Zoomer's New York accent is clear when he says "thought"

There is no such thing as mean Calvinism. Because that would imply the existance of nice Calvinism 😔.

As a Catholic, I understood some of these words.

'I've been wrong for several years' **someone throws bread at RZ**

“This is the same argument non-Calvinists use against Calvinists.” So close and yet so far from the right answer…

Supralapsarianism is the logical conclusion to Calvinism, which is why I'm not calvinist.

This video was basically “ I was wrong about my terrible theology, I’ve realized it actually should be much worse”

Unfortunately, this line of thinking DOES necessitate that God is the progenitor of all sin. If I understand your belief about predestination correctly, you are saying that when God creates you, He also creates every step of your life and all the events that happen to you for your ultimate benefit and for His glory. Every step of your life is according to His plan, but He is not responsible for your sin because He allows your sin, not causes it. However, this is a contradiction because your life is affected by the choices you make. If I murder someone, get sent to jail, find redemption in jail, and then live my life as a redeemed example of God's grace even to murderers, then (by your logic) that means that God meant for me to go to jail so that He could bless me and others through me. However, I would not have gone to jail had I not sinned which would have thwarted God's plan. If God is the sole author of my story, then he must have authored my sin as well in order to make me fit into his plan. It is only by allowing us to affect our own lives that He avoids causing sin. A brilliant strategist plans for contingencies and God is the perfect, omniscient strategist. God's glory would have been shown if Adam and Eve never sinned and He never needed to sacrifice Jesus. And if every single human throughout history had rejected Jesus, then God would have called witnesses out of the stones. His gift to us is the ability to be the vehicle through which His glory is portrayed, but His glory will be portrayed regardless. Furthermore, predestination is unbiblical. 1 John 2:2 says that "[Jesus] is the sacrifice that atones for our sins--and not only our sins but the sins of all the world". If God predestined some and not others, then Jesus did not atone for the sins of the whole world, but just the predestined few. I think of predestination as a form of mini-blasphemy. We limited beings are trying to understand a Being who exists beyond and above time, and so we stubbornly cling to an interpretation that conforms to our own limited logic, even (sometimes) at the cost of alienating potential believers. While it doesn't hurt to speculate, we have to be humble enough to know we don't understand His fullness.

Please pray for Mar Mari Emmanuel

Colossians 1:15-20 literally says that Jesus created all things and reconcile all things to himself. Y'all calvinist are always taking a big leap.

So what I'm learning is that God controls everything, I control nothing, and free will exists somehow. If God creates all of me, including how i react and my experiences, how do I have free will?

Scripture is very clear in explaining the reason for which Christ came. It was *for sin* and *for sinners.* In saying that Christ’s incarnation is necessary in another, wholly hypothetical instance without any sin whatsoever, you are doing nothing but lofty, extra-biblical speculation.

>this isn't about God creating someone for damnation! >looks inside >God creating someone for damnation

man im a catholic, but its amazing to see your humility, God bless you and your chanel zoomer!

Calvinists try not to intellectually explain everything instead of just believe in what scripture says in a literal sense at face value challenge: IMPOSSIBLE

As a Lutheran, I believe the elect are predestined but the damned are damned by their own doing. In other words, for those who aren’t saved, it’s their own damn fault.

Paul was not the OG calvinist. This reminds me of james white making an assertion that the Bible teaches calvinism and simply waves the bible in the air saying to all who oppose him, "do you even believe the bible" ? This is hard to not see it the same as mormons reading out of context "yee are gods" and say if you don't believe we become gods then you don't believe your bible. I would love to see redeemed zoomed debate a person who opposes calvinism. As a non calvinist I do like 3 main calvinists today. I like when a calvinist can debate a provisionist and not engage as if non calvinists have leprosy.

Honest question, if we do not have the free will to follow God, and all aspects of salvation is done by God's sovereignty, why does he not just give everyone saving grace? If God is all powerful, desires all men be saved, is the only cause in salvation, but willfully does not provide the means for salvation to some, I do not understand how we could call God good under that definition. This is one of the main reasons, I reject Calvinism and believe the problem of evil is due to human free will in choosing or not choosing God.

The answer to the question “ how much y’all want for a beacon” at 3:42 was so funny

i'm sorry but i just can't see how predestination is not just pure evil

This is depressing no wonder every Calvanist nation became Atheist.

