Different Types of Determinism

[@monkizaki1440]

Just watched Leighton's video with Ken, twice. He argues that Augustine gave rise to these teachings within the christian church.

[@SugoiEnglish1]

and he is incorrect...

[@reformedcatholic457]

Again Ken is making false claims, once again either he is lying or ignorant.

[@1689solas]

You have any decade old videos you're planning on premiering this week?

[@reformedcatholic457]

@@1689solas One on resurrection Sunday, by Pastor Liam Goligher. I can share Good Friday sermons on the community wall on my channel.

[@nickhanley5407]

I feel bad for because you hear what White says and believe that’s the argument that Wilson is making. The argument isn’t about what the purpose of the elect is, it’s about who the elect are and by what means are they chosen. Unconditional election or by faith. You see the Manichaeans believed in unconditional election/ determinism, and according to Wilson, Augustine is the first Christian to introduce this into the church.

[@Tron4JC]

@@nickhanley5407 according to Wilson, baptismal salvation, John 3:5 view of it in place of physical birth, infant baptism for salvation, faith is a gift of God, John 6:44, 15:5, Philippians 1:29, Ephesians 2:8 etc views of it, born guilty of sin at birth, Psalm 51:5, 58:3 etc views of that were all Manichaean determinist views that didn’t exist until Augustine brought them into the church in 412 or after, as foundation to his election views. Wilson is a fabricator.

[@doctorirrefragibilis]

@@nickhanley5407 Did Manichaeans belief in unconditional election? I do not know too much about Manichaeans but I know you have the Elect and the Hearers. I mean, I suppose both can be saved be right according to their doctrine because both kind of people follow the religion? So how’s that unconditional selection? The select do not seem to be selected over the Hearers, in salvation sense at least. Correct me if if im wrong. Also, on what basis did some become the elect? Is there any clear source that explains it, a Manichaean source most preferably or at least an ancient source.

[@nickhanley5407]

The argument isn’t about the purpose of the elect, it’s about whether or not determinism was found in the early church prior to Augustine. According to Wilson, it wasn’t and Augustine was first the to introduce determinism into the church. We harp on Manechaenism so much because Augustine was a Manechaen. When trying to figure out where the root of Augustines determinism was, we can conclude it is derived from Manichaeism and NOT from Christians prior to him.

[@Kenneth-nVA]

1 Clement to the Corinthians “ it was your struggle both day and night on behalf of the whole fellowship of believers to save the total number of His elect with mercy and conscientiousness” ( 2:4)

[@billyr9162]

I got your determinism right here buddy... Romans 8:28-29 [28]And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. [29]For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

[@amichiganblackman3200]

@Ryan Buikema you talking about Ephesians 1:4?

[@amichiganblackman3200]

@Ryan Buikema well, you're wrong then. NASB, NKJ, KJV all say we re were elect FROM the foundation of the word. Am I missing something here?

[@danielomitted1867]

Unless you're an open theist, you're a determinist.

[@Mike-qt7jp]

Here is absolute Biblical proof that God does NOT cause or determine everything; In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it." So, as a Calvinist, do you really believe that God arbitrarily creates some people for one reason; to burn for eternity in hell?

[@jtbtdlkt2012]

You're going to hate this but I'm going to appeal to the 3 Cs, context context context. In 2nd Peter who is the intended audience; is it not believers, and if so then is it fair to say (not arbitrarily that God is wishy washy and fighting oh so hard to woo people) that God is talking about all those who are saved and will be saved? Is there unity within The Godhead in your view? The Father wishes so hard that people would choose His son. The Son dies, not for anyone in particular but to make salvation possible if people would just choose Him. The Spirit, well The Spirit tries His hardest to woo and entice people, but He can be rejected and kicked out over and over.

[@jessetoler8171]

@@jtbtdlkt2012 Just try to read the text.

[@jtbtdlkt2012]

@@jessetoler8171 elaborate?

[@Crusader926]

All people = all kinds of people . Rich or poor / gentile or Jewish . Not everyone.

[@jessetoler8171]

So, Mani came up with particular redemption and Augustine accepted the doctrine but not the attendant practices...? So, Calvin was gnostic.

