Deep dive into the beauty of Scripture in its original language!
This channel contains a series of lectures regarding the study of the Gospel of Mark in Greek. Each video covers 1 verse of the Gospel. Important insights in Greek grammar and syntax are provided. Synoptical view of the Gospels and Old testament Hebrew are also included as key tools to deep dive into meaningful and correct exegesis of the text. No previous knowledge of Greek/Hebrew is required.
Пікірлер
I have a joke: There was this most beautiful and brightest anointed cherub. He was kicked out of the most high God's Kingdom He came to Earth getting people to do his dirty dealings telling his lies That all you have to do is believe the way he believes and trembles and you can continue to live in Rebellion against God living in sin that God condemns and you still get to enter into God's Kingdom. It's not a joke it's called being deceived by The Great Deceiver You cannot convince someone they are being deceived because that is part of the deception
Grace that isn’t free is, by definition, not actually Grace. If you don’t believe that Grace is free, you do not believe in Grace (or even understand it) at all.
@@GhostBearCommander Thanks for your comment, but it would be more useful if you would actually listen to the content instead of jumping to conclusions based on a thumbnail.
What part in Ephesians 2:8-9 these people dont understand.
@@jenkinsgenetia6708 the verse right after-the one free gracers always forget to quote-Ephesians 2:10.
Yeah they even want to say Ephesians chapter 2 verses 8 and 9 is the gospel and that is not the gospel The Jews are blind and the free Grace movement is brainwashed by the Devil
Why not define god as money and laugh about us atheists because obviously we don´t believe that money is real. Have you ever given anything you said a second thought?
@@hitman5782 Please, take some time to really understand your opponent’s argument before commenting. The conversation that may arise from a correct understanding would benefit both of us tremendously.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 There isn´t much to understand, because your "argument" isn´t valid, or new, it´s just a ridiculous way of trying to define your god into existence. Please understand that we atheists are atheists because nobody has ever been able to present any proof, convincing evidence, or even a single rational argument for his god to be more real than all the countless other gods that we humans invented. If you define your god as necessary, the cause of this or that or whatever doesn´t change that. Please understand that you have to BACK UP your claims with verifiable evidence or you look like a complete fool.
Dude, we know that the pyramids have been built, we don´t know that there is a strange god who makes virgins pregnant with himself, ok? This braindead watchmaker argument was debunked a thousand years ago, it´s time to move on.
Dude, NOBODY knows how the universe came into existence or if it´s eternal or if we live in a multiverse or whatsoever. this has nothing to do with Atheism. We do not claim to know about any of that, but if you caim that your god created the universe, than demonstrate this claim to be accurateor stop wasting our time.
@@hitman5782 it’s not about “how”, it’s about “why”. Mine is not a physics question: it’s a metaphysical question. Even if we found the physical mechanism (theory) by which the universe came into existence, the question of “why” would remain unanswered. The option of an eternal universe is also irrelevant: it just makes the problem even worse. Why does an un-necessary universe have been in existence for ever and will forever exist with no particular reason? The existence of a multiverse is also irrelevant for my question: replace “universe” with “multiverse” and the question is still unanswered.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 What "reason" are you talking about? The universe is dead and lethal to way over 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999...%. Every second an entire solar system explodes or implodes. black holes erase entire galaxies and one more meteor like the one that erased the dinosaurs and this little planet is also erased from existence. At least when our sun becomes a supernova every "reason" is over. Not that viruses, parasites, and natural disasters would let us live long enough to see that happen anyway. Oh and of course it will never answer anything to add gods. Now the question only becomes what created that god and so on, and we are as far as before. And when your god doesn´t need a creator, congratulations, so does the universe.
"But what if someone is really REALLY bad?! Not like me! My sins are just little ones!" Every sin is an act of Satanism. You cheapen your own sin.
The problem is that this definition of god completely takes away all attributes of this god, that we tend to give one. This definition doesn't prove god's intelligence, or even omniscience, omnipotence or benevolence, it doesn't even prove that god is conscious or has a will. Sure if we define god as something no one else defines it, that must exist, then it must exist, but it's simply not the same thing anymore. Because of this, this logic is pointless and it leads nowhere. E.g. if I redefine the word "five" as the abstract mathematical concept of 4, then sure 2 + 2 = "five" but only because I've completely changed the meaning of "five" and it does not follow that 2 + 2 equals the actual thing people mean when they say five. Two plus two in this case being an analogy for the existence of the very universe and "five" your definition of god and the actual five is the thing most people mean when they say god.
Thanks for your comment. It’s very similar to hundreds of other comments I received so it’s pretty clear I was not able to clearly convey the message I wanted to convey. I apologize for that. Having said that, this definition doesn’t “completely take away all attributes of this god”. This definition purposely leaves God’s attributes outside of the definition itself. Those attributes may be derived from such a definition (but this was not the topic of the video). If we don’t even agree on the bare definition of God I gave then there’s no point in moving on to discuss his potential attributes. Regarding your last point, my argument is not about redefining God into existence. It’s not a word game (it would be very silly). It’s about arguing for the existence of a necessary cause, given the data we have. Hope this helps.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Well yes and no. I get that your definition of god leaves gods attributes outside of the definition, but by doing that you effectively proved nothing, but that there must be some kind of cause for the existence of the universe, whether this cause has any attributes that people give to a god or not. However "god" isn't usually a synonym of "the cause of the universe" whatever this might be, but rather usually a being that created the universe(in monotheistic religions) or beings that are immensely powerful and immortal or even embody certain things of the world(in polytheistic religions). So I don't really get what you wanted to say, like yeah I agree, and probably every atheist agrees, that there must be something, that caused the universe, but I wouldn't call that cause a synonym for god.
