe anyone who disagrees with them. I am very loathe to in turn jump to those conclusions about them. Other Calvinists I know also do not go there. I am sure there are some who do but I tend not to run into them.
William Spencer Good Lord, man!!! Pay attention, will you? Kevin said right up front near the beginning of the video that he's not an arminian!!!! Are you really that daft??!!!
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck
Thank you fir your enlightening ministry. How can I get copies of your outlines and graphics?
+Allan Lee
Thanks for watching, and thanks for the comment. Some of the slides shows are posted in the notes section at www.beyondthefundamentals.com. If you don't see what you're looking for there, let me know, and I'll get it posted.
Kevin Thompson Thank you. Selah!
+Kevin Thompson. I am a Calvinist. No one will know what I am talking about. People will called me a liar. I hate being called a liar. Here is my assertion: Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, CA, said, "We accept everybody, except for the Calvinists." I have the leader's names.
+Tom Ceman I've heard Calvinism coming out of Calvary Chapel. So this is surprising. I'd be interested to know where such a direct quote originated. I'm usually not a fan of Calvary chapel, but it's nice to consider that they may get a few things right every now and then.
+Kevin Thompson Hi Kevin, I could not find what you are looking for. But I can tell you this. John MacArthur criticized Calvary Chapel and Chuck Smith. Brian Brodersen deflected the criticism. A Calvinist pastor was un-ordained by CC in 2007. George Bryson leads the purge of the Calvinists in CC. Of course, Brian Brodersen set up a large tent to make room for everybody. Brian Brodersen said that he liked everybody, including the Calvinists. His word cannot be believed.
Tom, that statement would have been made long before Pastor Chuck went home, because since then, Calvinism is the norm in Costa Mesa.
Dr. Doug Hamp (Calvary Chapel) spoke against Calvinism. He has a video on TH-cam.
I listen to Skip Heitzig. He also said the magic word "John MacArthur."
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” 1Peter 2:7-10
How hard is it to accept that Gods sovereignty in salvation and human free will in faith are both true and that we as puny minds can never harmonize these parallel realities. But we have to accept both of them with all our heart.
Le Le
We have to accept no such nonsense.
We don’t start with free will and Calvinistic-type sovereignty is not found in scripture.
We accept that God exists, scripture comes from him, and God cannot lie.
Attributing opposing views to difficulty or mystery is a thin veil to cover up the epistemic impoverishment of the Calvinistic position.
Calvinistic dichotomies are not real dichotomies.
Well I do quite clearly see it in many places. Maybe i am too simple or dumb to ever see it to be something different and if I get there I am happy to say I was wrong(and I grew up all my life in a pentecostal church that definetly didnt teach calvinism so I was not programmed to read a calvinistic view) I also watched this whole thing with an open heart but not yet quite convinced... Nonetheless keep up the good work and I guess we will one day in Heaven know who was right :) God bless you and keep up the good work!
By the way do you have a video about a non-calvinistic view on John 3:1-10
Well presented brother.
God bless you abundantly.
Couldn't God choose certain people for certain purposes, but have the rest of us in a less predetermined role? Like, God chose Saul, and then David but Saul and David wouldn't have been the only ones saved....right??
Thank you....I've been trying to tell that to this guy Kevin for over a year now.
I just messaged Kevin AGAIN in another video explaining that the verses speaking of predestination only are applicable to the apostles. I pasted that post here for the reasoning behind my assertion.....
+Kevin Thompson
I love your teachings. But I feel you have redefined the word "predestination" much like the calvinists do to the words "grace" and "calling". There's one kind of predestination in both Eph 1 and Rom 8. The word means what it means and there should be no attempt to get around it. This is the 800 lb. gorilla Logan Ross mentioned above.
In Eph 1 the predestination is relegated to only those who were "the first to hope in Christ", vs 12. This phrase describes the identity of all the personal pronouns that occur from vs's 3- 12. That is one group from Israel that Paul says received revelation of the "riches of His glory" and salvation according to a very specific purpose....both by way of predestination. Then Paul prays that this knowledge is passed on to those who believe (vs 18). In other words, the apostles were predestinated by God; literally chosen by Jesus yet one was a devil. Paul was also a "chosen vessel". Only those who were predestined could come to Jesus (Jn 6 44) because the whole nation was blinded like Pharaoh was to bring about the greater exodus from sin....and none of those predestined ones were lost. John writes that Jesus told the romans and pharisees at His arrest to "let these" go that the saying "none of them should be lost" is fulfilled. Jn 18
In Eph 1 13, Paul shifts from "us" and "we" to "you" to tell the Ephesians that all those things bestowed upon the predestined apostles, are passed on to them when they "believed". Then they were sealed. This predestination is not a corporate placement into Christ that occurs every time someone believes. It was how God fulfilled the scriptures and made sure there were 12 apostles for the transfer from OC to NC.