Yes Aquinas believed in predestination but not Calvinist predestination. Calvinist predestination requires all 5 points to be true since they are logically connected. But Aquinas rejected perseverance of the saints/eternal security. If someone can lose salvation then humans do have some say in salvation, which doesn't really match with Calvinism.

For me true biblical predestination isn’t getting chosen to not roast forever. It’s getting chosen for a sacred mission to act as his hands and feet on this earth. It’s about being a soldier for Christ. The enemy isn’t sinners. Sinners are hostages in need of rescue. Satan is the enemy.

Maybe I missed something but this was just a whole lot of words used to try and go around the fact you think God creates people so he can send them to Hell, you can cope and say whatever you want to try and make it seem like it's not that way but you have still failed to convince me that you don't believe God creates people that are meant to go to Hell

Ah, fiance, eh? A step up from girlfriend! Congrats!

I'm glad you made this video, even though I don't agree with predestination, I was really curious to see why you changed your opinion. So, good!

What are you using to make the little rectangular symbols? And also the other symbols for different denominations?

Calvinism is the definition of a self refuting idea. It says we have free will, but were judged before were born. It says God loves everyone equally, but He has to choose you to be saved.

No God doesnt control who is going to be saved that would be a violation of free will. We have the free will to choose Jesus or not

Honestly this concept makes it really hard for me to have faith and it scares me, the mental gymnastics in this is probably what would push me to become atheist, if ever

I'm glad that you shared your opinions, even if I don't agree with them. My view on all of this (and I'm not sure at all of what I'm saying) is that salvation is offered to everyone through Christ. However, being the all-knowing God he is, God already knows if we're gonna reject his gift or not. In that sense, you could say that you're "predestined" to be saved because God already knows the end, but at the same time, it is up to you to accept Jesus' gift of salvation or not.

Predestination by foreknowledge is the only legitimately biblical and logical form of predestination.

You denied God is the author of evil, but you ended the video by arguing that God created all of our lives as a whole when He made us??? So every sin was literally CREATED by God when He created us! Bro this is wild.

"The finite is not capable of the infinite" crowd when they find out God had a human body: >:(

Now that he's switched from one wrong form of Predestination to another, he's probably going to stay Reformed.

I'm not even christian but this nerdy theology sure is fun :D

BRO, calvinism make no sense!!!!!!!

But why would God decide to create people and make them choose eternal suffering?

If God has already choses who is going to be saved and who isnt, then we dont have any sense of free will.

Then why the heck would He created that damn tree and told Adam not to eat it in the first place? You silly man.

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires *all men* to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" 1 Timothy 2:3-6, NKJV

hello, which software do you use for the explainer videos like "every religion explqind" etc.... thanks in advance for your answer

You mean when you first declared your Supralapsarian stance, that wasn’t an April Fool’s Day prank?

Have you read “Karl Barth’s Infralapsarian Theology” (IVP Academic, 2016) by Shao Kai Tseng?

Imagine being reformed and not Supralapsarian - this post was made by Supralapsarian gang.

I am a Primitive Baptist...we are hyper-Calvinists? I have heard a lot of PB sermons on predestination that were infralapsarian... What exactly is hyper-calvinism?

Damn you're getting married right, congrats my dude

Do you think what you build in Minecraft is predestined to be like that when you start? (Intention vs result) That is to say, you are playing God in this little virtual world, and you know what you want it to look like. If others come along and change it, do you ban them from the server (damn them), do you let them roll, do you give them the plans and expect them to get on with it, do you intervene so that they are doing exactly what you want (save them)? (The twanging sound in the background is a metaphor being stretched)

Hmm Calvinists sure like to minimize the role of Jesus' sacrifice. I also find it a bit concerning that the Calvinist view of soteriology strays closer to that of Islam's rather than that of early Christianity.

RZ, you often say that the East has not been as scholastic as the West, but I cant see how that's possibly true. Before Thomas Aquinas, the most famous Catholic scholastic in the West even lived, Michael Psellos lived in the East, who wrote many great works on theology, philosophy, and history. Before him, Saint Photios the Great was responsible for other great theological works in the 9th century, before Anselm. John of Damascus was another Eastern theologian who wrote on iconoclasm. Finally, there's Gregory Palamas, who fleshed out the Hesychast tradition. All of these were great theologians who acted in much the same ways as Aquinas, Scotus, and Anselm, all of whom are Eastern.