@@finnie9210 well, I’ll take it! That’s exactly the intent of the video-engaging atheists in a conversation about the correct understanding of God. If I started pushing the God of the Bible, you would probably walk away right away, which is fine. You don’t get to the God of the Bible if you first don’t get the fundamental idea of what God is. Back to your statement, you seem to agree there is a cause for the universe. I would expect (but correct me if I’m wrong) that you would consider that cause to be uncaused (otherwise we would just have to move one step back in a sort of regression to infinity). However, many atheists I have spoken to accept the idea of an infinite regression of caused causes in order to rule out the possibility of the existence of an uncaused cause. What about you? Which option do you consider more likely/reasonable (the existence of an uncaused cause or the existence of an infinite number of caused causes)?
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Well I personally would say, that I don't really know what is true, but the thing I'd consider more plausible would be one or even many uncaused things that have to be true. I don't know if e.g. the speed of light or anything can be different or has to be the way it is. Maybe that's also true about matter and energy, maybe the default state is in fact, that there's something rather than nothing. But all that is just speculation, I think, that it'd be unreasonable to be convinced of anything there is no evidence for.
@@finnie9210 that’s fine, I’m not asking you to be convinced. Actually, I consider your very honest answer a win. It seems you think it’s more plausible than not that an uncaused cause (or more than one) exists. This is exactly my point. I guess you are probably the first atheist on this thread with whom I’ve got to a common ground.
Salvation was from before the foundation of the world. All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. Calvinists are wrong about no fruits. The parable of the soils is clear that all believers fo not produce good fruits, but, the gift if eternal life is free, to all who believe. Moses, Abram, David, Joshua, Daniel, Mary, etc. Gods gift is for all who believe but it is clear in scripture that He favors some more than others, i don't claim to know why or how, just that it is so. Sir, the freegracers have one thing right, all you have to do is believe that Jesus is the Risen Lord and He died for you, if you believe that you have life, period. The Calvinists have at least one thing right, His will not fall away. You, my friend, are trying to place your common sense above what scripture says. Thw Good News is exactly that, news, He brought salvation to all who believe. You are mocking the True Gospel, believers do fall into periods of filth, God gives His children over to their sins if thw do not abide in Him. I don't judge people but you ask yourself, do i actually know Jesus? Do we have a relationship? Or, is it just academic knowledge of the Bible and still trusting in your own works. Yes repent, and believe that God gave eternal life to all those who believe in He whom He sent.
I think more than anything, this verse is further evidence that Simon Peter, not "Mark," wrote this gospel. Yes, I'm well aware that tradition from Papias and others place John Mark as the penman, but whether Mark was the emmanuensis for Peter and/or perhaps the translator from Hebrew (no, not Aramaic; Hebrew) into Greek, it's exceeding clear from the text's internal clues that the author behind Κατά Μάρκον Ευαγγέλιον is Apostle Simon Peter. There are many internal clues. e.g. the use of the singular address in 14:37, Peter's having reason to warm himself in 14:55 (see vs 51 😃), the demure description of his tears in 14:72, the personalization of what Matthew & Luke, in distinction, present as the the disciple's comments in Mrk11:21... and many many more The secular "scholars" like Bart Ehrman and even many quote unquote conservatives seem to like to ignore these clues. Cheers EDIT: fixed typos
And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, **moved with compassion,** put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean. And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed. Mrk1:40-42 (A.V.) And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down said to him: If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus **having compassion** on him, stretched forth his hand; and touching him, saith to him: I will. Be thou made clean. And when he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean. Mrk1:40-42 (Douay Rheims)
hi. I randomly stumbled across your content today. Curious: what is your native language?
Welcome! I’m from Italy.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 cool. Thanks. lots of thought-provoking contact on your KZread
1 John 3:10 [10]In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
1 John 2:4 [4]He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
The bible literally says free grace Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
True. In fact, I’m not rejecting grace, which is by definition free. I’m rejecting “free grace theology”, which is a distortion of the gospel. Two completely different things.
I don't. If God is who he says he is, our father who is in heaven and adopted us (Ephesians 1:5), would God then go on and abandon a child who he chose to adopt in the first place? Or would he be patient with us and help us work through our problems?
@@thejerichoconnection3473 A disobedient son is still a son.
@@brianbrowning5680 absolutely. However, if the son is totally unrepentant and stubbornly rejects his father grace, mercy, and forgiveness, there’s no place the son unfortunately will end up other than hell. Keep in mind the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). The son that goes astray was still a son, but Jesus says he was “dead”. Of course, since the son was physically alive, Jesus is talking about spiritual death. Did the father stop loving his son and waiting for his return? No! However, the son was dead. Only when he converted, repented, turned around and went back to his father with a contrite heart to ask for mercy, only then he became alive again. Unrepentant sin leads us to spiritual death, no matter if we are sons or not. Repentance leads us to life.
Remeber, we established grace is free. If you have to do something to earn it, it isn't free. It's a reward. Heaven is God's gift to give, not our reward to earn. Ephesians 2:8-9.
i wonder what "men" like this do with the Book Of Galantines and the Book Of John where its says that no man is justified by the law, and that all men that seek to be justified by the law are actually cursed by the law itself, and to not let false prophets deceive you from the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus, and "Believe on the son of god that ye may know ye have eternal life"? i wonder, does the "man" in is this video loves god with ALL his HEART, SOUL and MIND, and loves his neighbor as HIMSELF? if he says yes then he is a liar, and is claiming to have kept the law, and not sinned, AKA he is claiming to be sinless, and he makes God a liar with is foolish words. the lawyer in the parable is asking Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, and Jesus tells him to follow the law, but when in acts 16:31 A philippian jailer asks paul and silas "what must i do to be SAVED?" and paul tells him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. The difference is lawyer is asking how what he himself can do to inherit by HIS works and he gets the law, the philippian jailer realizes he is a sinner that needs to be saved so he ask "how he can be saved", and he gets the gospel of grace. if you want eternal life by your works, then keep the WHOLE LAW and be PERFECT, just know that in order to do that you also must prove God wrong when he says that there "is not a just man upon the earth" and " for ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God" OR you can realize you are a sinner through and through and you NEED to be SAVED, then simply put your faith and trust and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and his perfect sacrifice on the cross as your only hope to escape hell and inherit eternal life and you WILL have Eternal Life... 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. the gospel of grace and true biblically theology is very simple and easy to understand so that god can save as may as possible and so that man is without excuse.
