Thank you. I wish they would because I believe that it would clear up a lot of confusion that they have regarding God's decree and man's creaturely freedom.
@TwitchyThelogian The thing us tho, without the Spirit, it will remain foolishness .Your teaching will only cause the born again, Arminians to believe.
Just making sure. CBALLEN had the same problem and I didn't block him either. RUclips just messes up or something because I don't even know how to block people.
@@TwitchyTheologian ok. Yeah, I’m having the same problem too, but for some reason on your channel, it was every single comment no matter what I said. So I thought you blocked me.
How so? Those that are drawn CAN come. Abso this is the same drawn as John 12:32. John 6:44 KJV [44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
@BigGuy86ed All the Father gives, comes to Jesus and Jesus raises them ALL UP BUT,no one can come,unless the Father draws them and ALL DRAWN will be raised up by Jesus. This isn't a take or leave it thing,this is the Father deciding who will come and be saved and those not drawn,are not able to come. Jesus drawing ALL MEN does not mean ALL INDIVIDUALS, it means that Jesus is not just drawing Jews,but Gentiles too.
@CBALLEN what in John 6:37 is not given by the Father? Also who is not drawn by the Father in John 6:44? John 6:37 KJV [37] All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. I'm not seeing a limiting because they can come. John 6:32-33 KJV [32] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. [33] For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Thank you for pointing that out. That certainly is a fair response. I would love to unpack that more with you to let you know why I think that my argument is sound. Would you be willing to discuss it on the channel sometime? I am not looking to debate, simply to flesh out what each of us believe.
@@TwitchyTheologian I understand some people struggle with a written format and find spoken dialogue more enjoyable or easy to follow, however I do not think it would be profitable in this instance, and right now I prefer to measure what I write, and the desire for truth does not care for the package it comes in, but for the truth that is conveyed. I respect and appreciate your congenial demeanor. You're a likeable guy. Because I think Calvinism is a selfish way to resolve the problem of evil and find a false security, I don't think we will have too much in common or find any agreement. However, I also consider Provisionists and such to be even more heretical by -watering down the sin nature and putting demands on God. Arminians don't so much believe in free will, as in freed will, grace can empower that will once again without forcing and raping it. See, the truth is, I have discovered, most Calvinists find the Arminian God offensive while claiming you should not accept God based on how offensive he seems, and almost bragging that the Calvinist God is offensive. Yet they talk about how offensive a God who just "lets" people go to hell is, which is hypocritically against their own preaching that you should not even consider how offensive a doctrine is. My flesh would prefer a Calvinistic God just so I can have more selfish security and see the lost as trash I don't have to be offended about, and that's an idol of self. If God has a holy reason to let people be lost, it is more submissive to his sovereignty to display a willingness to accept it. It's true many objectors say they find the Calvinist God more offensive, but that is because they make the same mistake Calvinists make, but on the opposite side of the ditch, the other end of the spectrum, eliminating some form of original sin in one way or another, to make God more palatable. The truth is, the real middle offends both sides, Calvinists and Provisionists alike. It is, I know, very hard to let go of false securities and I haven't seen people often willing to do it. Yet I think you show some signs of humility and sincerity, and hold out real hope you could hear the Holy Spirit speak some truth in what I wrote. God bless you always.
I was hoping that you would engage more with my argument presented in the video. I have never claimed that the Arminian God is offensive. In fact, I think we worship the same God. I think you are just wrong about a few things that He does.
So, I would respond by saying that youur problem is with Scripture (Acts 4). God clearly can ordain actions and they still be free. If not, you are saying that Herod and Pontius Pilate are not culpable for their actions.
Twitchy Theologian- you said: "However, after glorification, we won't be able to choose evil; so does the proponent of libertarian free will believe that we suddenly lose our free will after we're glorified?" Let me ask you 2 questions: 1. If we only have the ability to choose good and it is impossible for us to choose evil (due to our new nature), then that means we are constrained to only do good works. We are programmed to only do good things, and we cannot go against our programming (new nature). So if we can only choose one option by default in every situation, then it is obvious that our will is not truly free. We are not truly choosing to do good-in every situation, we are merely defaulting to the good option. I don't think we will be absolute robots. But do you not see how similar we will be to robots after glorification? 2. You said that after glorification, we will be unable to sin. So why didn't God create Adam and Eve with that nature to begin with? If Adam and Eve were constrained to only choose good (by their nature) from the very beginning, we could easily have avoided thousands of years of sin and destruction. I honestly don't know whether we have free will. I'm still trying to figure that out. But one thing I'm certain of is that God is sovereign above all else.
