Reaction: Kevin Thompson veiws Debunked by Ephesians 1:4
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 авг 2018
- Thompson pretended that Reformed exegetes ignore the phrase “in him” at Ephesians 1:4. We debunked that claim.
All production and credit belongs to Alpha and Omega Ministries®.
If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/
Why not have them do a video / dbate together...?? Vote "Thumbs up" if you agree....
I wanna see them debate. Dr. James White will crush him.
@@theotherguy3083 there's little value in a debate where one party demolishes the other. You don't learn much.
Michael, I doubt very much Kevin Thompson wants to take the time to do a debate on this or any subject with James White. Kevin goes on attack mode in the majority of his videos. It's one thing to disagree with someone theologically, it's another thing to be snarky and sometimes outright arrogant to do so. I know many accuse James White of the same thing (and sometimes he can be), but it is sad how the ones that accuse White overlook Kevin's arrogance. And Thompson's Bible interpretations of Ephesians 1:4, John 6:44, Romans 9, or any verses he thinks are "proof" texts for Calvinism are so bad that it changes the overall meaning of texts. To be honest, I commented on one of his posts out of anger because he says things about reformed believers that are outright lies. Even the video Dr. White is critiquing of him shows an example; Thompson says Calvinists leave out "in him" and there are so many preachers that go verse by verse in Ephesians and never hesitate to explain the meaning of that text.
I don't comment or rarely watch Kevin Thompson or Leighton Flowers videos because their hatred for Calvinism borders on Calvinism derangement syndrome; it's obsessive.
@@2timothy23 I also think the comments sections of Flowers' and Thompson's videos can be very unpleasant places to be. The comments attract people who hate Calvinism. It's why I don't blame Alpha and Omega Ministries for disabling their comments sections. AOMin have multiple enemies because they debate so many different perspectives.
Kevin is a very very good bible scholar as an ex calvinist of 6 years and embracing it full force, I can say that my own friends and family believed I had joined a cult,
the gospel for a calvinist is false because you cannot tell someone that Jesus died for your sin without lying, and that is how I personally believed I was truly in a cult and slowly moved away but still holding on to many of its philosophies and ideology until I came across Kevin and he cleared up all the presuppositions I was holding on to.
today I believe In Jesus not Calvin not even reformed theology, I stay far far away from any reformed NONSENSE . I advise you do the same. calvinism is false to the core of it's very existence and fabrication, it makes me sad and sick how many people are over taken by this gnostic mysticism cancerous falsehood.
be blessed and believe the gospel
thumps up for 2020 debate James White VS Kevin Thompson on Ephesians 1
Call Kevin up!!! Debate the man. Waiting.......😉
Do you know where he went?
Beyond the Fundamentals
Hey Dr. White, Here's a problem that seems to come from what you are saying. You explain that it is only "in Christ" that election takes place. So being in union with Christ is the "category" or "realm" in which election takes place. But, wouldn't you say that the elect were born into this world already being chosen by God? Aren't they born into this world already being "elect?" If so, then this would also necessitate that the elect are born into this world ALREADY "in Christ." How does this work?
Indeed I agree with you. I am not sure what the objection is about?
It's AMAZING how White has the gall to point out Kevin's "arrogance", when *every* time White responds to his critics he gushes with condescension. "I've been teaching this... Longer than this guy has been alive."
You baffle me James. To you, it's not about speaking truth in love for God's glory. You just need to be right, and if someone criticizes Calvinism... All of a sudden _everything_ they are, or say, or do, is mocked with you personal signature of contempt. I know you're a brother... but you are not a humble brotherly person. And thus, you make your own side look very corrupt and disgraceful.
Couldn't agree more. I know a lot of people unfortunately that are like that especially when it comes to this topic.
But is James incorrect about anything he said in response to Thompson in this video? Was Thompson not mistaken when he said "in Christ" is a conditional qualifier?
@@SamOwenI James is incorrect about this passage, and many others. And Kevin Thompson, a guy who I've followed for a long time... though he's not perfect, it's true that the statement Paul made in Ephesians only applies to those in Christ. This is why James comes off as so arrogant, because he talks as if this is the simplest issue in the history of biblical interpretation. No. Thompson's interpretation is a valid one, the question we have to answer is, is it correct? It's the context that makes the difference. And I've never seen James White be very consistent or thorough in how he approaches and/or addresses context.
@SamOwenl, a “conditional qualifier “ is a grammatical term, not a theological term like “limited atonement “ which is a fallacy.
@@melaniewilson-bruneau9079 my point was that it's not a conditional qualifier, as James explained.
You do realize the "us" is believers? Once you believe you become "us". Paul wasn't speaking to the lost. He was speaking to believers. If I have a business. And the business does well. I would say something similar to this. "Everyone, we did so well this month, that corporate has chosen to reward "us". Us does not apply to outsiders, but those inside the business.
Wow, he always goes to speak Greek terribly as redmeat to those without Logos Bible software. It reads the SAME. Kevin wins this one 1-0.
Well thats great cause we don't believe the lost was chosen in Christ before the foundations of the world, its the believers who were chosen. Not sure what your argument here is
Exactly
@@danielomitted1867 You were in Christ before you existed?
@@eiontactics9056 is that what I said? No. Ephesians 1 chosen in Christ before the world was. Doesnt mean your born saved but it does mean it will infallibly come to pass.
Hello Dr White why don't you please answer the call to go on Leighton Flowers show. To my understanding (both Ken Wilson and) Leighton have asked for a response and discussion ref various issues on calvinism... but you have not taken the challenge?? I look forward to the encounter, thank you.
He would never dare to debate James white...
Don't you mean the opposite?
First rule of debating: “when you have no argument, attack the person to deflect attention from your obvious inability to defend your position “, and that’s exactly what James White does...all the time!
Although Dr. White does, at times, resort to ad hominem arguments, he -- in fairness -- did some exegesis in the above clip ... and then he went the as hominem remarks. :-)
He refuted the claims and then Followed up with why such a person will make such claims
No way he can defeat kevin !
Check out what exegetical biblical debate is all about. Dr.White is blessed at it,extraordinarily. Kevin isn't, sarcasm is his forte not solid biblical exegesis. He may consider reenlisting and leaving the pulpit and RUclips? Be blessed!
Keven Thompson does it all the time.
We need a debate!! I’m sick of these critique videos that just go back and forth. I’d like to see this guy try to hold his position live. I think he would struggle hard with James. Anyone can make a critique video sound good.
James white gonna destroys him
@@ManlyServant I agree, I see Kevin riddled with hermeneutical errors in his videos.
It would be a ship wreck. I found and watched the rest of Kevin's video. As predicted he jumped all over the bible and read back into the passage Christ is the one chosen in this verse.
Kevin would make James White look ignorant to Scripture and would prove that James White has led many people to believe in the false gnostic doctrines of Calvinism. Which is why James White is scared to have a 1 on 1 discussion on these topics with the people he "critiques" on his channel.
@@eiontactics9056and you say that about the guy who has done almost 200 public debates. I will watch.
This is the first video of James white that I’ve seen that allows comments. Wow
It’s been here. Leighton Flowers has NEVER announced this to his audience. Very telling.
To not have a place for comment is cowardly.
JW doesn't allow comments on his full videos, only on the short takes. You can post comments on all the short takes.
This RUclips account is not affiliated with the Dividing Line. They say it in their bio.
Kevin Thompson would never dare to debate James white.
Kevin would blow this clown out of the water
@@JohnSmith-ir9wx Then why didn't he accept james white's offer to debate him?
@@billyr9162 because Kevin unlike Mr. Arrogant realizes that no one wins debates. I have watched debates where White gets thoroughly defeated and then the clown walks away thinking he won and takes it to RUclips degrading his opponent. White is a narcissist, he professes himself to be wise but is nothing more than a fool who eisegetes the scriptures.
Anyone who holds to the heresy of Calvinism is unlearned in the scriptures.
@@JohnSmith-ir9wx LOLOL
A calvinist conference coordinator reached out to me this past fall to debate James white at a calvinism conference this coming February. They wan't to close out the conference with a "bang" - easy debate victory. I readily accepted. After I asked a few clarifying questions about the scope, James White backed out.
Ephesians 1:5.....who is predestinated? Verse 1....the saints in Ephesus. Trace back the ‘us’. Who is the ‘us’ chosen in Christ? The saints in Ephesus. Who is the ‘us’ that is blessed with spiritual blessings in Christ? The saints in Ephesus. The saints are blessed in Christ, the saints are chosen in Christ, the saints are predestinated. This is not a predestination TO believe, but a predestination OF THOSE THAT believe.
What are the saints predestinated to? Adoption of children by Jesus Christ to God.
Being blessed, being chosen, being predestinated to adoption as children.....it all hinges on being in Christ.
Verse 12....IN CHRIST we have obtained inheritance, being predestinated to be to the praise of His glory, who FIRST trusted in Christ.
There is nothing here that hints at predestination unto adoption being applied to those who are not in Christ, who do not believe.
No one is in Christ until they receive Christ, believing in Him; only after first trusting in Jesus does God apply the predestination to adoption, which He determined from the foundation of the world to give to those who trust Jesus, choosing those IN CHRIST to be holy, His children, according to the good pleasure of His will.
Your comment: "No one is in Christ until they receive Christ, believing in Him; only after first trusting in Jesus does God apply the predestination to adoption,"
Where does it say that in Ephesians 1?
4 For he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in love before him.
He predestined us to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ for himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace that he lavished on us in the Beloved One.