Predestination to salvation is biblical; predestination to reprobation is not. Calvinism tends to affirm predestination (election of grace) and deny that God loves all men and that Christ died for all men; the "Arminian" tends to affirm that God does love all men and Christ died for all, but denies the election of grace. What each affirm is true, what each deny is false. Augustine wondered if predestination to damnation (same as reprobation for him) was a result of predestination to salvation, but didn't dare go further; later the Franciscans and Dominicans fought it out before the Reformation; and Calvin took it as a necessary consequence, although in his writings he describes it as "a horrible thing". The decrees of God which this is based on are also variable depending on which theory they promote: it can be based on his justice, on his foreknowledge, on his own good pleasure. Therefore admit that we don't know exactly, but that predestination to salvation is what is revealed and promised, and have the faith to count yourself called to be part of that company.

Could you please do a video where you do a tier list of all the main bible versions? I use KJV, but I would be interested in ones that are similar or questionable.

Nothing new under the sun. Still not a single argument or a good reason in general, to show God is not the author of evil under Calvinism. Infra or Supra version alike. You basically said "God must have some reason to allow people to go to hell same as he allows cancer and stuff" the two could not be more different. One can be, and is, a means to achieve good. Presence of evil allows for existance of bravery. Mercy. Grace. Forgiveness and countless others. Damning billions to hell is no pathway for anything but their eternal suffering. It's crazy to think God would want this and allow this That he would plan this. That he would will this into existance. And he doesn't. Because God is not author of evil. He allows it because it's THEIR CHOICE. Free will in the mind of God is more precious than eternal life. This is why he only ever created eternal beings who can freely choose him or reject him. Like us and the angels. And Calvinism is a philosophy alien to modern Catholics, and most other Christians, for that exact reason. The Arminianism is also Catholic. Molinism is Catholic. I'd argue even Provisionism has Catholic roots at the very bottom. Calvinism is wrong. And not just because its incorrect. I do hope you eventually jump ship to a proper theological camp at some point man.

If you changed your belief, Why don't you change your banner?

Im not a calvinist, but I highly respect the fact that you were able to admit your fault and seek the truth.

Hey RZ, much love in Christ! Thanks for the video, and I appreciate your willingness to have your mind changed on topics like this. I've been learning about TULIP and have some serious problems with it. For example, what happens in evangelism? As I understand it, TULIP concludes that when Christians share the gospel with the non-elect, God, through the Christian, is offering them an invitation that they cannot accept because he won't enable them to. Doesn't this contradict his character as revealed in Ezekiel 18:23? "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?"

I disagree with the premise that you put forth. You affirm that the incarnation is absolutely necessary even if man did not sin, and say all infralapsarians disagree. We do agree, but it's for a different reason. The incarnation had two purposes, to reconcile the divine and the physical, and to atone for the sins of mankind. What was the reason for these purposes, or what were these purposes put in place to solve? They were meant to solve the imperfection of the physical. The world was made very good, but not perfect. God called it very good, but not perfect. Why? Because he did not create it perfect, and knew that sin was bound to infiltrate his creation. You're mixing up the incarnation with the atonement. The atonement is the enactment of God's predestination. God's predestination requires the atonement to be put into effect. When done out of a pure mass, predestination has no purpose when made out of a pure mass, without considering the fall, because sin, being not yet considered, practically does not exist. What would be the purpose of the atonement with no sin? And then, without the atonement, what is the purpose of predestination? The Bible tells us the purpose of predestination. Romans 8-29-30, KJV "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. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." It says the predestination is done out of God's foreknowledge of us, including his knowledge that we would sin; it is not done before consideration of sin, because that would make it meaningless. Now comes the hypothetical, what if Adam didn't sin? This is hard to answer since it is a hypothetical question. Supralapsarians would say that Adam's sin was ordained by God to happen before considering predestination, but that makes this hypothetical is impossible. However, infralapsarians would say that Adam's sin was possible, but not inevitable. Adam had the choice to sin or not to sin, and he chose to sin, and God knew that he would choose to sin. God knew what Adam would choose, but he could hypothetically resist, God just knew he wouldnt. But what if he didn't, and God knew? Then predestination would not be necessary, and the atonement would not be necessary. However, we must ask whether Adam or his descendants would still have the ability to sin, because of their inherent imperfection. It depends on what God does. If Adam resists, then would God send Satan to hell right then and there, and temptation, therefore sin, are gone? Or would he do something else? I think the former is more likely. Nonetheless, I reject Supralapsarianism, because it practically erases the meaning of the election, atonement, and therefore undermines God's grace.

