Видео

Man, there is so much wrong with what you said it is difficult where to begin. There is a lot of misrepresentation of the position you are arguing against... 1. " does not mean you go back in time and see the entering the physical Promised Land as a sign of entering literal heaven."---- I never did this in the video. In fact, I did the opposite. I noted the promised land was a temporal REWARD, NOT heaven. So right off the bat you already seem to not understand my arguments. My argument was merely that being a partaker meant partaking in this reward in the direct context of Heb 3:12-19. Moses & the Israelites did not partake in this sense, hence no reward or partaking of the Christian blessings. Just because they did not partake does not mean they went to hell. Thus, to partake in this context does not mean hell. I never said anything about like the promised land being a picture or sign of entering heaven. If that were the case why did I say that they didn't get to enter the promised land. 2. Yes Moses did fall away in unbelief. Look at Heb 3:18. Who didn't get to enter Canaan? Those who did not believe. Did Moses enter? No (Deut 32, etc.). Why? Not every sin is a measure of forsaking God completely (like playing video games all day). but Moses, who had explicit divine revelatory command from God, didn't believe what God said (Num 20:12), thereby not believing in God. The text says he did not believe and Hebrews says he didn't enter because of unbelief. Simple. Don't strain the text, or at least don't call that absurd. 3. " it is a logical mistake to demand that a set of actions producing a result equals an attempt to merit the result."- Once again, your reasoning is quite poor. Firstly, no Calvinist accuses FGers of backloading works, so you seem to not even understand what you are talking about. They typically slander us that we teach a license to go out and sin and if you mean belief, that is A work (and categorically distinct at that), not work(s). So your statement is just plainly false, I've never heard a Calvinist say I am backloading. That would be frontloading if you are talking about placing a condition for salvation up front. Calvinists backload and frontload--they require repentance of sins and feeling of remorse to convert and then a lifestyle change of fruits must necessarily follow or you were never truly saved to begin with. If you leave the faith, you were never in the faith, which is such a coping response that doesn't line up with scripture. Even Muslims say that kind of foolish thing. "There is such a thing as a non meritorious work, an action that produces a result without earning it, such as receiving a gift." ---Yea.... belief LOL, a singular deed. But once you start adding additional conditions beyond the mere initial reception of a gift (i.e., labor, suffer, go give to the poor, etc.), then that is meriting the result. If you have conditions, antithetical to the nature of FREELY receiving a gift, it is no longer FREE by definition, and cannot constitute a gift. It now becomes a reward based on performance. Don't overuse terms like "fallacy" when you have no clue what you are talking about. Look, the idea of a gift is so simple a 6 year old can understand it. Does doing the easiest possible sentient action a human can do (believe something to be true) tarnish the nature of a gift? Ofc not, it is even easier than putting your arms out and taking a physical gift or drinking water (John 4:10-15). Now, is saying you must be faithful to me for the rest of your life, obey all my commands, love your neighbor, dont lie, dont covet, dont steal, don't lust, suffer with Christ,...and an infinite other of commands---Does THAT now tarnish the nature of a FREE GIFT (Rom 5:16-18)? Don't kid yourself here man, stop trying to over intellectualize the simplicity that is in Christ and just get saved if you aren't already. Yes there is ONE non meritorious work that gets you into heaven. One. Not of work(s), plural. Additionally, this one work is akin to simply receiving a birthday gift with open arms, it is not tedious or laborious. Not all works are IMMESNELY laborious like suffering with Christ, but they all take some effort. Just mentally assenting is the easiest thing a human being can do. Your logic is so poor man it is quite painful to read---how does saying ONE WORK, ONE, contradict our "presupposition" (that is proven from the Bible) that "contingent ACTIONS (plural)" , especially those antithetical to the nature of freeness, are an attempt to merit? Those contingent actions are firstly more than one, and take effort beyond merely accepting a gift once. Additionally, it does not matter if you ATTEMPT to merit something, it is whether you DO merit it. So the irreligious person who is such a good person could "merit" their way to heaven despite not attempting to do so. However, they cannot actually do that because we all sin. If you could merit it, you are given room to boast (Rom 4:1-5, Rom 3:27-28, Eph 2:8-9). Belief is the only thing CONTRASTED explicitly in the Bible against works, so many times I couldn't post all the scriptures here for you (Rom 4:5, Eph 2:8-9, Gal 3:12, etc.). Therefore, there is a sense in which belief is categorically distinct from whatever works are being discussed in the context, which is works (plural) of the law, broadly to love your neighbor as yourself (Rom 13:8-10, 2:20-25). Look, unless we are Calvinists, God has to give some way for mankind to volitionally accept his sacrifice and get his righteousness imputed onto them. Name me the single easiest thing a human being can volitionally do. Simply, to make a choice. A or B, red or blue, Christ or not Christ.

dost thou realize that thou art a fool? do not be deceived, 11 And the people marveled at the words of Mike, for his curry was fragrant, and his logic was layered as the spices of his dish, MAAAAAAHN. and formally debate me if you stand firm in what you claim to believe 3 "Hath not Layman himself asked us to formally debate these matters? And do I not admire his dedication to running it through the chart, for the chart is a reflection of divine logic, ya know?"

@@konkoor881 Bro what lol? What religious text is that?

@@tyadams7507 haven’t made a vid on it but it seems to just be faithful believers getting martyred and rewarded for their works and martyrdom. But eschatology is quite complex so I never base my soteriology off like passages from rev 13-22.

That isn't how you determine a false prophet. Did you watch any of the video, be honest? 2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

@@Marinanor yea that’s true. 2 Tim 2:11-13 sums all of that up well. We all rule in a sense like how if you’re a constituent of the British empire you rule over the places the empire rules, but that doesn’t mean you reign in the other sense, as in a position of authority. It’s impossible for everyone in heaven to have the same position of authority by basic logic, because then who’d they be ruling over.