Q. When did this happen?
A. For he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in love before him.
Q. Does it say only after first trusting in Jesus does God apply the predestination to adoption?
A. No. He predestined us to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ for himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.🙂
first of all, do some research
this letter was not specifically to Ephesus, it was meant to be circulated
plus, Paul is a part of "us"
do they have a different path to salvation than everyone? does anything in that book apply to us?
So if the chose is of those IN HIM… how do you get IN HIM?
Hint v13
The amount of Provisionists in the feed is very telling. Let us remember Thompson was a Calvinist for a total of five months. 🤣
What's that supposed to mean? How long does a man have to be wrong before you give his arguments credance?😂
@@carstontoedter1333
Oh, I think Kevin has been wrong for a long time.
@@pateunuchity884 still not an answer, what does him only bring a calvinist for 5 months have to do with his arguments?
And I was one for 8 years. What of it
@@pateunuchity884 Can you explain how he is wrong? Or do you just claim that he is wrong without giving any evidence to your claim? Being a Calvinist is not a marker for truth.
What's amazing is James White accusing anther peros on being arrogant LOL
James White I disagree sir you did not make your point.
With all due respect. IN HIM,, was not addressed,. That is the consistent theme of IN HIM, which appears embarrassingly throughout Ephesians. You simply say its a different IN HIM, than Eph 2, declaring a time issue, this is strange.... Well for you then,,before the foundation we were in him then out of him then in him again, WHAT??, Why not deal with his exegesis. He goes on to show how ADOPTION in Romans 8.23 is defined by Paul to mean the reception of a new body at the end, and is also misused by Calvinists, BIBLICALLY.. So that the verse actually says precisely what it means, those in Jesus now are pre-appointed for a new body and to be blameless and Holy, both future verbs.. It simply cannot be reefing to a preexistence before we are created. WHY ? , be honest and answer me this.. Does this verse say,, that he has chosen us ( who ?? those IN HIM) before the foundation of the world,, TO BE PRE-SELECTED,OR TO BE HOLY BEFORE HIM, and adopt a new body.. It simply does not say that God has chosen me "TO BE" in him,( can you possibly see how you have inserted these two words and nullified the IN HIM, with them) but those in him now are chosen before the foundation to these particular blessings.. Again very disappointing explanation.. Kevin is hard lined, but he does get to the verse. Only Jesus is chosen before time, he alone is eternal by nature. Us being chosen eternally, would nullify Gods ability to choose anything else, He himself would be bound by the force of determinism, and this would place him in a casual relationship with these chosen ones,. The pagans are just so addicted to being preexistently chosen ,. It seems to be more addictive than drugs, but has zero to do with God..
Scripture interprets scripture. "But we are bound to give thanks to God for you, brethren, believed of the Lord , because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." (2 Thess. 2:13). Paul is speaking here to Christians. He addresses them as "brethren, beloved of the Lord".; then , he clearly states that Gopd has chosen them ("brethren, beloved of the Lord ") to salvation" (not to service or holiness) through sanctification of the Spirit (work of the Spirit) and belief of the truth" (believing the Gospel). Try explaining this explicit verse away as you have tried to do Ephesians 1: 4-5).
2 Thess. 2:13 is a beautiful passage about how God predestined before creation that the Gentiles would be saved through sanctification. It is NOT about God foreordaining certain individuals to be saved.
The “you” is a corporate form addressing the Gentiles.
@@kevinjypiter6445 yes amazing how they would even want to change scriptures of true hope given to believes right now , of God predestining hope for the church, into a strange eternal past covenant to a group of “super people” created to be saved . It’s actually one of the strangest beliefs around when you dissect it a bit
So, it's okay for you to be arrogant and it's okay to insert your traditions into the text, but not him? Anti-intellectualism? You make the gospel way too complicated. If you can name call him a synergist, he is free to call you a gnostic as well. Absurdly ridiculous? That's surely what I see from Calvinists of your "ilk". Even if I wanted to agree with you, your elitist "elect" arrogance is just too loud for me to hear what you say. Funny how you don't mention other parts of "plain testimony of scripture" that DON'T support Calvinism.
Kevin is no less arrogant than James. Not excusing arrogance, but don't be hypocritical just because you disagree with his soteriology.
What makes Calvinism "wicked heresy"?
@@risingdawn5788 the limited atonement crap
@@MrMarkovka11
"Limited atonoement" is the theological view that God limited the atonement to the elect, to those who would believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, chosen before time began.
Another theological view is universalism... If the atonoment applies to every human being then everyone that has ever lived and ever will live will be saved, which the Bible does not teach.
The other option is that man limits the atonement by his inherent ability to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Is this the position you hold to?
@@risingdawn5788 how about the biblical view that atonement is not what saves but it is the resurrection that justifies us unto life as it says in Romans 5? Calvinists constantly presuppose that atonement is what saves because they follow their system fist and then interpret the Bible through the lens of calvinism. The Bible is quite clear that Jesus died for everyone, so no one's atonement is limited, but not everyone will be glorified in the end. Salvation is genuinely available to all but not all will accept and receive it.
Dr White,
When did Abraham get ‘in Him’?
Have you read Romans 4 or Hebrews 11?
@@SamOwenI Was it after He considered his faith as righteous? When exactly was that?
@@jthomas196 have you read those chapters?
abraham was not born again of the spirit
@SamOwenI Calvinist won’t answer the question of when God found he was deemed righteous; because it doesn’t jive with their man made-up philosophy. So, instead they shift the discussion to some other matter to avoid the need to answer the simple question. I hope their (predictable) response doesn’t fool the non-Calvinist. I mean it’s pretty obvious, right??
It seems that one group says the choosing was for salvation, while the other says believers were chosen to be holy. Correct?
Yeah, calvinists say unbelievers were chosen to believe before creation. The non calvinist says believers are chosen in Him to be holy and blameless and predestined to the adoption, which is a future event.
James White sayin someone has an attitude.. Classic
We have to look beyond each other’s human nature. Attitude is mostly a worldly concept.
@Honey Lazaros I don't know which videos you've been watching but that is not so. I would say they are both equal. Kevin annoys me sometimes with his attitude/arrogance as much as White does.
Your priorities are digging for the truth or to find something to whine about? 🧐
Angry Provisionist getting a dig on James White...typical.
I keep wandering when someone will tell me what philosophy Inwas using when I studied the scriptures or what philosophy any Calvinist uses. But sure enough you will begin hearing words about 'logic" coming from those accusing us of philosophizing while not understanding logic is a major category of philosophy.
In James White world, life is a debate. He along with many who follow him along with yours truly will be coming up for judgement in the very near future. Among many things, how we handled His word in this life will be visited, we can be assured of that. It will not be a debate. He will do All the judging. I wouldn't want to be this unrepentant self promoting scholar. Take my chances being this unlearned servant who claim to fame was one of the Chief sinners whom He found lost in sin, dead in trespasses and sin.
a·pol·o·get·ics
Let’s pray for James white so he can open his eyes
The deflection and projection is so real watching this. James, good luck.
White always redirects attention away from the actual argument long enough to insert little (and sometimes severe) ad hominems and bragging...and sometimes he redirects and just never gets back to it.
He does it all the time...once you notice it, it’s just impossible to ignore. It’s his only defensive measure and he does it all the time.
he’s just not a stand-up guy. It sucks because sometimes he’s alright.
Another comment void of substance.
Tjel 81 no, it’s the same observation. It doesn’t have anything to do with predestination, it’s just this thing we always encounter with White. It’s not controversial. It’s something thousands of people notice in these responses. At the time of this video, I was just starting to notice it. That’s why it was worth mentioning.
It’s also worth mentioning, because his response isn’t helpful, at all. It’s only helpful if you’re already sold on Calvinism.
Yes, before I was familiar with White’s tendency it was more Frustrating to have to listen to it. Now I just look past it. It’s just his shtick.
@@loganross1861
White's 'apparent' attitude is nothing but a distraction from what he is actually saying. Becoming distracted is our own choice and hindrance, as is missing the forest for the trees. Resorting to petty attacks on someone's demeanor or facial expressions is to miss the entire point of their argument and to create a new argument that has nothing to do with the video.
@@matt_h_27 no, there's substance, you just don't want to hear it.
Mark
Substance = biblical support
If james white would just humble himself and get rid of pride he might learn something.
Mr White do you believe that Bible text cannot be understood by reding a English translation?
John 17:24 - Jesus was loved before the foundation of the world
1 Peter 1:20 - Jesus was ordained before the foundation of the world
Revelation 13:8 - Jesus was slain FROM the foundation of the world
Hebrews 4:3 - Jesus’s works were finished FROM the foundation of the world
Revelation 17:8 - the book of life was FROM the foundation of the world
Matthew 25:34 - kingdom was prepared FROM the foundation of the world
If James White is correct, then Gods ‘elect for salvation’ were chosen before Jesus was slain, before His works were finished, before the book of life existed, and before a kingdom was being prepared.
It seems to me that James White wants exalt these ‘elect for salvation’ above Jesus; so it was not Jesus who was loved and ordained BEFORE the foundation of the world, but these ‘elect for salvation’ that were loved and ordained BEFORE the foundation of the world.
It seems to me that James White has a very man-centred theology.
Jay Gee ... Agreed. Calvinism/Reformed Theology is nothing more than a "Make It All Up, As You Go Along CULT." It's right in there with Mormonism, Jehovah Witness's, etc...etc... as it's all about "I'm better than you." However, Whosoever still means... W-H-O-S-O-E-V-E-R... in my reality. The mileage of Religious Supremacist obviously varies...