Thanks for your thoughts. I think the whole confusion comes from equating justification with assurance of eternal life, which is the fundamental problem of osas. The two things are related but are not the same. The former is by grace through faith apart from the works of the law and opens us up to the possibility of entering the kingdom of God. The latter is not granted a priori and is only obtained by persevering in the faith and by producing good works by the grace of Christ. If you read the gospel this way, there’s no contradiction between Jesus and Paul. If however you insist to make this simplification, i.e. instantaneous justification = instantaneous achievement of eternal life, you see a contradiction between Jesus’ gospel and Paul’s gospel and must come up with these far fetched explanations to resolve such a contradiction. Your solution is basically that Jesus was intentionally pushing the ignorant scribe into eternal damnation without even correcting him but instead confirming him in his false gospel. You are basically turning Jesus into an evil unmerciful prophet. In fact, Jesus didn’t say these things only to an evil scribe who wouldn’t admit he was a sinner and wanted to justify himself with his own hands. He said the same things in the sermon on the mount in front of all his own disciples and multitudes of followers: “Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect.” You cannot possibly explain this command in your simplistic theological framework. Unless you’re willing to concede that Jesus was intentionally trying to trick his own disciples and thousands of other followers in justifying themselves by their works thus cursing themselves.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 A just man = an innocent man, an innocent man = a man worthy of heaven, a man worthy of heavens has eternal life. The problem is no man is just, no, not one, there is only ONE way a man can be justified and this by faith in the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ on the cross, The bible consistently uses language such as, justified, saved, eternal life, salvation, righteousness, born of god, as descriptions, traits, or allegory's to signal to the reader that the man in question or being talked about has forgiveness of sins, and is on his way to heaven. Luke 7:48-50 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” Why did Jesus not say "Your faith has saved you, go and persevere in the faith and in good works else you will lose your salvation? John 6:29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Why did Jesus not say "the work of god is this: believe in me... and persevere in the faith and in good works"? Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. Acts 11:17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?” Acts 16:31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and your household. Romans 4:5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. Romans 4:3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Romans 4:23-24 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness-for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. Romans 9:30-33 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.” Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast. James 2:23; And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. I don't know about you but those verses seem pretty clear on what a man must to be saved, justified and gifted eternal life by grace, all a man needs to do is believe on Jesus Christ for salvation and have faith, and god will credit HIS righteousness to us. In fact the bible says NOT to work for your salvation, else you frustrate the grace of god and turn it into lasciviousness. in the parable of the talents, Jesus already know the Pharisees where reprobates that would never believe the gospel anyway so Jesus did not cast Perles before swine, as stated in Matthew 7:6.
@@tonics9844 Thank you for providing a wall of verses, but I don’t think it’s very useful. I could easily come up with a much longer wall of verses to make exactly the opposite point you are making. I’ll just mention a couple of things that struck me as staggering though: 1. You have the audacity to quote James 2:23 and omit the very next verse. 2. You have the audacity to state that Scripture specifically teaches we don’t have to work for our salvation in light of Philippians 2:12. “Give me enough verses and I’ll make the Bible say whatever you want.”
@@thejerichoconnection3473 so according to you when the Bible says salvation is a free gift, not of works and can only be receive by simply childlike faith in Jesus Christ, God is just a big fat liar in all those verses and excerpts, since we must work for our salvation and last time I checked you did not have to work for a gift, otherwise it would not be a gift.
@@tonics9844 but you cannot gather up a bunch of verses and jump to quick conclusions while throwing away and ignoring many more passages that disprove your quick conclusions. The Bible is not an infinite source of random verses that people can decide to draw from according to what they want to believe. That’s not a serious approach to Scripture. If Scripture says that we are justified apart from the works of the law but also that we are not justified by faith alone, if Scripture says that those that work not are considered righteous but also that we need to work out our salvation, either Scripture is contradictory or probably there’s something more to the word of God that you are totally missing. Please, keep in mind one simple principle: if your theology can explain some verses but is blatantly contradicted by other verses, you can be sure your theology is wrong.
If the creator of the universe had a creator THAT WAS NECESSARY, then neither fit your definition of god, because that god had to create the universe AND had to be uncaused itself. So you have to show that it did both. You did not. I can imagine a universe that doesn't have a cause. Therefore there cannot have been a NECESSARY cause of the universe. Since both of us can imagine a universe where Jesus was born of someone not named mary, or on a different day, or a different gender, then god CANNOT, logically, by your definition, be necessary, because IT COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Lastly, the universe may not have a necessary cause, merely an opportunity to happen, same as the individual radioactive decay, of, say, a U234 atom that has existed for 12 billion years, and just this second decayed. Nothing CAUSED the decay at that particular time, it was energetically possible, and it was just as energetically possible for 12 billion years, and could have been for 12 billion years more (and for some U234 atom, one that won't decay today, but will in 12 billion years, it actually DIDN'T decay today, but will do in 24 billion years of age), but today, that atom decayed because it had the opportunity and took it. Your god wasn't necessary, it doesn't fit your definition of "the uncaused cause of the universe" and the universe might never had a cause at all. So your god, despite your redefinition to a being you do NOT worship (because "made a Jesus" was not part of your definition of that god, but "made a jesus" was 100% a part of the god you worship), still hasn't been shown to exist at all, because we can find many many ways your definition is unfilled, the empty set.
Jesus was the law on steroids. Eternal life is knowing God. Not a time of something. John 17 3. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
It's not just free grace it's greasy free grace. So greasy and buttery that we just slip right through life! I have no clue what this video says I just read the comments. And I see a bunch of arguing and people trying to prove each other right and wrong. Jesus is the savior of all people. People are always identifying as insiders and outsiders. Jesus is lord. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess. Glory bombs
”Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”“ Luke 17:3-4 What does this verse means if “Repenting” isn’t turning away from sin and only unbelief to belief ? (Question to free grace theology ppl).
