In the first minute he mentions the “problems” of “predestination” as though it ties to salvation. Because he jumps to “free will” etc. I’m very surprised that someone of Dr. Heisser’s calibre does not grasp this very basic fact: Predestination is never to salvation. According to Scripture, Christians are predestined to three things: their inheritance, conformity to the image of Christ and the adoption (new body). We never have to associate predestination with “free will” - these are not even in the same arena of discussion. Otherwise, I like his defence of free will. Freedom is essential. Did God stage the entire show? Ordain every single event and conversation? For His entertainment? No.
@@laurakosch would absolutely second this motion. Kevin Thompson of ‘Beyond the Fundamentals’ fundamentally saved me from falling into the pit that is Calvinism.
Heiser has spoken elsewhere about election, and he really wasn’t equating to salvation. Maybe search one of his other videos. He has a new book out, about The Gospel, well worth it, and you will find some related materials.
If you follow Heiser's work, you would know that he is making an argument against the traditional calvinistic view concerning predestination and the TULIP doctrines. IMO, these conventional beliefs of reformed theology are largely dated and was a reaction (or an overcorrection) to the Catholic doctrines at the time of reformation. Unfortunately, many Christians are currently misled by these traditions.
The argument against the open theist is invalid because an event that does not take place, "they may shut" [you in] is necessarily subjunctive in the Hebrew imperfect. It cannot be "they WILL (certaintly) shut (you in). It must be they may (of a possible contingency) shut (you in).
31:10 God cannot "foreknow" things that don't happen unless they are contingent. This is what open theists believe; some things are certain (even some human action) but some things are not. God knows them as they are, so if they really are contingent then God knows them as such. I haven't met or heard from an open theist that would say God doesn't know the future, but rather that some things about the future are simply indeterminate, and God knows the possibilities. It is frustrating to hear open theism constantly misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally.
I saw a documentary about the vastness of the universe and its trillions of stars and thought - God who made and sustains this created it, among other reasons, to show us that he is perfectly capable of knowing and working out every possibility that we could be involved in. Nothing takes him by surprise, and personally I find the suggestion impertinent (I'm not suggesting you are) - but trust He smiles at our presumption when it is innocent wondering.I think it honours God more to know at what point to cease speculating and, worse, dogmatising. When we go over the line it comes close to making a god in our own image (a theological idol) especially when the meaning of words has to be redefined to fit the system.
What is man that thou should magnify him and that thou should set thy heart upon him And that thou should visit him every morning and try him every moment ? He is “observing “ us first Sometimes he just decides to not watch our every move and not everyone’s some moves so .... but for those he before knew .... it’s both ways for me Open and closed When the chips hit the table we will stand in judgment and no one will accuse him of missing something because he can’t know everthing .... but then again why would he won’t to see our every nasty move ? He knows the heart of man It’s because of his great mercies we are not consumed ...
One property of God is that God is totally present in the past, present and future. That’s where the “ I am” of God comes in. God existed before any or all of creation started. God is different because God is totally present . The future maybe God has already seen.
I wonder if the statistical concept of degrees of freedom could apply to end determinism by allowing a finite number of means to reach the same end determined by God.
If the divine council includes the divine Son (pre-incarnate Messiah) then the US in Gen 1 is satisfied. If that is the case, then US may include no more than the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. In Genesis 3, the US certainly does not include angels because the knowledge of good and evil has to do with autonomously defining what it is. And this is a power that no created being has. "And he created man in his own image" he = Elohim. So in the execution of the proposal no angels were involved. Therefore let us is to Elohim only.
Michael Heiser has certainly done lots of homework here and he has given this subject lots of thought. As always, when I hear talks like this, I wonder whether the speaker has done any consultation with Jewish biblical scholars. After all, the text in question was written by Jews. And I’m especially interested in Heiser’s understanding of the different traditions that went into these scriptures, ie, J = Yahweh, and E = Elohist. And why doesn’t he include this in his talk? Heiser seems to be very confident and clear in his positions. Almost too confident. Does he take the Genesis story literally, and is this why he wants to take the Open Theists to task? I respect Dr Heiser’s abilities, but I can’t understand why he is so dead set on keeping theology in a fundamentalist box. Perhaps I’m wrong. If so, let me know.