Thank you James White for once again defending the clear and faithful witness of God’s Word. To everyone else, James has been a faithful evangelist and his ministry has confronted attack’s to our faith on every side and now you presume to tear him down? How many countless people have been steered back to Christ away from cults and false teaching because James has held to the witness of Scripture and the purity of the gospel. James is blunt because these issues speak to the most valuable and precious gift (apart from Christ) which are the words penned in Scripture and after meeting James in person and seeing his gracious and kind heart please stop slandering someone you have never spoken to. I pray that the church can listen to each other and grow in this discussion about Calvinism but in the end God has every right to choose and is free to choose because He is the Creator and we are the creature. We even make distinctions in who we love, God can make whatever distinction He wishes because His Word says that He has chosen US. Salvation is by grace alone, and that is why whosoever believes will be saved and can give all glory to God and not to themselves. Rejoice brothers and preach the good news and build each other up, because Christ has come for us and nothing can shake that!
Zachary Seigman
John 1:29 .....behold the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
John 3:16 for God so loved the world....
John 6:51 I am the living bread......which I will give for the life of the world.
John 12:32 ......will draw all (men) unto me.
Romans 5:8.....while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:10 (read this one especially, it tells you how (already being reconciled through his death) we are saved.)
2 Corinthians 5:14-15. For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And (that) he died for all, they that which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
*read that passage again, slowly. It is the love of Christ that compels us to judge that Christ died for all. If you do not believe that Christ died for all, you are not being led by His love. *
Galatians 4:4-5 ....redeem them that were under the law....
*who was under the law? We all were. *
Colossians 1:20 .......reconcile all things unto Himself....
* again, read this whole passage slowly. God was pleased to reconcile all things to himself through Christ; all things in heaven and on earth*
1 Timothy 1:15.....that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners....
1 Timothy 2:6.....ransom for all...
1 Timothy 4:10.....Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Hebrews 2:9.....taste death for every man.
2 Peter 2:1.....even denying the Lord that bought them....
2 Peter 3:9.....not willing that any should perish....
1 John 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:14.....Saviour of the world
There can be no dispute...Christ died for all, reconciled all. But that does not mean all are saved. Only those who believe will be glorified.
God has chosen to save all those who will believe, and has chosen Christ as redeemer, to reconcile ALL to Himself, so that we are able to be saved. No one denies that God chooses who will be saved, He has chosen to save those who believe.
James White understands Calvinism, but he does not understand God’s word.
Jay Gee I wholeheartedly affirm all of those Scriptures brother. I love your zeal and I believe in God’s love for the world! However, like you said He will not save everyone. You failed to include these Scriptures like Ephesians 5:25, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,” Christ died for the church not for everyone. He loves all, he is the Savior of all, but as you emphasized in Romana 5:10, it says “we” were reconciled to God, not every single person. If you take it to mean this then absolutely everyone is saved, there is no wrath or punishment because everyone has been atoned for. Christ is the Savior of the world because the world (not every single person, but people from over the entire world) will be saved through what Christ did, and one day the world will be made a new earth because of the Gospel see Rev 22. The scary part of your doctrine is that instead of the atonement of Jesus and God’s great love being the center of salvation which is applied by faith, you make faith (our human response) to be the ultimate cause of our salvation. You make Jesus not to be a true savior but instead the human will the final cause of salvation. We both know that when the suffering of life comes we don’t look to ourselves but to Jesus, and this could not be more important then in this discussion. Salvation is of the Lord! And His death truly saved us, fully and completely. Do you have that assurance?
Sheep Dog you cite verses yet you do not understand context.
You two were truly made for each other.
Jesus: love your God with all your heart.
Calvinism: are you talking to me while am predestined to.
John: We love him because he first loved us.
Why do christians feel compelled to sneer at concepts like predestination when its a biblical term. It really highlights that your problem isnt with the dreaded calvinist but scripture.
im worried that many of you worship a god you have created in your mind, a weak dead god who can't save anyone without the help of humans...
And to think back in 2013 I was taken in by calvinist "handlers " to the degree I bought all of these books which now take up room in my study. George Smeaton, Wilhelmus Brakel, Robert Culver, etc. Systematics not a few. Books by the current reform hardliners.
All I did was sip the kool-aid!
May men who dranked the "dregs" of reformed theology be used mightily by our Lord Jesus Christ to liberate many hearts and minds from this dogma as we see the Day approaching.
@@dannymcmullan9375
Thank you kindly for your comments.
ruclips.net/video/EeSx7QlWAzQ/видео.html
God used Calvin and the other reformers greatly, otherwise most of us would be papists rn
@tomtemple69
Not the true Church which has existed from Acts 2. The reformers didn't begin the Church. These same men persecuted the true Church to the death.
@@dennisdabney4039 ah yes, YOU know the true church 🙄
For as smart Dr. White is, I can't imagine why he would be dumb enough to fall for Calvinism.
There's a threshold point that an intelligent man reaches where he is smart enough to become his own echo chamber. If you're too smart it's easier to hold on to your beliefs because you're good at coming up with arguments to keep yourself in that belief system.
He also believes in the Trinity doctrine.
@@noahfletcher3019 which of course Sola Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity are at odds. You cannot get to that word or modern definition of that word without adding words and definitions that aren’t in scripture. Either scripture is sufficient, or it isn’t.
@@andyayala5639 lol how are they at odds. The bible describes a trinity. The word doesn't need to be in the bible. I don't care if the word is in the bible or not.
@@noahfletcher3019 the word, and the definition is not in the Bible. Scripture alone means to define God as scripture does. For example, if we had a competition of who could define Jesus using scripture alone, you couldn’t get to Trinity. Sola scriptura can’t get you to that word or definition.
Kevin Thompson is blind leading the blind. This is the beginning of a new cult. His heresy is spelled out clearly. The Gospel is a historical event that happened 2,000 years ago according to the Scriptures, which Kevin acknowledges but denies the power thereof. The Everlasting Gospel is not an encounter or experience. Yet Kevin preaches a false gospel which he labels self-authentication and a false Jesus he labels The Sacred Infinite Numinous Divine by looking in the present for a future higher experience through recognizing "a fractal pattern of Jesus", rather than the historical Jesus revealed in the Gospel that has been accomplished.
Christian epistemology is not navel-gazing to find goodness within that cannot sin. Christian epistemology is propositional revelation alone. Or put another way "The Bible tells me so" also known as Sola Scriptura. Kevin denies Scripture Sola Scriptura and believes those who hold it are imprisoned with insufficient Biblical systematic theology. He condemns Biblical systematic theology as he diagrams his own unbiblical systematic theology. He teaches Biblical propositions are at best the lowest form of knowing, but occasionally we get lucky just like a clock is right twice a day.
Kevin teaches that only with the higher forms of knowing derived from experience, behaviorism, and perception can we rightly divide the Word of God to realize the authentic self that is without sin (a different Gospel) and reach The Sacred Numinous Infinite (a different Jesus) in the present and in the future. The finished work of the death, burial, and resurrection revealed in Scripture is denied.
The Gospel is not finding an authentic self without sin. Jesus reveals himself through Scripture alone, not through Scripture plus The Sacred Infinite Numinous Divine.
The Gospel is the good news of a particular sort. The Gospel concerns the past, not the present or the future. The Gospel concerns what Christ did for his people: Christ died, buried, and resurrected for our sins according to the Scriptures, not for the sins of everyone in the world, but for the sins of his people only. He came to save his people, and he did so.
The Gospel is an objective and historical message. It does not concern our experiences at all. It does not concern the present or future. It does not concern our works, but God’s works. It does not concern searching for a sinless self-authentication or Jesus' fractal patterns in The Sacred Infinite Numinous Divine.
Do not be fooled by this man and his cleverly designed fables
Dear Calvinists, if you don't understand the position, think of it as "those of us in Him" to get it.
we get that. I can read Ephesians ad "those of us in Him" and I still come out Reformed everytime. No matter how u slice it the passage says the same thing. God chose His people im Christ before the foundation of the world. He didn't do so based off of foreseen faith but off of the purpose of His own will. Then u gotta take into consideration passages like Romans 8 and 9, John 6 and 10, Acts 13:48, and many many others.
and who puts us in Him? God does
no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him....
White is so hilarious when he calls Kevin an arminian😂😂😂
Sometimes wonder if he knows King James was a Calvinists? He teaches KJVO
He's not a KJVO. That just shows how dishonest you and James are. He only prefer the KJV Bible over the other translations. I challenge you to find one video of him saying he's a KJVO.
King James was not a calvinist, in fact he despised calvinism
@@MarkusGhambari
With no contention intended..
I don't know how much of Kevin you've actually seen because he actually labels those who don't use the King James as "KJV haters" (I personally favor the Textus Receptus... but not ignorantly and arrogantly so.)
To make such a statement ...as you just made- is clumsy at the least.