Romans 4:5 is not about one specific law or commandment (i.e., circumcision). Why would Romans 3-4 say not by WORKS (plural) if it was discussing just one work of the law? Circumcision is one EXAMPLE of works of the law, but the book of Romans defines this law for us, it includes the moral statutes: Rom 2:20-25, 13:8-10, 7:7, etc. How about you define this law for me explicitly from Galatians and Romans. I'll do it for you. Rom 13:9 commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Rom 2:20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Rom 2:21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Rom 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Rom 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? Rom 2:24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. Rom 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Same with Galatians: Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do THE WHOLE LAW. notice it says THE WHOLE LAW, meaning circumcision is not the whole law, then it explains what this law is: Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. That is the same law in James 2:8-12, Romans 13:8-11, etc. There is no confusion, these books define 'the law' for us that is contrasted to faith. The point made is if you try to obey one commandment of the law for salvation, you have to do the WHOLE LAW, not just pick and choose. However, the law is not of faith and no man is justified by the deeds of the law (Gal 3:11-12). Self righteousness, self law keeping, wont get you to heaven, but putting your faith in Christ will (Rom 10;3-5).The commandments of Christ are the same as the law of Moses, read your OT again. The commandments of Christ just do not include the ceremonial and day observances as those were merely symbolic of Christ. They do, however, include all of the moral statutes from the law of Moses. Love your neighbor is directly pulled from Leviticus 19, what law do you think Jesus was referencing lol in Matt 22:36-40 lol? What law do you think they would have understood as 1st century Jews (James 2:8-12, Rom 13:8-12, Gal 5:14, Rom 2:20-25, etc.). The law of Moses is the commandments of God that dictate moral living. This separation people try to draw is strange especially when you just cross reference the two laws you are proposing are different and see they have the exact same statutes (dont lie, dont steal,dont covet, etc.). Regarding your other scriptures, I made videos on some of those you are taking out of context. For 1 John you can reference my book linked in the description. There are far too many concerns with a works based and literal interpretation of that passage. it leads to a paradox. Yea, you kind of bombarded me with like 10 passages unrelated to the video so forgive me if I can't reply to them all here. You are really either misquoting some or quoting them independent of any context.

@@DitmarHoxha 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised This is the context about Romans 4:5 Paul is running a long argument in context right there is romans 4 it is specifically specking about the law of circumcisions you cannot point to romans 10 to justify romans 4 because The is speaking about the Law of mosses in other place such as romans 7 But we are under the Law of God, Ie The Law of Christ, Ie the Law of Love, We are not without law Paul gives MANY MANY warnings they we do need to stop sinning, AND if we still are lead by the flesh we will still be under the penalty of sin which is death Its not really that hard It only gets complicated when you have to try and fit your martin Luther theology in it That is when you try and do all these word gymnastics and out of context verse, and mixing things

@@appointedaday The law of love is the law of Moses. Read it again (thou shalt not covet, steal, commit adultery, etc.). Leviticus 19:18: thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. It really isn't that hard. I think I have the plain common sense reading of the text, whereas you are trying to state there are like 2 different laws being discussed here. Again, why does he say Works(s) plural if it is only circumcision? Romans 2:20-25 and 13:8-12 define the law being discussed from chapters 3-11. That is common sense hermeneutics. The law is being explicitly defined for us.

@@DitmarHoxha Sorry Love is the fulfillment of the law of Moses but it is NOT the law of Love, the law of Christ is the law of love Because Christ is the fulfilment of the law of mosses Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. But he is not telling us to obey the Law of Moses because he just got done telling us the Law of Moses does not have the power over sin. But only through Christ and the Spirit are we able to fulfill the law of Love walking in the spirit and then he states there is no more condemnation for those IN Christ WHO walk NOT accounting to the flesh BUT acounding to the spirit and then he walks all this out while warning us IF IF IF we walk according to the flesh we will still have the penalty for sin which is Death Its right there and again it s not only right there but even the earliest prenicine church understood it, Only in these last days some have departed from the faith to follow doctrines of demons who scratch their itchy ears

@@appointedaday Read the Romans 8 section of my book, you need it. Your understanding of the law is sorely confused.

Your question is framed a bit confusingly, but if you are asking why there is no historical presence or continuity of this Free Grace idea of salvation, I can try to address that. Firstly, this idea of faith alone was indeed present in the early church. Some early church Fathers like Augustine wrote against it, meaning it existed. I am actually adding a section on this in my book so if you'd like you can refresh that folder link in a few days and check that out. The historical presence argument is also immensely weak even if for some reason there was no historical presence in the literature after the 1st century. It depends how it is employed, but it can be rather fallacious as an appeal to an authority if you necessarily appeal to the authority of the early church theologians as true. They could just simply have been wrong, that isn't unlikely at all for a variety of reasons I'll note in my book. But again, this idea of faith alone apart from any good works was present in some writing in the 3rd century at the very least. At the end of the day, we can just use the Bible to compare evidence and hermeneutical arguments on a given scripture. Which has more explanatory power? I think your explanation of the law in Romans 4 is extremely uncontextual and lacks much evidence at all. It doesn't even align with the basic logic of the verse discussing works (plural) and the law being defined explicitly for us in the books that mention the law.

@@DitmarHoxha I am sorry but you can take all the writings on the prenicine church and they all believe Jesus and obeyed him even to the death They all understood this to be in regards to eternal salvation Nice try though

@@appointedaday That is what I just pointed out. if you are appealing to that as the necessary reason why you are correct, that is fallacious. That is an appeal to authority. First prove why these preniceane church Fathers are even correct. Prove that. They could all have been in error, self righteous, works based, just like the Scribes and pharisees of Jesus' day who were apparently learned in the TANAKH.

@@DitmarHoxha Hmm so this is your take that all of the first generation the disciples of the apostles themselves were all pharisees?? Wow that is crazy? And what do you think the issue was with the pharisees anyway??

@@appointedaday So Peter and the other guys were holding religious services while simultaneously fishing? Is that what he is saying? 🤣🤣🤣