You are either FREE GRACE OR EARNED GRACE. There is no in-between
A few things: 1. Grace is free by definition. Saying “free grace” is redundant. It’s like saying “wet water.” 2. Believing that grace is unmerited (free) is totally different from being a “free grace”. Being a “free grace” means adhering to a very specific theological framework invented in the last 80 years that destroys the gospel and makes a joke out of it. In other words, it’s adhering to heresy. 3. There’s a fundamental, logical misunderstanding in thinking that since something is free we don’t have to do absolutely anything to get it, otherwise it wouldn’t be free anymore. This is just so contrary to common sense. If I, out of my infinite love for you, gave you the winning lottery ticket, would you say that, since you yourself had to go and redeem the prize using the ticket I gave you, you earned the prize? You see how terribly simplistic this “free vs earned” dilemma is?
THE MOMENT YOU BELIEVE IN THE LORD GOD JESUS CHRIST AND WHAT HE DID ON THE CROSS AND IS ALIVE IN HEAVEN YOU ARE SAVED AND HAVE HIS CRACE ITS A FREE GIFT
So when the batery goes down in your i phone you throw the whole thing away??
No, I recharge it. That’s exactly the point I’m making.
👍Once Saved Aways Saved for the Church. Context is very important to understand the scriptures. In the beginning of the letter of Galatians, Paul is addressing the Churches of Galatia and in these Churches not everyone is saved. 👉Can you say everyone in your Church is saved? Every Church that's of God has people that are not saved. Next, Paul mentions the gospel of Christ in Gal 1:7, in this gospel Salvation is Today. In 2Corinthians 6:2, the word (Now) means = at this time, the present. Acts 13:39. And by Him all that believe (are) justified (from all things), from which ye could (not) be justified by the law of Moses. (justified) in the Greek is (dikaioō), which means to render righteous, declared righteous. 👉What does (justified from all things) means? in Acts 13:39 In Gal 5:16, we can put out the Spirit = 1THESSALONIANS 5:19,and walk in the flesh. In Gal 5:19 it mentions (works). In the Judgment seat of Christ, which is a Judgment for the Church only in = 2CORINTHIANS 5:10/1Cor 3:11-15, this judgment is for rewards, based on our (works), not a lost of salvation. Verse 15 supports this. In Galatians 5:21, Paul uses the word (they), not us or we, (they) meaning those that are not saved in the Churches of Galatia.
👍Once Saved Aways Saved for the Church. In 1John 3:6, when it says (Whoever abides in Him does not sin), that's talking about our (new man), our new man does not sin. When it says (Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor knows Him) that's talking about the person that's not saved. *Now look at 1JOHN 1:8, our flesh sins. *We can walk in darkness, 1JOHN 1:6, cross reference with Romans 13:12 The Lukewarm: Jesus could wish they were cold or hot not Lukewarm. =Revelation 3:15 The Lukewarm, are people who are not saved. *The Lukewarm people are naked, they have no garments on.= Revelation 3:17,18 *There are some believers that have defiled their garments, they are not naked= Revelation 3:4 Now go back to Revelation 3:21 = (to him who overcomes,) cross reference that with 1JOHN 5:4,5, (we overcome the world, through our faith.)
Jesus Loves You
Someone tell me why satan does not have salvation. With this answer we will settle free grace theology. I am looking for your answers, thanks you.
Jesus did not die for the devil and his angels.
Good answer. Next: what happens to our sinful nature when in eternity with our Lord?
@@Daven8 we will have incorruptible bodies and thus can’t sin.
Why bring our bodies into submission?
This is the peak of delusion.
Grace, by definition, is unmeritted, or in other words, free.
Correct
I watched the entire video. If you are going to expose free grace theology as the heresy of the new millennium, you should really identify the free grace theologians and quote them about free grace theology. You failed to do either. How can someone like me be convinced that you have accurately exposed free grace theology if you don't source these theologians so that I can see whether these things are so? Do better. Now, allow me to identify the guarantor of everlasting life, Jesus, and quote Him about it: "...he who believes in Me has everlasting life," John 6:47, and "shall never die," John 11:26. According to Jesus, once a person has everlasting life, that person always has everlasting life.
Thanks for your comment. Regarding your first point, are you saying the way I’m portraying free grace theology is not accurate? I’m pretty sure it is, but if I said anything inaccurate about what free gracers believe please rectify. Regarding eternal life, Jesus says “whoever believes” not “whoever believed”. That makes all the difference. The difference between the true gospel and a heresy.
@thejerichoconnection3473 thank you for replying. Free grace theology would be defined by those who identify as free grace theologians, from about 1950 to the present. How I am to know whether what you said is accurate if you don't identify and quote those who identify as free grace? Are you saying that a person must continue to believe to receive or keep everlasting life?
@@michaelparsons7474 the goal of the video was not to give a historical overview of free grace theology but to describe the main principles. I think I gave a pretty accurate representation of the core beliefs of free grace (this video was rebutted by a popular free gracer, thelaymanseminary, who admitted it was one of the most accurate depictions of what free gracers believe). But again, if you feel I said something inaccurate please let me know and I’ll rectify. On your second question, the answer is obviously yes.
@@thejerichoconnection3473you stated where they taught (DTS) but did not identify one of them. Do you know whether all of these theologians, or at least the prominent ones, agree on the main principles of free grace theology? If you found that they did not agree, particularly on the object of saving faith, would that surprise you? When Jesus encountered the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well in John 4, He told her that whoever drinks from that well would thirst again, but whoever drinks of the living water that He gives would NEVER thirst but that water would become in that person a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. When we get thirsty, we drink to quench our thirst. Usually a sip, mouthful, or perhaps a bottle of water quenches that thirst. However, we will thirst again, and we will have to drink again to quench that thirst. This pattern of thirsting and drinking will continue for the rest of our natural lives. But, according to Jesus, the moment a person drinks of the living water (i.e. believes in Him), that person has everlasting life for which he will never thirst again. In other words, the believer does not have to continue believing (i.e. drinking of the living water) because his thirst for everlasting life was forever quenched the moment he believed.