I've given Kevin more than "his fair share" to prove his point and he only exegetes a single perspective to the exclusion of all others (contextual stratification) within the inspiration of the text... When you put all of your desire into one person's perspective like you apparently have... you're not even questioning him, and that's how you conceal partially correct hermeneutic execution...and partially correct is - what?... incorrect. So Kevin is either ignorantly omitting the other demonstrable addresses in scripture...or intentionally excluding them. I tend to not think he's ignorant. And the very thing that he accuses of reformed understanding is what he is contorting within his own perspective. The irony of "him" is.. it's not funny or laughable as some reform people would say... but it is frightening because he's sharper than that, so it must be being held from him "metaphysically". It is his aptitude in his field of study and vocation that gives him popularity amongst those who want to champion a partially ignorant view because they don't care about any other thing than what they want, and you hopefully will become a little better than this. He even laces his diatribes and monologues with a manipulation of his constituency by feigning a placement of false accusations of intellectual superiority... when that's not what people who seriously study the scriptures do -by and large- who are conservative and not the other end of liberal idiocy.
You need to watch Kevin in the next year or longer to come and see if his perception of God does not start to wane to where he'll even say... he doesn't know "what or who" God is.
When this happens, hopefully, it will signal in your mind for you to have the fear that you might become like him, and that's what I was talking about being frightening in his perspective.
The true reformed perspective is not one of pride like Kevin exudes... but one of - fear and trembling. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom... And Kevin "hoots and hollers" like he's in professional wrestling or some other such nonsense... because this is the mainstay of his constituency. And this is why White finds all of this within Kevin's followers to be incredulous.
In all honesty, Reformed brethren do not take Kevin seriously - but think that his sloppy, myopic perspective is a reflection of God's omission to Kevin's own ignorance that he projects onto others. And then he tries to make a science out of his ignorance! Again this would be laughable if it weren't so frightening... And Kevin will not listen to any reasonable contrasting of his perspective but instead he doubles down on it ...because his constituency is pushing him further with delusion of applause.
As I said when you understand reformed thought, there's no time for ridicule because it tightens faith, fear, belief and awe.. to what they should be which is exactly what the prophet Isaiah records "I am undone".
Those who are not undone by the Presence of God.. have not been in His presence. It's a litmus test for the nature and orientation of true faith.
May you find yourself there as well.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Markus GH By the way, became a Calvinist at a KJVO IFB Bible College and retained KJV Onlyism several years until maybe 2009-10.
So yes, it is not just about perception it is about actual knowledge and experience of the position.
ruclips.net/video/MbHIC4CQypE/видео.html
James never debunks anything. He claims the other side doesnt understand reformed theology.. then he pre supposes his stance onto the text..
Notice how the title says, “debunked by Ephesians 1:4”. The Bible debunks.
The text says what it says when it's convenient to a calvanist
This is a pretty misleading video title. Can someone tell me at what point Kevin is debunked?
James White is steeped in his intellectualism and as arrogant as they come. He looks down on those who aren't in his class. He makes it a point to put those who disagree with this man-centered dogma into groups so he can then conveniently label them. James White will lump his opponent into a bag, if I may borrow from that great theologian, "Hillary", of deplorables. He places non calvinist with those in which they usually aren't in soteriological alignment with to insult them.
As to debating White, he runs roughshod over Nice, and the fearful. When he's on the ropes, that is when he's pinned on a point in this false belief system, nice men will let him off the hook. Take for instance Bob Wilkins, whom I disagree with, mopped the conference room floor with Dr Oakley.
Finally, Calvinism has been the one subject where more ink has been spilled and time wasted on false doctrine. Why, because of their philosophical wrangling of the Holy Scriptures and also because they joined the Baptist. That's right, they joined the very ones whom their worthys beat. Which proves, "You can beat them and then join them".
This is false doctrine which garnered respect because of letters behind men names.
nonsense!!!
@@ProphetPX Calvinism is the nonsense the apostle Paul warned the blood bought church of our Lord Jesus Christ of Acts and so did others through out the Holy Scriptures. Nonsense is the repackaging of gnosticism into the belly of the Church.
The Judgement is Coming for all who pervert the sacred writings.
Where is the source for this? What’s the original?
You can just look up the guys name and Ephisains 1:4, James did a pretty good job explaining his main objection because in the orginal he basic makes it clear that the only reading it can't be is the Calvinist reading.
The only problem with JW's "exegesis" of Eph 1 is his failure to recognize who Paul is referring to as 'we' and 'us' in his opening introduction of himself as one of the apostles. He is not including his audience at that point. Eg., in v1:9 - it was the apostles to whom God made known the secret of His will; v 1:12 it was the apostles who were those who first believed in Christ - not the Ephesian church and certainly not 'us' today. JW needs to go back and consider the chronology Paul is using here. It is not until 1:13 that Paul includes his audience: "In whom YE ALSO having heard the word of truth (FROM PAUL) - rhe good news of the gospel of YOUR salvation"...
Some men write books too hastily...IMHO
It is heart breaking to see so many trolls coming on here to attack James White and attack Biblical doctrine. It truly breaks my heart for them. I pray the Lord will give them eyes to see. Some call Calvinism "heresy" without realizing how many gr8 men of God they are condemning. It's sad.
Yes , well said
It breaks my heart Calvinists distort the word of God and misrepresent the character of God. I pray for their sincere repentance and conversion.
You people and your idols.
@@felixguerrero6062 amen
So John Edwards, George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon, and John Bunyan weren't true believers?
People forget it says before the foundation of the world. Before Adam and Eve before the fall before the law before sin. So the issue comes to what does God know what is his purpose and did he then choose to create creatures he knew will not believe but still created them ? Mystery beyond mystery but the Greek matters.
James: "I can be presumptuously wrong in multiple languages. And not to brag, but I've been wrong about this for longer than anyone I've argued against has been ALIVE."
I like the way Ive been teaching this before you were born attitude of JWMANICHEAN is leveled. As to say, I'm right and you're wrong because I have been teaching longer. The arrogance that I have run cross Calvinist alone, caused me to run from it. You don't have to study for years in order to be right. The disciples were ordinary men.
the disciples weren't just ordinary men, they were taught theology by God Himself
if Paul was here today and taught the way he meant his words to be read, you'd call him a calvinist lol
@@tomtemple69 The word of God stated that they were ordinary. "When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus." As for Paul being a Calvinist is laughable. Its exactly what calvinist are trained to say. The word election does not mean to salvation, it is to service. Calvin was throughly influenced by the 4th gnostic/christian, manichaenism of Augustine. It is well documented history.
Kevin Thompson is a provisionists like Leighton Flowers
Funny to me that you don't make it to verse 13 in your ephesians 1 video.
The disdain for Kevin and what he says doesn’t make his claims false…this defensive video doesn’t dive into the exegesis like I’d expect a defense to. Appears to me that Mr Whites feelings are hurt..not a good look
When you spell views "veiws"
This guy had a personal dispute in a church he was in a long time ago. He was in a church that split up due to what he thought was a calvinisr pastor. . His channel is nothing more than a vendetta against that pastor. One of the church members message me when I was leaving leaving comments on his channel and told me this. Thompson doesn't deny it. He will just ban you if you try to talk about it.
Now hes actually making money from the channel so he keeps doing it.
What a cope
@@noahfletcher3019 Thompson is a liar
@@billyr9162 lol ok
I appreciated this critique of Kevin Thompson's video; when I first watched it I couldn't believe the arrogance and insulting way Thompson tried to make his point about Ephesians 1:4. He and Leighton Flowers are two guys that make a prepositional phrase ("in him") a whole separate theology out of the context of the verse. Their basic theological interpretation is the sinful person chooses to be "in him" (Christ), then God chooses whoever will choose to be "in him." When you don't like a Biblical doctrine in certain verses, you either have to ignore those verses or redefine those verses to fit the view you like. In trying to make Calvinism the villain, they actually don't realize they glorify man and belittle the attributes of God.
And what if Ephesians 1:3-12 is the Apostles and/or Israel? Verse 12 is the summary verse of this section. "In Him" is still the key phrase, though.. Our whole salvation hinges on Christ, and our belief "in Him".
@@Mark-oo3om I've heard this argumentation before. Because 1:4 says "he hath chosen us in him," many people that don't like the fact that God chooses us in Christ want to make the pronouns nothing more than the Apostles or primarily the saints in Ephesus (verse 1). And while the letter is addressed to the saints, the pronouns still pertain to all saints. If we don't think any epistles pertain to believers today when it addresses saints or beloved or the elect, then there would be no application for us in any of the epistles.
If we want to say 1:4 is separate and doesn't pertain to believers now, then what about 1:7? The whole of 1:3-12 is one whole sentence in the Greek. So how can we say the choosing by the Father in 1:4 is only the Apostles, but the 1:7 isn't. And the verse clearly tells us how we get "in him," it is because the Father chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. It makes no sense grammatically or logically to think God chose us once we chose to be in Him ourselves; nowhere does the verse say that. I've seen many try to insert our choosing into the "in him" to eliminate the fact that God is sovereign and chooses. It just won't work and it doesn't fit.
@mineben256 I appreciate you giving me the four reasons based on scripture, however I respectfully disagree. I will explain the reason why by addressing all four points. First I must tell you that all four points are based on a presupposition that is not true. The presupposition is that the predestination you mention is Calvinistic; in reality it is Biblical. Calvin didn’t write the Bible. In addition, the thought behind all four points is the fact that many think being “in Christ” is based on a decision, in essence making God’s election a work of our will and not His choice. Keeping that in mind, let’s go over the four points you presented.