So even if I am the greatest Christian to ever live, praying as much as possible, living the most Christlike life possible for a human, God can still just chose to send me to Hell? That’s scary.

Great summary of the two positions. I really appreciate your videos. I think I agree with your conclusion on supra lapsarian

Amazing content as always Zoomer. Would you consider making an in-depth video contrasting Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism? I have never really understood why Molinism is so often maligned by those in the theology world. The only critiques I can find seem illogical to me, and I have yet to find an argument against Molinism that is genuinely convincing. I would not consider myself a Molinist, as I don't know enough about such things to make a concrete decision, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. I suppose if I had to label myself I would align more closely with what I understand to be a Wesleyan perspective. Once again, thanks for your content, keep it up!

You're telling me it's not "nice calvinism vs mean calvinism"?

You say that God is infinite and man is finite. You understand that man lives inside the frames of time and God outside. But then you take a huge leap of faith and try to understand how God creates and how he plans things. That is not wise, thats stupid. Leave the mysteries as mysteries and focus on your path.

Have an interview with Dr Leighton Flowers!

One problem I have with the predestination model is that it relies on two logical assumptions. First, it assumes a classical view of time, seeing it as linear, with God's interaction following this straight-flowing line. Second, it presupposes that God makes decisions within our perceived conception of time, based on our understanding of chronology. However, God, being the ultimate "is," the divine being from which all concepts flow, including time, existed before the creation of space and time as we know it, and exists outside of it in divine lordship. Therefore, it logically follows that if God is making a decision, subjecting it to chronology is meaningless, as His will transcends time. His decisions act perpetually outside our perceived notion of linear time, which He holds in His hand. it becomes apparent that trying to comprehend the nature of divinity within our limited human capacity is a futile endeavor. This realization is akin to the main character's experience in "Flatland" by Edwin Abbott Abbott, who exists in a 2-dimensional space and struggles to grasp the concept of an additional dimension when suddenly transported to a world of 3 dimensions.How can we, beings trapped in time, truly understand the workings of a timeless God? Especially considering that a lot of speculation on the nature of God and His decisions was made in the past, based on a classical linear view of time and matter, which we now know to be an assumption? Just as classical church philosophers once had a geocentric view of the world, only to be proven wrong, our classical assumption of time and space may also be flawed. We are discovering how finicky such concepts are in the quantum realm and in the presence of extreme gravity. For all we know, God's interaction with time is as mysterious as the concept of quantum superposition is to our understanding of classical Newtonian physics.I am more than confident that we can be wrong about our assumptions, and as such, I see this as a meaningless venture. This realization gives me a greater appreciation for our Lutheran brothers who focus on the points of the Bible that truly matter, such as the salvation of souls through baptism, the sacraments, preaching the gospel, and leading a godly life. God revealed His truth to us and commanded us to come to Him like children, without needing to fully understand the complexities of His nature. For an eternal God to choose to love the sinner is an inconceivable concept, and I am satisfied with accepting it without needing to fully comprehend it.

Also, would you be willing to debate a Baptist? I'd debate you!

Can you do a video addressing some of the common rebuttals to Calvinism?