@@michaelparsons7474 to be honest, it wouldn’t surprise me at all, given the doctrinal confusion reigning in Protestantism. In fact, different free gracers disagree on what exactly you need to believe to be saved. But again, this was not the point of my video. The point was to highlight the heresy of thinking that heaven is inherited in one instant of faith (however you may want to define that faith) independently of whatever you may do afterwards, which is the core concept of free grace. Regarding John 4, I’m sure you are aware that those words of Jesus are explained by John in John 7:38-39: “Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.” So, the living waters represent the Holy Spirit that we receive when we believe in Christ and are baptized in him. From that moment on, we, as believers, become the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). That doesn’t mean that every day we need to re-believe in Christ to re-receive the Holy Spirit. That would be silly. There is only one baptism (Eph 4:5) in which we receive the Holy Spirit and we are born again (John 3). That’s why Jesus said believers wouldn’t be thirsty again-because once we are born again and have satisfied our spiritual thirst by receiving the Holy Spirit, we don’t need to be re-born again to re-receive the Holy Spirit. But this doesn’t mean that, if we reject Christ and his Spirit by renouncing our faith, we will still get to heaven, either. This in fact is the heretical principle at the core of free grace. Jesus is very clear that there are multiple conditions (on top of one instant of mental belief) in order to make it to heaven. One of this is to remain in him and produce good fruits. If we don’t remain in him by rejecting his Spirit, renouncing our faith, and going back to a life of unrepentant sin, there’s only one destination for us-the lake of fire-and rightly so.
Wow, he say " free grace no thanks" i say " free grace thank you Jesus"
I would advise you to please watch the video before commenting.
Jesus said in John 6:47 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." The Jericho connection is a works salvation pharisee and he's going to split hell wide open. Jesus was rebuking the pharisees who preached works salvation. You need to read the beginning of the chapter. Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which *trusted in themselves that they were righteous,* and despised others: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. Your a pharisee preaching works salvation. Now we have context. 18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? *none is good,* save one, that is, God. 20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. 21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. The rich young ruler was self righteous and trying to go to heaven by fulfilling the law of God. Jesus just got speaking a parable to those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous. Apparently, the rich young ruler didn't get the message. Jesus used the law to show him his wickedness. Jesus told him none is good but one. The rich young ruler asked him, "What *good thing* must "I" [emphasis on I] DO to inherit eternal life, not what must I do to be saved... Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved (faith alone in Christ alone.) Keep reading. 35 And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging: 36 And hearing the multitude pass by, he asked what it meant. 37 And they told him, that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by. 38 And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me. 39 And they which went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried so much the more, Thou son of David, have mercy on me. 40 And Jesus stood, and commanded him to be brought unto him: and when he was come near, he asked him, 41 Saying, What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee? And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight. 42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: *thy faith hath saved thee.* 43 And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God.
Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, you have not engaged with the text I proposed in the video (Luke 10) but jumped to other slightly related or totally unrelated passages in the NT. If you want to engage with the text I proposed and the arguments I put forward regarding that text, I’ll be happy to discuss.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 We compare scripture with scripture precept upon precept line upon line and not our own interpretation of the scriptures. God's word interprets itself. However you won't stop teaching a false works gospel and your still going to continue using this passage to condemn others who obey the scriptures and put their faith in Christ alone because your a heretic and are going to continue preaching a false gospel leading many to hell with you.
How can you say that free Grace theology was not preached until the 19 th century ? By some random Pastor ? When Paul wrote the book of Galatians and warned of being foolish and bewitched by another GOSPEL. That was in the 1st century. How do you know you were not even alive in the mid 19th century? Teaching that free Grace theology is a heresy. So you say God's Grace is not a heresy, but free Grace theology is a heresy? Please enlighten me what the difference is? Why you wanna cause confusion and tell lies that will condemn a person to hell... ? This is not playtime... Eternal destination is very real and you better make sure you know thee truth preserved by the infallible WORD of GOD.. why? Why? Why does man always have to do this nonsense.. I can not watch this video any farther you told 3 lies in the first 3 mins. Without any scriptures or proof whatsoever to back up your claim... Ugh! Mark and Avoid this nonsense. Please consider what you are doing to the lost and the Body of CHRIST... Why ? So you can get some attention and steal the glory ? I pray you will humble yourself to the LORDs correction and teachings. Their is nothing else to say, but I DO CARE about your salvation.. 😢
Thanks for the questions. Free grace theology teaches that the very moment you believe the gospel you are saved once and for all, no matter what you do from that moment on. You may renounce the faith the very second after, you may become a Muslim terrorist and spend your life killing innocent people, you may even become a satan worshipper for the rest of your life, you will still make it to heaven, based on that instant of mental faith you had sometime in the past. This is a big heresy that no Christian ever believed in at least the first 1800 years of Christianity.
Saved by Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Eph.2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Gal.2:16, Matt. 7:20-22, Rom.11:6, Rom. 6:23, 2nd Cor. 11:3 etc.etc.
Let me guess. You yourself added all those “alone”, didn’t you? Why are you Protestants so obsessed with the word “alone” that you have to throw it into the Bible every other word? The only place where that word *actually* appears in the Bible is James 2:14, and unfortunately it has a “not” in front.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 GOD is the Saviour not man.. MAN CAN NOT SAVE HIMSELF. That is why I use the word alone. Hebrews ch.1:2 " Did by HIMSELF purge us of all our sins" 2nd Cor 5:21 " He became sin for us".. GAL.1:4 " WHO GAVE HIMSELF" according to the will of GOD and our FATHER. Why do I have to be classified under the auspices of " protestant"? Because I believe what GOD says about His plan of salvation. I do not make the rules. I just a cheap radio transmitter with a message from Heaven. Please read the first 3 ch.s of Galatians to understand what it means to front load or back load the Gospel of Grace with works and make void the Grace of GOD. 1 work added to the GOSPEL keeps a person in bondage with a yoke of iron and they will never understand Grace or Eternal Security. Please consider what you are doing and the consequences for teaching a false GOSPEL. ✝️
@@thejerichoconnection3473 I want you to know the truth about GODS plan of salvation. Eternal destinations are no joke. Please consider the consequences for not only teaching a false GOSPEL, but also everyone that is indoctrinated with a lie and gonna suffer because some man thought he was smarter then GOD...