Point 1: You say that predestination is not someone believing or getting regenerated. That is incorrect; it is completely part of it. In Ephesians 1:5 is just a continuation of 1:4 (in fact, all of 1:3-14 is one whole sentence in the original Greek that must have a cohesive, continual flow). 1:4 says “he hath chosen us in him,” the subject “he” is God, “hath chosen” is the verb phrase, “us” is the direct object, and “in him” is the prepositional phrase of what the direct object is chosen to. The “us” are believers, the “him” is Christ, and “he,” God the Father, chose us in him, and He did so before the foundation of the world (before creation in Genesis 1:1). 1:5 continues this thought because “the adoption of children” is “by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” Notice the adoption is “by Jesus Christ to himself,” making it a work of Christ. Yet we can’t be “in him,” which is in Christ unless we are chosen by God the Father. It goes together. And the Greek word predestined is proorizo, which means to predetermine, determine before, or ordain. In Ephesians 1:3-14, we see the word “according” five times, and it is always what God did. Verse 4, according as he hath chosen us…, verse 5, according to the good pleasure of his will (not ours), verse 7, according to the riches of his grace (we have redemption through his blood and forgiveness of sins), verse 9, according to his good pleasure…, and verse 11, according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will (this pertains again to being predestinated). The whole of this section is an act of God solely.
Point 2: The blessings are to the praise of His glory, but not based on our trusting. There is nowhere in these verses that say the blessings are conditioned on our trusting. Verse 12 and 13 plainly state that we trusted, but it is a statement of fact, not a statement of condition. You have to read that into these verses and make trusting conditional and ignore every aspect of 1:3-12 which talks about it all being of God. Notice 1:4 talks about God the Father choosing, 1:7 talks about God the Son redeeming and forgiving us, and 1:13, God the Holy Spirit sealing us. In eternity past, did all three members of the Godhead, when there was nothing but the Godhead, have none of this planned together before we were ever born or do these verses declaratively say that God the Father began this choosing before the foundation of the world? Go back to verse 3, it is the Father who blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, but verse 4 tells us how we get in Christ; by the Father choosing us in Him.
Point 3: Verse 12 does say we were sealed after (or when, in some translations) we believed. But you may be making the assumption that being sealed means being indwelt with the Spirit, which in turn means you’re regenerated. Being regenerated is being born again. John 1:13 says we’re not born by the will of man or the will of the flesh, but by God. If our believing in our own will results in being born again by God, it is our will that initiates it. This means John 1:13 is a lie. In addition, John 3:3, Jesus said, “…except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Well, look at the Old Testament saints in Hebrews 11 who had faith. They will see the Kingdom of God, correct? So by default they would have to be born again, but they were never indwelt with the Holy Spirit. We mix up this sealing, which is our guarantee of a promise of our glorified inheritance (1:14), with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration is a spiritual rebirth that no one knows or can pinpoint when it will happen according to John 3:8.
Point 4: Trying to use 1 Peter 2:6, where Christ is shown as the elect to make Him the elect in every other verse by saying we “get into Him of our own free will choice” is a stretch and does damage to the context of any verse that speaks about the elect. Going back to my original statement about the presupposition, you are assuming that we get “into Christ” of our own free will, then anything that speaks about the elect is Christ and can only apply to us as believers unless we’re in Him. Again Ephesians 1:4 is plainly telling us it is God the Father that chooses us in Him. This is the reason Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2), God is the one who gives repentance (2 Timothy 2:25), God literally chooses from the womb so “the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth” as you can see with Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:11. Also, in Philippians 1:29, “it is given in behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.” Notice it is given to us to believe. And we can’t come to Christ in faith at all unless the Father draws us (John 6:37-44).
In conclusion, if being in Christ is conditioned on our choice from our sinful will, it makes Romans 8:5-8 a lie as well since those verses tell us that our carnal minds are hostile against God and nothing we do in the flesh can please God. A choice in our sinful will would be in the flesh. Also, Christ says the unsaved world hates Him, God the Father, and Christians in John 15:18-23. We won’t choose what we hate in a sin nature that is hostile against God. Add to that there is none righteous, none that understand, none that seeks after God, none that does good, none that doesn’t have wicked mouths, none that fear God, as well as having murderous intent, desperately wicked, deceitful hearts, and spiritual deadness that makes us children of wrath and of disobedience that follows the world after Satan (Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 17:9, Ephesians 2:1-3), it is no wonder the natural man can’t receive or discern spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14) because we are God-haters. Ephesians 1:3-14 are glorious verses that show how the entire Godhead saves us from eternity past by His grace and mercy because without Him doing it all, we would never choose Him. And that is why I respectfully disagree with your four reasons and the presuppositions behind it.
@mineben256 I don't want to go back and forth with you in multiple posts because it is obvious we disagree. I will give you one last reply and if you want to reply back to get the final say, you can do so. But your four rebuttals still have obvious problems, and again, it is based on a presupposition about how we get "in him" that is not in the text of Ephesians 1:3-14. You have to literally insert the "free" will of the sinful person into the text to make it fit. So again, I will address your rebuttal.
1) Your not accepting the prepositional phrase "in him" doesn't negate that it is what the direct object is chosen to. Your same thought about "in him" or "in Christ" in terms of us choosing to be in Him would have to apply grammatically every time you read we are "in Adam." (Think 1 Corinthians 15:22, which says, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.") Did we get "in Adam" by our choice or by natural birth? Did we control that natural birth? Not at all, just like we don't control our spiritual birth (John 1:13). And if we're not chosen "in Him," then exactly what are believers chosen to in Ephesians 1:4? You would have to insert something into the text to make it say something else, therefore your explanation holds no water to me contextually or grammatically.
2.You're right that "who first trusted in Christ' describes the object of the blessings, but nowhere in that verse does it declarative state or infer that the trust has anything to do with the condition or starting point of our faith. Again, that begins back at 1:4, which you reject. You reject that, then you naturally have to reject the rest of the flow of 1:3-14, which is one whole sentence in the Greek.
3. No one would doubt that the receiving of the Holy Spirit is shown in Acts 10:44-47. It is the filling of the Holy Spirit. Again, that is not akin to regeneration. Regeneration means to be born spiritually, hence born again. John 3:8 are those born of the Spirit because it says so. If they are not regenerated by the new birth, then when does regeneration take place? Just like Jesus called Lazarus from the grave, Lazarus couldn't be brought to life by his own power to obey Jesus, Jesus had to make Him alive. That is what God does to spiritually dead people (Ephesians 2:4-5). It is all a simultaneous work of God. He calls, brings the sinner alive, and then the sinner responds because he has new life. This is the reason Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2) because it begins and ends with Him. He gives repentance (2 Timothy 2:25) and we're saved by grace through faith, not any bit of it is of works by us lest we should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). And though many Christians don't think they're boasting (and I don't think they are purposefully), how many times when asked how they became Christians they tell them the day they believed or the day they made their decision. Does anyone ever say that God reached down in His glory to save a wretch like me when I was spiritually dead and going to hell? No, because we emphasize what we did (our decision) above what God did (Ephesians 1:3-14).
4.Faith is a gift of God (I already provided the verses in my first post). Second, Paul uses the election of Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:11 to make the point about Romans 9:6, which is not everyone of Israel (physically born) is truly of Israel (spiritually born). He takes the rest of Romans 9 to show that it is God's elective purposes that answers this question, and He uses Old Testament scriptures about God's choosing and mercy in every area to show that He is in control of salvation. And this is true by the context and grammar, as well as the fact that the two most common objections to these doctrines are covered in this chapter. God anticipates it. The first objection: if God chose, it would make Him wicked and unfair. Asked and answered in Romans 9:14-18. Then the next objection is: if God controls salvation, then why would He judge (or find fault) with sinners that couldn't resist His sovereign will? Asked and answered in Romans 9:19-24. And based on the flow of Romans 9, you can't separate it from salvation because it doesn't flow with Paul's original thought in 9:6. Last, John 6:44 says, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up on the last day." So, yes, there is a "can come," but it is "No man" that "can come," which means no one can. It's simple grammar. And who do they come? Again, prepositional phrase, "to me, " which means to Christ. And this doesn't happen until the Father draws them, and then there is a promise that He will raise them up on the last day. This follows the whole thought of John 6:37-44.
As for John 12:32, it is a different context. That speaks of all type of men without distinction, not without exception. It talks about what death Christ would die on the cross (John 12:33). This is a general statement that Christ will draw different men (outside of the Jews) to Himself, but they still won't come for salvation unless the Father draws them. In addition, in that same chapter, John 12:39 says the people that listened to him could not believe because of the spiritual truth of Isaiah 6:9-10, which is quoted in John 12:40. Then John 12:41 ascribes the Isaiah verse to "him," which speaks of Christ. So these folks were actually blinded and hardened. The same Isaiah 6:9-10 verses are also quoted to show the fact that some were spoken to in parables to hide the mysteries of the kingdom of God (read Matthew 13:11-15) and that some of the Jews Paul spoke to didn't believe (Acts 28:25-29). The Bible is full of verses that speak of God's sovereign control.
In conclusion, while I appreciate you taking the time to go over things through scripture, the whole of the text in Ephesians 1:3-14 and other places in the Bible is clear. It isn't that it isn't clear, but we can't understand and actually don't like that God is God in terms of sovereignty. We equate His attributes with ours and think it means God is just an overseer that watches what happens and intercedes every now and then. And we equate commands to repent, believe, and choose with being able to choose, but those commands are imperatives (what we should do), not indicatives (who we are in terms of our nature). We can only infer "free" will by those command verses, but we never make a theology out of inference when there are declarative verses that take precedence. So thank you for your input; may you continue to serve the Lord with gladness. One thing we can agree on is that Christ is Lord and we are called to proclaim the gospel (Romans 1:16) and make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). I think the problem discussing these doctrines come when we name call, make accusations about one another's salvation, or try to belittle one another. I see it on both sides of the argument. But we should go through the scriptures prayerfully to see; and though we disagree, thank you very much for keeping it Biblical and not personal. God bless.