I don't like Catholicism and her teachings being reduced solely down to the teachings of certain Scholastic schools, like I would get pretty annoyed if a Protestant with leanings towards Ockhamism or Molinism would act like the Catholic Church teaches either of those two officially, as if it is Magisterial, regardless of how many Catholic laity believe in Molinism (cringe) or not. Medieval Scholasticism doesn't necessarily equal Catholic Theology; what Redeemed Zoomer is referring to is only a type of theology that is systemized and done in the light of scripture, and that is the Catholic Scholastic tradition that RZ is referring to. RZ is clumsy with his communication it seems when, and particularly when he speaks from an understanding of how propositions from Medieval Scholastics are taught by the Catholic Church (as if that would even be simply possible to the laity), and he makes it sound very straightforward and pure as that, which then undermines the wider breadth of beliefs allowed. What I am referring to is his inferrence that is both rough and ill defined, like when he says something along the lines of "reformed Predestination IS basically the same as the Catholics, because Wagner even confirmed it to me", that doesn't mean the Catholic Church binds the Scholastic forms of predestination to the consciousness of the laity, or that it is THE Catholic teaching, he says it like he couldn't be mistaken, when he is assuming such publicly. The problem is that RZ had a talk with Wagner (who has a whole channel dedicated to Scholasticism, and particularly Thomism) without realizing that systemized medieval theology is only a single slice of a cake within the larger stacked wedding sized cake of Catholicism, and her large blinding amount of traditions or methods as a unified whole, including the insane amount of large slices within Catholic Theology alone; I am saying that the reformed tradition inherits a very small aspect of Catholic Theology, and it's not even a tenth as large as it's ancestor. He has from his understanding by reason, paralleled SOME Catholic methods with one of the main components of his Reformed Tradition, and this has lead reducing Catholicism down to what they have in common with the Reformed teachings, and you see this too when Lutherans compare themselves to their ancestor they protested, because they make the same mistake when starting from this place of parallels, and then over simplifying from there, and both are assumptious and unwary in any context similar to this one. This isn't meant to undermine the genuis and owed glory to Scholastics, like Saint Thomas Aquinas (he da best Scholastic imo😃, I love his prayers and have been trying to make more time for studying him, though I don't subcribe to Thomist thought, but I just love Saint Thomas Aquinas, also most of what I know about predestination comes from him). The thing is that Thomist or Scotist predestination isn't THE official teaching from the Papacy, but rather it is taught that the scholastic teachings are a safe place to be for systemized theology within Catholic Theology(esp Thomism in particular), unlike the Reformed Scholastics... Please just don't over reduce and over simplify Catholicism like that, and especially considering that there are many views of predestination allowed within the firm and reasonable guard rails of the Magisterial guidances. I do appreciate the respect and honoring of Catholics of recent on this channel, and I know it's annoying having to explain that predestination is in the Bible constantly to unlearned Catholics, so I feel the pain there, but I feel that what I am putting forth needs to be said. (Clarifying at the end in case anyone is wondering, I don't subscribe to any particular scholastic predestination systems, or any defined system, nor am I some Molinist. It's a pretty uncomfortable topic for me that I have learned a lot more about then most Catholics, but I don't have a defined idea of what I believe, so I just stick with what the Church allows for me with what I see and infer from in my Bible, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're lots of Catholics like me in that sense, who see it as a mystery more so.)

I’m new to the Thomist vs. Scotist debate, but from the Scotist perspective, why would Christ have needed to incarnate if God already walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? What would the purpose of God taking on human flesh be if there was no need for the atonement?

Honestly this all just sounds like someone placing other people's words over God's word (the Bible).

Redeemed Zoomer is never 1 week away from turning Catholic and yet he is now -9 hours from turning into a Supralapsarian.

I thought this was a prerecorded video of you minecrafting while you add commentary of prepaired thoughts in post until the 17:01 mark. Bro, I have a hard time remembering to blink and breath when I play Minecraft, how are you going on detailed theological exposition while playing??

Can you maybe elaborate on the chronological vs logical thing? I know what those words mean but im def not on the same page by exactly what you're saying.

I've heard you use the Star Wars analogy before, comparing George Lucas to God, and us as the characters (Anakin, Darth Maul, etc.) You made it clear that we're NOT droids (R2-D2, Destroyer Droid, etc.) In your view, this makes us not robots, subject to simple programming. We are actually able to act. My problem with this analogy is that at the end of they day, George Lucas programs Anakin has as much as he programs R2. Anakin is not capable of his own free will to do good or evil; it's simply what George Lucas writes him to do. If your view of predestination is analogous to Star Wars characters and their writer, then we're as unreal as Anakin is. We are nothing more than robots/characters/paintings without a soul. I understand your wish to be Christocentric in theology, but I think you take it too far in degrading human free will. In fact, I would say a non-Calvinist view of predestination is more Christocentric. The fact that God/Jesus is able to create humans who can reject his will (I firmly disagree with Irresistable Grace) does not show that his power/will is limited. On the contrary, it shows that God is powerful enough to create people who are not mere characters in a book. The more free will we have, the more it adds to God's glory who is able to create such free will. I am not saying our free will is unlimited, but I don't think it's as limited as you believe. All that said, I really like your channel. You do a lot for God's Kingdom, may the Lord bless you.

Have u heard of the new apostolic church? Can u make a video about it bc i am a new apostolic christian

Why could the decree for humans, election, and the fall not all have been contemporaneous? Wouldn’t that make the most sense with your final point, which is that everything is created with an inseparable destiny?

