This is the OFFICIAL Channel of Standing For Truth.
Standing For Truth Ministries OFFICIAL Website:
standingfortruthministries.com/
Contact - [email protected]
DISCLAIMER: Since Standing For Truth Ministries hosts many debates, interviews, and discussions, it should be understood that the views shared by the guests that appear on this platform are not necessarily representative of the views of Donny and Standing For Truth Ministries.
BIBLICAL CREATION
REFUTING EVOLUTION
ETERNAL SECURITY
SHARING THE GOSPEL
YOUNG EARTH CREATION
SCIENCE!
INTERVIEWS
DEBATES
DISCUSSIONS
Introducing the NEW Biblical Coin (BC) Cryptocurrency now live!
Our MERCHANDISE: creationistclothing.com/
Our store is a one-stop-shop for all Creationists!
Help us share the Gospel and spread the truth! If you like our work feel free to donate to the Ministry. Any support is greatly appreciated and allows us to continue running Full-Time.
www.patreon.com/darwindebunked
Пікірлер
Idk, Dr. Frost is scoffing around the 3:09:00 mark...
Creation is fact, Evolution is myth
Are we sure that Rogue Calvinist isn't Matt Slick's alter ego?
KZread is blocking what the antichrist actually is. Its trying hard. I can't leave the comment. It has to do with AI.
Sam keeps making this idiotic point, as if it's on his side, that it takes study to be able to understand 1 Cor 15, or any Scripture for that matter. Umm, yes, it takes study to understand the Scriptures. I can't take this "doctor" seriously because he's just not serious or prepared for this debate. It's pathetic...and he's kind of a jerk.
"How we can improve the King James Version" - TurretinFan lost before the debate even started
2:03:00 His concluding statements are about Romans 9, Election, and some comments about mercy vs justice in a debate about Total Depravity?? 🤦♂️
This is what Calvinists do. He did this when Warren was looking at the context of Romans 8 which Rogue asked about and Rogue got upset saying that Warren was wasting time and then Rogue brought up 1 Cor. 2:14 and when Warren mentioned that he left Romans 8 his response was that they were the same. They are not the same. They are two different contexts with different people, etc. Rogue wouldn't know what proper exegesis is (which is how we are to get to the doctrines we hold to) if it bit him in the butt. And he's too prideful and arrogant to be corrected on his error.
Why do so many go from one false teaching to another. Calvinism to catholicism... one lie to another! People need deliverance from seducing spirits and strongholds in the Mighty name of Jesus
The low view of man in state of total depravity as inability is hated by humanists, provisionists. Total depravity is well defined in scripture, why deny and redefine scriptures???
Wow. WORD SALAD is the only way I can describe SoCal Preston's attempt here. I thought maybe he had an off day after I watched the debate with Steve Gregg so I thought I'd give him another chance. This one was like watching Matt Furse talk to a wall. A nonsensical, contentious wall. Asking Furse to define the word "all" in reference to Joshua 21:43-45? (common sense applies, attempted gotcha) Informing Furse that he's promoting violence starting around the 1:22:31 mark and especially after 1:25:00? (failed gotcha) Appearing in multiple of his own debate video comments using at least two other names (that I could see) defending *himself* is also just weird. I've gotten half way ....I may as well get through the rest of the video b/c the value is in the corrections coming from Matt Furse. They say a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing but in SoCal Preston's case it's also embarrassing. Luckily or unluckily for him, he doesn't seem to know it.
Kevin did well. He asked the right questions, too.
So is sin nature in the "Y" chromosome somewhere? What happens when the child is a girl, if born with two X chromosomes, is she free from sin? This is one of those things the bible never says, but people have invented out of small phrases like "seed of a woman". Small phrases are elastic in meaning. It is a danger to do what Christians so often do. They show no allegiance to the sacredness of scriptures when they embellish on their own like this.
This was not close. Warren exposed the problems with TD. It cannot hold up to scripture or logic. RC just threw out texts out of context, Mcgrew actually explained the texts which do not show TD
Sean Griffin, must be embarrassed beyond measure at his ignorance of the Bible and his twisting the scriptures.
I believe the "only-itis" is the negative inference fallacy. Taking a positive statement (Jesus died for the sheep) and inferring a negative from it (Jesus did not die for anyone else).
Everyone who lives is not saved. Limited atonement is true.