@@ChristRisenLord I have read Hebrews numerous times and written about it in my book. Paul definitely taught FG and its strongly present in Heb 10:12-18, and chapter 3 also proves it (people fell away and still went to heaven 11:29, including Moses). Heb 12 discusses chastisement, which I am not sure how chastisement applies in your view where the punishment for disobedience is losing your salvation. I also don't understand how you have rewards if going to heaven itself is the prize you earn through your labor. There are probably a lot of strange holes in your systematic theology if I had to guess. Another classic example of category conflation, he’s discussing a prize in that verse. Salvation is not a prize you earn, it’s a free gift (rom 5:16-18). I can’t imagine how you’d conflate those two since they are antithetical by their very nature. Don't you recognize how much strain you put on a text through eisegesis when you warp the nature of these simple terms a 6 year old child understands (i.e, gift, prize, reward, etc.). A prize (brabeion; used only here and in 1 Cor 9:24) takes diligence, mastery, and striving like running a race - a gift does not. Paul hasn’t yet reached his goal of earning his rewards and entering heaven. He is guaranteed to enter heaven but he still should press towards that final mark to earn rewards, please Christ in his walk, and spread the gospel (since it’s more needful for him to be alive. Did you have any exegetical arguments to make on Hebrews 6:6 itself? I’m open to hearing why I’m wrong or why you’re right, but you’re just making assertions so not really persuasive. Explain to me what repentance is contextually being discussed in v.6 and why it is impossible for that repentance to be done again--why would it put Christ to an open shame and crucify him again? You could have explained why Heb 6:6 doesnt support OSAS but instead you just made assertions and pasted an entirely different scripture--I can only assume my evidence does prove it if you can't offer anything substantive on that end. Even the philippians text you cited, you just cited it and made an assertion without actually providing evidence or analyzing it. You just assume it supports your doctrine. I have a video on Hebrews 10, and 3 as well. From Dr. Thomas Constable's notes on the passage: "He would receive a prize when he reached that goal. But he would only reach it when he entered the Lord's presence and saw Him face to face (1 John 3:2-3). Nevertheless he pursued the goal while living on the earth because he wanted to get to know the Lord as well as possible before going into His presence." - soniclight.com/tcon/notes/html/philippians/philippians.htm Paul is pushing towards the very last day Php 2:16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain. The same concept is found here, he is holding faithful to have all his work pay off in the end. Unless you are claiming you must LABOR and RUN to receive a free gift, you should abandon that interpretation. It just doesn't harmonize with scripture and the context of the passage, especially when Paul says he wants to be found not having his own righteousness but Christ's righteousness when it comes to salvation (3:9). He's talking about living out the resurrection life of Christ already inside him. Being confirmed to His death is something Christians are meant to do in their experience and thereby know God better, like when Paul says that he bears about in his body the dying of the Lord Jesus that the life of Jesus might be made manifest in 2 Cor 4:4. Paul had not attained this level of maturity, but presses on so that he might obtain the reward when he gets actually resurrected.

@@tyadams7507 good question but it’s a actually not a great objection haha it’s one of the best arguments for Free Grace and salvation completely apart from works. It’s weird, people just don’t accept it because they are self righteous. It’s crazy how salvation is a free gift yet we see people in the Bible rejecting it time and time again, or look at 1 cor 1:18-23, how they consider the preaching of the cross, that Christ died for ALL of your sins as foolish. So careful to confuse narrow with difficult. The path is very very easy, it’s FREE (rom 5:16-18), but few find it. Modern versions twist Matt 7 and make it say “difficult”, not narrow. Difficult things can be narrow, but not necessarily, and that’s not the point being conveyed in the verse, it’s the fact that few people find the way to eternal life, not that it takes a lot of effort and lifestyle reform. The way is simple, believe (John 3:16, 4:10-15). Look at the 1000s of other world religions out there (including Christian sects), and you’ll find they are all merit based. That is the wide way to destruction, rejecting Christ as your savior for your own self righteousness (rom 10:3-5). I also think this uniqueness is good proof Christianity is true probabilistically, but that’s a bit more complex of an argument. You can take a look at the free link in the description for the “things not seen” book and skip to the Christian soteriology chapters to see what I mean. In short, If salvation were of works the path would actually be impossible since we all sin, the wide path is people TRYING to go to heaven by their works, and the narrow path is simply Christ purely unadulterated, without mixing anything into his saviorship. Look at Matt 7:22 when it says many will say to me lord lord and appeal to their works. That boastful appeal is the wide way.

@@tyadams7507 also sorry, even in the text of Matt 7:13-14 itself, notice the narrow way-most people don’t even go IN the narrow WAY. If the narrowness is in reference to people not obeying Christ and living a good lifestyle, repenting of their sins, then they still went down the path but they failed to endure it’s difficult road. It’s not as if they didn’t even go in, they did. However, it makes sense why they didn’t even go in the true path to salvation, because they never actually believed in Christ apart from their own works. Notice v14, they HAVENT EVEN FOUND THE PATH. So again, it’s not like the path is describing a troubling road you must endure to go to heaven-- in that case, everyone found the path, they just didn’t endure it. But it makes sense why people don’t even find the path and enter it. 99% of people don’t even understand the free gift Christianity offers through Christ, they still think it’s works based like every other religion. Hope that helps, make any notes you please on that if the objection is brought up. I may make a vid on it, it’s a good topic. Matthew 7:14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Good question. I actually devote the longest time in my book to 1 John (free link in descr.). The entire book effectively restates the same points throughout chapters 1-5. You don't have to read the whole section as the latter half is spent refuting other Free Grace interpretations that don't make much sense--I'd say read pages 274-306 (on the page itself, not drive page #s) if you get time. This is the only real place in scripture I can understand why people derive that works naturally follow belief. It makes those statements pretty explicitly, as opposed to other places where the idea has to be read into the text (i.e., James 2). However, although the statements are explicit, it must be understood IN WHAT SENSE they are meant. I believe 1 John 3:9, for example, which is just a single instance of the same theme throughout the book, is not about our outward moral behavior, but our inward righteous standing before God. Since God considers us righteous inwardly (apart from our behavior, Rom 4:5-8), then in one sense we are sinless, we do uphold the law and CANNOT SIN because we have Christ's righteousness credited to us. Solve 1 John 3:9, you solve the rest of the book--there are also numerous concerns with the "practice sin" translation meant to make this verse more palatable. There are so many other points on why this is likely the explanation, but that is the brief summary, that it is not talking about loving others (commandment keeping) in the actionable sense, but making points to demonstrate our righteous standing before God, our certainty of possessing eternal life (5:13), due to abiding in Christ. That certainty would be quite elusive if it were based on actionable moral behavior. Idk exactly what you believe, but 1 John can only be plausibly used to teach the perseverance of the saints doctrine, not some kind of loss of salvation doctrine. For example, if you don't love your brother actionably, hate your brother (which is simply sin of any sort 1 John 3:4, as love is the entire law Rom 13:8-10), or seem to stop belieiving in Christ--that proves you just never truly believed to begin with. You have neither seen him or known him (1 John 3:6), have not yet passed from death to life (3:14), and have been in darkness UNTIL now (2:9). Thus, first make sure you agree with this Calvinist/reformed perseverance doctrine, as the text cannot support a loss of salvation based on these verses--you simply were never saved to begin with. However, even this interpretation is so blatantly false as I outline in my book,as it would imply that we should see no examples of believers sinning abundantly in the bible, or that even being possible. However, it is possible given that Paul warns about it (Rom 6:12). Also, leaving the faith wouldn't be possible in this interpretation, which disharmonizes the entirety of scripture, and I give many examples of that as well in that portion of my book. I also did a debate with Dan Chapa on Standing for Truth proving believers can fall away in the Bible and remain saved, so that int of 1 John simply doesn't harmonize with scripture and observable reality. You are perceptive that the standard is not only so high but impossible, especially once we correctly translate 3:9 or 3:14-15. The “narrow path” does not reference a subset of elite and morally upright people who keep God’s commandments-we all sin before God every day so we all fail that standard. Despite some failing less than kthers that only makes us appear RELATIVELY better than each other, but in God’s eyes, we fall miserably short of his righteous standard to enter heaven. That is why we need his righteousness credited to us, thus making the only “narrow” way to heaven to freely accept Christ as your savior, apart from your own righteousness (rom 9:30-32, 10:3-5). There is a reason 99% of Christian groups (and all religions) teach some form of works based salvation. When you look around, the true narrow way is this Free Grace salvation (rom 3:24), as every other religion teaches some form of merit based or deed based path to their variation of heaven. There is also a bit of irony in your question (in a good way). John 14:15, Jesus tells Phillip (who believed) a command to keep the commandments IF he loves him. This assumes it is possible Philip loves him or does not, but that he should keep the commandments. If all who believe invariably keep the commandments according to this proposed view of 1 John, why does Jesus (and many other verses) tell us to keep the commandments or warn us of the consequences of breaking them (heb 12:6-9)? There would seem to be little point in telling someone to do something they cannot possibly do. Peter denied Jesus thrice, which is not very loving towards Jesus. So the standard becomes quite arbitrary as to how much sin or what degree of sin, etc. when Solomon worshipped Moloch (1 kings 11), did that prove he never believed before that? That’s absurd. Or Paul in Romans 7:14-25, the carnal Corinthians (3:1, 2 cor 12:19-21), the apostate Galatians (gal 1:6), 2 Tim 2:17-20, etc.