@redeemedzoomer6053 isn't God eternal though? That should mean he doesn't change his goals, meaning everything was planned eternally and perpetually. How can one say that God decided to allow something before deciding to allow something else if he knew everything he permits before there even was anything aside from his triune self? This argument on how God decides who to elect seems irrational due to his timelessness. His plan is a mystery to us, all we know is that some are elect, and who the elect are shall be revealed to us by the end of times (at the latest). Edit: May God bless us all on our journey as we strive to follow him.

So, your God still creates people who have no alternative but to burn eternally in hell? That doesn't sound "mean," it sounds monstrous.

So we back in the mine? 😂

It would be cool for you to talk about the Reformed focus on Theosis

i clicked on this video to find out what literally any of this means and, having read the comments, i am one million percent more confused. this is really funny to me

Dude, you're pretty much using mental gymnastics to say that God punishes people for things they can't control. And, Im sorry you think that way, because thats not the God that I know. Calvinism was never supposed to be something people take too seriously anyways, its literally just a concept that has no effect on how one should live their life. If you agree that all people are sinners, and therefore deserve to go to hell (basic christian belief), and you also agree that the only way to not go to hell is through Gods forgiveness, but that God will only decide to forgive some, and not others, how is this not pre damnation? If you believe there is no path that COULD lead EVERYONE to salvation (i.e. following Jesus), then you are disagreeing with a core christian belief. Psalms 25:8 literally says that God is just, and he is fair. Through our definition of the terms just and fair, the concept of pre damnation would contradict this.

Concerning Thomas - somewhere I heard that he did not exclude that the Incarnation would have happened if people hadn't sinned. He even was in favor of unconditional Incarnation - only he stated that we cannot know it for sure because it is not directly revealed in Scripture. I did not read it in Thomas and I do not remember the source, but I remember I heard it said by some serious Thomist.

nice to see humility in the beginning of the video!

It seems to me that the Supralapsarian position is the most Scriptural. "The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom." - Proverbs 16:4. And again in Romans 9:22, Exodus 9:16, Psalm 76:10, etc. etc. That said, I couldn't really find a distinction between it and so-called "Mean" "Hyper" Calvinism. I had a tumultuous struggle with the "Mean" God of the Scriptures in my young adulthood: "He's like if Superman shoves two people off a building, swoops down to save one, lets the other splat, then calls himself a hero." That was my reasoning. Because I was trying to make the Creator of the Universe make sense through the lens of human justice. After I gave up on finding answers to that old question of, "Why would a 'good' god allow suffering," in His mercy, God blessed me with a life-threatening infection. I spent a lot of time in the hospital with my veins on fire from whatever was in the I.V. I asked Him to please let me die. I realized how much I'd taken for granted. People who love me, health, and so on. And I remembered all His suffering he went through to cover my sins, even knowing I'd accuse Him of being at fault for all of it. God didn't grant my request to die. I recovered with a new appreciation for just how entirely dependent on God's mercy I am for every good thing I have. I'm no mystic, but I feel like debates like Supra- vs. Infra- vs. Sandwichlapsarianism run the risk of calling the Eternal down to the causality-bound bar of human reason. Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. - Psalm 90:2 Revelation 13:8 describes "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Not in the 1st century A.D. God does not change. Jesus bore the scars of crucifixion on his hands before Adam sinned. Even knowing that it would lead to His own enormous suffering, God started the clock of time running just a week before creating the first Human. Suffering that was a part of Him before the word "before" even had any meaning. Before the words, "You're such a mean God," ever passed the lips of a Human empowered to nail to a cross the very One who grants the power to hammer and accuse. So yeah. My point is that while it's good to reason out just how very little a person contributes to being resurrected from being dead in sins, it's dangerous to try and put God in a logical box.

"Turns out I'm an idiot. I've been completely wrong about an important theological thing for several years." Great to hear that you're converting to Catholicism zoomer

The Dutch are now high 24/7 to avoid thinking about all that

I’m Dutch Reformed and I really had troubles in understanding what theologians you actually meant! 😂 But that aside, great video!

Wasn't Scotus the guy who defended the imaculate conception of Mary? That's kinda weird for a protestant to admire him so much if we consider this

This is heretical, just downright heresy. Please for yourself break out of this prelest.

