Why i reject sovereign grace/Calvinism, predestination, preordination (scriptural/logical breakdown)

Añadido: 2026-05-16

[00:00:01]Okay, so I don't know exactly how I'm going to title this video.

[00:00:05]Um, not sure if I'm going to title it uh why I don't believe in double predestination or why I reject the two-loop or if I'm going to name it um why I reject the sovereign grace perspective of predetermination or preordination um of God, right? Um, but it it it expands a little bit further than that and I'm going to kind of get more into that. I have a couple of scriptures that I have in my notes here that I'm going to go over with you guys to explain why I hold to my viewpoint, right? But I want to make a couple qualifications about their viewpoint so that everybody understands. And then I also want to make a couple qualifications about the concept of using logic, common sense, and philosophy when um reading the scriptures at basic or you know I just said at a face level, right? Or a surface level.

[00:00:57]So one thing that they hold is they hold to double predestination, which is that essentially God predetermines uh who will be saved, who will not be saved. AKA the person in North Korea who has never um heard the gospel uh and will never hear the gospel and is probably going to go to hell. They were preordained to be born as a person in North Korea and not hear the gospel and essentially go to hell.

[00:01:22]Um and the person who is a believer was preordained to be a believer.

[00:01:26]Um the problem I have with this is that it gives no hope for the person who has not believed yet. And it kind of makes it redundant for the person who is a believer to even want to spread the gospel because at that point if it's preordained and it's the will of God and God is sovereign and that this will happen regardless then it is pretty much of no importance and it's redundant for you to even do anything because if God preordained it that person would be saved, they would be saved regardless of if anybody saved the gospel at all, which is a logical fallacy because then we have to say a whopping majority of the people if we stop teaching or you know, showing grace or preaching the gospel that a lot of these people are going to come to the knowledge of the truth on their own purely because God willed it, you know, they were essentially chosen since beginning of the world. I reject that.

[00:02:19]The reason why we you know, share the gospel, gospel being good news and a representation of hope, is because of the hope that we have as believers that that person may of their own agency and free will choose to believe, which is what I believe is presented in scripture, right? Another thing that the people of the sovereign grace, you know, the Calvinistic whatever um you know, position would hold to is that they would hold to the idea that God can create evil or do things that we would consider evil or he even himself would create evil and he can work that out for his own benefit. I don't think that it's in God's will to do evil. I don't think he can do evil because we know that the only person who is good is God.

[00:03:01]Therefore, we know that the nature of God is good. Um and if God is good, then something evil cannot come from something good unless that evil comes from the free will choice of that creation, which is what I hold to, right? And I'm going to qualify what I hold to at the end of this little monologue explaining what, you know, the sovereign grace is believe.

[00:03:20]Um sovereign grace is also believe essentially that uh you know, again, preordination, predestination everything is ordained by God, everything. Right? So everything that we read here, I got I want you guys to interpret it in the way and hold it to their theological viewpoint, right?

[00:03:43]Um they would also hold to that when certain places places in scripture say all or the whole world, they would hold and usually in my experience it seems that they would recontextualize all and whole world to mean something other than all and whole world, which I admit that in some cases the term all or whole world can be used in a specific instance. However, whole world is a lot of the times, majority of the time, literally meaning the whole world. And all, even though it can be used to, you know, distinguish a certain group of people, in a lot of the places where they try to recategorize the term all, it actually just literally means all.

[00:04:21]And the qualifications that they use aren't in that often times, even in that same book, right? So, with all that being said, you guys understand their viewpoint, right?

[00:04:33]You understand why I'm making this video and why I disagree with them. Let me explain my viewpoint. My viewpoint, and this is not something that I doctrinally hold to, I hold to the fact that human beings definitely have free will, okay?

[00:04:44]Um, and that God has a will, like a uh he has a desire and a will for certain things to happen, yet those things don't always happen. And because of that, I come to the conclusion, based off of simple binaries, a lot of people will say that this is philosophy and this is, you know, uh you know, eisegesis. I would say at a certain point when you say that a human being can't use logic to come to a conclusion in scripture, what you're doing is actually uh saying that God made it to where we can't have humanity and logic and common sense, which would actually be contradicting what Jesus does when he appeals to philosophy and logic and common sense and spirit and you know, the spiritual language and parables that he gives in the gospels.

[00:05:29]So, I would disagree and say that that's a uh you know, that that's a logical fallacy.

