Reformed Thoughts on Michael Heiser | Kingdoms Unveiled 

Calvin or Heiser? Heiser all day. I'd even pick Luther over Calvin and I'm not even lutheran. Anyway, I love Dr. Heiser his work help me to connect the dots on a lot of things I was already noticing in the text and studying and he expanded it even more. What really blew my mind was the DSS and septuagint readings of Deuteronomy 32:8 with the alternate reading of "sons of God" instead of "sons of Israel", which I had no idea about nd how it connected to Psalm 82 that's what really got me. It shook me, but overtime I pretty much accepted it. What made it easy was I was already studying Genesis 6 and the nephilim, Book of Enoch listening to Chuck Missler, Rob Skiba etc...

I think you should listen and will be surprised!

@@debras3806 You know what You're right. I shouldn't be so close-minded and stuck to my opinion that I can't hear other people speak with differing opinions

There’s a reason Calvin is known as a one of the great reformers and Heiser is not.

@@chriscarter8457 You can go put your opinion in the trash where it belongs. That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day and I've heard a lot of dumb things today. Heiser trumps John Calvin every time.

To be fair, not just Augustine, but also Chrysostom and also Jerome in the 300s. Here is Chrysostom in his homily on Ephesians 1.1.4 "What he means is this: The one through whom he has blessed us is the one through whom he has elected us.… Christ chose us to have faith in him before we came into being, indeed even before the world was founded. The word foundation was well chosen, to indicate that it was laid down from some great height. For great and ineffable is the height of God, not in a particular place but rather in his remoteness from nature. So great is the distance between creature and Creator."

@@daniellachlanclark Augustine and Jerome were contemporaries. Jerome translated a pile of loose transcripts that were in Greek to form the Latin Vulgate. Augustine used it and later Jean Cauvin man in Geneva used it. It was Cauvin's favorite. In one of Heiser's last recordings he states those Greek manuscripts were defective or had defects in them. Heiser also posed a question...WHY do some people insist on including "early church fathers"ECF in study or discussion?? Is the authorship contained in the Bible not good enough?" What insight into do they provide over Scripture of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.? A number of these ECF are 300 to 400 years after Christ, like Jerome and Augustine. Did they gain more knowledge than the Apostles.?

@@Baltic_Hammer6162 Probably for the same reason that Heiser includes discussion of inter-testamental writings. It helps us get a read of how people early on interpreted scripture. It would at least give me pause before suggesting a reading for a text that nobody had thought of for 2000 years. For example, it's useful (but not necessarily conclusive) to know that the dispensational, pre-millennial view only emerged in the 19th century. Likewise, it's useful to know that for a very, very long time, Christians have read Paul's words in Ephesians, "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will", to mean, there is a group whom were chosen by God, the condition for being chosen was that they were predestined, the predestination was according to God's plan, God having a divine will that he works all things out to conform with. I'm not sure what you mean by saying the latin vulgate was Calvin's favourite, since he taught from the Greek text of the New Testament without notes.

@@daniellachlanclark The Latin Vulgate part. That's something I came across during my deep dive research into Jean Cauvin the works of the man in Geneva. Cauvin did not need notes. Going through his commentaries he was great at making up "scripture" from thin air. Then adding a veiled threat not to challenge him. What else can you expect from an ultra narcissist who demanded the Geneva council recognize him as "the One and Only Voice of God on Earth"??

Thanks for the encouragement!

Why set it aside when it's key to understanding the role of being an image bearer n what tht means throughout the biblical narrative.

I am not going to make and argument for Heiser or Calvinists. I need to read more of Heiser but does he believe true saved believers can lose their salvation? If he does not, then no matter if one is a Calvinists or hold to Heiser's thinking, God knows every single soul that will be saved aka written in the Book of Life. This is knowledge God knew before the foundation of the world, whether you will believe God actually predestined that or He simply knew who would believe in Jesus Christ.

@@danielkim672 No he did not believe a truly born again Christian lost their salvation. You're a new creature in Christ. Why would anyone throw that away or rescind it::"?

@@Baltic_Hammer6162 there are so many Christians that believe we can lose our salvation. Way more than I realized.