1. We may be "Similar" in that we can't sin but we can still choose what we do. In the same way, God can't sin but you would affirm that He is free right? Therefore, me adding the adjective free to the word will doesn't imply that I am advocating for Libertarian Free Will or any definition that makes God less than sovereign. 2. God didn't constrain their will for His own glorioius purpose of sending Christ to the cross and redeeming manking to the praise of His glorious grace (Acts 2 and 4, Ephesians 1, Romans 9, etc...) Thanks for the questions :)
@@TwitchyTheologian Thanks for your answer. Let me just respond to your thoughts: 1. The thing is, with our new nature, we will literally be incapable of choosing evil and we will always default to the good option. We already agree on this. But you do not see that defaulting to the good option means that there is no choice being made. A robot can only do what it is programmed to do. Likewise, we will only be able to choose good because we are programmed that way. The ability to choose will be non-existent at this point. I think it is a mistake to try to compare ourselves to God, because we will never be 100% exactly like God, even after glorification. We will always be subjects of God, completely at the mercy of God. God, by contrast, bows to no one. 2. So in other words, you believe the reason why God did not give Adam and Eve a nature which would make it impossible for them to choose evil is: because He wanted to glorify Himself? I suppose it's possible. But I'm not 100% convinced. I mean, the whole world had to be flooded. And in the future, the entire universe will be obliterated and will have to be recreated from scratch. Giving Adam and Eve a nature that can only choose good would've prevented all of that.
So, first you need to understand the nature of the covenant. There are people in covenant with God who are not born again. Second, for those who are born again this verse is used by God to cause them to persevere. It isn't an issue for Calvinists at all.
JOHN 6 just says we have to be drawn not that he doesnt want everyone drawn. JOHN 3;17 for God did not send the son into the world to comdemn the world but to SAVE the world through HIM..... context kills calvanism
Your bad spelling kills your argument! But to be clear you are simply assuming the term world means each and every person when it is more nuanced than that.
I believe twitchy’s good works of proclamation and teaching were determined before the foundations of the earth! You have been predestined to speak foolishness and folly so that I, being predestined to correct you, might have an opportunity to practice moderated rebuke! I hope you gain wisdom and understanding and no longer take enjoyment from suppressing truth! 😑
Yep. God commands all men to repent. No one will (Roman’s 8:7-8) so, God causes His elect to be born again and then we trust in Him. We love you. Don’t harden your heart to the truth.
@@SugoiEnglish1 I agree there is no moral standard that God is subjected to outside of his own declared morals. He does give us a real definition of good that is not just "whatever God does." Anything God could do would be just. But God could be just and not good if he wanted. So if God self defines as maximally good we are within our rights to examine a doctrine and see if that God is truly maximally good as he has revealed himself to be under the definition of good he provides to us. This will help us ferret out false doctrine that mars God's character.
Excellent sermon,if just more Arminians would watch it.
Thank you. I wish they would because I believe that it would clear up a lot of confusion that they have regarding God's decree and man's creaturely freedom.
@TwitchyThelogian The thing us tho, without the Spirit, it will remain foolishness .Your teaching will only cause the born again, Arminians to believe.
or maybe its you that doesnt have the spirit
JOHN 3;17
Testing 123
Finally works
Just making sure. CBALLEN had the same problem and I didn't block him either. RUclips just messes up or something because I don't even know how to block people.
@@TwitchyTheologian ok. Yeah, I’m having the same problem too, but for some reason on your channel, it was every single comment no matter what I said. So I thought you blocked me.
Amen,Gods drawing overcomes all resistance!
the the jews would of been saved
How so? Those that are drawn CAN come. Abso this is the same drawn as John 12:32.
John 6:44 KJV
[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
@BigGuy86ed All the Father gives, comes to Jesus and Jesus raises them ALL UP
BUT,no one can come,unless the Father draws them and ALL DRAWN will be raised up by Jesus. This isn't a take or leave it thing,this is the Father deciding who will come and be saved and those not drawn,are not able to come. Jesus drawing ALL MEN does not mean ALL INDIVIDUALS, it means that Jesus is not just drawing Jews,but Gentiles too.