[00:05:35]But, um I would say the philosoph- the philosophical way that we see that uh essentially God has a will, yet his will doesn't always come true, shows that there is some agent outside of his will, his predetermination, or his preordination, that shows why his will doesn't come through. If a god who can preordain everything, and predetermine everything, for his own will, in their view, and will do that for his own will, um has a will that does not come true, that shows that there's some type of agent concept variable that exists outside of his preordination that causes that thing to uh you know, not come out in the way that his will would want it to.

[00:06:24]So, my view is this.

[00:06:26]God does predestine, or uh you know, he predestines us since the beginning of the world, not in the same sense that they would say. I would say that God knows all possible outcomes because of his will is that he wants to reconcile all things himself, yet he still wants to respect our free will agency. God chooses, and I'm going to show you this through scripture, God chooses a world where he knows all possibilities, and he chooses the world where everybody's free will choice leads to the absolute most people saved.

[00:06:57]That's my belief, personally. There's other ways that you can come to the term of compatibilism. I'm okay with the other forms of compatibilism as well, because I believe that the scripture inherently points to some form of compatibilism.

[00:07:11]Um you can't really hold the preordination or predestination without just, you know, side-stepping some basic truths about God's will, his desires, etc., and the reality of what happens.

[00:07:24]But, I've been talking a little bit um or for a long time here, so I just want to get into some scripture and start making some qualifications and showing you guys some things as to why I came to uh my understanding, and why I believe saying that God preordains people to hell, or that he preordains people to be saved, specifically based off of just who he wants to choose, um instead of just having the foreknowledge of who would make the free will choice themselves, right? So, I will say this, when we go to this is Colossians 1, right? Colossians 1:13.

[00:08:01]I'm going to read this here.

[00:08:04]This is talking about God.

[00:08:07]Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear son, in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, right?

[00:08:16]Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. This is how you know that we're talking about Jesus, right?

[00:08:23]But here is where it gets tricky for them who hold that, you know, sovereign grace or Calvinist view.

[00:08:28]For by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created by him and for him. So, what is this saying here? This is saying that all things on heaven and earth, even, you know, the angels, even the angels that fell, right?

[00:08:48]All things that were on earth, all every single animal, every single human being, every single tree, everything was created by God, right?

[00:09:00]And keep in mind the context here is this is about Jesus, right?

[00:09:06]In whom we have redemption through his blood. So, this is talking about Jesus and for by him were all things created.

[00:09:12]This is talking about everything was made through Jesus, right? And these things were made for Jesus.

[00:09:20]Right here it says, "And he is before all things and by him all things consist." Just reiterating my point, right?

[00:09:26]And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things might he have the preeminence.

[00:09:34]For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell, and having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself, by him I say, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven. So, what does this mean?

[00:09:50]All things in heaven and earth were created by God. This includes Satan, right? This includes all the angels, fallen angels, every human being who has ever lived, because he created all of those things, everything on heaven and earth.

[00:10:05]This line, "and having made through peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself."

[00:10:13]Reconcile means to bring back that he created, right? And how is he bringing back all the things that he created? By the peace through his blood.

[00:10:26]So, this is his will. This is showing his will. God created all things, right?

[00:10:32]He reconciled all those things through his blood, and that was his intention, and that was his will. However, we do know, as human beings, right, who read scriptures, that not everybody comes into salvation, not everybody believes.

[00:10:45]Therefore, if we know that his his blood has made peace for everybody, and it's his will to reconcile all things to himself, but we know that not everybody is saved. What does that then say?

[00:11:00]There's the concept of free will and agency of somebody rejecting exist outside of God's pre his presupposition of his will, meaning that it is not predetermined by God that he would want some people to reject salvation and belief in him, because he wants to reconcile all things unto himself.

[00:11:24]All things that he created, everything on heaven and earth. I think this is the most damning, uh, you know, scripture for that standpoint, but this is just uh the first example.

[00:11:34]I'm going to get into more here.

[00:11:38]Okay. So, here we go. This is another one, right?

[00:11:43]1 Timothy 2:4. Now, this is one of those instances, right?

[00:11:48]That uh essentially, they would try to redetermine or rephrase what the word all means, right? They would say for kings and this is talking about people in authority. I would say that that actually doesn't prove the point and actually disproves the point because even when you go to down here, you will see that that's not the case, right?

[00:12:09]But, let let me just read the read the verse. I exhort therefore that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, right? Then he goes on to say, "For kings and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceful uh peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." So, what is he talking about?