[@tomtemple69]

John the apostle "came up" with it 😂

[@Crusader926]

Paul was a gnostic you say?

[@rsagape7300]

Wilson is only speaking about determinism, that is the only aspect that matters to this discussion. James White is just trying to evade the REALITY that calvinism was never part of the early church.

[@CmRoddy]

He has never said that the early church fathers were Calvinists… so what exactly are you trying to argue here? You’re jousting against an invisible enemy.

[@rsagape7300]

@@CmRoddy So the apostles were calvinists but then the church lost that doctrine and regained it at the reformation? James White says Wilson is wrong, if according to you, he has never said the early church was calvinist. Why does he attack Wilson's teaching?

[@CmRoddy]

@@rsagape7300 First of all, brother, who has said that the apostles were Calvinists? Again, you’re arguing against an invisible enemy. Anyone who would say that, in addition to anyone who would make the early church fathers Calvinists, doesn’t know their church history. Second, Ken Wilson has made various other claims about the early church fathers that are objectively wrong. Did you watch this particular video we are commenting on? James White said “Let the early church fathers be the early church fathers.” Wilson is taking Stoics, Gnostics, Manicheans, etc., that plagued the early church and making it seem like they were all a bunch of Determinists in the same way Calvinists are described as “Determinists” by him and Leighton Flowers. That is objectively incorrect, and that’s the point. The Calvinistic idea of God’s foreordination of all events in time is in no way shape or form similar to how the stoics or gnostics viewed things like “fatalistic determinism.” To make them the same is to be dishonest with history and with overall theological definitions.

[@93556108]

@@CmRoddy anyway, Calvinism doesn't aligned with scripture especially in their double-predestination. Would you like to support it with some biblical evidence. Please go ahead as I'm waiting. Thank you.

[@000MrJwright]

James is upset about a simplistic club being created to beat people over the heads with, but by the end he lumps several groups together, calls them all “man centered” and beats you over the head with it.

[@tomtemple69]

If it's not monergism, it's by default man centered

[@000MrJwright]

@@tomtemple69 you could say any doctrine created by man is “man centered” or that individual election is only for the “select” special boys. Salvation is a free gift. Faith is not a “work” of man (Rom 3:27) but it is a requirement for His Grace.

[@tomtemple69]

@@000MrJwright you're denying God's foreknowledge and sovereignty over creation....

[@000MrJwright]

@@tomtemple69​​⁠I use the dictionary to define sovereignty. The Lord is my King and he created everything therefore his foreknowledge is great, but Jeremiah 19:5. The “man centered” argument is blinding people to the active God that answers prayers, judges, and saves.

[@tomtemple69]

@@000MrJwright "is blinding people to the active God that answers prayers, judges, and saves." you deny that God can save people without their permission.... sovereign in creation means He creates whatever He wants exactly HOW He wants to create it is God forced to create people He knows will go to hell, yes or no?

[@HarrisonB72]

James 👏🏻 is 👏🏻 on 👏🏻 point 👏🏻

[@travissharon1536]

James is ignoring the similarities. Spouting nonsense.

[@rsagape7300]

He 👎is 👎not👎

[@huntsman528]

IF I pull some scriptural interpretation and beliefs out of Morminism and then introduce them into the Christian church THEN it came from Morminism. It doesn't matter if they are the exact same or just similar. They came from the Mormons. I don't have to take all Mornmon beliefs either. It isn't rocket science.

[@itlupe]

:....fallacious on a level..." Entire books WRITTEN BY MEN making them fallacious from the onset. The Bible is set aside so man can give HIS impression of a letter which means something different. Calvanists make the "dogmatic sfuff" work by writing THEIR ideology INTO God's work. This guy is incredible. Everything he is critiquing he is doing! SMH🤣😂🤣🤣

[@Chemike21]

I would love to congratulate you on the vast number of boastful things you have said, but my lack of free will does not allow me to.