@CBALLEN what in John 6:37 is not given by the Father? Also who is not drawn by the Father in John 6:44?
John 6:37 KJV
[37] All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
I'm not seeing a limiting because they can come.
John 6:32-33 KJV
[32] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. [33] For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
@CBALLEN Also, who are the given?
John 17:6,9,12
Gotta put it here for you twitchy!!
🤖🤖🤖🤖🤖🤖
Beep boop boop beep! Or ought I say: 0110010101001
@@TwitchyTheologian well I only speak in QR code tongues.. I was given the update!!😂😂😂
Non sequitur in the first 5 minutes. There can be variables in between the beginning and end state that still cannot alter the end state.
Thank you for pointing that out. That certainly is a fair response. I would love to unpack that more with you to let you know why I think that my argument is sound. Would you be willing to discuss it on the channel sometime? I am not looking to debate, simply to flesh out what each of us believe.
Also, please watch the rest and point out any other "Inconsistencies." I love to be challenged. It sharpens me. Thanks. God bless :)
@@TwitchyTheologian I understand some people struggle with a written format and find spoken dialogue more enjoyable or easy to follow, however I do not think it would be profitable in this instance, and right now I prefer to measure what I write, and the desire for truth does not care for the package it comes in, but for the truth that is conveyed.
I respect and appreciate your congenial demeanor. You're a likeable guy. Because I think Calvinism is a selfish way to resolve the problem of evil and find a false security, I don't think we will have too much in common or find any agreement. However, I also consider Provisionists and such to be even more heretical by -watering down the sin nature and putting demands on God. Arminians don't so much believe in free will, as in freed will, grace can empower that will once again without forcing and raping it.
See, the truth is, I have discovered, most Calvinists find the Arminian God offensive while claiming you should not accept God based on how offensive he seems, and almost bragging that the Calvinist God is offensive. Yet they talk about how offensive a God who just "lets" people go to hell is, which is hypocritically against their own preaching that you should not even consider how offensive a doctrine is. My flesh would prefer a Calvinistic God just so I can have more selfish security and see the lost as trash I don't have to be offended about, and that's an idol of self. If God has a holy reason to let people be lost, it is more submissive to his sovereignty to display a willingness to accept it. It's true many objectors say they find the Calvinist God more offensive, but that is because they make the same mistake Calvinists make, but on the opposite side of the ditch, the other end of the spectrum, eliminating some form of original sin in one way or another, to make God more palatable. The truth is, the real middle offends both sides, Calvinists and Provisionists alike.
It is, I know, very hard to let go of false securities and I haven't seen people often willing to do it. Yet I think you show some signs of humility and sincerity, and hold out real hope you could hear the Holy Spirit speak some truth in what I wrote. God bless you always.
I was hoping that you would engage more with my argument presented in the video. I have never claimed that the Arminian God is offensive. In fact, I think we worship the same God. I think you are just wrong about a few things that He does.
Every time I hear the “compatibaliist” argument I feel like I get a little more dumb. It’s just a contradiction.
So, I would respond by saying that youur problem is with Scripture (Acts 4). God clearly can ordain actions and they still be free. If not, you are saying that Herod and Pontius Pilate are not culpable for their actions.
I would simply ask that you watch the entire video before responding. If you still disagree that is okay. Just give my argument a chance please :)
Indeed, Otis. It's like the emperor's new clothes, they insist he is wearing something.
@@Dizerner It’s like saying I’m married and I’m single.
@@otiscorn4538 WHy does Scripture affirm my "Contradiction?"
Twitchy Theologian- you said: "However, after glorification, we won't be able to choose evil; so does the proponent of libertarian free will believe that we suddenly lose our free will after we're glorified?"
Let me ask you 2 questions:
1. If we only have the ability to choose good and it is impossible for us to choose evil (due to our new nature), then that means we are constrained to only do good works. We are programmed to only do good things, and we cannot go against our programming (new nature).
So if we can only choose one option by default in every situation, then it is obvious that our will is not truly free. We are not truly choosing to do good-in every situation, we are merely defaulting to the good option. I don't think we will be absolute robots. But do you not see how similar we will be to robots after glorification?