[00:12:30]First of all, 1 Timothy is a exhortation from Paul uh to Timothy. This is not something that we have to live by. However, there are spiritual truths in here, right?

[00:12:40]Um that's why he uses the word exhort.

[00:12:43]Anyways, giving thanks and uh intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men. If God presupposes that only a certain subset and group of people is what constitutes all, then why would Paul say all men before making the qualification of kings, right?

[00:13:08]He says all men and then he says for kings and for all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceful peaceable life and godliness and honesty. The reason why I believe that he's saying for kings and for all that are in authority here, because he says all men before he even mentions kings, is that in this um society, right? In Near Eastern cultures, especially in this time, the idea of, you know, people having servants and a caste system, a lot of people, the laymen, which made up 80 to 90% of people, they would have looked at nobles, kings, and people and royals and stuff like that as people who, in their view, didn't need hope, nor did they need prayers and intercessions, because they had everything. And they also viewed these kings and nobles and peoples of that caliber as people who really didn't deserve any of this, because they believed that they had everything already.

[00:14:01]So, I believe that this is not qualifying that the all is only to the kings, but this is saying all men, including the kings, right? A group of people that Paul is saying you may not even think deserve to qualify for this hope, even them, right?

[00:14:23]And then he says, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior, who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, right?" So, when he says, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, right?"

[00:14:38]It's his will that all men be saved and come unto knowledge of the truth.

[00:14:43]Just because it says for kings up here, does not disqualify all men here, nor does it qualify disqualify all men here.

[00:14:52]And to prove that, if we continue to read, we can get the context. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, right? Does it say some men?

[00:15:02]Does it say, you know, like a specific subset of people? It said, "And men."

[00:15:08]Plural.

[00:15:10]And it's in a grandiose sense. It's a very broad net that he's using here.

[00:15:15]The man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time.

[00:15:22]So, again, when you read this in context, you can't recontextualize all men here to only be kings and people in authority because, again, when you read it in context, Christ gave himself a ransom for all.

[00:15:34]One, he uses the word men here, which would imply him casting a broad net, right?

[00:15:42]His will is that all would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

[00:15:47]And then here, he's talking and using for kings and people in authority as saying, yes, even these people who you think probably don't deserve it, even for them.

[00:15:58]And he's uses the qualification of all men before using that example, and he uses the qualification of all men after he uses that example. And then he qualifies it further by casting a broad net by saying men, and then qualifying and saying that Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all, right?

[00:16:20]So, that's just one, and we can continue.

[00:16:25]Here's another one.

[00:16:27]Uh a lot of them would actually say, so in 2 Timothy 25, they would actually say that this is saying that God um grants repentance to people, right?

[00:16:42]That's the way that they would read this. I think that that's a butchering of the English, and I'm going to show you guys why.

[00:16:47]So, when we start at 24 here, this is how you uh this is cuz they would usually try to skip 24 because of the use of all men, right? Um and then they would go into 25, and then they would butcher the English. But, I would say you have to read things in context, right?

[00:17:04]Um when we start in 24, it says, "And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, and in patient, right?" So, what is this here? This is a again an exhortation from Paul to people who he's leaving, including Timothy, to look over a short church. And he's saying, "Hey, I think it would be a good idea if you're gentle to all men, right?

[00:17:28]Not just people who we consider the elect in the sovereign grace perspective, right? But unto all men.

[00:17:36]Why is he saying unto all men?

[00:17:39]Well, in verse 25, and this is where they would twist it and say, "Oh, well, God grants repentance to who he wants, and he doesn't grant repentance to who he wants." I would say that that's redacted by the, you know, the use of all men here, but we can uh, you know, break down this sentence itself. In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves. So, in meekness means in humility, right?

[00:18:01]And he still uses the qualification all men, so in humility be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, and be patient, instructing those that oppose themselves, which would mean even the people who, you know, haven't come to, uh, the truth and are, uh, believing in something that's contrary to their well-being, including not, uh, you know, coming to the faith and condemning themselves to hell. He's saying, "In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves." So, he's saying, "Even in the free will, you should still, just for the greater good, right, in this sense, unto all men, try to be patient and teach them the gospel, right? Why?

[00:18:44]If God preordains everything, right? If God peradventure, now here's the issue.

[00:18:48]They would say, they would jump to this and say, you know, God will, you know, give them repentance and acknowledge them the truth, but they completely overlook this word here, peradventure, if and all men.

