I love your description of divine sovereignty and free will as two sides of the same universal coin. And how God knew what he was creating and thought we were worth it. ❤
Hi, United States - interesting handle! I don't know whether to salute you or air my grievances.🤔 Ha. Seriously - thanks for watching and commenting! I think the Provisionist view, as I understand it, aligns more with Scripture than Calvinism (i.e. it doesn't have the heap of contradictory verses to contend with that Calvinism does), though since it's still somewhat new, I'm personally hesitant to side with any modern person/organization/doctrine that, due to its lack of being time-tested, could prove to have some serious flaws either in its tenets or the character of its founding proponents. It seems like repackaged Arminianism to me, though I think Provisionism does a better job at recognizing our reliance on God's selection being a crucial part of the process. And "Provide" sounds way cooler than "Tulip". I (very loosely) paraphrase Ferris Bueller. "A person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in Jesus."
@@thinkingtoinfinity 100%, Though I guess I would then point out that the context of the vid is that its either C or A - rather than there are alternatives to these views, and possibly better aligned with scripture. As I don't think either are biblical, I think it should be stated that way. I see P as just a helpful tool to help shift people from the reformed mindset.
@@unitedstates3068 - Seems I could have done a better job of emphasizing that point! I agree completely that it's a false dichotomy and there's a better way to view the issue that encompass all the usual C & A verses. Through showing the 2 sides, the point was to pointedly point out where they each have weak points and also point out a reasonable alternative viewpoint.
Such a tough topic, addressed intelligently and with fabulous humor and editing, great job! I’ll challenge your thinking to infinity at omniscience. I know you’ve heard/read dozens if not hundreds of input over all the subjects you touched on in this video (and kudos to you for the Mike Winger reference, he really is one of the good ones) but I have something you haven’t heard before on omniscience. And with your obviously deep and broad knowledge on these subjects (it’s clear you’ve done your homework and put a ton of thought and wisdom into this) I think you might really enjoy what I have to share. Care for a conversation on philosophical vs biblical omniscience?
Here goes! At 7:58 you mention that we call God “omniscient” and you go on to say that means he “foresaw or foreknew” everything. This is a widely held and reasonable take. I just don’t think it’s the best one we can come up with. The 3 problems I see are that it’s not exactly consistent with how we define his other omni’s, it’s not the strongest definition we could come up with, and it doesn’t line up perfectly with the biblical account. That last one might be the kicker. 1.) the omni’s. A definition of God’s omnipotence might be God can do anything he wants to do, that isn’t against is nature or illogical. Likewise, omnipresence is God can be anywhere or everywhere at the same time in whatever degree of glory he chooses. Least glory in hell, more glory on Earth, most glory in heaven. Something like that. But for omniscience we say simply God knows everything. Where is God’s choice here? He has the power of choice in omnipotence and omnipresence, but not in omniscience? Are we trying to tell God he has to know everything? What if he wanted to choose to withhold the knowledge of something from himself? Would we say he can’t do that? Isn’t he omnipotent? 2.) A definition of omniscience that says God can know anything he wishes to know is a stronger, or more powerful definition than God knows all things. In this new definition God can certainly know all things if he wishes, but he has an additional power, the choice to also not know something. It’s stronger. 3.) the biblical account. About 8:40 in the video you fly a list of verses that point to God knowing all things, and I believe they more often actually show that nothing is unknowable for God, which I certainly affirm. And at 8:47 you give a little attention to the other side by referencing a place or two where God seemed to regret something. But this is nowhere near an exhaustive look. Throughout the Bible God works with man in real time and he describes his thoughts and actions as if they are in time, as if he is walking alongside man, seeing new things at times. He asks Adam and Eve what’s going on? He asks Cain what did you do? He looks down and sees everyone’s hearts and command Noah. He tells Job he’s going to smite the Ninehvites, only to change his mind after their repentance. And there’s many more examples like these. Yes, it could be semantic, but it doesn’t have to be if we take this, stronger definition of omniscience. God really could not know everything and the biblical accounts could be spot on true, not word games, and yet God would not be one iota less powerful. The bottom line is if this new definition of omniscience is adopted we get one final, supremely important benefit: we can finally see how God is all-knowledgeable and yet is still not the author of sin. This definition solves the mystery between God’s omniscience and man’s free will that is so often called an antimony. With this definition we can say God knows the end from the beginning but yet man is responsible for his sins, not God. And it fits the Bible the best.