​@@danielkim672 I know there's a bunch of verses in the OT/NT that appear to affirm you can lose it. But IMHO if the grace and love of Jesus Christ is truly in your heart, your eyes would be opened to see your old ugly self compared to your new self getting cleaned up by the Blood of Jesus while seeing all the blessings He gives us freely each day.

@@Baltic_Hammer6162 I do not believe Christians can lose salvation that is gifted to us by the Father through Jesus Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

The countless things Heiser saw in the Bible and researched then hashed out and presented to the public, are mind-blowing. But his critics (usually reformed/calvinist) like to whine about Heiser, as in he thinks he knows "new" things in the Bible that thousands of "theologians" have missed for 2,000 years. But they don't stop and realize just how utterly ignorant 'church fathers" like Augustine were. Augie was set upon a pedestal and his elements of pagan Gnosticism were incorporated into doctrines when were incorporated into Jean Cauvin's philosophical humanist belief system with more barnacles. Since people are gullible and lazy and easily brainwashed, so they do not and did not dig to find the backstories which add so much depth and understanding. So the most exalted of Catholic and Protestant teachers and leaders became nothing more than parrots ASSUMING the people before them did the hard work...NOT..!! So they built foundations made of false beliefs but were brainwashed so thoroughly they truly thought they knew the Word of God. But they did not know a fraction of what a 1st century Jew knew. So they ran with ignorance thinking they were wiser, but in fact only knew lies. I figured out long ago that when a belief system/cult deliberately ignor every verse plainly destroying their sand castle, its time to run....fast.

If it's Sovereignty (Calvinism), you need mental calisthenics to rationalize why free will is ABSOLUTE when described by Scripture in ALL instances. If it's love (Arminianism), it's again difficult to justify judgement. BUT if it's holiness (TRUE Wesleyanism), it's a cinch to logically justify love, judgment and even sovereignty.

You should look up the webpage dedicated to this controversial chapter in Heiser’s book where he lays out a position parallel to, if not identical to Pipers. It will be equally encouraging I’m sure. 😊

John Piper, as far as I know, is a dispensationalist.

What I really hear you saying is..... Heiser's presentations which he would fully explain and explore from every possible angle, while using the Bible and 2nd Temple Jewish literature, just doesn't fit thru my Jean Cauvin Bible filter. So therefore Heiser has to be wrong and a heretic. Its truly crazy how people make up stuff and then twist the Bible to make it support THEIR version of the Bible. Classic Calvin in Geneva.

She is a deceiver and hops from one type of deceit to another. New Age to Episcopal to ?? to suddenly appearing chummy with Justin Peters. Birds of a feather flock together. STOP listening her unless you want to reinforce the Bible's warning on the blind leading the blind.

No it's not, they were saying that's Heisers view

@@ParticularBaptist I just relistened ..you are correct . I think he was summarizing Heiser's view. I appreciate the correction .

Took the words right off my tongue. Wait til he's dead then trash him.!! That's the Calvinism I know very well, but when your belief system founder was like that, can you expect better from his followers?

Hi Billy, I would challenge you to read and study Ephesians 1 and write out each point made than tell me what the chapter is teaching.

​@johnpeavey6557 I would challenge you watch n listen to Dr. Leighton Flowers explain Ephesians 1 in context...

😂 You win the internet brother! You win the game of ‘Break that System!’ too 😂😂

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MMhUQY8tyY8.htmlsi=PHhsvSbQ3kTaxlUa

@@kingdomsunveiledpod ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kN_5SHEsHns.htmlsi=fL9EkAFy4kFGKCIe

It's certainly not incompatible with it. Predestination and election was taught by early Church Fathers before Augustine. Chrystosome for instance goes into length about election and predestination and it mirrors what Calvin said about it. And it's spot on with what Paul said about it.