[00:19:03]You may be asking, you know, Spooky, you're being a little bit too specific about the wording, but again, it was transliterated for a reason, right? Um, and we have to be careful in the way that we uh interpret things because if we ice a jeet to try and fit our theology then we be you know, we come with a problem, right?

[00:19:20]Um, and I would say this, if is an implication of if it it means possibly, right?

[00:19:31]Peradventure also means perhaps or possibly.

[00:19:35]So, saying skipping if and peradventure and skipping all men, that's the only way that you can say that God grants people repentance and that's the only way that they come to the acknowledgement acknowledgement of the truth, right? If we go here and we see it says if God possibly will give them the repentance to acknowledge of the truth.

[00:19:56]However, you may say, oh, well, that still doesn't disprove their their point. Well, again, read the full thing in context.

[00:20:05]Not strive, but be gentle unto all men.

[00:20:08]If God will possibly give repentance to who he chooses and preordains, then why would Paul exhort them to be gentle to all men?

[00:20:17]It's redundant.

[00:20:18]That's my point. So, let me go on to the next uh point here.

[00:20:26]And then some of these are going to be quick. Sorry, I I've been taking a long time on some of these when it's like early in the morning, but I felt like the thirst to address and do this video. Anyways, uh this is Titus 2:11.

[00:20:40]For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men. So, what does this mean?

[00:20:46]The grace of God, which they would consider it's irresistible, you can't resist the grace of God because it's preordained and predestined.

[00:20:55]He bringeth salvation and he brings that grace, right? This grace that they would consider irresistible that's preordained to make you saved, right?

[00:21:04]For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men. So, in their view, if the grace of God is irresistible and God preordains who would get that grace, then that would mean that automatically every single person would be saved. Yet, we know from scripture that that is not the case. Therefore, what is this talking about? This is talking about the fact that God presents the free gift of grace to people and they have the free will agency and choice to come to into salvation by belief, which is a choice, right? This doesn't make sense in their scriptural view, right?

[00:21:39]Let me go to the next one.

[00:21:43]So, go up here, right?

[00:21:50]So, it says here in 1 John 2:2, "And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." So, a lot of the time they will say that God only died for a certain elect, or that, you know, um and the reason why they will say that is God only died and his blood only atoned for a certain elect is because that also goes with the idea of their preordination and predetermination of only a certain subset of people um being saved because that's how they view God interacts with creation and how his predeterminism works. Obviously, I reject that, and when we deal with scriptures like this, it really throws a wrench into their theology because it's making a qualification here that shows even if you say, "Okay, well, some people are elect." The people he's talking about are the elect here, right?

[00:22:43]The problem is that you essentially have this here that says, "And not for ours only." So, even if this was addressed at the elect in their eyes, right? "But also for the sins of the whole world."

[00:22:59]So, now it becomes a redundancy issue again, where if you believe that God only preordained and predestined certain people to be saved, then and you read that, you know, whenever he's talking about salvation that he's only talking to his elect, and we have verses like this that say "and not for ours only."

[00:23:18]So, if this was addressed to at the elect, he's saying, "and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Again, it throws a wrench in the theology. And I'm a person that likes to use um philosophy logic, you know, common sense binaries to come to conclusions about scripture. I believe God knew that human beings would do that. Therefore, uh the concept that they would have with some of the things I'm saying, they would say, "Well, you can't use philosophy." I would say that I'm just using common sense. And again, like I said earlier, um if you say that we can't use philosophy and basic truths to interpret what scripture is saying based off of binaries, then you would have to also say that Jesus was wrong in using the parables. But, we know that God can do no wrong, and who are we to question God, right? So, philosophy already exists inside the concept uh of the of the Bible. God uses it. He uses the concepts of logic. So, we we can't abstain from using logic to break down verses, right?

[00:24:17]So, here's the next one.

[00:24:21]And this is the big one, right?

[00:24:23]This is where I say that again, they re-qualify certain words such as the word. I personally believe it's borderline impossible to re-qualify the term world. Um you can try and re-qualify the term all if it's specifically talking about a subset of people, but world I believe is too broad and direct of an implication of a word for you to re-categorize as being a certain subset of group of people, right? But, when we deal with um John 3:16 here, right?

[00:24:53]Uh "For God so loved the world," it's really hard for you to say that the world isn't the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever the term whosoever implicates what?

[00:25:07]A lack of agency in the person who's doing it, but an act of agency in the person who the thing is being done for.