@@2timothy23 EPHESIANS 1:4
4 According as he hath chosen us IN HIM before the foundation of the world, THAT WE SHOULD BE HOLY AND WITHOUT BLAME before him in love:
“Notice that Paul does NOT say that God chose us ‘TO BE in Christ’.
He rather says God chose us *IN CHRIST* to be holy and blameless.
What God chose from before the foundation of the world was that WHOEVER IS IN CHRIST will be holy and blameless in His sight.
That came out of the counsel of His will.
Dang, I was with White until he threw out the KJOnlyist tning. Lol. I am KJB. And I have ran into Mr. Kevin. I agree he made much of this up, out of emotion!
Where else are we supposed to see and imitate, as the apostle Paul even exhorts us in 2 Thessalonians 3:7&9 or 1 Corinthians 11:1, Christian teachers? Is this manner of debate, without Christ-like virtue, the outcome of our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? So sad. We want to learn from your year long theological endeavors, both of you, but your ways of talking and rebutting really hurts anyone who is trying to be conformed to the image of his or her Savior, Jesus Christ. I hope this manner will change and give even more power to your life long missions on Earth, whether it be apologetic of the Christian Faith or preaching and teaching the Body of Christ. May God help us all.
Like Ruckman, Judas wont debate Thompson
Thompson won't debate James.
He was actually waiting for JW to send him a proper invitation
For the layman who speaks one language it's quiet simple. Interpret the hard verses like Eph 1:4 in agreement with the plain and simple verses like John 3:16 where it says whosoever.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20 KJV
John 3:16 is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is describing everyone believing, not everyone's ability to believe. Eph 1:4 is not in contradiction nor "hard to interpret in agreement" with one another.
John Myers
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 - KJV
The above does not say “whosoever was called to believe will have....”
A plain reading of the KJB will give a man God’s thoughts.
A reading of other men’s thoughts on what God should have said causes confusion, avoid other men’s thoughts.
@@olegig5166 Your not going to like this but it is a fact.... The word whosoever is an indefinite relative pronoun The word being translate is a participle better rendered "those who believe in him" He died for believers....
@@de629 your certainty entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
In my opinion the Bible is written to the common man who reads it as it stands.
@@de629 let us follow the rule of first mention. The first time "whosoever" is used in the Bible follows:
And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Genesis 4:15 KJV
According to your change it should read as follows:
And the Lord said unto him, Therefore "those who believe in him" slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Genesis 4:15
JAMES WHITE , read to whole book at the same time.
CONTEXT
CONTEXT
CONTEXT
Calvinism is an attack on the true gospel
Words devoid of substance
@@matt_h_27
how can you tell a lost person Jesus died for your sins when you dont know that according to calvinistic ideology, you cannot preach the gospel, you can preach the gospel of election and tell a lost person Jesus may have died for you but we dont know yet and give him the rest of the gospel and watch what happens.
calvinism is ridiculous my brother .
be blessed
living water
The gospel is Jesus died for sinners. And the command is repent and believe. I don’t need to tell an individual that Jesus died for them specifically to preach the gospel.
There is no Gospel (good news) in Calvinism because all are just puppets on a string, for the amusement of the great Puppet-Master.
Remember: Calvinists believe every evil whim, thought, desire, and act are foreknown & preordained. Sot heir god wants those lite kids raped every night so he can get some glory, remember? Their god also needs to get some glory by burning babies in Hell for eternity.
Uhhh, News Flash: that's NOT the great God Yahweh, who has revealed Himself in Scripture.
Remenber, @@livingwater7580, the Calvinist god makes a person born-again so s/he is consequently ABLE to decide to repent and put trust/faith in Jesus. As you know, that teaching is NOT in Scripture.
Thus, the gnosticism which is inherent in their idea of evangelism -- go out and discover which reprobate(s) is/are to be mystically enlightened with the knowledge of being one of the Chosen, one of the Elect.
Are you able to see why Calvinism attracts prideful personalities? Because they think -- gnostically -- that they have this special hidden knowledge which all others do not possess.
Their special Reformed definitions and hermeneutics are what will help you be enlightened. Throw in some ad hominem arguments and linguistic gymnastics, with a dose of denying sola scriptura-- and there you have it!
The cognitive dissonance is actually quite cringy... watching James White (who boasts about his intelligence and credentials all the time) struggle to understand the points being made by Kevin is astonishing and telling.
Please pray for James White, brothers and sisters in Christ! 🙏 ❤️
Yes and it doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong, because the time he wastes in diversions and nit picking just ruins the debates and doesn't serve the issue at hand.
ruclips.net/video/RyRA2bk27XY/видео.html
He is reading is own predetermined position into the text fursure.
@@freedomissue7824 🤣
Indeed
Confession by projection from James white.
Ignoring the Word: 'Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing...' (1Pet.3:9). We are NOT 'to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a RAILER...' (1Cor.5:11). Both these 'brothers' are 'puffed up' and 'have not rather mourned' (1Cor.5:2) their proud debates and strife (Rom.1:29, Gal.5:20,21, 6:8), but are merely 'sowing' to their flesh, and heaping reproach upon the cause of Christ and of truth!! How shameful (Hab.2:16) this all is!!!
After hearing these 'railers' on their numerous videos I've reached a conclusion, 'Let God be true, and every man a liar'. The one loves calvinism more than the Word, and the other hates calvinism with every breath he takes, and every one not agreeing with him. 'But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God' (Jn.3:21). 'If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine' (Jn.7:17)
Looking at Ephesians 1, to begin with, Paul uses the word “us” as the object of His choosing, and this is a very personal word, a word that is used to describe God’s choice of individuals rather than His choice of a group. It’s the difference between “God chose to have a people,” and “God chose to have you.” Had Paul had a group in mind, he simply would have referred to the group itself as an individual whole, that is, as an “it.” He would have said something like "He chose the church," or "He chose a people," but he didn't say that, he said, "us," a plural, first person pronoun.
Here, the Provisionist would assert that the phrase “in Him” modifies the word “us,” therefore it tells us WHO God chose; this understanding would mean that God chose individuals who were already “in Him,” that is, that God chose people who have already chosen Him, or, to paraphrase Paul according to the provisionist’s interpretation - “just as He chose us who are currently believing upon Christ before the world began…” But, since we believe in God in the course of time, how then could His choosing be from the foundation of the world? And if people have already chosen God and they are already “in Christ,” why then does God need to choose them at all? The only answer that can be given requires that God look down the corridors of time and learn what sinful people will do in the future, and base His choice on what He learns… But does the provisionist REALLY believe that God can learn something?
Since Ephesians 1:3 is Paul’s first use of the phrase “in Christ” in this passage, it sets the context for how the phrase will be used in later verses, and in verse 3, the phrase “in Christ” is used to describe the sphere into which our blessing takes place, that is, based on who Christ is, and through His work of redemption, God has blessed us. It is this use of “in Him” that is carried throughout the rest of the passage. In verse 4, The phrase “in Him” does not modify the word “us,” as if to describe WHO God chose, but it instead modifies the word “chose,” and it describes HOW God chose; it speaks to the sphere, or the context in which God’s choosing took place. It is a reminder of the Federalism spoken of in Romans 5 whereby Christ is the representative of all of those who from eternity past were foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified (Romans 8:28-30). Simply stated, God’s choice of electing love in eternity past must be understood in terms of its relationship to Christ.
So, to paraphrase Paul here, Ephesians 1:4 could read: “just as God chose, in the context of Christ, the saints before He created the world.” - observe other similar uses in the same context: Ephesians 1:7 - “In Him we have redemption,” verse 9 - “He purposed in Him,” and verse 11 - “In Him also we have obtained.” God’s election (“He chose us… before the foundation of the world”) takes place before creation, it is of particular individuals, and it is independent of faith since the choice took place “before the foundation of the world,” and therefore long before individuals could exercise faith (remember, faith is a FRUIT of justification, not the ROOT of it).
The Provisionist’s position asserts that God did not choose non-believers, but believers (and this is a rejection of Romans 5:6, 8, and 10); or that God’s election of men in eternity past is contingent upon their future foreseen faith, which would mean that God would have to take in knowledge, and God doesn’t learn anything; or that an individual was not elected until he first placed his faith in Christ, but this position denies verse 4 that states that this choosing took place “before the foundation of the world;” it's a position full of contradiction.
The Greek language here indicates that “chose” is not an action that took place in the past that would require future actions or modifications in the future, as if God’s choosing before the foundation of the world was somehow incomplete and needed the belief of individuals in the future in order to complete the action, rather, the language here indicates that God’s choice was a one-time, past, completed action (“chose” is in the aorist tense).
Doesn't "in Christ" modify the subject which is which is "He"
2 Corinthians 5:19
[19]To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Isn't it God that's in Christ? They are one.
@@billyr9162
Different book, different audience, different context.
@@lawrencestanley8989
Same God same Christ.
Same author Same church.
Same doctrine.
@@billyr9162
Are you asserting that every time the scriptures use a phrase like "in Christ," that it means the same thing every time?
@@lawrencestanley8989
Do this..
Change in Christ to another phrase.
He chose us in anger.....
He chose in incognito...
He chose us in route....
He chose us in house....
What does the phrase modify now?