@@HerbieJames I appreciate the effort, but I’m not preaching any gospel. I’m not a preacher. I’m just pointing out dangerous heresies that are infiltrating the Church. One of these is free grace theology.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 How is GODS Grace a heresy? Please tell me how a lost person becomes saved?
Matthew 7:21:23 only those who have done the WILL of the Father enter God's kingdom/ John 6:39,40 WILL Of the Father is to Believe on the Son and you have eternal life ( this Guy is a fool
This is cut&paste theology at its best. You don’t extract a verse from one gospel and paste it together with another verse in another gospel totally out of context to draw any theological conclusion. That’s the perfect recipe to cook a doctrinal error. Matthew 7 in context: “ *Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.* Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, *ye that work iniquity.* Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and *doeth them* I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock.” So yes, Jesus here is talking about producing good fruits, not just a mental belief. This is confirmed by how Matthew uses the expression “the will of the father” in Matthew 21:28-31: “But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, *go work* to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. *Whether of them twain did the will of his father?* They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.”
@@thejerichoconnection3473 you do not even know what fruit is you think it's works but intact it's Words As this verse says BEWARE Of FALSE PROPHETS 1 JOHN 5:9,13 I ALREADY KNOW I HAVE ETERNAL LIFE ( Enjoy the great white throne judgment that's what road your on you are Calling God a LIAR 🤣 don't message me back you are not saved according to your own words and therefore are a unforgiven child of your father satan who is a liar just like yourself and you don't get to tell me a child of God how to interpret God's Word He tells me Himself I would suggest you humble yourself and you will finds God's Grace your pride is shining through that disgusting filthy flesh and spirit of yours
@@thejerichoconnection3473 here Filthy Dog this is last pearl I'm casting before you Coallsions 2:8,10 tells me not to listen to filthy dogs like yourself so I suggest you get Saved Today Coallsions 2:8,10 COMPLETE in Christ so by you trying to add or takeaway from Christ show's exactly who you are ( do not reply to me I suggest you get saved today and stop spreading a ACCURSED Gospel of Christ Galatians 1
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Your FAITH produce good works. We are trusting Jesus Christ alone not mean we continue sinning but we are still not 100% perfect and still struggling in sins. Your goodworks are filthy rags in the eyes of God. Through sacrifice of Jesus Christ in cross you become righteous. All credits are in God's works not in our works.
@@ricsrecipe6530 I pretty much agree with everything you said here. The only thing I would correct is this faulty idea that our works are filthy rags in the eyes of God. This idea-so wrong and unbiblical-derives from a distorted interpretation of Isaiah 64:6 and distorts the correct understanding of our good works. Our good works are like filthy rags *only if we are not in God’s grace.* Once we are in God’s grace, our good works are actually pleasing to God. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast. *For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.* ” (Eph 2:8-10).
This Guy is a fool
Presenting, the president of Dunning-Kuger University. ........This is why Google should require/demand an "IQ" intelligent test before being able to create a KZread channel.
I really like Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
I really like it too.
Salvation is Gods free gift to us so we need to receive it. As sinful human beings we stand condemned to perish for eternity, only by receiving everlasting life can one receive salvation from eternal punishment. Jesus is the Son of God, the promised Christ, who died on the cross for our sin and rose again, he removed the sin barrier between us and God, so that everyone who believes in Him shall, never perish but, have everlasting life. His promise to those who believe in Him for it, is that you shall, never perish, never hunger, never thirst, never come into judgement and have everlasting life. God said it. Believe it. Romans 6:23 John 1:12 John 3:16-17 John 6:35 Romans 4:20-22 (NKJV) 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
Totally agree.
LOL Some random guy, some random preacher a 100 years ago started preaching free gace? I"m sure you are hurt over this as a catholic but Paul taught that by inspiration of God before Rome set up your false religion. Just get over it. Rome tried to keep the Bible from the people but remember, that didn't work. You sound awfully butt hurt over this.
No, you cannot use Paul. The interpretation of Paul is exactly what is at stake here. You interpret Paul in a “free grace theology” style. No other Christian for at least 1800 years interpreted Paul that way. This is my question then: can you please name one single Christian that in the first 1800 years of Christianity interpreted Paul the way you do today?
Salvation is only achieved through repenting (changing your mind) about your belief (or non-belief) about what it takes to go to heaven (or not to hell where everyone not saved is going) and believing that Jesus died on the cross (and rose again) as an atonement for ALL of your sins. Once that happens you become a child of God and no one can ever snatch you out of the Father’s hand. Even though we (humans) will inevitably continue to sin, God will honor his word and because of that, we cannot lose our salvation.
Every Christian that ever lived believed that Jesus died on the cross and rose again as an atonement for all our sins (that’s the core of being Christian). So according to you, all Christians are in heaven. Is that what you’re saying?
Anyone who accepts what Jesus did for him (or her) on the cross as an atonement for their sins is forever sealed as a child of God and nothing can ever snatch them out of the Father’s hand. Anything different is straight from the devil. That why its called the good news.
@@scottw3039 it sounds like you didn’t answer my question. What you described is a bare minimum belief every single Christian always professed, with no exceptions (there’s no point in being “Christian” if you don’t believe in Jesus’ resurrection and atoning sacrifice). If what you say is true, 100% of Christians that ever lived are in heaven. Is that what your position?
I answered your question I would study what the bible actually says making sure to read it in context and concentrate on your own salvation and loving others and bringing others into the kingdom.