[00:25:13]So if the you know if the son is being given for the world then the agency is then on the world to do what? Believeth in him and not perish. This is why it's important for us to not butcher the English and to break down these you know these sentences, right? And I believe this is where they come into an issue. They reinterpret the word world and then they butcher certain words. They give us pure implications of what something would mean. So in this case it says whosoever believeth in him should not perish.

[00:25:44]Whosoever implies again agency in the people who the gift is being given to and their action which is a choice which is to believe.

[00:25:51]And then it says here to further you know qualify my point. For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved. So what does this mean? The world is a qualifying statement for the entire world. You can't redetermine that. You can't reinterpret it. Um so what does that mean? God did not condemn certain people to be sent to hell. And again in their view they believe that God perhaps would condemn certain people to hell just so he can condemn uh just so he can choose and predestine certain people randomly based off of his will to go to heaven specifically just so he can have a juxtaposition to show mercy and justice. So for some reason they believe that God predestining some people to hell and some to heaven without any free will is a form of justice which I think is a logical fallacy, but um we have verses like this even outside of my logic and understanding, right? To show that God did not condemn the world, right? Meaning he didn't condemn anybody.

[00:26:59]He did not preordain or predestine to condemn anybody.

[00:27:03]But that the world through him might be saved. And the use of the word might here means agency outside of an action that he already did, which is what we see presented in scripture all the time.

[00:27:15]Grace may be presented as a gift, which is a free will agent choice for you to act upon, right?

[00:27:23]I'm sorry if I'm using like big qualifica qualifying language here and like big terms. I'm I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible, but I also need to explain my point. Here's the next one.

[00:27:34]Um obviously, I do not hold to James, right? However, just because James is something that we don't uh go to for uh spiritual like for living and things like that, that doesn't mean that there aren't certain spiritual truths about the nature of God and certain things like that in here, which I do believe that there are, right? Um a lot of them would actually hold to James and some of them even quote from James.

[00:27:56]And because of that, I also feel like I can quote from James, too. And I feel like it actually contradicts their statement. A lot of them would say that God can do evil if it works for his goodwill. Or God can bless somebody to do evil if it works out for his will and whatever his will is and that he needs somebody to do evil, he could do it.

[00:28:15]We have this scripture that contradicts that. So, we have James 1:13 says, "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God. For God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." What does that mean? God does not cannot be tempted with evil because what? God is not evil, God is good.

[00:28:36]Nobody is good but God. So, it's against his nature to be evil, to do evil, and he cannot tempt nor will he tempt any man of evil.

[00:28:45]So, what does that then say? They would say then, to further the point, that any evil that somebody does in the world, that includes the sickness, um you know, uh wars, uh violence, all those things, all of those things that God essentially preordains somehow for his goodwill.

[00:29:04]Which I believe is a logical fallacy again, and it goes contradicts scripture. But, if we go here, we see in verse 14, "But, every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed." So, what does that mean? There's a free will agent of a man outside of God, you know, we're not perfect, we are not good because we are not God, right?

[00:29:26]Therefore, of our free will agents, we can do things.

[00:29:31]This is a a direct rebuke to their idea that God chooses or endorses or blesses people to do evil for his own good, because they believe that God preordains everything.

[00:29:45]This directly rebukes that.

[00:29:47]But, we can continue and go here.

[00:29:57]So, uh just to uh continue uh the thing about, you know, wickedness and stuff like that.

[00:30:07]Um They would say that God can and will use evil and wickedness for his own uh his will. And it it even if he, you know, he wants to, because God creates everything, and that means that he inherently created evil and good. I would say God created everything and said it was good, just like it says in Genesis, if we're being scripturally accurate, right? And when he created human beings and beings in general, through our free will, we made choices that brought evil into the world. God didn't create evil, he created us, and through our free will, evil became present because it was a separation from God, which is things like sin, etc. So, we also have scriptures like this that qualify what I'm saying and also rebuke what they're saying about God creating evil um because he creates everything, which I believe is a logical fallacy. Um especially when we're dealing with a being who creates beings, right?

[00:30:59]So, when we deal with this here, right?

[00:31:04]Um it says, "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth." So, what is this saying? You could say that wickedness is also evil.

[00:31:15]So, God saw that the evil or wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every imagination of the thought of his heart was only evil continually. So, he's addressing like, "I see that mankind, right? can do wickedness and evil and the things in their heart are evil or wicked, right?"

[00:31:33]However, in verse 6, where did it go?

[00:31:41]In ver- okay. In verse 6, it furthers the point.

