24:03 "He knows how we will respond long before we're even born". There is no Scriptural statement to confirm such assertions of God's supposed seeing everything in a single moment. Nowhere does Scripture teach that each person's every thought, choice and deed are known by God before they come into existence. That is the imposition of a philosophical speculation about what is involved in God's timelessness and omniscience. Trying to fit Scripture into compatibility with that philosophy is to fail to listen to what God's word actually says. There is no affirmation in Scripture that God, when He first created Adam and Eve, was thinking all along, "I know they will definitely disobey my command". When God told King Hezekiah that he was going to die imminently, He was telling the truth, but, when Hezekiah prayed to God, God then added 15 years to his life. So clearly, the date of Hezekiah's death was not settled by God long before Hezekiah was born. God was genuinely dismayed with the people He had allowed to flourish in the lead up to Noah's Flood, as He observed the wickedness which their minds devised. There is also a statement of God in one of the prophets (I forget exactly where) that He had not previously envisaged that they would do such an evil. If you think that God knew every wicked and abominable thought of men and devils "from all eternity", then you make evil as eternal as God, actually putting it in the mind of God before the wicked devised it. I suggest people take what Scripture actually says, and do not impose a philosiphical notion which it does not teach. God foreknew each one of us before He brought us into existence, and prepared a glorious destiny for all who would cooperate with His gracious purpose, but He did not know before we started thinking our thoughts what those thoughts would actually be.
I didn’t watch the whole video, and I’ll tell you why. I went to around the 4 minute mark and the first thing you said at 4:20 is essentially a misrepresentation of the reformed doctrine of predestination. God’s predestination is not arbitrary, and it does not come from any worth in and of ourselves.
Thank you so much for this video. I am just a 'plain Christian!' I am certainly no scholar. I have always been troubled with predestination, because like wesleys thinking how can you be damned til all etertinity if God predetermined it! It kind of made me feel that God was unjust, and we know that isn't possible! Your explanation has shone a little more light on the situation. I have read some of the previous comments and not all agree with your explanation, but it certainly opened my mind and made me feel a little easier about the subject! Thank you once again for all your hard work that you put into making these videos, they are much appreciated.
Ty for the vid Rev Daniel! If I may ask though on the comment on single predestination, wouldn't God passing over some for Election rather than directly damning them be Calvinist double predestinarian preterition instead of Lutheran single predestination? Admittedly I've still been a little confused with this since it seems pretty vague in terms of understanding what exactly happened to those who aren't saved within a monergistic model
Could you please do a video explaining Romans 9:1-23 and Romans 3:11-12. If by definition (2 John1:6) love (agape) = walking in God's commandments, didn't God love or give his commandments to Jacob and not to Esau before they were born? If love is God giving His commandments, then is hate not giving His commandments? Agape kai Phileo
Thank you for your insights on this subject! I was raised in the Episcopal church but became more evangelical in adulthood. I felt the need to return to tradition but didn't know where to go. I settled on returning to Anglicanism, since it's the closet I can get to ancient liturgy and not go against my beliefs about the nature of catholicity (RCC or EOC). I always said I believe in the articles (minus article 17!) but your context is helping me understand it in a way that reconciles it with a more arminian understanding, which I believe to be correct as well. Keep up the good work! These videos really help people wrestle with the big questions.
I believe in predestination, it's biblical. We're predestined, but through our belief.. just like people who have rejected God throughout their life is predestined, not God making them not believe
Augustine is to blame for polluting the Church with the vile, nauseating teachings of predestination and infant damnation. Predestination is evil enough, but if infant damnation is true, I want nothing to do with the God who countenances it. Many Anglicans and Catholics believe the best we can hope for from the Bible is that we can trust children to the mercy and justice of God. We don't know the ultimate fate of infants. Of course, loads of Calvinists believe positively in infant "election." Not acceptable. I've been very immoral, but I'm more moral that any God who damns babies and embryos. It's bad enough that there is any room for doubt about this in Scripture.
The 39 Articles contain with themselves their own critique. If the church of Rome as well as the churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch have erred so, on the issue of predestination, has the Church of England.
I am so blessed to have found your channel! I have been voraciously reading the works of Wesley and have been inquiring of Methodism since, however I find the UMC and unfortunately the GMC even to have problematic stances that I can’t affirm, I am now seriously inquiring of Anglicanism!
24:m 03s "But that [God's] foreknowledge doesn't take away our freedom to respond to the gospel even though he knows how we will respond" I'm sorry but if God knows (and has always known, even before the world was created) what we are going to do how can we have free will? It seems to me that Hixon wants to have his cake and eat it, i.e. he wants us to believe in both predestination and free will at the same time which, of course, is impossible. It is stuff like this that shows the difference between philosphy and logic on one hand that don't like contradictions and theology on the other that expects you to believe in them at regular intervals. Call me autistic if you want but I had to stop listening at that point.
If Whitfield believed in 5 point Calvinism, why did he bother to preach. Nothing he, or anyone else, did would make any difference. Calvinism sees God as all-powerful and all-knowing, but not all-good.