[@Bane_questionmark]

Obviously the fact that the philosophical concept of free will is not accurate to the human condition has not stopped you from choosing mockery over discussion. This is an incredibly common response from people who seem to really hate predestination (not disagree with, hate), but it's confusing to me. You're saying you have free will, but then showing that you're using your free will to choose to be rude and contentious rather than speaking the truth of Scripture as you understand it in love. Either you wanted to do this and so you have evil motives, or you didn't want to do this but ended up doing it anyway You seem to be confusing your will with "free will". All human beings have a will, no calvinist denies that. What we deny, and what Scripture denies, is that the will of fallen man is "free". Rather, it is said in many different ways that in the fallen state human beings are slaves to sin, dead in sin. We have freedom not of our own nature, but by being born again and becoming a new creation in Christ. I won't say that in Christ we have "free will" exactly because I think it's an incoherent philosophical concept and either way isn't scriptural, but the freedom from sin and ability to love God which comes from being born again in Christ is about the closest thing you'll find. If you still aren't convinced, I would be interested to hear how you understand the Biblical concepts of fallen humans being "slaves to sin" and "dead in their sins"? Why can't your concept of a fully autonomous human (who uses his free will to decide every single thing he does and says and thinks) simply choose to stop sinning or never sin in the first place, whether or not he has new life in Christ?

[@Chemike21]

@@Bane_questionmark I don't understand what you are confused about. I simply said I had no free will to say anything other than what I said. It's quite simple. I would like to also point out, that because I don't have a choice in what I say, I cannot be held accountable for what I say.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

I don’t think you understand that he does believe in free will. Just not as you do. If your will is truly free in a libertarian sense. Why can’t you stop sinning?

[@Chemike21]

@@ShepherdMinistry you can theoretically stop sinning. Jesus did. We keep sinning because of the lack of understanding. Once we truly understand for example what theft is, and why its destructive, we stop stealing, not because we might get caught, but because we begin to understand that if everyone lived the same way, the world would be chaotic and barbaric. Stealing is an external sin, and is harder to hide, internal sins are committed more often because they are easier to hide.

[@ShepherdMinistry]

@@Chemike21 So you’re able to stop sinning? That is possible at some point in a persons life?

[@jeromesmith9765]

Please debate dying out loud X Pastor Dave Warnock. Jesus 4 life

[@TheNelsenvideos]

Which is funny. When i listen to you, you group people together haha

[@EmWarEl]

So much convoluted baloney, so little willingness to throw out any theological concept that can't be demonstrated in the Word of God.

[@travissharon1536]

You avoid the point. He is talking about the determinist views held by all three groups. This is very typical of Calvinists and social justice warriors. The international missing of the point made, in order to avoid the statement. Calvinists, gnostic, manachians, and stoic, were all determinist. That is the only similarity being pointed out by Ken. Instead you ramble about the differences, but proceed to compare evangelical Christians to Mormons. Mormonism is your theological bat....

[@EL_FIN_ESTÁ_CERCA]

*Soli Deo Gloria?* But... Are you sure you're not giving the glory to yourself? *Calvinist* friend, why did God choose you? You are smart, you know well that it wasn’t a draw. The idea is just… ridiculous. Therefore… there is only one logical option left, right? And your heart knows it very well. God must have seen something special in you. But there is a BIG problem with that “god” of yours: It’s *UNBIBLICAL.* We know that God doesn’t have favorites. He is no respecter of persons. (Romans 2:11). Therefore, it is *impossible* that God chose you because of something in you. You are not worth a cent more than anyone else. The only reason He did, it's because He knew your response to his call. (Romans 8:29). Just like you wouldn't go out to the streets to force a woman to be your wife without her consent, Jesus isn't going to do it. (Free will). "... Many are called, but few *chosen.* " (Matthew 20:16) How terrible is that you don't care distorting God's character just so you can feel “special”, better than others, chosen! Because… let's be reasonable, a “god” who, being able to choose, chose the vast majority of human beings to be destroyed in hell, without any option for salvation, *is not loving, merciful, or good* . It’s not the God of the Bible. Therefore, let us be *VERY CAREFUL* ,lest while trying to give glory to God, we are found to be liars. “ *For the heart is wicked and deceitful above all things.* ” (Jeremiah 17:9).