AronRa couldn't answer my question on where did cyanobacteria evolve from? And why are cyanobacteria unchanged as living fossils in the alleged 3.5 Billion years, in the same time that these also evolved into alligators, Elks and Algerians?
Cyanobacteria evolved into plants, not animals...
Evolution is a fact . There is no getting around that
Claims are not evidence.
@@hwd71 Evolution is a fact is not a claim
Willingly ignorant
@@scottgarvin4411 says the guy who believes in an invisible sky daddy
@@autodex2000@autodex2000 replied, 2 hours ago >>>@hwd71 Evolution is a fact is not a claim<<<< what do you mean by evolution?
Sadly Sam was very rude. His conversion to Catholicism showed when he claimed Mary was without sin. Mary said in Luke 1:47 (NASB95): And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
That baby Hitler question was very revealing of the inconsistencies in Rogue's views of predestination. -He wouldn't sin in murdering a baby, yet viewed The future sins of Hitler as set, assuming he had a choice in the matter -He would choose instead to prepare the Jews for the coming persecution, as if He could change a single life or ease a single minute of suffering by said preparation. -He also is assuming in this hypothetical situation that this information would be passed on through spiritual means, based on His own spiritual status and striving.
I have to mention that the third argument against the idea of total depravity by Idol appears mere assertion-based and fails. In particular, your third point that the idea of total depravity (I call total inability) destroys the Incarnation. First, you have to recognize that Jesus had a unique birth, hence that is a clue that he was different than every other human. DUH. There was no human father/sperm donor if you will. So, while the scripture declares him as one with 2 natures, he was not born with a human father. This would explain his uniqueness and provide a reason how he avoided total depravity. There has to be pause here based on that. Another rejoinder is the Holy Spirit controlled Jesus. The Methodist Church has posited that the Spirit kept him from total depravity. We do have to go with scripture and agree that he did not sin, which implies he wasn't touched by total depravity (Heb 4:15). A third reason is of course the teaching of Paul. Adam and the Last Adam. So, Paul's teaching that there are two representatives or as the old Reformers called "Federal heads." also affects your assertion. Jesus was not one of the all in Adam. He was a representative of a new people. Remember, Adam at one time was in a different position vis a vis sin. Jesus was called the Last Adam as he stood in the place that Adam did (in some sense) prior to what we call the Fall. These truths are declarations in scripture and a contrary assertion wold need to show that Jesus was affected by original sin. All your argument did IMO, was to make a mere assertion. That's not good enough. This may help: www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/if-jesus-was-born-of-the-substance-of-the-virgin-mary-how-was-he-without-original-sin
Hope this helps. You should remove that from your three arguments to be intellectually honest. If Jesus was not in Adam, you can posit total depravity as true. Perhaps this immature argument is a reason why White won't debate you. May be?
So, Warren is teaching "philosophy"...man-centered philosophy. Does not Rogue Calvinist know that the entire TULIP systematic came by necessity from every Calvinist's presupposition of "divine determinism" which is actually a man-centered philosophy. Calvinism begins with philosophy. Didn't know that he has "divine gnosis" and Warren can't see or understand the Scriptures because he's not a regenerate man. So, if one fails to understand Scripture the way that Rogue does then that man isn't even saved...or regenerate. The standard for truth isn't Rogue. The standard of truth is Scripture.