[00:31:46]And it repented the Lord, changed his mind the Lord, that he made man on the earth. So, what does that mean? Because of the things that God saw that man could do, the evil that we could do, the wickedness that we could do, he changed his mind about putting us on the earth and it grieved him at his heart. So, God grieved and changed his mind about putting us on the earth because of the evil and wickedness that we did. Yet, the sovereign graver, the Calvinists, all these people who believe in predestination, preordination, would say that God chooses to put people on the earth to do evil because he created evil and he's choosing them for his own purpose. But, here's the thing here's the thing.

[00:32:28]The things that we did, right?

[00:32:31]quote unquote, wickedness and evil, God is saying here that it grieved his heart.

[00:32:37]If he evil for his own good will and that was his will that he created evil to do something to work it out for his own good will, why would he say that the things that we're doing, the evil that he created us to do in their outlook, grieved him?

[00:32:51]Why would he also say that he changed his mind about putting us on the earth if he already preordained and knew the purposes for making us do evil?

[00:33:00]Again, this is a logical contradiction against their view.

[00:33:04]Personally, I like I feel like there's things all across the scripture and I'm going to continue going. This is probably going to be a super long video, but again, I just want to, you know, go through everything.

[00:33:15]So, Okay.

[00:33:20]So, here um we see here in Joshua 22:15 this is uh about the agency and choice.

[00:33:37]We see that in a way uh God at in, you know, through the dispensations in the Old Testament his elect, not in the sense of salvation, but his elect or chosen people, because they used the word elect, all right, a lot. So, his elect or chosen people in this case was the Jews to be set apart from everybody else and to carry uh the prophecies and um you know, the things regarding the scriptures until Jesus came, right? That was his elect, right? So, if these people are his elect, right?

[00:34:09]According to them, if God predestines and preordains people to be his elect, then by definition, if it's his will that his elect do something for his purpose, they shouldn't be able to have a choice or do things against his will.

[00:34:22]The problem then comes with the scripture in Joshua 22:15.

[00:34:26]And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom you will serve.

[00:34:31]So, here's the problem. I don't even have to read the rest of this, right?

[00:34:37]This simple part right here.

[00:34:40]The Jews in the Old Testament were chosen as God's elect specifically in the purposes of being set apart and to hold his prophecy. If they were his elect and he preordained them to be his elect, why would he give them a choice?

[00:34:55]It doesn't make sense.

[00:34:56]There shouldn't be a choice.

[00:34:59]And he should not present them with a choice if he preordains in their idea of sovereignty, God's sovereignty, preordains and predetermines everything that we do down to the like molecular level, right? Everything.

[00:35:13]There shouldn't be the word choice be used being used here.

[00:35:16]I believe this is a logical contradiction um to their worldview and we can continue.

[00:35:22]Um So, in Revelation, right?

[00:35:28]This is another one.

[00:35:31]In Revelation, where is it at? There it is. Sorry, some of it it's it's not popping up for some reason sometimes. Um So, in Revelations 2:20, it talks about how uh well, before I get there, let me just say this. Again, we're talking about the free will choice. If God preordains something, there's no need for him to do redundancies, right? A redundancy is doing something and giving a choice to a being that inherently is a slave to what he preordains and predetermines. It's a logical fallacy for him to create a choice for something that already has a preordained action and purpose, right?

[00:36:10]It makes no sense because at that point you're presenting a false narrative of free will. And the false narrative of free will is for what? It's it it's redundancy. Again, so when we go to Revelation 2:20, it says here, "Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

[00:36:36]And I gave her space to repent of her fornication.

[00:36:40]First of all, this uh verse is uh I believe it's talking about um a church that's going back to doing like uh uh like sex and sexual acts as a means of appeasing or worshipping a false god.

[00:36:56]That's what I believe this is talking about, so don't view this in a legalistic standard. But, if we focus on the part that actually matters, right?

[00:37:03]And I gave her space to repent of her fornication. In this case, fornication would be with the uh the false doctrine and the false the false idol here, and the false worship of the false idol.

[00:37:15]What does he say here?

[00:37:17]If Jezebel exists, right?

[00:37:20]For a purpose, God preordained the purpose that Jezebel wouldn't repent, then why would he say here or even give the qualification that he gave her space, which is a choice, agency of the free will of the individual, to repent or change her mind, and turn away from this.

[00:37:44]And then he would say and qualify, and she turned away or did not change her mind.

[00:37:51]It doesn't make sense. This is a logical redundancy to their idea of preordination, predeterminism.

