Yes! a long one with 2 of the best YT guys in this.
pccj
Me: It’s late...I should go to bed // Also me: Chris Fisher released a new video...with Warren McGrew!! YAAAS!
katethebuss
The word IF shows up 1643 times in the NKJV if I counted right. That sounds extremely CONDITIONAL not unconditional
Searchgodstruthhomestead
I thought something was wrong as soon as I got bombarded with the worldly devil music from the beginning intro.
pangorbalm
On the Genesis text, if you keep reading (you know ... context) even following “the fall” God says Adam and Eve are “become like one of us, us knowing (yada) good and evil.” Become like God ... knowing good, not only evil. How is that TD?
wfc
There's some important points you guys make around the 1:18 mark.
I've been casually trying to wrap my head around Modal logic over the last few months and it's become fairly clear that most people who cite modal logic for or against something are just quoting Plantigula. But Plantigula, when not talking to a high end audience, doesn't really explain the breadth of modal systems and where the difference are which either would justify or bow apart, his take on things like "might" "may", "will" "can" etc.
The trend nowadays in christian theology is to use Molina's categories, but he made a major error when it comes to could vs might/may vs can. Molina seemed to favor the idea that, as it pertains to possible worlds as a means of discussing free will choices and possibilities, that "would" or "will" doesn't negate "might", since you have to may be able to (might) choose x to WILL, or WOULD choose x. However, Molina saw no functional difference between can and might. And in discussing what "can" means, it means that it's not illogical or impossible for not-x to hypothetically obtain via person A... in other words, X is something that it isn't impossible for person A to potentially do. It has nothing to do with deliberation or choosing, but it's just hypothetically potential... anything logically possible is on the same level as "might" or "possible". Whereas the "will" that God supposedly know you or I WILL do, will never fail to obtain. Yet they play word games (Braxton and WLC), to say that "no it's in a very real sense possible that you could have done otherwise", but they just mean it's metaphysically logically coherent that it could hypothetically obtain in some possible world... but this can include things like, killing your own mother who you love very much, or becoming a Nahtzsee, etc. It includes ridiculously implausible things that I would NEVER do, I'm never going to deliberate them or want to do them, they lack any actuality, they're Sliders style crazy world nonsense.
This all because you HAVE to realize that can and might aren't the same thing.
If I say "I might do that" I'm making a statement about my own nature, about what I like, about what I predict I could still choose, not what I'm physically capable of. I'm physically capable of cutting off my own leg with a chainsaw, but I'm not going to say "I might do that". But I can also say "I'm GOING to do x" I can make up my mind to ready an action before the time is up before I'm compelled to choose or not choose x, and say "nope, forget the distractions, I'm definitely going to do X" I can hypothetically fail to accomplish this because I can't control all factors by which I made that decision. I assumed y and Z which is why I made up my mind, if y and z fail to obtain beyond my foresight then I might change my mind and not do X afterall, but not due to the inevitability of my action which is then knowable as a fixed event.
can means logically possible. Might means it's plausible I might actually do that given my nature, desires, and social pressures or habits I have. but WOULD and WILL are only knowable by knowing my actual will, my actual decisions, which are not yet a part of the universe to know until I form those positions. God can compel me to form such positions early by putting me in a crisis, he can teach my by showing me different options and can inform my mind via his spirit, or by allowing me to be tempted to test me, etc, but there's nothing yet to know until that path in your mind has been taken.
This isn't just philosophical mumbo jumbo, it's rooted in what people functionally mean when they say they will, might or can do x.
ravissary
I always tell them this is a comment section...not a cut and paste section
Geez..
They'll paste in a doctrinal thesis..as if anyone would take the time...
shredhed
Who was cited on the Romans 9 text about arbitrary mercy?
wfc
Chris,
In rom. 9 and beginning with Abraham going forward and also 8:28-29
They do the same thing in both places
Paul is developing a thought and going along and then...FULL STOP!!!!
Out of left field he inserts a verse or two about their personal, individual
Ok,
Then he continues developing his thought.
It is incongruous, nonsensical and just dumb.
They're so triggered on certain terms that when they see them it's like when my dog sees a squirrel.
It doesn't matter what she was doing. If she sees a squirrel something mental kicks in, overriding whatever it was she was doing.
These guys either are indoctrinated or have poor reading comprehension or both
shredhed
Philippians 1:6 is not even in the context of soteriology. It’s about their work for the gospel.
wfc
If Adam did not spiritually die, when he ate of the fruit, how was this verse fulfilled?
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
BoxBoy
Funny how the calvinist god tries to glorify himself to puppets. So basically he plays with puppets for a while, and then he makes his chosen puppets revere him and thus glory is established. Yet the problem with this thought is that they who revere him dont even do it out of free will but because theyre controlled to do so.
goalking
An issue is that most all your broadcasts are negative. IE you do not state explicitly what you believe, but go into so much detail the errors of others.
I have a question on how you believe a person gets saved. Especially in light of John 6:44.
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.
So can a person come to the point of repentance totally by themselves? Or does it require God urging them towards Him? Explain in detail.
Brian_L_A
I stopped listening at the point where the gentleman made the assertion that total depravity conflicts with the incarnation... I don't believe that these gentlemen understand what it is that they are attempting to refute.
1:44:38
0:53:45