The verb or the subject? Or all 3 the the subject the verb and the direct object?
One thing's for certain it never modifies the direct object only.
Kevin Thompson destroys white in his response video. Look it up.
It seems to me that James White made this video to try to denigrate Kevin Thompson😂😂😂
😂🤣 Jimmy laughs because his idea of “debate” is bob and weave as to not get cornered into answering questions directly. Then eye roll, smirk, and spew out condescending rhetoric that deflects and avoids any meaning rebuttals.
All these “high Calvinists” are deceiving and being deceived. They are “experts” in the Greek and children in understanding. “Experts” in deception, yet lost in discerning truth.
“And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive; For the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.’”
Matthew 13:14-15 NKJV
What does it mean to be "chosen in him"? What is the practical difference between being "chosen" and being "chosen in him"? And please don't tell me that being "chosen in him" means "chosen *TO BE* in him"? Because that's not what it says. Good luck.
Listening to James speak Greek is so hilarious.. please James, less of your echo chamber 'im right coz i say i am, all the time ner ner nee ner ner" theology waffle.. and more listening to you pronounce greek in an american accent while trying to remain serious.. i have many greek friends, we laugh alot at your videos where you use greek to try to win your points.. its literally comedy gold.. PLEASE do more 👏👏😂😂❤️
Has anyone heard or read Kevin Thompsons personal testimony? If so, please provide me a link.
Anyone heard a sermon of his? Please provide a link.
The self-willed, self-justifers and self-sanctifers, all Pelegian in original sin, always attack the Elect. These are those who hate the true doctrine of grace and gnash at their teeth to Christ and the true Church. That's why there's no evidence of fruit in the form of a personal testimony from Kevin. I stand in doubt of him from every single one of his podcasts I've watched or listened to.
i can tell from this post you have no idea what kevin actually believes. before you attack someone for what they believe maybe you should actually do your homework’s and know what they believe first. 🙄
@@scottibreiding You must be a false prophet. Kevin knows who I am personally, and he has talked of me on his Beyond Freudian Fundamental psycho-babble channel several times.
@@ManassehJones i would love to hear your definition of a false prophet 😂
okay man. then you apparently don’t listen because Kevin says over and over again on his channel that he does not believe men save themselves, i.e. self-sanctification. so even worse than ignorance you’re spreading lies about him.
@scottibreiding Kevin is your brother, not mine. He will make perfectly logical sense to you because you have kindred spirits.
You will land exactly where the Only Autonomous Dominion of the Sovereighn LORD God decrees you land "doctrinally," and there is nothing your imaginary autonomous free will can do to alter where you land.
Kevin is a grace of God denying Self Determinist whose glory is in some pseudo-psychological worldly, Spirit-less, nonsense.
Only God causes tbe increase.
Ye must be born again
@@ManassehJones just because i worship the spirits that manifest out of my dog’s farts doesn’t mean i’m a heretic. (sarcasm)
When you’re done steamrolling the parable of the wheat and tares, you might want to try reading what’s left of it. especially since you’re sending me to hell for defending Kevin while having no idea what I believe.
imaginary autonomous free will. if there is no form of free will, which is another argument kevin does not make, can you explain what is going on in this verse?
“English Standard Version
and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind-“
Jeremiah 19:5
Here you have something that people were doing that God says He not only did not decree it, it never even entered His mind.
Looks like you’ve been quick to throw me into hell for believing exactly what Scripture says. Meanwhile, if God has determined everyone’s salvation unconditionally, you can have absolutely no assurance that He chose you and you certainly don’t believe in Salvation by grace through faith because faith is a condition.
lol. Kevin must have told all his followers to come post crap against James in the comments. 😂
The comments on this video should be turned off, honestly. It’s really hostile and no one in here is being gracious at all.
2 Corinthians 6:2
New King James Version
For He says: “In an acceptable time I have heard you, And in the day of salvation I have helped you.” Behold, NOW (νῦν) is the accepted time; behold, NOW (νῦν) is the day of salvation!
STRONGS NT 3568: νῦν (Eng. now)
νῦν, and νυνί (which see in its place), adverb now, Latin nunc (the Sept. for עַתָּה; (from Homer down));
1. adverb of Time, now, i. e. at the present time;
a. so used that by the thing which is now said to be or to be done--the present time as opposed to past time: John 4:18; John 9:21; Acts 16:37; Acts 23:21; Romans 13:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:6; 2 Corinthians 7:9; 2 Corinthians 13:2; Philippians 1:30; Philippians 2:12; Philippians 3:18; Colossians 1:24, etc.; frequently it denotes a somewhat extended portion of present time as opposed to a former state of things: Luke 16:25; Acts 7:4; Galatians 1:23; Galatians 3:3; specifically, the time since certain persons received the Christian religion, Romans 5:9, 11; Romans 6:19, 21; Romans 8:1; Galatians 2:20; Galatians 4:29; 1 Peter 2:10, 25; or the time since man has had the blessing of the gospel, as opposed to past times, equivalent to in our times, our age: Acts 7:52; Romans 16:26; 2 Corinthians 6:2; Ephesians 3:5, 10; 2 Timothy 1:10; 1 Peter 1:12; 1 Peter 3:21,(cf. Epistle ad Diogn. 1 [ET]).
Calvinists are right about a lot, but what they are VERY wrong about is calling themselves Calvinist. If what they believe is biblical, which I will grant that most of it is, then they should simply call themselves CHRISTIAN. Calvin didn't write the Bible. Calvin doesn't save anyone. Any views that Calvin was correct about were already 1500 years old before Calvin spoke about them. I am no "ist" of any mere mortal man. I will admit that the guy White was criticizing is kind of slow. As for King James, you don't have to see it as "only" to see it as far more accurate than new age English Bibles.
Err, "Calvinist" is a term created by enemies of Reformed Theology, they didn't call themselves "Calvinists". If you want to find a "Calvinist" church, you won't be seeing any "Church of Calvin" or "Calvinist Presbyterian Church" or similar.
Also, does James White think that Cornelius would’ve been saved without traveling to Peter? In this view, Cornelius never had anything to worry about. Right?
Didn't Peter travel to Cornelius?
@@ronaldsmall8847 once he decides to go, Cornelius had already made it I think.
@@Mattithias Cornelius never left home. He sent a messenger to Joppa where Peter was. Then Peter traveled to Caesarea where Cornelius was.
@@ronaldsmall8847 That’s right. I forgot about that. Nevertheless, Peter had to make the journey in order to share the gospel with Cornelius. According to Calvinism, Cornelius never had anything to worry about even if Peter didn’t show up. God shows the initiative, Peter has to travel, Peter shares the gospel with Cornelius, Cornelius accepts Jesus is the Messiah. Peter could’ve been hardheaded and stayed home. Cornelius could’ve heard the gospel and denied. Cornelius was not saved prior. You really have to bend and twist scripture in order to believe the false doctrine of Calvinism. And I am not Armenian either. God only predestinates people to the redemption of the body once they believe. If you don’t believe, you don’t get The blessings.
@@Mattithias Personally, I have a huge problem with the term Calvinism. I think it glorifies a cruel, sinful man. My religion has nothing to do with Calvin. The fact that Calvin was one guy who may have rediscovered a few things in the Bible which were never actually forgotten in the first place does not mean that he should receive credit or acknowledgement for anything. That said, I think that those who call themselves Calvinists are right about more than they are wrong about. I do not think they would say that Cornelius never had anything to worry about even if Peter didn't show up. I think that is a strawman. Calvinists don't claim that God magically ensures that things He predestined will happen even if people don't work things out, such as, Peter not showing up to Cornelius's house. A Calvinist wouldn't say, Cornelius will get saved even if Peter doesn't show up, because Cornelius is predestined to be saved. A Calvinist would more likely say that Peter showed up, because that's how Cornelius got saved and that God knew it would happen all along, because it was according to His design. I think Calvinism is very difficult for most people to understand. People like James White often don't understand how hard it is for people to grasp, so they kind of appear scornful of those who don't get it. They should do a better job of explaining it.
Maybe this will help you. I will ask you a simple yes or now question and then follow up with another question. It will be generic, regarding an average American person named Bob. Bob rents an apartment and works at Bass Pro Shop. Bob likes beer. Bob lives paycheck to paycheck, but has always paid his bills on time. Bob does not live beyond his means.
Question: Does God know if Bob will pay his rent that will come due on the 1st of the month?
Kevin Thompson has gotten worse lately in that he seems to be disputing the Doctrine of the Trinity. Pelagianism is the mother of heresies.
"Even as He chose US".... We're the direct object of the choosing.... And it was done, yes, in Him ; righteousness personified ..... The question is, "why does that bother this guy?".. well, only because he's learned, by his traditions, to be bothered by the "perceived injustice" of the fact that the choosing excludes some... The natural man will never embrace the power and goodness of Yahweh, to choose, with particular love, whom He wills, for His bride...
Chose is for “what”?
What does the text say?
What are we chosen “for”?
@@apilkey To be holy and blameless before Him. Thats why those who are not chosen are not holy and blameless before Him but they are still in their sins and they will be justly judged.
@@thinketernal260 Yes believers are chosen to be holy and blameless before Him in love.
Unbelievers aren’t chosen for anything in this passage.
@@apilkey Im assuming that you read Ephesians 1 : 1-14 that it is only talking about anyone who believes as one whole group. But when we interpret scripture with scripture for example John 6, John 10, Romans 8 and 9. It clearly teaches that God has chosen individually to be apart of the elect as a group.