[00:37:57]If God created everything for his will, it does not make sense for him to give space uh for her to change her mind.

[00:38:09]If it was his will for her to change her mind, he would have just created her to change her mind.

[00:38:13]This is redundancy, and it kind of again, it's a logical fallacy for their worldview.

[00:38:18]Um Now, we go here.

[00:38:24]This is John 7:17.

[00:38:28]If you're watching this long, I appreciate you for watching the video. I know it's a long video, but you know, I was researching this for a while.

[00:38:34]It was something that was bothering me, so I figured I'd make a video. John 7:17, if any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself.

[00:38:45]Here's the problem. Again, when we talk about the concept of agency, free will versus predetermination, preordination of God in their view. If God predetermines and preordains everything, it does not make any sense for Jesus himself to say if any man will do his will.

[00:39:04]So, Jesus himself, God, is acknowledging a choice of a possibility of somebody to choose to do the will of God.

[00:39:19]So, even God himself is showing you that there is a choice that separates the difference in will of a human being and the will of God.

[00:39:30]Meaning there's automatically, just based off of common sense and logic, this is not some type of grandiose like uh philosophy that I'm going on to try and explain this. This is just basic common sense, binary truths and counterfactuals, right?

[00:39:47]If a man has a will, and it says if, and then there's God's will, that means that there's a choice in between this.

[00:39:55]I feel like that's just a logical conclusion to come to, but you know, and in their worldview they don't hold that.

[00:40:01]That's fine. I think it's a little bit uh out there to hold to it, but Also, they use the qualification, this is uh Proverbs 1:24.

[00:40:19]They use the qualification a lot.

[00:40:21]They'll say things like the called. God has called you and because you were called, that's why you're saved.

[00:40:27]Cool. Have no problem with that. But again, when you start getting super specific about, you know, using certain words to try and prove your doctrine, but then you try to disqualify certain words like all, world, you know, I'm going to hold your feet to the fire with scripture, right?

[00:40:45]Proverbs 1:24. Because I have called and you refuse. Wait, there's a problem.

[00:40:53]You say that anybody God calls He preordains and predetermines that because they were called, they're saved.

[00:41:03]You have a problem here because it's saying God has called them, yet they refuse.

[00:41:10]So, if anybody watching could use common sense and logic, somebody's going to have to explain to me if, according to the sovereign grace preordainers, predeterminist perspective, that when somebody is called, they're being called by the predetermination outside of their will, etc., to come into the knowledge of the faith and, you know, be saved based off of that.

[00:41:35]You have an issue here because the same exact word and qualification is being used, but it's being used in juxtaposition towards his will.

[00:41:44]So, if God called them and they refuse, how do you reconcile that?

[00:41:53]If they're called, yet they refuse, what's operating in between them?

[00:41:58]God's will of calling them, as you guys would say, and their refusal.

[00:42:03]I would say free will choice, but I could be wrong.

[00:42:08]Let's go to the next one.

[00:42:11]So, we're going to Romans 10:13.

[00:42:18]This is another just like very baseline simple qualification.

[00:42:23]Romans 10:13 says what? For whosoever, again, the word whosoever, I know that people like to, you know, kind of just skim over thing, pick and choose when they, you know, read the English. It's not like I don't think personally we're not reading Greek, so it's not that difficult. We all, you know, read English, right?

[00:42:43]But for some reason, when it comes to things like this, uh they either just straight up ignore it because it's hard for them to explain away, but when we read Romans 10:13, for whosoever, whosoever implies the possibility of agency of the people who, you know, hear.

[00:43:02]For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

[00:43:07]Whosoever, meaning anybody who chooses.

[00:43:12]That's what whosoever means. Shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. So, what does that mean?

[00:43:17]Anybody who chooses to do something shall be saved. Anybody who calls onto the Lord, in this case, believes shall be saved. That To me, that sounds like free will agency. I may sound sarcastic here, guys, but this is just because again, I believe it's kind of redundant and illogical for them to hold to their viewpoint, but, you know, I'm still making the video. Say love you.

[00:43:37]Uh Lamentations.

[00:43:44]So, they would say, again, going back to their logic of believing that God can do evil and can choose evil, and can work out evil for his good, and can cause things like sickness and and wars and all that sit all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all all to do these things for his good will, right? When we go to Lamentations, right?

[00:44:11]3:33 God says, "For he does not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men."

[00:44:21]So, God in their world view will willingly cause evil such as war, sickness, famine, etc. And he'll say, "Well, because God preordains and predetermines everything, he preordained predetermine all of that."