You incorrectly put it in logical format. It is an imperative in greek and english: "If you love me, then keep my commandments" or since it is a good command: "if you love me, then you should keep my commandments". He that loves God is the one that keeps the commandments. Did you watch the video? Loving God is not required for salvation because that is works of the law (Matt 22:36-40, Rom 4:5, Eph 2:8-9). That is a premise you would have to prove even though I agree the one who loves God is the one who keeps the commandments.

​@@DitmarHoxha Not sure what you mean with your first point, you're actually agreeing with me. Both should be true for the statement to be true. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matthew 5:17 So what Jesus commands us in Matthew 22 is not merely works of the law but the fulfillment of the law. As James says, "faith apart work is dead" (2:26), but what kind of work gives life to faith? "Faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6), wich is why love is greater than faith and hope (1 Corinthians 13). Loving God is necessary for salvation because it what gives life to the faith wich saves. Without loving God, faith is dead.

@@ghostapostle7225 no I did not agree with you. You seem to misunderstand the basic logical distinction between your statement and mine, which is of an imperative form, not declarative as you framed it. Your statement asserts that “if you love me, you WILL invariably keep Jesus’ commandments.” This creates an entirely different meaning from the text. It COULD be true and I wouldn’t be up in arms against it, but that isn’t what the actual logic of the verse says. I believe it is possible to love God without keeping the commandments (at least to some extent), but if you keep the commandments, that does necessarily mean you are loving God (though we cannot do that perfectly and also thus fail at loving God). However, again, loving God isn’t related to salvation from hell. You just went to other scriptures which we would have to discuss separately (and you are also reading into beyond what they plainly state). I made a comprehensive video on James 2 proving why your statements don’t follow from that chapter. Yes Jesus fulfilled the law, not us, thus granting us his righteousness by faith rom 8:1-4, 10:3-5. Again, the law describes what is morally good, it describes good deeds. Good deeds don’t naturally follow in abundance from one’s belief, nor are they required for salvation. You are literally describing a law based salvation if you are mandating loving God or go to hell. That is the opposite of what the Bible teaches as salvation is apart from the law, and the law is not of faith (gal 3:12, rom 4:5, rom 3:28, rom 3:21-24, rom 9:30-32). Additionally, you break God’s law every day (as do I), so clearly you are not fulfilling it (meaning completing it). Only Christ did that. You are drawing some strange distinctions between “fulfilling the law” and “works of the law”. To fulfill the law you must do ALL the works of the law, without breaking a single commandment. Goto romans 13:8-10 where it describes fulfilling the law and ask yourself if you break any of those commandments like coveting-thus, you don’t fulfill the law. We should TRY to strive for that, but the only way we can fulfill the law is by getting Christ’s righteousness imputed to us (rom 3:21-23). If salvation is apart from works of the law, that means any subsisting works of the law cannot contribute or impede on your state of eternal life.

@@ghostapostle7225 we see too many examples of believers sinning in the Bible to consider your point about a faith without works (or with sin), not being able to save from hell (which you imported the word “hell” from somewhere not in James 2). The Galatians fell away from the faith (1:6) and yet we’re considered sons and heirs of God still (3:26, 4:7). The Corinthians were Carnal (3:1) and not repenting of their fornication yet still called sealed by the Spirit and beloved (2 cor 1:22, 12:19-21). One Corinthian was incestously fornicating but it is said that while his body will be destroyed his Spirit will be saved on the day of the Lord (1 cor 5:1-5). 2 Tim 2:13 says if we do not believe God still remains faithful. Paul said he was sold under sin and carnal in Romans 7:14-25 (speaking in the present tense). Solomon worshipped moloch (1 kings 11). Moses and the Israelites fell away in unbelief and had to physically die for their sin, but they were still saved as they had believed in God (Heb 3:12-19, heb 11:29). Additionally, who are you to claim belief isn’t going to save from hell without the works? John 3:16 and Acts 16:30-31 issue only one requirement, belief. Now you can try to redefine the word believe to encompass the law as well, but good luck with that given the scriptures contrasting the two (gal 3:12). What you can’t do is say belief alone isn’t enough to make you whole (Luke 8:50, John 12:37-42). That’s just butchering the Bible.