The Truth About Third Corinthians | The Movie (Teaser) kzread.info/dash/bejne/gqKuvLqSdt3Rhpc.html
Psalm 51 is identified by Scripture as a confession Psalm of David after being confronted by the prophet Nathan about the sin committed with Bathsheba and against Uriah. Vs 5 is often used as an "original sin" proof text. The verse says, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" and to the Calvinist this is understood *by implication* that David inherited the guilt of Adam's sin as well as a sinful, totally depraved nature from conception. Proof texting by implication is important as no Scripture explicitly communicates distinctively Calvinist propositions. Were the verse altered to say, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and Adam's sin and guilt were passed to me through my father's sperm" the Calvinists would believe no different. Calvinism is well supported by altered Scripture. Back to the Scripture as inspired: David is owning *his own transgression* in the Psalm. That's the point. The main focus of the text is not some naughtiness in which his mother may have participated or been accused. Nor is it Adam. Nor so-called original sin. The point of the Psalm is David owning *my sin*, *mine iniquities*, *bloodguiltiness* on David's part. It's about what David did - he could have done otherwise. He could have done better. A diverting excuse to the effect of "I was born this way" or "It's just the way I was born* has absolutely no place in this context! One possible consideration that David, confessing his own transgression, is expressing the emotion of "I'm as bad as accused" with reference made to a cutting insult of then and now: SOB. Hijo de puta. Figlio di puttana. No doubt those Israelites who disparaged David, including Saul's relatives, would have had no problem flinging this sort of mud. In fact, Saul is willing to insult his own son, Jonathan, in this manner in 1 Sam 20:20 - "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" - in frustration about Jonathan's loyalty to David. In fact, a case can be made that David was not entitled to Israeli citizenship because of his ancestry. Deut 23:2 says, "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD." and Deut 23:3 says, "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:" David was about 10 generations removed from Phares (a bastard) depending upon how one counts. But no such ambiguity exists in that David's great grandmother was from Moab (Ruth.) And for those who cherry-pick their literalisms in poetic and intentionally hyperbolic Scripture, one could posit that no one can be forgiven of their sin without the use of literal hyssop, as mentioned in Psalm 51:7 - "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." Yes, that would be absurd, but not without precedent in fallacious proof texting observed here.
It is amazing...astonishing...even shocking...just how dishonest mankind is with himself. The Truth is...evolutionists have hearts full of rebellion, which is what causes the disbelief. How any, truly educated human being...can fall for this fraud "theory of evolution", is truly unbelievable. Man's own heart...is most deceptive...
1 Corinthians 9:9-10 is written for the church, and it is Paul writing about the "law of Moses". Circumcision and the sacrificial system are done away in Christ, not the command to be holy as God is holy. Christ is our example. Paul and James are in agreement. Don't mix eternal salvation with temporal salvation by staying in fellowship with God.
This is not a good match debate. It's like Mike Tyson VS Manny Pacquiao. Heavy weight VS Welther Weight
How was Paul ALIVE..before the LAW came and THEN he died...? He isn't talking about his physical life..
Sam is boorish, obstructionist, and commits category errors that keeps him from understanding the topic. His understanding of how Mary is saved is ridiculous. It would be nice if he could pronounce 'reconcile' properly, too.
and what reconcile actually means
Why he (turretin) allowed himself to embarrass himself before the whole world.
Is it me, or does it seem "Daria" is a very confused person??
Sad no one brought up hypothetical universalism which is a valid minority position in reformed thought on the atonement . This is a form of limited atonement but makes best sense of all the biblical verses on the atonement . Calvins view would track very well with this view .
Peter also warns against building doctrine off Pauls writings... But for some reason that is ignored by Calvinists and Universalist...
Ive never watched a debate between a black talking circle and a person. Very convincing that total depravity (as taught by calvinism) is not true. Excellent discussion.
Thank you Donnie for having this gentleman on today. No matter what the critics say, because they follow things that are not true only what they choose to believe, which is hierarchic. Because that's what they say about us.
I think calvanists have been lead to believe calvanism itself is or is a part of the gospel. Meaning they feel they cannot reject Calvinism or else in their mind theyre denying the gospel. No matter how clear their detractors argue with logical/reasonable arguments with spiritual discernment, they will not even entertain a possibility that theyve been wrong.
Evolution is stupid. - Kent Hovind
You do know he is a convicted felon, correct?
@@markduell2468 Morons keep doing that. I don't understand why but the do and say everything they can about Kent to try and make him look uneducated, or like a crook. First off the guy has consistently done more to make evolution look as stupid as it gets. He has consistently spanked Dr.s and other highly educated people in debates on evolution. He has probably done as much or more as any one man can when it comes to pointing out the bad religion evolution is and how science is no longer science or a tool for learning but a tool for pushing religious zealots ideology. So every time you try to make fun of him or make him look bad all your doing is making all these other look worse. So your professors and other supposedly intelligent and highly educated people look like inept uneducated obtuse morons when it comes to Kent. I mean they can't touch the guy. How many have almost broke down after debating him and been embarrassed. Yes if I were you I wouldn't make comments about Kent like that as it just. Makes you look jealous and immature.
@@markduell2468lol those kind of comments make you look awful. Best of luck to you....
@@markduell2468 And you do know your preacher Lawrence Krauss a miscreant of S.A.
He was wrongly convicted. Look on his Kent Hovind is innocent webpage.