[00:44:41]We have a qualification about the nature of God here saying, "For he does not afflict willingly." So, according to his will, he will not grieve the children of men.

[00:44:51]Meaning what? He will not inflict evil or wickedness upon them just because, according to his will, because he just wants to do evil to work out good.

[00:45:01]It's not in his nature.

[00:45:05]I only have two more here, guys, so just stick with me.

[00:45:09]Want to go to Ezekiel, right? This is Ezekiel 18, two qualifications, right?

[00:45:18]They would say that or in general, we would all agree that anybody in the eyes of God, anybody who does not believe is wicked because they have all their sins imputed to them, therefore evil sin is wickedness, right?

[00:45:33]They would say that it's his desire and it's just because God is, you know, just and he preordains and predetermines everything. It's just for God to predetermine and preordain those people to hell, right?

[00:45:46]To die, to suffer.

[00:45:49]Well, let's go to Ezekiel 18:23.

[00:45:52]And there's it's a two-part here.

[00:45:56]He's exhorting to these people the qualifications and nature of himself.

[00:46:03]God doesn't need to exhort to his creation.

[00:46:07]If he's if you hold to the pre-determinist or pre-or- you know, the pre-ordainers view, he does not need to qualify or to exhort to his creation because he pre-ordains and pre-determines everything. They're the slave to, you know, whatever he determines anyway.

[00:46:23]So, the mere fact that he's even using exhortation here towards them and qualifying the nature of himself towards them is redundancy from their view. But, we have the scripture to prove why that view that they have doesn't make sense, right?

[00:46:37]So, Ezekiel 18:23, "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?"

[00:46:43]So, what is this saying? They would say that the person who was pre-determined to hell, who is wicked, right?

[00:46:51]God's going to work that out for his he works that out for his goodwill. He pre-ordains that.

[00:46:57]Ezekiel 18:23, "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?" saith the Lord God, "and not that he should return from his ways and live." So, he's exhorting to them his qualification saying, "Hey, the wicked people, I don't want them to die. What pleasure would I have in that? Why wouldn't I want them to, you know, come into life, come into belief into me, right?"

[00:47:20]They would say and contradict the scripture by saying, "God wants the wicked people to die because he's going to use it for his good purpose."

[00:47:30]I think that makes no sense. It's a logical fallacy.

[00:47:34]And if we go down here, we have confirmation because he reiterates the same, you know, thing, but instead of an exhortation, he makes a statement re-qualifying the intention of the exhortation he gives up here.

[00:47:48]In Ezekiel 18:32, what does he say? "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," saith the Lord God.

[00:47:58]Wherefore, turn yourselves and live ye.

[00:48:01]So, what does that mean?

[00:48:02]The wicked people that he's talking about up there that should die, that they would claim he caused them to die and he preordained and predetermined those people to die and go to hell so that he can somehow work that out to this like display his justice, right?

[00:48:15]He's saying, "I have no pleasure," meaning it's not in his will nor his desire, "in the death of him that dies," saith the Lord.

[00:48:24]But then, they would say, "Oh, well, that's just his talking about his pleasure."

[00:48:28]Well, then, the issue is then, if this is only talking about his pleasure, the issue is he makes another exhortation asking for them to believe in him.

[00:48:37]This shows free will agency in contradiction to the idea of you saying, "Well, it's only his pleasure." Well, no, he's making exhortation, which is a plea and a bargain with the free will agency of another being outside of yourself.

[00:48:50]Right?

[00:48:51]Um but that was just a couple of scriptures that I was going to go over.

[00:48:54]I know this was a super long video, but um I just really don't like this doctrine. I don't believe it's inherently a doctrine that makes somebody unsaved, obviously. I believe it's a secondary issue, but I do believe it's a problematic secondary issue. Um because it's so closely tied to and borders the thin line coming into soteriology, right?

[00:49:14]Um somebody like this can spread the gospel, obviously, if they keep it short, simple, and sweet, but I do believe that it can, you know, cause issues. So, uh if you guys made it this long, um I apologize for this video being so long uh super long and being long-winded. I used a lot of scriptures.

[00:49:30]I, you know, looked up a lot of scriptures. Uh uh It's like literally 8:00 in the morning.

[00:49:35]I haven't slept yet, but I had thirst to make this video. So, again, if you guys stuck through and listened this long, um if you guys have any questions, uh if you guys have any comments, feel free to drop them. Um thank you guys for watching the video.

[00:49:51]And amen.