@@JonnyDurock You definitely should but it doesn’t necessarily follow. There are carnal Christians and unrepentant ones (1 cor 3:1, 2 cor 12:19-21)

@DitmarHoxha it's really hard to say a person is actually a Christian if one continues in sin... the "congregation"(not the spiritual church) has ALWAYS been made up of believers and nonbelievers...I wouldn't advise preaching it's ok to continue in sin. Mat 5:19

​@@JonnyDurock Please don't straw man me if you are claiming I am advising it is ok to sin. Just because I don't believe you can lose your salvation does not mean I believe it is ok to sin. Also, I never said to allow the congregation to consist of unbelievers. I am simply noting that apostate would still be saved, but they should be excommunicated from the church. Don't conflate categories. Notice the one that sins in Matt 5:19 is still in the kingdom. So of course sin diminishes your rewards and can yield punishment, but if you have believed, you are entering into heaven (Matt 21:29-32)

@@DitmarHoxha well... I'll guess we will see if you I and kenneth copeland will all sit at The Masters table one day.

@@JonnyDurock Depends if you and Kenneth trust Christ fully for your salvation or your own behavior. Can't be both (Rom 11:6). Don't employ emotional arguments, stick to scripture--otherwise you can go quite wrong trying to figure out who's saved based on how you perceive this person.

Hopefully this explanation helps. Careful to not read into the word "obey", as the term simply means to comply with the will of another, and it takes on different usages in the Bible. You would have to import your theology of "obeying the commandments", which is one way in which you can obey God, into this particular context. Be very cautious when doing that. Like I noted, the term just means do what another wants. God does want BELIEVERS to obey his commandments, but in the context of salvation, we only see God willing or desiring people to believe on Jesus Christ. Thus, this particular verse is most contextually about believing in Christ. You must make scripture harmonize, and if you can't present me any other verses like (John 3:16) that prove commandment keeping is necessary for salvation (with evidence). Heb 5:9 likely doesn't say what you think it says, but I am open to hearing a hermeneutical argument. For example, in Matt 21;28-32, the will of the father is to believe in Christ, same as Matt 7:21. Thus, you obey the will of the Father to believe in Christ and get entrance into heaven. In Romans 10:16-17, God wants us to obey his gospel, the gospel of Christ, that Jesus died and rose again (Rom 10:9-10). The direct context in that chapter is about salvation from hell and imputed righteousness. Thus, it has more contextual linkage to obeying God in Heb 5:9. The only way to obey a message is to believe it. Thus, God wants us to believe the gospel. We see the same thing in 2 Thess 1:8-9, where those who do not obey the truth, the gospel, are sent to hell. Obey DOES NOT necessarily mean doing all of God's commandments in every context. We also see a very similar passage to Heb 5:9 in Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. But guess what context is right next to this verse? Maybe without some context or understanding of how one receives the Holy Ghost (by belief Eph 1:13), MAYBE you'd assume it means commandment keeping. However, we know we receive the Spirit by a one time belief ("believed" Eph 1:13, Acts 11:15-17), therefore the giving of the Spirit here cannot be obedience to commandments. And FURTHErRMORE, the context in Acts 5:30-32 is literally Peter preaching that Christ died and rose again and offers forgiveness of sin, so I wonder what obeying means in that context? Likely the exact same thing as Rom 10:16-17. I would say this point directly proves Heb 5:9 is the same, as the construction of obeying him is the same, and the context of "eternal salvation" and "giving of the Holy Ghost" is also the same, both pertain to salvation. Thus, both state you get saved by believing in Christ, which aligns with the hundreds of other verses in the bible, but I don't recollect any verses that tell us to keep the commandments to go to heaven. in fact, it is quite the opposite (Rom 11:6, 13:8-10) If you want to redefine belief to encompass commandment keeping, including suffering with Christ, then you can certainly try--at least that is more consistent, but what you cannot do is contradict scripture and say "obey" in Heb 5:9 doesn't mean belief because belief is the only condition required for salvation (Acts 16:30-31). However, you will struggle redefining belief as it is so plainly used (John 3:36, 4:39-42, Luke 8:50) and is expressly contrasted with the things some claim are encompassed in belief, like loving your neighbor, the commandments, and suffering with Christ (Philip 1:29, Rom 4:5, Rom 3:28, Gal 3:12, Rom 11:6, etc.)

@@DitmarHoxhayour opinion. According to the writer of Hebrews he calls disobedience as unbelief. And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies perished in the wilderness? And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief. Hebrews 3:17-19 Giving of the spirit is obedience again stop reading in your man made traditions into scripture. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” Acts 5:32 Obedience and belief go hand in hand deal with the text

@@smazey2309 There's an immense difference between opinion and detailed analysis or exegesis. Don't be so dismissive as I wouldn't do the same to someone I disagreed with. I look for evidence and sound argumentation--what I do look down upon is people just posting scripture without laying out a careful analysis, exposition of the text explaining why it necessarily supports them (instead of assuming the world grants that), ad hominins, and assertions. Any of those are just not profitable. Also, your translation incorrectly renders it as disobeyed but it should be 'unbelief' given the context from 12-19 pertaining to unbelief (although it is not a huge deal): Heb 3:18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? You effectively just ignored the entirety of my point on Acts 5:32 regarding the gospel context and Rom 10:16-17, reposted the verse as if it is just assumed it supports your position, and made an assertion. Why? That is so common, when people don't interact with your evidence and just jump to other places and make assertions. I never do that to works-salvationists--I always interact with their prooftexts and prove why it doesn't say what they think it does. I will actually post a 20 minute video today on Hebrews 3:12-19, proving those that didnt believe (including Moses who did not get to enter into Canaan) were saved. They truly believed, then stopped believing, and are still cited in the Hall of Faith Heb 11:29. Unlesss we want to state Moses is unsaved, clearly leaving the faith once you've already believed does not preclude you from going to heaven, it precludes you from rewards (e.g., Canaan), but not eternal life. Many other scriptures like 2 Tim2 :13 testify to this fact. As a matter of fact, just watch my 3 hr debate on this very topic with Dan Chapa on Standing for truth: ruclips.net/user/liveuAGcYQVw1os?si=bjYHaQRkhPrYOVGv You: post verse with no argument or exegesis Me: replies in detail with careful analysis of numerous relevant texts You: "thats ur opinion bro", posts other verse, makes assertion on text I cited while ignoring all the evidence i gave why it doesn't say that .......