2. You said that after glorification, we will be unable to sin. So why didn't God create Adam and Eve with that nature to begin with?
If Adam and Eve were constrained to only choose good (by their nature) from the very beginning, we could easily have avoided thousands of years of sin and destruction.
I honestly don't know whether we have free will. I'm still trying to figure that out. But one thing I'm certain of is that God is sovereign above all else.
1. We may be "Similar" in that we can't sin but we can still choose what we do. In the same way, God can't sin but you would affirm that He is free right? Therefore, me adding the adjective free to the word will doesn't imply that I am advocating for Libertarian Free Will or any definition that makes God less than sovereign.
2. God didn't constrain their will for His own glorioius purpose of sending Christ to the cross and redeeming manking to the praise of His glorious grace (Acts 2 and 4, Ephesians 1, Romans 9, etc...)
Thanks for the questions :)
@@TwitchyTheologian Thanks for your answer. Let me just respond to your thoughts:
1. The thing is, with our new nature, we will literally be incapable of choosing evil and we will always default to the good option. We already agree on this. But you do not see that defaulting to the good option means that there is no choice being made. A robot can only do what it is programmed to do. Likewise, we will only be able to choose good because we are programmed that way. The ability to choose will be non-existent at this point.
I think it is a mistake to try to compare ourselves to God, because we will never be 100% exactly like God, even after glorification. We will always be subjects of God, completely at the mercy of God. God, by contrast, bows to no one.
2. So in other words, you believe the reason why God did not give Adam and Eve a nature which would make it impossible for them to choose evil is: because He wanted to glorify Himself?
I suppose it's possible. But I'm not 100% convinced. I mean, the whole world had to be flooded. And in the future, the entire universe will be obliterated and will have to be recreated from scratch. Giving Adam and Eve a nature that can only choose good would've prevented all of that.
HEBR 3:12-14 warnings because we cant fall into unbelief lol
So, first you need to understand the nature of the covenant. There are people in covenant with God who are not born again. Second, for those who are born again this verse is used by God to cause them to persevere. It isn't an issue for Calvinists at all.
@@TwitchyTheologian prove they were not born agian please, there called brothers
Indeed. When your theology needs to heavily redefine the word "if" just because you want to feel more secure, you should question your own motives.
JOHN 6 just says we have to be drawn not that he doesnt want everyone drawn. JOHN 3;17 for God did not send the son into the world to comdemn the world but to SAVE the world through HIM..... context kills calvanism
The word means drag like drag you into court. It doesn’t say he drags everyone in the planet
Your bad spelling kills your argument! But to be clear you are simply assuming the term world means each and every person when it is more nuanced than that.
your not predestined to be preaching
I believe twitchy’s good works of proclamation and teaching were determined before the foundations of the earth! You have been predestined to speak foolishness and folly so that I, being predestined to correct you, might have an opportunity to practice moderated rebuke!
I hope you gain wisdom and understanding and no longer take enjoyment from suppressing truth! 😑
And you (VH) are predestined to light-headed commentary! LOL.
ROM8 has alot of IFs, read romans 8 in context please. 1j3;23 commands US to believe hhhhhhhmmmmm
Yep. God commands all men to repent. No one will (Roman’s 8:7-8) so, God causes His elect to be born again and then we trust in Him. We love you. Don’t harden your heart to the truth.
@@TwitchyTheologian so yoou cant turn from GOD BINGO FREE WILL , not robots.
@@TwitchyTheologian john 6 to SAVE THE WORLD BINGO
@@TwitchyTheologian when can we debate or talk on your channel
we desire according our nature not biblical
So, why is it that God doesn't sin? Why is it that Jesus says, "Out of the heart proceeds the things of life?"
@@TwitchyTheologian Would you deny God free will?
Is God forced to be good no matter what instead of freely choosing to be good?
@@Dizerner God is good period. Whatever he does is good. There is no standard that God is subject to.
@@SugoiEnglish1 I agree there is no moral standard that God is subjected to outside of his own declared morals. He does give us a real definition of good that is not just "whatever God does." Anything God could do would be just. But God could be just and not good if he wanted. So if God self defines as maximally good we are within our rights to examine a doctrine and see if that God is truly maximally good as he has revealed himself to be under the definition of good he provides to us. This will help us ferret out false doctrine that mars God's character.