The turning away from the " gospel of the grace of God" as Christ Jesus revealed to our apostle Paul began in Paul's day 2 Timothy 1:15 " This thou knowest, that all those in Asia be turned away from me.." Turned from what he reminded Timothy of earlier in this chapter in verse 9 " Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
You need to carve out a lot of scripture to make anyone believe what you are saying. I can see why much of you catholic fellers detest Paul & would like to remove his writing from the catholic bible
No, actually the only ones that took out books from the Bible were Luther & co.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 What is clear & obvious is that by divine inspiration GOD used men to write HIS Word, combine it & canonize it, GOD HIMSELF. It has not changed, it has been added to by the RCC & modified by various versions all by Satan. For something of so much significance GOD has complete supremecy over. This is how we judge what is from GOD: it must line up with "all" of scripture not mere men that may be titled church fathers that may have got derailed as men do, not traditions of old Roman paganism & Christianity that were mixed together. This is why y'all had to be kept from the Word & get programmed after you couldn't stop the printing press to think otherwise as per your institution. I'm not trying to drag y'all thru the mud but y'all do make fictional claims. I realize that the RCC. Vatican & Jesuits have went way out to confiscate history, re-write it in order to write their script but they failed in way too many areas that you can't suppress. Y'all can claim Luther, Calvin & such are our church fathers but they are not, they too were misguided catholics. The True Protesters were those True Christian believers that were in the world way before the RCC & Pope. The very ones your Pope's & armies massacred for centuries & called Heritics. Rome was evil, it didn't suddenly become good. A look at history shows the RCC was far more a product of the Roman Empire than of Peter’s ministry. The Roman imperial pattern was the influential blueprint that shaped the papal institution from the fourth century onward. The papacy is a child of imperial categories than biblical ones. The papacy never would have emerged if there wernt no empire forming the political and cultural milieu of the life of the early church.
You can't prove papacy just twist scripture to morph it into your constructed doctrine. Rome has always been good at this as is every cult. Peter as a pope, no way. You really tried here but no cigar. Jesus Christ is the only Shepherd and the only authority. Peter was obviously gifted but had issues which is why Christ told He had prayed for him that his faith fail not and when he had converted to strengthen his brethren. Obviously after he repented he became the spokesman at Pentacost, he was the first to wittness to the gentile Cornelius and got things started with the gentiles yet James still was the leader of the church of Jerusalem. One flock. One church built on Peter's confession led only by Christ & he alone. This is Why GOD used men to scribe HIS Word and to canonize it the way HE wanted it. I don't get why y'all love to add men to mix, you got man made traditions, doctrines of men & demons, statues you claim you don't worship or pray to but your excuses don't fly on that one, you put Mary in the God head & say you don't but just give it another term, c'mon! John 21:15 Jesus is assuring & reassuring Peter that he has repented of his short comings as an apostle now. The job of the apostles was to feed His sheep but Peter stumbled. Again He asked him if he loved Him more than the others & he answers yes??? Is he still big headed or were the other apistles just a bunch of dead heads? In Luke Jesus asked the same thing which kicked off Satan asking to sift him. The other apostles didn't claim they were going to leave him at the first supper, where'd you get that? Going back to Luke 22:32 when Jesus told Peter after he converted to strengthen his brethren, in other words get back to you apostle duties and continue as the rest to feed His sheep. Nothing interpets or says that Jesus wants orvtold Peter that he is responsible for his church now unless you manipulate, twist & fantasies to meet RCC false doctrine. We see nothing from that point where Peter went out and beyond, nothing. We see Paul of which many of you wish you could unload. But you failed to go on in John 22 to v.18 talking about how Peter would die. Why was this brought up after his failings & then his repentance & restoring to apostlship? Look, you guys worship your institution whether you want to admit it or not & do all you can to protect it which is odd knowing it's history which in no way points to GOD. Starting at the back end of pedifilia, the massive cover up all because of celibacy of which most humans are in capable of. Go up to the front end of Constantine some 300 years later constructing the RCC from Roman paganism & Christianity to appease both sides, yet the true believers & churches established Protested against & them pope fellers declared millions as heretics & had them massacred for centuries.So much more but to try & put GOD in that, no way, it ain't happening.
You do realize there were popes before Constantine, don’t you?
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Prove it
@@RJ-ce6si are you asking me to prove that there were 32 bishops of Rome before Constantine? That’s a historical fact. It’s like you asking me to prove Napoleon existed. Just open a history book. You can find some info here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papacy_in_early_Christianity
@@thejerichoconnection3473 don't play a word game, the RCC was established thru Constantine and your 1st true pope came to be then y'all hijacked the Word bishop. Bishops were elders/pastors in the Christian church before the RCC. That manipulation y'all use don't fly unless you're a programmed drone of the RCC
@@thejerichoconnection3473 LOL WIKEPEDIA, nice try
What a waste of time! What cult religion do you cheer lead for?
Please, put forward a thoughtful argument and I’ll be glad to interact, if you want.
So youre of the anti Pauline or Hebrews Roots movement cult?
Wait, this video from a catholic perspective? Serious? Or are you Orthodox? no matter y'all came from the same false religion of which Constantine stopped Christian persecution brought it into Rome & mingling it with Roman Paganism. 300 years before this the true church (body of true christians not an institution of Rome) of which Christ built upon the Rock of Peter's confession, went out thru out the world. Christianity emerged & so did so many local churches.the RCC came on line and for centuries the Pope & his armies went out massacring millions of true believers, Original Protesters of the Pope & Romes new religion. Went on for centuries of mass murder, terrorism & torchure all under the one y'all call the vicar of Christ the one who speaks for GOD. Should we go deeper cuz the evil, sexual immorality, false doctrines, manipulation of history, the selling of forgivness of sins & salvstion right on up to pedifilia and this Pope you don’t agree with yet support because y'all claim it's GOD'S church. HELLO!!!@! I'm looking in and that evil institution can not be of GOD! Your slant, twist & Vatican re-education on thought has no validity. You see, we take our talking points on GOD's Holy Word, that Word HE alone gave us thru men HE used. The same Word y'all wernt allowed to have, repeat or discuss otherwise get burnt at the stake eith the same old justification "HERITIC", you know, like Maxine Waters & the Democrats calling anyone that don’t agree with them RACISTS. Thank GOD for the printing press even your secret society the Jesuits could not manipulate or destroy. Y'all had to do some serious damage control there. That's right, the Word, we go by that for all our faith not traditions of men you call church fathers who nothing but mere men ofvsin like we all. We don’t take marching orders or doctrines, rituals or strange sacranents from men just the inspired Word. We were told so very early on fakes, false teachers, demons, wolves in sheeps clothing, doctrine of demons, cults & false churches would be among us and that is the way the original Protesters of the start of the RCC saw you & proclaimed you
I say, yes and thank you Lord to free grace. If I have to pay for it, it's not a gift and if I had to pay for that gift, it would be something I could never afford.