I had a huge smile on my face through this entire video; this is almost exactly the same process by which I came to affirm supralapsarian. Only difference is my being a 1689-affirming Baptist.

"A consistent Calvinist is a hyper-Calvinist."

Are you still a Presbyterian?

i think charles hodge brought up a good point when dealing with this view which i also reject, "it is a clearly revealed scriptural principle that where there is no sin there is no condemnation" (verses like romans 5:16 show condemnation in light of sin) back to hodge "therefore there can be no foreordination to death which does not contemplate its objects as already sinful"

"I named my first Minecraft seminary after Peter Martyr Vermigli." is officially the nerdiest sentence I've ever heard in. 😆😆

Is piracy a sin? As in watching or playing something that is a copy?

Waiting for that- "Why I became a Catholic" vid

This is a brilliant satire

Thank you, RZ! When I watched your Big Theology Words video, I accepted your explanation of nice vs. mean, but it didn't make much sense to me back then. I thought that since God is eternal, aren't those two literally the same _in effect_? Just one better aligns with God's sovereignty, while the other tries to make God more relatable. Now it's starting to make sense - and in any case, both are equally nice :) or equally mean if you _want_ to see it like that.

I appreciate the opportunity to revisit this debate, as I believe it has a bearing on how we look at ourselves as well as others in relation to God's Sovereignty. I believe that the infralapsarian view is correct. For one thing, it tends to stress the commonality of all human beings as sinners (an absolutely essential part of the Gospel), rather than tending to see us as ultimately divided by being either elect or reprobate. I believe that the supralapsarian view tends to push one toward the latter. And, while it is true that all of us are predestined one way or another, I believe that God would not have us try to sort this out when viewing others. It is possible and I believe that God wants His true children to come to know for certain FOR OURSELVES that we are of the elect (that is, to have absolute assurance of Salvation). But I believe it is also not possible for most of those who have not been predestinated to election to ever come to know that they are NOT of the elect, unless and until they actually end up in Hell, being justly condemned for their sins and, especially for their rejection of God's offer of Salvation. (However, there are probably a portion of people who so purely devote themselves to evil that God confirms them in this and continually hardens them unto condemnation. Such people may have certainty that they are of the reprobate. But I don't believe that this is the common condition of humanity. Thus, the offer of Salvation through Christ is a real offer to most and, as such, one cannot assume that it cannot apply to them. After all, no one can ever really know that God can't regenerate them at any time. Furthermore, Zoomer is misrepresenting the Thomist (or infralapsarian) view in saying that it must hold that the Fall necessitated a divine "Plan B" which required the Eternal Son to come into the world. First, it is wrong to say that ANYTHING necessitated God coming into the world in Christ. God could have quite justly let all humanity be condemned to Hell. And He also could have decided to become incarnated without the need for the Eternal Son to be the Savior (had Adam and Eve had not sinned: which, of course, is purely hypothetical. I do believe that it was always God's plan to become incarnate and dwell with His People and that (hypothetically) He would have done this even if Adam and Eve had not sinned. In this, Geerhardus Vos's assertion that "eschatology preceded soteriology" in God's mind comes in. Adam and Eve had a real offer of being elevated to a status of confirmed holiness, had they not failed to obey the single Command that God had given them. But from God's perspective it was always His plan that Adam and Eve not become glorified in this way. But rather than by them and all of their descendants to first fall into sin and then to have a portion of them eventually redeemed from that sin, while the rest would not be redeemed. So God decreed that He would create a race of beings who would first fall en masse and then be redeemed in part. I believe that this magnifies the love of God more than it would have been to create a race which did not fall or to create a race which would fall and then have all of it be subject to the just Judgment for falling. (It is also worth considering that God also created the angelic beings with the intention that a portion of them would fall and, unlike humanity, none would be redeemed. But, unlike humanity, a portion would not fall. This, too, shows both God's love and Justice in a way that an either completely obedient or a completely disobedient and condemned plan would not show.) Furthermore, that the final outcome, namely the election of some and passing over of the rest, must be based on God's first decree is not self-evident by any means. Zoomer seems to miss that, on his own understanding of Predestination, the very notion of election and reprobation implies something to be either elected to be delivered from or to be given over to. Again, this points us back to the infralapsarian position. christianityistrue.org

haha. you're so right dude. that two minute long tirade about how Catholics have predestination as well really makes them super similar! Why don't you convert to Catholicism then?