Only man is made in the image of God according to scripture. To say members of the so-called divine council (as Heiser sees it) are made in the mage of God is not supported in Scripture. The passage in 1 Kings 22 is a vision recounted by God's prophet. It is a way for those hearing it to understand that God is getting rid of Ahab by using a lying spirit This shows that God is not lying but allows a spirit to do so. It is not about deliberation on how God will get rid of Ahab, as Heiser presents it. This other interpretation is more reasonable, a way to communicate by the prophet how a lying spirit would be sent by God.
How do you answer the place where it says God decided to “make man in OUR image”? The only person in the trinity that is an image is the Son who is an image of the Father.
I think you've answered that question. Also, remember that the subtext in all of scripture is mercy. The first thing God did after speaking to Adam, Eve and the serpent was to kill animals to make coats of skins so that they wouldn't die of exposure. (Leaves , which they used don't make good clothing). Mercy was the guiding principle here, but a substututionary death was carried out. But one might say that God did not slay Adam and Eve, so He was not truthful. Carrying out the slaying of animals in place of the couple pointed forward in time to the sacrifice of Jesus, who was slain in the place of all who have sinned. So God, I believe, has the right to carry out His will, but in the way He chooses, althewhile doing this through mercy.
Stopped the vid @ 1:22... The Image? Oh! You mean human beings made in 'THE IMAGE' of GOD? How much more time would it take to be a bit more specific for we 'greenhorns'? ...C'mon Doc!
Starts with an unsupported assumption that the council of God is not God in trinity. Then builds on that to include beings that are not God. Now it is all very saying that in some later passages it isn't just God but that is no basis for the assumption that it is always the case. From there it just spirals in to nonsense. God predestines exactly what and exactly when but not exactly how. He makes Divine corrections? Laughable nonsense.
I love your ability to put the cookies the lower shelf, for a simple man like me.
Dr Micheal Heiser > is a truely wonderfull teacher and a blessing to us all .
In the first minute he mentions the “problems” of “predestination” as though it ties to salvation. Because he jumps to “free will” etc.
I’m very surprised that someone of Dr. Heisser’s calibre does not grasp this very basic fact: Predestination is never to salvation.
According to Scripture, Christians are predestined to three things: their inheritance, conformity to the image of Christ and the adoption (new body).
We never have to associate predestination with “free will” - these are not even in the same arena of discussion.
Otherwise, I like his defence of free will. Freedom is essential.
Did God stage the entire show? Ordain every single event and conversation? For His entertainment? No.
I struggle with this
@@prov25two66
Check out RUclips of Kevin Thompson - he’s very good, comprehensive understanding of predestination, elect, etc.
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
@@laurakosch would absolutely second this motion. Kevin Thompson of ‘Beyond the Fundamentals’ fundamentally saved me from falling into the pit that is Calvinism.
Heiser has spoken elsewhere about election, and he really wasn’t equating to salvation. Maybe search one of his other videos.
He has a new book out, about The Gospel, well worth it, and you will find some related materials.
If you follow Heiser's work, you would know that he is making an argument against the traditional calvinistic view concerning predestination and the TULIP doctrines. IMO, these conventional beliefs of reformed theology are largely dated and was a reaction (or an overcorrection) to the Catholic doctrines at the time of reformation. Unfortunately, many Christians are currently misled by these traditions.
The argument against the open theist is invalid because an event that does not take place, "they may shut" [you in] is necessarily subjunctive in the Hebrew imperfect. It cannot be "they WILL (certaintly) shut (you in). It must be they may (of a possible contingency) shut (you in).
31:10 God cannot "foreknow" things that don't happen unless they are contingent. This is what open theists believe; some things are certain (even some human action) but some things are not. God knows them as they are, so if they really are contingent then God knows them as such. I haven't met or heard from an open theist that would say God doesn't know the future, but rather that some things about the future are simply indeterminate, and God knows the possibilities. It is frustrating to hear open theism constantly misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally.
I saw a documentary about the vastness of the universe and its trillions of stars and thought - God who made and sustains this created it, among other reasons, to show us that he is perfectly capable of knowing and working out every possibility that we could be involved in. Nothing takes him by surprise, and personally I find the suggestion impertinent (I'm not suggesting you are) - but trust He smiles at our presumption when it is innocent wondering.I think it honours God more to know at what point to cease speculating and, worse, dogmatising. When we go over the line it comes close to making a god in our own image (a theological idol) especially when the meaning of words has to be redefined to fit the system.