@@BrianRich1689 no it's called CALVINism for a reason. God doesn't need someone to be murdered in order to achieve His glory. God achieves His goals without infringing on your freedom to make your own choices. We inevitably make bad choices with the free will God gave us, THAT'S where evil comes from. When you toss out false doctrine like Calvinism, the Bible makes much more coherent sense. I've encountered so many atheist who are atheist because of Calvinism (That's not a coincidence), when I remove Calvinism from their argument their arguments fall apart that's not a coincidence either

@@williamcunningham4946 "it's called Calvinism for a reason" - Calvinism is a label given to Reformed theology by the Remonstrants who disliked Calvin. It was meant as a derogatory label. That's why it's called Calvinism. "God doesn't need someone to be murdered in order to achieve His glory" -So you're saying that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus didn't glorify God? I disagree, weird statement. Minimizing the Gospel isn't a good point to stand on. Unless I'm mistaken on your point, if so, clarify. "God achieves His goals without infringing on your freedom to make you're own choices." -Thats a broad statement. In some cases this is true. In cases like the Israelites conquest of Cananaan, God delivered the Canaanites unto destruction, I doubt it was their will or choice to be destroyed. They had no chance, God was on the side of Israel. You don't have a choice in whether or not you are physically born, and the same goes for ones spiritual birth. One of us is consistent on this, and it's not you. "We inevitably make bad choices with the free will God gave us,THATS where evil comes from" -This point I agree with. Where this comes from is both by choice and our fallen nature. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". That's a "Calvinist" ideal btw. "When you toss out false doctrine like Calvinism, the Bible makes much more coherent sense" - What part of Calvinism? Calvinism isn't a "Doctrine" it's a set of doctrines. If you mean Calvin's views of soteriology, then I disagree, it's very consistent, Biblical and was held by early Christians who lived before Augustine even, and I can list those early Christians if you'd like and provide quotes proving this. Calvin's Soteriology is spot on. "I've encountered many atheists..." - That's tertiary evidence. And it's an opinion based upon wrong doctrine and is not Biblical. Atheists don't believe because they are in rebellion towards God period. I won't entertain that notion since it's ridiculous on its face. "When I remove Calvinism..." -Atheists will be more friendly towards ideals that allow them to keep some of their humanistic values. Unbiblical principles appeal to mankind's desires and ideals. So this could make sense, but also: this is tertiary evidence.

This is the best analysis of the Calvinist phenomenon.

This is just one of the glaring internal contradictions inherent within the reformed system.

They are taking issue with Dr Michael Heiser's view let the Bible speak for the Bible. But they want the Bible squeezed thru the Calvinist filter. Anything squeezed thru any level of Calvinism is going to be deceit but it will be so well camouflaged some people will believe it and be blinded.

We have a response video coming next week

Doreen is a textbook example of blind leading or trying to lead the blind.

This was devastating to Doreen's videos and exposes many inaccuracies. ru-vid.comRjgo_LuEWNc?si=wW4KFkbXCXZXdXp6

What was wrong with his view of sovereignty n election?? He makes more sense than any calvinist I've ever heard.

@@graybillythekid well yes. I'm from the Reformed faith...so I would not agree with him on that. But I do on many other things.

@@dannewcomb7631 but why do u disagree with him?

@@graybillythekid his view of election. I agree with him probably 90% or more. I think, it seems to me, most often the disagreements lie in a misunderstanding of what people believe in regards to election. I know Heiser thinks the people of God, Israel, were God's chosen people. Yet he makes the correct point that just because you were born a Jew doesn't mean you were saved. I agree. I don't know to any Reformer that thinks otherwise. There was the "remanent". And no Reformer disagrees with him regarding man's ultimate responsibility to believe. Man is responsible. Yet there are so many passages that confirm what I experienced and so many..."I once was blind but now I see". I think it is pretty clear the grace of God is needed to save. Eph 2:8-10 is a good place to start. Even our faith is given to us. Yet, mysteriously it seems, man is responsible. And the Gospel must be preached "Repent and believe". No Reformer rejects evangelism. But...I suspect Heiser was just being loyal to his tradition, an emphasis on man's responsibility perhaps. And I'm not sure about his view of scripture. He may be right but I'm probably more traditional on the idea of the cannon is inerrant and the books not included are not necessarily inerrant. But...I liked him. I listen to him a lot.