@@DitmarHoxhayou can delude yourself you gave detailed explanation. All you did was quote verses and read your bias into them. No the correct greek word for hebrews 3:18 is “disobeyed” as the greek word there is ἀπειθήσασιν (apeithēsasin) different from the greek word ἀπιστίαν (apistian) that means “believe”.(stick to the text not your opinions) And based on the cortex they “sinned” per hebrews 3:17: And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who SINNED, whose bodies perished in the wilderness? No where in Hebrews 11:29 does it say they entered the promise land, it talks about how by faith they crossed the red sea. Nothing regarding the “rest” where Hebrews 3 tells you some did not enter the rest by their disobedience and sin. You make the Bible contradict so (stick to the plain text) And again you bury yourself in Hebrews 11 because they same chapter tells you faith goes in hand with obedience. By FAITH Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, OBEYED and went, even though he did not know where he was going. Hebrews 11:8 Deal with the text. Not your presuppositions. Argument from silence fallacy on moses. Hebrews 3 already tells us that moses was faithful in Gods house Moses was FAITHFUL as a servant in all God’s house,” bearing witness to what would be spoken by God in the future. Hebrews 3:5

@@amj76425 I like Robert and I agree on the verses but his hyper dispensational teaching is incorrect that people were saved by works in the OT (gal 2:21)

@DitmarHoxha yes i dont agree on everything with him but most of his teaching i do. Got saved by watchinh him 2017. I really wish that your channel be blessed and be used for Jesus glory. Keep preaching

@ thanks likewise, God bless.

Those are assertions, prove it. It states you are sealed with the Holy Spirit UNTIL your body is redeemed, until this temporal point of completion. If he broke that promise and unsealed you before that day, that would be a lie, no matter how you spin it. If I said I will seal this vault until next December, and opened it before then, no matter how you spin it, I lied. So whatever you would like to assert regarding the nature of this seal (without biblical evidence), you still have to wrestle with this logical concern. If God says he will seal you (however you take the nature of this seal) UNTIL THIS POINT in the future, then he seals you UNTIL THIS POINT. No other scripture contradicts this, it only does in your conditionalist false interpretation of other passages. Free Grace harmonizes passages the best. So you cannot lose the Holy Spirit. When it says Christ reigns forever, or that he is eternal (1 Tim 1:17), that means what it says. Shall not come into condemnation means will not at any point in the future (shall) be condemned. Hence, eternal security (John 5:24).

​@@DitmarHoxha Prove that modern English is a different language than ancient Greek? You are using "seal" like it's a commercial for Gorilla Glue, then telling me I have to wrestle with that "logical concern," lol. No. I don't. Because it's ridiculous. Anyone could break a wax seal. It was not vacuum tight nor did it bind with impossible force. How do you think importing the modern context of words in a specific way is theproper way to read it, then chastise me. How am I suppose to respond to that? You are so committed to an ad hoc bias, that it seems you cannot look at it from a perspective outside what you've already determined "seal" means to support what you already want to believe. Until you see that, you simply won't listen to any other perspective.

@ you are either incapable of understanding or willfully reject the logic of any question or comment I put forth. You don’t even understand the points, which are not even that complex. I’ve had discussions with people I disagree with probably more than I do with you, but they have the ability to exchange complex ideas and we don’t make basic fallacious errors in reason, or if we do, we will swiftly recognize it as such. I obviously meant… prove the manner in which seal is being used is first different in Ancient Greek, then also why that has any bearing on the point. You haven’t even proven that premise yet, you just asserted it, and even if you proved it, did you ignore my point that the nature of the seal is irrelevant? I noted that the nature of the seal is irrelevant seeing that my point is not that because the word “seal” is used, salvation is irreversible. That isn’t my argument-but you are straw manning me as if that is. The seal cannot be broken ONLY BECAUSE eph 4:30, 1:13-14 give us a temporal point of completion (until the day of redemption). However “weak” or openable you think God’s “seal” is, when he says he seals something “until x day”, he won’t open it before x day, or he would lie. You are avoiding this temporal point like the plague. GOD SAYS he won’t unseal the individual until they are glorified; it doesn’t get plainer than that. I recently had a 2 hour discussion with an EO, very cordial, no interrupting, no slander or straw manning, just pure information exchange. You can’t even grasp the basic points I made.

@@Dizerner incorrect parallel. I also never said individuals can’t be referred to in collectives, if Paul is addressing “you all”, but within the context of believers, then he is talking to Christian believers. However, he is addressing them on a gentilic or ethnic basis, not based on whether they believe or not. The audience and framing Paul desired to make clear is defined for us-Jew and Gentile. Not all individual Jews believe, not all individual Gentiles do either. Gentiles is also an exclusionary term, it excludes all Jewish individuals. “Whosoever” or “world” are not exclusionary. Also, Christ isn't even talking to "the world" in John 3:16--he uses the word, but that is not his direct audience as if you are writing a letter to x, or speaking to x; he was speaking to Nicodemus, so he doesn't use 2nd person pronouns to refer to the world. Paul literally says "I speak to you gentiles." Who? Not believers, not unbelievers, you gentiles. It is a gentilic address. If I say I am speaking to you gentiles, that is who he is speaking to. I also gave you an example in the video from chapters 9-11, proving why I was correct. I think you misunderstood everything I said given the misrepresentation. I never said it’s absurd for an entire group to be cut off, I said it’s absurd for an entire ethnic group to lose their eternal life, to be cut off from that specifically. That’s like saying God makes all Indian people lose their salvation at once. That’s absurd, but what’s not absurd is saying he can cut off all Indian people from his blessing of ministering salvation to them, because as a whole (99.9%+), they reject Christ. It is cut off from his GOODNESS, that is explicit. It is not cut off from eternal life or salvation itself, although they are ancillary concepts. Also you have an interesting definition of “plain” passages given this is a highly figurative passage that required defining lots of terms, audience, etc. lol. Dont just assume you are right, provide evidence and refute my proof why it must be referring to collective ethnic groups, not individuals. Read these passages very carefully and tell me he isn’t addressing ethnic groups. Paul was an Israelite, and clearly he wasn’t blind to not believe in Christ. It is speaking in trends or generalizations: Romans 11:8-13 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. 11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? 13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: Romans 9:30-32 (Paul was a saved Jew, thus it is referring to them in generalizations as an ethnic collective. In GENERAL Jewish people reject Christ, and Gentiles do not) 30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 
The cause of the Jews' stumbling 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

@@Dizerner no scripture given to support this firstly, but the this is utterly false. One can place the entire burden of a task on another, I placed the entire burden of my sin onto Christ. What evidence do you have in the Bible that one cannot do this? Look at romans 11:6, how works are mutually exclusive with grace, meaning you can’t logically put 2% trust in your own works and righteousness and also expect grace. Salvation is FREE (rom 5:16) or you don’t get it at all. Either accept Christs righteousness, or your own, but you can’t have both (rom 10:3-5). Btw free grace doesn’t teach perpetual trust or belief in Christ for salvation, it is a one time event that saves you and you are healed (Luke 8:50, when you believed eph 1:13). So yes, one can falter and become a legalist and still go to heaven. Also not sure where you’re grabbing this concept of perfect flawless faith, regarding conversion (1 Thess 3 is a different concept altogether). Saving belief is just being persuaded something is true, like Abraham was in rom 4:16-24. If you believe Christ died for ALL of your sins (not half), and rose from the dead, you’ve believed in him. So simple. Are you saying someone can’t be persuaded Christ died for all of their sins? I’m proof that you can.