Jesus didn’t teach or talk about original sin or depravity of man but we have Paul base his ‘gospel’ on original sin and near total depravity of man. Man, according to Paul, is incapable of being good and he is rotten to the core. He writes in Romans: [For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” Paul claimed he cannot do good even if he wanted to because sin within him has total control over him because of what Adam did: [For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.] He didn’t do it, the sin in him that did it. Don’t blame him blame the sin that dwells in him. Saul here is passing the buck and not taking responsibility for his actions. If that is not total depravity then what is? You have to face it Warren, Saul taught total depravity. He fabricated it out of whole cloth. Please leave Saul and his wacky ‘gospel’, Jesus is waiting for you. Jesus’ words only.
This debate is a dumpster fire. Anyone who platforms He Who Has No Face is doing the world a disfavor.
Do not cast your pearls. This guy Turretin is a joke... The text is simple and direct.
It's 4.54 billion years Kent, try reading a little about the rock cycle and maybe you won't sound quite so stupid!
This was very cringey. 😑😑 I think it would've been nice if both sides weren't defensive and repetitive. Especially in light of this ONE find. When infact there are MANY finds that support Young Earth Creationism. This may just not be thee most perfect example of that,but it is just one of many. So, I think these debates would go far better if it was about many evidences. Then this one wouldn't be under the microscope which also then means EVERY quote about this one item, and every person that has seen it etc etc also gets scrutinized to death. You can't even trust what scientists said about it exactly, they may have feared losing their grants or job or just been in denial and therefore couldn't fully acknowledge this as BONE. So I'm sure Doc can find quotes that convince him. But it would've been nice to then go forward, ok if this find doesn't measure up for Doc then let's move onto upright fossilized trees, or dinosaurs found preserved while giving birth or swallowing, etc etc the list is long!! Although in the end this really is about faith. The question i would've had for Doc is simply, what evidence WOULD convince him???
"Poor quick scheme" 😅
So the One With No Face just declares that he knows truth and you don't thus his interpretation is correct. That's kinda convenient. I hate to tell him this but I know spiritual truth and he doesn't because he isn't regenerate and he can't accept the things of God. So there.
You can't just say that though, now you need to show me which Bible verses contain the spiritual truth that I don't believe
@@roguecalvinist No; what I can observe is that you can't understand spiritual truth and therefore there is no reason for me to provide it to you. You can't understand them to begin with.
Every [triggered] evolutionist I've ever listened to has a different explanation for how the earth was formed-always a different theory🙄 At least the majority of creationists are consistent; the story never changes and always reflects the evidence. Much easier to follow and understand whereas the atheistic evoltionist seems to just think on their feet and say whatever they think sounds good at the time, lol 💁🏿♂️ Says it all.
The scientific consensus on Earth's formation is as follows: Earth formed approximately 4.6 billion years ago as part of the solar system's creation. The process began when a cloud of gas and dust in space, known as a solar nebula, started to collapse and spin due to gravity. As the nebula spun faster, most of the material concentrated at the center, forming the sun.The remaining material in the spinning disk began to clump together through a process called accretion, where smaller particles collided and stuck together, forming larger and larger bodies. Earth grew through this accretion process as gravity pulled more material together.A significant event in Earth's early formation was a collision with a Mars-sized object called Theia. This massive impact is believed to have vaporized some of the rock and metal from both bodies, creating a disk of debris around Earth that eventually coalesced to form the Moon.Early Earth was extremely hot and mostly molten. Over time, it cooled and differentiated into layers, with heavier elements sinking to form the core and lighter materials rising to form the crust. Volcanic eruptions released gases that formed the early atmosphere, and comets and asteroids likely delivered water to the planet's surface.This scientific consensus is based on multiple lines of evidence from geology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry, representing the current best understanding among Earth scientists and planetary scientists.
Church fathers who taught “Augustinian original sin” before Augustine: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, etc.
Turn up the volume please..
Is your hearing aid on? Have you tried subtitles?
Dr. Frost, did Jesus's physical body also descend into Hades...or just His Spirit?
No scientific evidence supports human evolution
Endogenous retroviruses do
@IdolKiller Warren, I appreciate the grammatical analysis of Psalm 51:5 that you provided in the debate as well as in your channel. It is solid. I am hoping that you might be willing to have a very short conversation with me off of the KZread comments section so that I can run an interpretive possibility of this verse by you for your consideration. Hoping to hear from you. Keep up the good work!