24:03 "He knows how we will respond long before we're even born". There is no Scriptural statement to confirm such assertions of God's supposed seeing everything in a single moment. Nowhere does Scripture teach that each person's every thought, choice and deed are known by God before they come into existence. That is the imposition of a philosophical speculation about what is involved in God's timelessness and omniscience. Trying to fit Scripture into compatibility with that philosophy is to fail to listen to what God's word actually says. There is no affirmation in Scripture that God, when He first created Adam and Eve, was thinking all along, "I know they will definitely disobey my command". When God told King Hezekiah that he was going to die imminently, He was telling the truth, but, when Hezekiah prayed to God, God then added 15 years to his life. So clearly, the date of Hezekiah's death was not settled by God long before Hezekiah was born. God was genuinely dismayed with the people He had allowed to flourish in the lead up to Noah's Flood, as He observed the wickedness which their minds devised. There is also a statement of God in one of the prophets (I forget exactly where) that He had not previously envisaged that they would do such an evil. If you think that God knew every wicked and abominable thought of men and devils "from all eternity", then you make evil as eternal as God, actually putting it in the mind of God before the wicked devised it. I suggest people take what Scripture actually says, and do not impose a philosiphical notion which it does not teach. God foreknew each one of us before He brought us into existence, and prepared a glorious destiny for all who would cooperate with His gracious purpose, but He did not know before we started thinking our thoughts what those thoughts would actually be.
I didn’t watch the whole video, and I’ll tell you why. I went to around the 4 minute mark and the first thing you said at 4:20 is essentially a misrepresentation of the reformed doctrine of predestination. God’s predestination is not arbitrary, and it does not come from any worth in and of ourselves.
Very interesting!
Thank you so much for this video. I am just a 'plain Christian!' I am certainly no scholar. I have always been troubled with predestination, because like wesleys thinking how can you be damned til all etertinity if God predetermined it! It kind of made me feel that God was unjust, and we know that isn't possible! Your explanation has shone a little more light on the situation. I have read some of the previous comments and not all agree with your explanation, but it certainly opened my mind and made me feel a little easier about the subject! Thank you once again for all your hard work that you put into making these videos, they are much appreciated.
This is my first time listening to one of your videos. Very well done, enjoyable, interesting, informative.
Ty for the vid Rev Daniel! If I may ask though on the comment on single predestination, wouldn't God passing over some for Election rather than directly damning them be Calvinist double predestinarian preterition instead of Lutheran single predestination?
Admittedly I've still been a little confused with this since it seems pretty vague in terms of understanding what exactly happened to those who aren't saved within a monergistic model
Could you please do a video explaining Romans 9:1-23 and Romans 3:11-12. If by definition (2 John1:6) love (agape) = walking in God's commandments, didn't God love or give his commandments to Jacob and not to Esau before they were born? If love is God giving His commandments, then is hate not giving His commandments?
Agape kai Phileo
Thank you for your insights on this subject! I was raised in the Episcopal church but became more evangelical in adulthood. I felt the need to return to tradition but didn't know where to go. I settled on returning to Anglicanism, since it's the closet I can get to ancient liturgy and not go against my beliefs about the nature of catholicity (RCC or EOC). I always said I believe in the articles (minus article 17!) but your context is helping me understand it in a way that reconciles it with a more arminian understanding, which I believe to be correct as well. Keep up the good work! These videos really help people wrestle with the big questions.
I believe in predestination, it's biblical. We're predestined, but through our belief.. just like people who have rejected God throughout their life is predestined, not God making them not believe
You make the choice.
I love your teaching on this!! Thank you!!
Augustine is to blame for polluting the Church with the vile, nauseating teachings of predestination and infant damnation. Predestination is evil enough, but if infant damnation is true, I want nothing to do with the God who countenances it. Many Anglicans and Catholics believe the best we can hope for from the Bible is that we can trust children to the mercy and justice of God. We don't know the ultimate fate of infants. Of course, loads of Calvinists believe positively in infant "election." Not acceptable. I've been very immoral, but I'm more moral that any God who damns babies and embryos. It's bad enough that there is any room for doubt about this in Scripture.
18:56 C.S Lewis reference
Wesley was clearly very intelligent and insightful, a good thinker and writer. Any thoughts on Molinism?
the bible is easy to understand when you believe in the sovereignty of God
The 39 Articles contain with themselves their own critique. If the church of Rome as well as the churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch have erred so, on the issue of predestination, has the Church of England.
I am so blessed to have found your channel! I have been voraciously reading the works of Wesley and have been inquiring of Methodism since, however I find the UMC and unfortunately the GMC even to have problematic stances that I can’t affirm, I am now seriously inquiring of Anglicanism!
Thank you.
(This guy understands Calvinism).
cage stager "This guy doesn't understamd Calvinism."
17:40 Wesley is saying this long before we understood time as a malleable dimension… imagine being right on target before Einstein physics
24:m 03s "But that [God's] foreknowledge doesn't take away our freedom to respond to the gospel even though he knows how we will respond" I'm sorry but if God knows (and has always known, even before the world was created) what we are going to do how can we have free will? It seems to me that Hixon wants to have his cake and eat it, i.e. he wants us to believe in both predestination and free will at the same time which, of course, is impossible. It is stuff like this that shows the difference between philosphy and logic on one hand that don't like contradictions and theology on the other that expects you to believe in them at regular intervals. Call me autistic if you want but I had to stop listening at that point.
If Whitfield believed in 5 point Calvinism, why did he bother to preach. Nothing he, or anyone else, did would make any difference. Calvinism sees God as all-powerful and all-knowing, but not all-good.