Remember, the "remnant" of the loaves and fish were placed in 12 baskets so that "nothing would be lost".
In Romans 8, the so called golden chain cannot be broken as the calvinists say. However, that chain applies ONLY to those who were predestined. These are the ones who were "killed all day long" for the sake of the rest. They, the apostles, were counted as "sheep for the slaughter" for the sake of the rest.
For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. [1Co 4:9 KJV]
The Gethsemane prayer is the proof of what I'm saying. From vs's 6-19, Jesus prays solely for the "men" whom the Father had given Him. They had kept His words and "none was lost". In vs 20, Jesus opens up the prayer to anyone who will believe through "their" (the apostles) words.
I see two distinct groups in Eph 1, Romans 8, and Jn 17. These groups are the "few" who are chosen and the "many" that are called.
Why should we try to convince the calvinists that God never predestined anyone or anything? I think this is fatal to our arguments.
Peace
Roman catholics and Calvinists both use that arguement about John the Baptist.. but then the two religions are closely related.
Romans 9 comes straight out of the box with Calvinism not l
pre-loaded. You have to buy that expansion pack if you want to partake in the Reformation raids. I'm more of a vanilla Romans 9 guy.
Great video......Thanks for the time and effort on this!
The only false presupposition is that you could actually exegete yourself out of a children's bible
To have faith in the faithfulness of Christ is not a work, it is an acceptance of our own inability to work and a reverting to the work of Christ. We do not hold up our own deeds before God, we hide behind Christs' deeds. Believing in Christ is absolutely biblical and necessary before we are considered fore known, predestinated or elect of God.
You don't like the doctrine of Calvinism or sovereign Grace , why don't you also say you don't like Reformed Theology. Obviously you don't understand the history of the reformation and the synod of Dort . Salvation is by Faith only , Grace only , Scripture only , Christ only , SOLA DEO GLORIA , Calvinists say ALL THE GLORY GOES TO GOD . Where ever you see these words Predestination, Election , Called , Chosen , in your Bible , just tear out those pages , instead of having to try and explain them away , but then that means you knew they were there ! Oh and Perseverance of Saints is NOT OUR WORKS it's GOD,S WORK IN US ! And please , research the histrionics of Calvinism before you try to disprove it .
Separating your Christian good works and God's work in you are like talking about two sides of a coin.
Sara Krushel Bravo!
I don't think it has anything to do with foreknowledge. I think you had it right the first time. Hate meaning less preferred. It makes it clear that the choice God made was not based on the merits of the individual (not yet being born nor having done good or evil). So in a sense, this was "unconditional election" but not to salvation, rather to the specific purpose that God had for them in this life irrespective of whether they were ultimately saved or not.
So, you believe God is reactive to man rather than proactive.
Man's action lead and determine God's actions?
Romans 9 is primarily talking about the roles of the Jewish tribes in God's big scheme of things. He is not talking about individual salvation as we know. He was talking to people with an Old Testament Jewish mindset. God chose certain tribes for certain roles.
Thank you for clarifying this chapter...I find myself in the company of more and more Calvinists preaching their peculiar doctrines and Romans 9 is a favorite of theirs.
Yep!
Predestination vs Man's free will:
I kind of like predestination because the idea comes from St Agustinian; so I have confidence on it as I like Agustinian's idea of " outside the Catholic church, there's no salvation , but there are exceptions. "
Predestination and free will seem to pose some problems in Catholic theology; so does Calvin in his religious view for predestination seems to compromise man's free will.
But I have my own view of it.
Predestination isn't deterministic and doesn't compromise man's free will, if the idea is that man may subsume his will to God's will out of his obedience to God's will. I call it act of sublimation of man's will to the divine will: which means a complete surrender or obedience.
Thus, in that way I'm able to solve the problem of man's free will in regards to Augustine's idea of man's predestination.
And there seems to be several of scriptural passages among St Paul's letters which relate to predestination .
So the catholic church should have no problem in accepting predestination as part of its Christian theology as it relates to man's free will.
After all, there are a few passages in Paul's letters which relate about it.
Predestination vs. free will is not an issue at all when you see what the Biblical authors have in mind when they discuss predestination.
See our video entitled Predestination: It’s nothing like you were told
th-cam.com/video/7jTf58y5ZKg/w-d-xo.html
I know I'm way behind the time of release of this video, but how does the "soteriology" espoused here deal with infant/preborn/mentally challenged adults/children who die?
Romans 4:15; 5:13; Heb. 5:2; Deut. 1:39
@@KevinThompson1611 thank you for those. Those are well spoken and well applied and I commend you for those. I must confess that I am solidly reformed and disagree with you on much of what and how you say it. I will acknowledge that based on your profession of your faith and your articulation of the basic gospel message, you are my brother in Christ. I've listened to several of your messages and I sense there is strong bitterness in you toward those of us of the Reformed faith. For those who have offended you, forgive them. Most are your brothers/sisters, whether you agree or not, and we will be spending eternity together. Let's get started right. Truly yours in Christ, Brent.