@@thinketernal260 There’s not a single passage of scripture that says an individual is unconditionally predestined, elected, chosen for salvation.
You’re conflating election with salvation.
Election has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.
Election is always to service in scripture.
Salvation is by grace 👉THROUGH👈 faith.
Not “before” faith.
Not “around” faith.
But “through” faith.
God has chosen to only save those who believe.
That’s His choice and it seems like Calvinists hate that choice God has made and they try and tell Him He can’t do that and hey try and tell Him who He can and cannot save.
Instead of just accepting what He’s said, they love to talk back to God and question Him.
I am a nobody!! But with all due respect, the act of RADICAL GRACE IS JESUS RECONCILING THE "KOSMOS" TO HIMSELF. The radical act of grace is, while we were yet sinners christ died for us." Reformed theology should more honestly be called the doctrines of limited grace.
JWMANICHEAN has not exegeted the passage. What is the difference between exegesis and serious exegesis. If I exegete a passage because I'm not a Calvinist is not serious exegesis. But if I exegete it as a Calvinist that my friend is serious exegesis. JW arrogance overshadows like the jenga tower over KT. Since he is claiming that KT is arrogant.
James White backed out of a debate with Dr. Peter Ruckman and i know he wouldn't debate Kevin Thompson.
James White challenged Ruckman to debate twice in the 1990s. Ruckman responded with insults and refused to debate him. Why do you come here and tell lies?
www.aomin.org/aoblog/1996/09/01/debate-never-james-whites-challenge-dr-peter-ruckman-debate/
It is wrong, what you say in the book you have read You just don't realize it.
KJV only is where you went up front? What original language do you have? Which one are you speaking of? Which translations are you speaking about; there’s not just one. That’s a tactic used by many to throw a bias in a certain view. Because Calvinism within context simply doesn’t work at all. The mind of God belongs to God. You’ll read to look to the Son not to the mind of God. How do Calvinist square that circle?
"A particular people". Always a dead giveaway of spiritual arrogance masquerading as humility.
Why is it that James White s tops reading at v. 11? His traditions get in the way of his exegesis.
Didn't even play the video to the point where Kevin's interpretation shows up... lol
Debate???! Just watch this video,...ego, ego, ego, me, me me
It seems to me, Dr Oakley wants absolutely no parts of Kevin's exposure of calvinism and its false belief system.
As usual, James augments are nothing short of played out, scripted responses used to put noncalvinist in their place. We all must remember, he is the scholar in the room. Who said biblical scholars are always right? It wasn't the Lord Jesus Christ nor the Holy Spirit. In this case, the biblical scholar in the room is wrong.
I've noticed how he has avoided attacking Kevin as his method is and has become the voice of all other trending news.
No debate is necessary, the emperor has no clothes and it's been that way from the beginning.
Monergism, synergism...
These man made terms and labels mean nothing to the Lord Jesus Christ and should mean nothing to His church. Just $0.50 cent words to frighten off those who oppose this great error imposed upon the His church.
Any other time Dr Oakley would dissect so called "synergist" (videos) material at length but not Kevin's. Perhaps he'll get around to it this year.
Deep down, James White knows the truth!
Can't you see How arrogance JW arrogance comes thry
I’m sorry James but you are not the Chad wojak in this scenario
People on the RUclipss: "People on the RUclipss..."
I have been aware of the Kevin Thompson's arrogant ongoing war against the traditional understanding of the church and I am thankful to see James White taking him to task.
@mineben256 Thompson does not have an argument. He is nothing but an ignorant stooge with his own home brew of nonsense. Thompson's mouth needs to be stopped.
@@WPBruce Sorry but if that was possible he will run out of Money. Kevin supplies a demand that gives him a big additional income. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts.
Such arrogance all the time from James white.. no matter how you want to play with words the meaning doesn’t change. God chose us. Who is us? The faithful in Christ. When are we in Christ? No before the foundation of the world.
God’s chose for His plan to be those in Christ would be holy and without blame.
It’s really not as confusing as James tries to make it..
My friend you might be right about the Greek grammar but you are imposing on the text a salfivic interpretation when it is speaking of sanctification . That is those are saved by faith are chosen to be blameless etc.
2. Adoption has nothing to do with Salvation. Since you know the Greek so well how come you dont know huiothesia. Son placed and has to do with a mature son the law of the firstborn who receives the double portion of the inheritance.
When we get saved we become the teknon of God John 1:12. And we will always be that 1 John 3 beloved NOW are we the sons of God. Children of biological parents are not adopted by them. And if someone adopts a child they might be legally theirs but never theirs biologically. Born Again is a spiritual biological event that takes place in the life of the believing dinner.
God becomes their father through the blood of the Lord Jesus and work of the Holy Spirit.
We become God's real children so we are not adopted cannot be adopted. This huiothesia is the potential of every teknon. God predestines all those teknon who live Blameless Holy lives to receive huiothesia, see Galations . 4 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Predestination there is not unto salvation but to that of the position of the firstborn . as seen Inn the O.T
You must connect Scripture with Scripture not with a theology
The Greek word huiothesia Literally means to place as a son. How can you say otherwise when the very word means that. The Greek word comes from 2 words. One, to place and the other, son.
It means to place a son.
Salvation is conforming to the image of Christ. If you're not experiencing that then you're not saved.
That's what salvation is literally all about.
Romans chapter 7 and 8. Predestination.
Where do you weirdos come from?
@@billyr9162 why do you have to refer to me as a weirdo? Thais certainly not the language or response of someone being conformed to the image of Christ.
Friend being conformed to the image of Christ is a work of sanctification . Salvation is when we believe on and receive the Lord Jesus as Savior. That makes us the children or teknon of God. For as many as received Him to them gave He the power or right to become the sons greek Teknon of God.
That occurs when we are born again or born from above.
The very understanding of the two words that you referred to which means son placed has to do with the act of placing a son in the position of the right to get the inheritance. this is not salvation but the blessings of the birth right. in other words salvation or being a teknon gives one the potential of being placed as the son huios the mature son to get the specials blessings of living a sanctified life or being conformed to the image of the Lord.
Salvation or becoming a Teknon is a gift. . huiothesia is the act of the father to a teknon who reaches maturity. One who reaches the age of taking over the responsibility of the families affairs etc.
@@carlnaitram6522
Because what you're saying is weird. It's stupid. Who made this up?
It's like someone took the Mona Lisa and drew crayon all over it.
Saying salvation is when we believe is like saying a hand is when we write.
It's goofy and stupid. It comes from a warped mind. Or an ignorant mind.
@@carlnaitram6522
"Being conformed to the image of Christ is a work of sanctification."
The way you word the sentence means that sanctification itself is doing the work
It's goofy. Who taught you this?
There's literally 2 whole chapters in Romans explaining what it is and you come up with this goofy statement.
I don't see how people do that. It's weird.
Someone has to be teaching you this crap. Who is it?
God has predetermined all this. He loves to sow discord among the brethren. He's the author of all this and far worse. No one is responsible yet everyone is responsible. He's the God of the Gnostics and Islam, Buddha and christians. Every thought and every breath and every word and every sin, all planned by the god of calvinism.
Sorry James You are wasting your time on Kevin. He needs the Money and he knows he needs to meet the demand. This is why he has to decalvinis the whole Bible. It is not what you have been taught?????? It is Palagius complete. I'm Dutch State translation Only.
Dr White please debate Kevin Thompson! I wrote him and asked why he didn't debate you, and he said that he's waiting for a specific invite.
hey do you know where kevin thomson is?
Brother White; he uses his videos as the standard. His Ministry is called BEYOND THE FUNDAMENTALS. That tells me he goes BEYOND SCRIPTURE. And what is so sad, is to see the FOLLOWING that he has.
Peter Sarjeant
The reformation has set us free from the heresies of the popes. The Roman Catholic church was the Heresy of Satan: Salvation by Works.
So the reformation as Calvin, Luther, John Knox and Zwingly and so many more were used by the Lord against the heresies of the pope. If they the reformation also came up with a heresy of Satan. How does that lineup with Scripture? Matthew 12:26. Satan does not fight himself. Tens of millions died by the hand of the Inquisition.
The Reformation changed Christianity in western Europe. Then the Catholic church must have been the true church. The Devil would not attack his own work.
Kevin’s doctrine is the same as that of the Catholic pope church with a minor difference.
T] Total depravity | Catholic & Kevin = We can do by nature what the law requires, We are saved by a free choice.
U] Unconditional redemption | Catholic & Kevin = Redemption we need to make Good choice it is our merit.
L] Limited Atonement | Catholic & Kevin = Christ died for all of Humanity
I] Irresistible Grace | Catholic & Kevin = inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Catholic Teaching and Kevin emphasizes both God’s grace and man’s cooperation.
P] Perseverance of the Saints | Catholic & Kevin = Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith and obedience, etc. Not all Arminiusist agree on this point;
Wow!! the Devil does not have many tricks he always uses the old once. Maybe they work best. We are now in the last days and more and more deceivers like Kevin and Leighton are coming up.
I thought this was gonna be a rebuttal of actual views... lol. This was just to-the-man arguments being responded to with more to-the-man arguments :/
James Won!
He lost.
Man, that was hard to listen too
Now all White needs to do is refute Calvinism with the Bible. He’s so close, he just needs to keep reading it.
Luv it. I didn't agree with Mr. Thompson on his exegesis of the text. I thought he was rather arrogant and condescending. He also impose his views on scripture rather than drawing the meaning out.