@@caiohsd291990 From carefully analyzing James 2, no I don’t think so. I’ll make a video on James but if you want you can read that part of my book as it breaks down the passage in far more depth: drive.google.com/file/d/1R_FR6ZeZ-DHSWMQARO8cfA0GWIVwT4ll/view?usp=drivesdk James is admonishing believers to do good works according to the law of Moses (v.8-12) because it profits others and God looks favorably on you, he gives you a nod of approval if you do that. A dead faith is simply one that isn’t operating in that sense, it isn’t as if a “dead” faith is nonexistent. Or a body without a soul isn’t a real body, or a “dead” phone isn’t a real phone. If faith is the only condition to go to heaven (acts 16:31, John 6:47), then dead faith or faith alone is sufficient. It won’t be enough to avoid God’s chastisement on earth (heb 12), but faith in Christ of any form is enough. IF works are evidence of faith, they aren’t a very good form of evidence…since works aren’t exclusive to those who have faith. For example, honestly many Buddhists, Muslims, Jehovah witnesses, or Amish are actually pretty decent people in the relative moral sense. However, they lack faith in Christ as their savior; they trust their own deeds. We also see many believers in the Bible that do have bad works so that’s not a great form of evidence if they can be a believer and fall under that umbrella. What is the arbitrary standard of works that prove you truly believed?

@@MarathonMadeGalatians5-22 yea I did make one a few days ago. I also have a book if you want more detail on that passage: drive.google.com/file/d/1R_FR6ZeZ-DHSWMQARO8cfA0GWIVwT4ll/view?usp=drivesdk

@@DitmarHoxha I appreciate it bro 🙏 thank you

@@DitmarHoxha just read the passage in your book 🙏 very clear and its what I came to as well

will do, James is easy to explain and one of the best books about Christian living. God bless.

You plucked those passages out of context, in a drive by manner without exegeting them. That is a classic sign of a false teacher. At least take the time to break down the passage with evidence. You also did not address any of the points I made in the video, you simply posted scripture you think proves your theological worldview, while ignoring evidence to the contrary. Firstly, NEVER build your soteriological understanding on parables....those are by definition figurative and cryptic passages that require careful analysis. Never do that (you cited 3 of them lol). Your understanding of parables should align with your understanding of LITERAL passages like Romans 4:5 or John 3:16, not the other way around. Apostasy is a sin, but it won't make you lose your salvation once you have eternal life (2 Tim 2:13). There are many ways to understand these parables. The one about talents is likely about the gospel and rejecting Christ, again a VERY cryptic parable. The one about the servants is also about not believing in him and rejecting Christ. It is like the parable in Luke 12 and Matt 25 with the 12 virgins. If you have believed in Christ, you have done the will of the Father (Matt 21:28-32). John 15:2 doesn't say "cut off", that is a mistranslation in many modern versions. It should be "taketh away" or "lift up". That is what aeiro means in greek. Also, in vitivulture practice, a vinedresser doesn't just cut off a vine that isn't bearing fruit, he helps it bear fruit and lifts it up to promote growth and prevent being trampled upon. We see many instances of true believers sinning abundantly in the bible (Paul in Romans 7:15-25 "I am carnal, sold under sin). The Corinthians in 2 Cor 12:18-21 were unrepentantly fornicating. The Galatians fell into a false gospel. Solomon worshipped Moloch in 1 Kings 11. Moses and the israelites died for their unbelief but they did not go to hell (Heb 3:14-19, Psa 82, Psa 106). I could go on and on. Can you show me one example after the cross of someone losing the Holy Spirit?

Interesting... Especially the 12th point. Not that I disagree with many of your earlier ones. However, the big bang is an event. You are left with the hole to explain how an uncountable number of processes that were organized and beyond the comprehensible understanding of the word complex, resulted in the known universe today that functions as a system comprising of again an uncountable number of systems each having its own intrinsic properties and functional behaviours, most of which we have barely scratched the surface after hundreds of thousands of years of cumulative human exploration and theories while the universe has continued and existed independently of our biases and knowledge. Best part.. We aren't the originators of the aforementioned, merely it's insignificant inhabitants.