What is man that thou should magnify him and that thou should set thy heart upon him
And that thou should visit him every morning and try him every moment ?
He is “observing “ us first
Sometimes he just decides to not watch our every move and not everyone’s some moves so .... but for those he before knew .... it’s both ways for me
Open and closed
When the chips hit the table we will stand in judgment and no one will accuse him of missing something because he can’t know everthing .... but then again why would he won’t to see our every nasty move ? He knows the heart of man
It’s because of his great mercies we are not consumed ...
One property of God is that God is totally present in the past, present and future. That’s where the “ I am” of God comes in. God existed before any or all of creation started. God is different because God is totally present . The future maybe God has already seen.
@@concernedcitizen780 you got a verse for that?
I believe God knows all things but doesn't always utilize that knowledge. To say it another way, God can choose not to know things.
I wonder if the statistical concept of degrees of freedom could apply to end determinism by allowing a finite number of means to reach the same end determined by God.
If the divine council includes the divine Son (pre-incarnate Messiah) then the US in Gen 1 is satisfied. If that is the case, then US may include no more than the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. In Genesis 3, the US certainly does not include angels because the knowledge of good and evil has to do with autonomously defining what it is. And this is a power that no created being has. "And he created man in his own image" he = Elohim. So in the execution of the proposal no angels were involved. Therefore let us is to Elohim only.
יַסְגִּֽירוּ = they may shut
Michael Heiser has certainly done lots of homework here and he has given this subject lots of thought. As always, when I hear talks like this, I wonder whether the speaker has done any consultation with Jewish biblical scholars. After all, the text in question was written by Jews. And I’m especially interested in Heiser’s understanding of the different traditions that went into these scriptures, ie, J = Yahweh, and E = Elohist. And why doesn’t he include this in his talk? Heiser seems to be very confident and clear in his positions. Almost too confident. Does he take the Genesis story literally, and is this why he wants to take the Open Theists to task? I respect Dr Heiser’s abilities, but I can’t understand why he is so dead set on keeping theology in a fundamentalist box. Perhaps I’m wrong. If so, let me know.
Only man is made in the image of God according to scripture. To say members of the so-called divine council (as Heiser sees it) are made in the mage of God is not supported in Scripture. The passage in 1 Kings 22 is a vision recounted by God's prophet. It is a way for those hearing it to understand that God is getting rid of Ahab by using a lying spirit This shows that God is not lying but allows a spirit to do so. It is not about deliberation on how God will get rid of Ahab, as Heiser presents it. This other interpretation is more reasonable, a way to communicate by the prophet how a lying spirit would be sent by God.
How do you answer the place where it says God decided to “make man in OUR image”? The only person in the trinity that is an image is the Son who is an image of the Father.
michael, i sense you want the freedom of Christ but you have a hard time shoehorning the infinite God of the universe into a book.
i empathize.
ANY CHANCE THAT ADAM (AND EVE?) DID DIE IN THE "DAY" IN WHICH THEY SINNED, PER PETER'S STATEMENT OF GOD'S TIME?
I think you've answered that question.
Also, remember that the subtext in all of scripture is mercy.
The first thing God did after speaking to Adam, Eve and the serpent was to kill animals to make coats of skins so that they wouldn't die of exposure. (Leaves , which they used don't make good clothing).
Mercy was the guiding principle here, but a substututionary death was carried out.
But one might say that God did not slay Adam and Eve, so He was not truthful.
Carrying out the slaying of animals in place of the couple pointed forward in time to the sacrifice of Jesus, who was slain in the place of all who have sinned.
So God, I believe, has the right to carry out His will, but in the way He chooses, althewhile doing this through mercy.
Stopped the vid @ 1:22... The Image? Oh! You mean human beings made in 'THE IMAGE' of GOD?
How much more time would it take to be a bit more specific for we 'greenhorns'? ...C'mon Doc!
Starts with an unsupported assumption that the council of God is not God in trinity. Then builds on that to include beings that are not God. Now it is all very saying that in some later passages it isn't just God but that is no basis for the assumption that it is always the case. From there it just spirals in to nonsense. God predestines exactly what and exactly when but not exactly how. He makes Divine corrections? Laughable nonsense.
QUIT READING YOUR WRITING DOC! Domo Oregato Misterr Roboto.
You are a great teacher... but please don't read us your book.