I am with you great video. However, a better and more accurate explanation of "Jacob have I loved, and Essau have it hated" would be to say that God was not talking about Jacob and Essau personally. He was talking about their people. If the passage read "Israel have I loved and Edom have I hated", it would mean the exact same thing.
Brad Hamilton It makes you feel better that God hated an entire group of people instead of just one?
This is kind of funny in your statement of beliefs, " Only saved people are predestinated, and the 'predestination is not initiated until after conversion'". Wouldn't that really need to be called Postdestination since it happens after salvation? You have some "intestinal fortitude" to go against the doctrines that rescued the church from the darkness of Catholicism and the likes of great scholars like John MacArthur, Jonathan Edwards, Martin Luther, etc. So do you believe the reason you chose Christ when your neighbor did not even though you were both convicted of sinfulness, was that you were just better a person? Why did you choose Christ? That was the reason I was given from a Church of Christ young man. "Calvinism and Arminianism are not opposites?? Do you really understand them? The language is plain? They are diametrically opposed to one another. Why do you still hold to eternal security? If I can free will into salvation why can't I free will out of it? One last question on the KJV only, how do you translate old English into a foreign language or does it suffices to use the Greek manuscript of the Textus Receptus? I look forward to your response.
The idea of “postdestination” stems from confusion about what the destination is.
Contrary to scripture, you’re thinking of conversion as being included in the destination, and that’s why you’re not making sense of things.
Nobody is predestinated to conversion. Conversion is not the destination. Converted people are predestinated to glorification. And glorification has not happened, so it is still predestination. Put your thinking cap on and pay attention to what scripture actually says.
See our video on predestination for more detailed information.
th-cam.com/video/7jTf58y5ZKg/w-d-xo.html
Hi Kevin this helped me a lot. It's so much clearer to me now. I think I must have had a lot of those presuppositions myself. Now as I read it with the right aim in mind to understand the point not just find a proof text, it is much clearer. Thanks for not just explaining but helping to teach how I should approach reading the Bible.
Okay So 26:14 into this videos. Second Catastrophic mistake the Apostle do not look at Scriptures as if they are a split, especially when it comes to Salvation. We see in Acts 15 that the Apostles referred to the Scriptures to verify the miracles of Paul, and Prophecy of Peter. The Tanakh has plenty to say on Salvation.
Romans chapter 10:9 and 10 references GENTILE SALVATION FROM WHAT? Romans 10:14 shows the process in reverse-calling is an act of the believer. Addressing the other salvations in scripture like salvation from temporal death, God’s wrath (where applicable), enemies, childbirth that the saved can call on the Lord for begs the question-SAVED FROM WHAT? Calling/confessing is WORK. No Colleen, no confessing with your mouth can be involved in biblical salvation from the penalty of sin that is without works.
So good! Bless you brother for clarifying!
It is clear that we have to struggle with Bible verses that SEEM to establish the Calvinist idea of salvation, but I’ve been asking myself: Could it be that although God accepts ALL who come to Him through His Son, yet He chooses ( elects) some to be a REMNANT in order to assure that His will that ALL men, through the witness and testimony of the remnant, might hear the Word of Life, and be saved! The Bible says what it says, but it says so much more than what the words denote!
It is absolutely awful that you would say in your videos "anyone with a sixth grade reading level could see that the scriptures do not mean what Calvinist say they mean" There are so many extremely well educated scholars who read the text and do come to Calvinistic conclusions.
Are Calvinist your bothers and sisters in Christ?
I apologize for the 6th grade reading level comment. I definitely should have said 4th grade. My bad. Won’t happen again.
@@KevinThompson1611 your comment speaks volumes. Instead of offering a real answer you further mock Gods children. Your supposed brothers and sisters in Christ.
Kaleb Dutil
Don’t worry, I didn’t mock God’s children. Take a chill pill.
@@KevinThompson1611 When I watched your videos I was already pretty convinced you were a false teacher. A misguided one at best. But your comments here confirm what I already believed. What kind of teacher of the word responds in the way you have?
@mineben256 I disagree completely. They teach what you find in scripture. I decide by the scriptures not by man. When a individual has to make countless hours of video trying to disprove Calvinism and act childish while doing it, only to fail at making their case. I have to believe that he is a false teacher teaching what he wished the scriptures said. I watch videos and read from all sides of the arguments.
The only reason I ever mentioned men is because he insults brothers and sisters in Christ with his childish insults.
I hope and pray you do not hang on this mans every word and that you look for yourself if what he teaches is true.
He dismisses a whole race, "Armenianism" :/ My wife is Armenian but not Arminian.
A lot of the explanation is anti-calvinism and it is too wordy to figure out what the text actually says.