@@TheRomans9Guy - Great stuff! Thanks for taking the time to write all that out! Well done. :) Now I have to try to maintain that same level of depth and clarity... tall order. I am familiar with the view of omniscience as God knowing all He's "able to know" or "willing to know". I think those are both fair considerations to make. I just think the first seems more like an outside limitation put upon a limitless being, rather than a character-based limitation (i.e. He's unable to sin because that would mean doing something that is 100% not-God like). 1) I do think we see God intentionally limiting what He knows or at least acknowledges (Is. 43:25, Heb. 10:17), thankfully! But I also think He has access to all information, including potential outcomes, thus enabling Him to see future sin and the requirement for Jesus to become an incarnate savior for us before our world was created (verses abound about Jesus being slain before the creation of the Earth). 2) Respectfully, I don't see how that concludes to a stronger definition. I could also say if God had the power to sin, it would be "one more" skill/additional power He'd have, but I don't think that's accurate. 3) I agree my list wasn't exhaustive. Only so many minutes on these videos before the kids start clicking on those dudes in the Amazon building pools with their toes! I also agree your argument is very solid. Mine does seems like a paradox on its face, however, I think it plays out with further examination. I do think some Biblical accounts contain hyperbole, poetic delivery, or other literary devices (asking "Where are you?" in the garden when He could clearly see into the future that the crucifixion was a necessity for the future fallen world) that can skew our modern understanding of them. For example: Similar to God "regretting" something He knew was a requirement -- He knew the Ninevites would choose repentance if offered, so He interjected into time and presented them with the choice to do so. If they didn't choose repentance, they'd remain on the path to destruction. Kinda like me telling my kids I plan to put their Legos in storage if they don't get them off the floor. I fully intend to follow through on that if they don't clean them up, but I'm also 100% certain the statement will get them to clean up the plastic mine field. And that's not even God's level of foreknowledge. This is supported by the fact that He didn't make this same offer to every people group. I do have a video on this topic planned to spend more time on that. Do please keep the thoughts coming -- I appreciate it and am convinced it will help me be better informed and create better quality videos.
I've always heard it the other way... hopefully since I intentionally kept mispronouncing Jacobus, it'll be assumed I was doing it intentionally. Until people read this. Dangit.
@@thinkingtoinfinity The Jack ‘o Bus was hilarious, and your intentionality there did come through! I think your hope on Arminianism is bolstered because you did spell it correctly in the video title!
You had some good points, but unfortunately started with a Calvinistic definition of Predestination. FWIW, I'm an apologist & neither Calvo or Armo (my abv.). Biblical Predestination in Ephesians is Christians (the church at Ephesus) predestined to all the blessings in HIM/in Christ... not unbelievers to salvation. If you ain't saved, you don't get'm (1:11 obtained inheritance, 1:13-14 sealed, guaranteed redemption & purchased, 2:1, 5 made alive, 2:6 we will sit in Heavenly places... In Romans 8 the church in Rome are Predestined to our new bodies & Heavenly abode. The adoption is to new bodies that's what were waiting for. We think of western culture adoption of orphan children into families...read it...5x if necessary.
Hi Mike - thanks for the comment! Yes, I did tie Calvinism to Predestination, but explained in the video that was my intention (that's the popular association between those views in Christianity and the dictionary definition of it as well). I also explained it was a simplification that didn't cover all the nuances of those views. Still, I think it gets the basic idea(s) across. I also agree that "what" we're predestined to is a crucial factor in understanding those verses! Well said. Though the idea of eternal predestination of our ultimate fate, not merely the benefits associated with our salvation, being addressed by other verses remains.