Thanks for the detailed comment, I'll try to respond to each point since I think I may have not made myself too clear in the video. I believe I addressed many of your counters in the video, so I think maybe you didn't follow the precise points I was making. I acknowledge the biblical evidentiary lines of reasoning are probably less persuasive to an atheist, probably more so for a theist who doesn't know exactly which religion to go to. Evidence does not have to be convincing for it to constitute evidence, as persuasiveness is largely subjective. I am just putting forth some of the reasons why people believe in God. Also, we don't only have claims of these witnesses, some of them wrote entire books recording their testimony, all of which align remarkably closely. If it was just one guy writing a story about seeing Jesus, I'd be less persuaded. However, if multiple guys at different times and geographical locations wrote the same account of Jesus (pre and post-cross). that is decent evidence to me. That would be strong courtroom evidence. It isn't the reason I came to the faith per se, but it is a decent piece of evidence. 3. Fair points I've acknowledged, but again, most reputable historians will note that at least a man named Jesus died by cruxifixiion in the first century. So I suppose you can believe that the writers of the NT fabricated their story to align with these "prophecies", but I would personally believe otherwise. Again, that isn't really a reason I came to belief in God--it is more persuasive I think to converting people from other religions. 5. Not sure about this one, there is no special pleading, as the very definition of God requires he be unoriginated. You have to recursively go back anyway until you reach an unoriginated thing, even in your view. That is, unless you appeal to some kind of quantum mechanics theory we don't know enough about. 6. Yes, I know this. This is one of the largest reasons I came to the faith was because of every religion (including Christian sects like Catholicism and Mormonism) teaching a deed based salvation. Many won't outright state that (and many will), but that is what they believe if you probe them with questions. 7. Have you read the bible, or rather studied it in depth? It is a compilation of 66 books, an anthology compiled over thousands of years by dozens of different authors. I don't think it is even remotely comparable to the Koran, but again, this is a very weak proof in terms of deductive reasoning. It is just a cool piece of evidence in my eyes that the bible was God-inspired. 8. Not quite, "subjective morality" is defined in a very particular way. It does not just mean subject to anything--you are defining the term based on its constituting words, which can sometimes lead to errors in understanding. "Subjective morality" as it is typically described is firstly localized in understanding to humankind, since we are the only moral beings as far as we can observe. Secondly, subjective morality is generally not fixed, and subject to variation. It operates on the basis of multiple individuals and multiple cultural, political, and societal perspectives. God is fixed, his moral standard does that change--he will never consider committing adultery right like some people do. What is good and bad is fixed on this standard, which is the universal standard for right and wrong. God is "to be" itself so it makes sense why he could be appealed to as a fixed universal standard. So I'd say you are using the term "subject" in the word subjective and fallaciously ignoring the meaning of the phrase "subjective morality" in its philosophical context. It is similar to how people fallaciously use the word "free will", when that doesn't mean free to do whatever you so desire. It has a specific philosophical connotation, despite the word "free". Same applies to "all powerful". Also, your moral grounding is very weak and can easily be taken to absurdity. It is actually circular if you understanding the nature of deontological ethical theory. You are first assuming reducing harm and increasing prosperity are "good" things or things one ought to do. Why? What basis do you have for that beyond just throwing your arms up in the air? You have some justification deep down, perhaps grounded in some other layer of moral intuition. " Increasing prosperity and reducing the harm used" first assumes the definition of the word prosperity and harm, which are in and of themselves morally contingent terms. Harm is doing bad to a group, which "bad" is a moral term describing what one ought not do. The opposite is true for prosperity, that is increasing the state of good or well-being of a group. You are using the words good and bad to describe how you decide what is good and bad. Circular. Also, what is prosperous or harmful for one group may be the opposite for another, and that can easily be taken to absurdity (i.e., Nazi Germany if they took over the world). What is the scope of this moral standard? Can you condemn African Warlords who like raping and pillaging? 9. Fallacious analogy. The only reason things of scarcity are more meaningful or valuable is because they CAN be of meaning or value to a mind. However, if there is no mind to grasp its value (say no creatures existed), then Gold or oil would have no value (you also may be conflating value with meaning, although there may be some overlap). So I agree, the brevity of human life does make it valuable SO LONG as there is human life to recollect their loved ones, or so long as you are alive to grasp the brevity of your life. However, once the universe dies a heat death, your life has no meaning at all. I am referencing grand meaning, not whether we have meaning during our lives on this earth. Of course we do because we comprehend that meaning, but on a grand scale, our lives mean nothing in an atheistic worldview. Also, time is a valuable commodity, but are you saying if humans could live for 10k years, they would be less valuable? I think you are conflating human value with the value of time, which there is overlap now, but I would say that is not necessarily the case --- assuming humans could live forever, their lives would still have meaning. 10. Your definition of evolution is not correct. Evolution is the change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations, Evolution encompasses all genetic changes, not just those that are beneficial. I also never said abiogenesis is related to evolution, excuse me if I did not make that clear. It is kind of in the backdrop of the discussion, but evolution only describes the processes that occur once life exists. The Miller Urey experiment showed how basic organic molecules (e.g., amino acids) could form spontaneously under the conditions thought to exist in earth's early stages This provided evidence that the raw materials for life could arise naturally, but it didn't demonstrate how life itself originated from non-living matter. That is still being researched and a simple google search would make it clear abiogenesis has never been repeated or observed in an experimental setting, ever. Thus, it does not yet constitute science and cannot be invoked as an explanation for life. Once it is tested and repeatable, I'll be on board for that being a plausible explanation for the origination of life. Otherwise, you are seeking to prove too much with that experiment (if that is indeed what you are trying to do). 11.Even when God intervenes it is usually not in a way that would be exclusively attributable to God. For example, he can cause natural disasters, but how would you differentiate that from him actionably causing fire to rain down from heaven or an earthquake occurring? Also, I agree God HAS proven his existence through the resurrection of Christ, since such an event transcends the bounds of death, which we can assume to be exclusive to God. However, I am saying currently, we can't really prove or falsify God's existence on a purely observable basis. I see nothing in the bible to support God telling us to perform miracles like that in our modern day. Miracles were meant to initially propagate the faith, or else it likely would not have spread how it did in the 1st century. 12. It is not illogical to ask. If the big bang BEGAN space time, anything that has a beginning must have a cause (principle of causality), unless you want to invoke an explanation that breaches a basic logical principle. We have never observed such a breach, but you are entitled to that explanation. I personally like to reason from principles we know to be true, as it provides the soundest framework for understanding reality. Otherwise, things get very confusing very quickly, and you are left with "I dunna" as your explanation. Finally, this video was not about HOW persuasive religion is. It was simply to show that religion is grounded in reason (at least it can be). You can disagree whether that reasoning is strong and try to disprove the premises (which I believe you failed to do in this short little RUclips comment section), but nonetheless religion can be evidence-based. I think the atheistic worldview is also grounded in reason, despite it being wrong. I can disprove many atheistic arguments, but their logical and science-based arguments serve as evidence for their position nonetheless. I wouldn't say they are stupid arguments made by <100IQ people, but that they are just faulty lines of reasoning. I think you demonstrated a primitive grasp of logic by poorly defining concepts like "subjective morality", and overly simplifying the nature of my arguments (and what they sought to prove). You even improperly defined evolution and said abiogenesis was experimentally proven, which is false.

@@DitmarHoxha I Dunno how you consider thousands of variations of biographies of a person of which no complete original records even exists today as proof for the trinitarian narrative. At best you can only say some aspects may be true, and others not.. But you have no way to figure out which. And this has been already acknowledged by critics, apologetics, historians etc. And your grounds for a "remarkable similarity" across all variants.. I guess either you are blissfully ignorant or are straight up lying.

@@splittingvoid7923 Not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you could rephrase or be more specific.

@@DitmarHoxha buddy, are you seriously unaware that the gospels are historically theological documents I. E biographies largely by authors with unknown identities. And said works were documented centuries after the lifetime of the person called jesus? Furthermore, no original manuscripts of that time exist. And content was added, subtracted, updated either willfully or in error by scribes.

@@rotten-saved-wretch5048 yea I will hopefully tomorrow. I have to do a quick verification with YT before being able to add links. I can ping you here when I do. Thanks

Here until I do that sorry: www.amazon.com/Power-Unto-Salvation-Ditmar-Hoxha/dp/B0CSBFCDP3/ref=sr_1_1?sr=8-1