​@@dannewcomb7631I think you could benefit from listening more closely to Heiser's views on election, salvation, spiritual deadness and sovereignty. It's not a mystery as to how man is free if God is sovereign. Reformed ppl mk it a mystery because they are married to the theological system of calvinism and many cant think outside of that box. Dr. Heiser believed that man is responsible because man has the capacity to freely respond to God's appeals, not that men seek God because we don't but that we can freely choose to accept or reject God's appeals without some divine intervention as if we didn't have the capacity to believe the gospel without God specially enabling us to do so... I don't think you understand Dr. Heiser's view of scripture either but u acknowledged that. Just a friendly recommendation if you want some real clarity on calvinism, election, salvation, predestination, free will etc.Check out Dr. Leighton Flowers he is an ex calvinist of 10 years who taught and defended it but left calvinism and has a yt channel called soteriology 101 where he does an incredible job of exposing the deep flaws of calvinism as well as showing u a much more clear and better way of interpretating so called calvinistic passages than any calvinist I've ever heard past or present. He even shows videos of John MacArthur preaching calvinism in one sermon n in another he preaches something completely contradictory to his own calvinism lol because calvinism is a walking contradiction...

So, do you believe that the 3 supernatural rebellions that Heiser talks about was pre-determined by God to happen?

Indeed, Heiser now knows Calvinisms wellspring is from the Saran. Amen.

Reformed Calvinism are disgusting theological attempts to usurp Jesus The Messiah into a systematic cults image.

Do you mean that in your own opinion he was wrong,.....

He didn't misunderstand the sovereignty of God, but even if he did, it does not follow logically that because someone has a misunderstanding in regard to one piece of theology he necessarily must misunderstand everything else.

Do you not “see” the inconsistency and double-mindedness in your comment?? Lord have mercy!

Thank you for the feedback

If I recall correctly--and I may not be--he distinguishes between Eden and the rest of the earth. The Garden is not all there was. The rest of the earth was "good" but still needed to be subdued and developed.

@@sorenpx But would that make the rest of the earth, before the fall, not perfect then? Even if you consider the garden “perfect”, it still needed guarding and keeping before the corruption of sin.

@@alex1ms I honestly am not even sure what a "perfect" earth is. How do we define it? Does it mean free from danger? Does it mean already being perfectly cultivated? I honestly don't know.

Ask the question: Why did God command to “… subdue …” the Earth? What needed subduing? Gen 1:28

@@rockandroll3671I’ve always understood it as Adam was to subdue the earth aka have authority over it as he was created in the image of God and ranked highest in all that was created. By sinning against God, he forfeited his/man’s authority and this position transferred to Satan. Who will have dominion until the second Adam (Christ) defeats him and takes it back.

Catholicism and Calvinism grew from the same rotten root of parts of multiple Gnostic pagan beliefs. The Manichean's doctrines never left Augustine. Manicheanism was just one of 4 or 5 Gnostic systems floating around the 1st century and later. Some earlier. Calvinism does share a lot of traits with Gnosticism, Islam, New Age, etc. They all have "secret knowledge" available only to a select few. That's a starter intro for a very long topic.

So what is this deity that is different than what you believe is the true God of the Bible?

@@danielkim672 Impossible to cohere align Jesus The Messiah with the christ of Calvinism.

@@truthseeker5698 I am not a Calvinist so I do not know the all the intimate pieces of theology so the question i have is in what main way does Calvinism view Jesus Christ that does not align with Jesus The Messiah from your perspective?

@@danielkim672 Jesus The Messiah draws all to himself and desires none to perish. The christ of Calvinism predetermined its elect before the world began and has decreed everything that happens. Impossible these two are the same.

@@truthseeker5698 I see where are coming from. It might be difficult to understand for sure, but I do believe that because of God's Sovereignty, He saves the ones who He choose to save. I agree that Jesus and God desires for everyone to be saved. I also believe that for the work of Jesus on the Cross to be complete 'requires' the work of humans to actively choose Jesus over sin, then the work on the Cross is not complete. I will say I could be wrong and I am glad we can have these discussions. God bless!

If I may ask, what was not right/correct with his view of God's sovereignty?