Totally agree. Nobody can buy grace.
2+2=4 is contingent on the axioms you use to prove it. To say something is "true" in mathematics is, strictly speaking, only to say it is consistent with the axioms. (it's also a tautology.) As for the laws of nature, we have no way of knowing, at the moment, whether or not the constants are necessary or not. To just claim a universe may exist with different constants is just guessing. As for the whole fine tuning argument, it isn't the universe that is fine tuned, it is our current theory of the universe that is fine tuned. There are plenty of objections to the first cause argument, you probably know them, so I don't need to type them out.
Thanks for your comment. I agree, 2+2=4 is just an imperfect attempt/analogy to illustrate a much more fundamental concept. In fact, I don’t believe 2+2=4 is God. So you can disregard that. However, I believe I made abundantly clear what I mean by “necessary”, regardless of that imperfect analogy. The fact that the constants of the universe cannot be different from what they are is irrelevant for the argument I’m making. Even granting the unbelievable assumption that, if something exists, it must necessarily exist in the form of our universe (with exactly those constants, exactly those laws, exactly that content of matter and energy, etc.), nothing of this explains why it exists in the first place. As for fine tuning, I’m not using any fine tune argument here. As for first cause argument, I’m not using any first cause argument here either.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Thanks for the reply. Sorry if I misunderstood, or misrepresented your argument. I tend to lump arguments from contingency to necessity, arguments from change, first mover, those types of things into one "family" of arguments I refer to as "first cause". My bad. So, if I am reading your reply correctly you are asking "why is there something rather than nothing". As for the theory of everything. Could it be self evidently true? Again, thanks for taking the time to reply.
@@kevconn441 absolutely! I love to interact with people willing to engage in a thoughtful conversation. Yes, the existence of anything is a mystery in itself. The question of why anything exists at all is probably the most fundamental question we can ask as rational human beings-a question which deserves a thoughtful discussion. I maintain that if anything exists, it must have a valid reason to exist. I don’t believe things exist just because. However, when I look around I can only see things that are contingent (i.e. that don’t have any fundamental reason to exist). Therefore, I conclude that they must have a fundamental cause. This fundamental cause better be non-contingent, otherwise it’s just kicking the can down the road. I call this fundamental, non-contingent (aka necessary) cause of anything that exists contingently God. I argue that it is more reasonable than not that God, based on the above definition, exists. Anyone is free to disagree but I would love to hear the reason why. Generally, the arguments I hear from the (very few) atheists willing to discuss this topic fall in the following categories: 1. I don’t know why anything exists and I don’t really care. I take it as a brute fact and I move on. 2. I don’t know why anything exists but I don’t see why that should imply the existence of God. It could be that we live in a simulation, or in a dream, etc. 3. The universe we see may only be one universe among an infinite number of other universes. If the multiverse is real, there’s no need for God. 4. The universe may be necessary in itself. No need to add a God on top of it. 5. Nothing that exists is necessary and the existence of anything may be explained by an infinite regression of contingent non-necessary causes. I find all of these hypotheses extremely problematic/unreasonable. But I would love to get your perspective. Do you subscribe to any of these views? Do you have a different one?
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Hello Jericho I have a bit to say, and ask, about causation and contingency. Specially because you are a physicist. But first I wonder why you seem to claim that the default condition is "nothing"? Let me clarify. Why is the question "something rather than nothing" as opposed to: given there is obviously something, how could there be nothing? In other words, because there is an observable universe, whatever preceded it must have contained, at least, the potential, or possibility, of what came to be. I think you may be, unwittingly, using the composition fallacy. Attributing the properties of the parts to the whole. For example, a house is made of bricks, but a brick is not a house. In context, because causality, or contingency is a property of what you observe in the universe, doesn't mean it is a property of the universe itself. I'm not sure that an infinite regression of causes is unreasonable.. As a physicist, I am sure you are familiar with the mathematical concept of an infinite series. I don't understand what a necessary "being" is. Lastly, if we could find an final equation or "theory of everything" wouldn't it have to be self evidently true? Asking "why this equation"? would be meaningless. By self evidently true I mean, by the impossibility of the contrary, like the laws of logic are self evident.
@@kevconn441 Thank you for taking the time to articulate your position! Really appreciate it. Regarding your first question, I wouldn’t say I take “nothingness” (whatever that means) as default. However, if you think about it, if we take the big bang theory as the most likely model for the early stages of the universe, “in the beginning” all the energy was concentrated in a sort of singularity. Pretty much we were one singularity away from “nothingness”. So in a sense I understand why one would take nothingness as default: nothing (other than an infinitesimally small singularity) existed in the beginning! Having said that, I actually agree with you: since we do observe something exists, nothingness is not an option anymore but we cannot stop there (brute fact position) and we must still understand why (what you call “the potential or possibility of what came to be”). Regarding causality, I also agree with you. The fact that things inside the universe follow causality laws doesn’t imply the universe in itself follows those same laws. However, it doesn’t follow that the universe doesn’t follow any causality law at all either. In fact, I don’t believe the universe follows the same causality laws the things inside the universe follow! When I speak about the universe having a cause, I’m not thinking about somebody creating it with a magic wand (or whatever other mechanism you can think of). Actually I don’t believe the universe was created by any physical mechanism, because physics only makes sense within the universe not outside. When I talk about the universe having a cause, I simply mean that there must be a more fundamental “reality” that is keeping it into existence. I don’t believe anything that exists right now exists by its own “power” or because it must exist. Regarding the infinite regression of contingent causes, I see huge problems with it. First, infinite series are just a mathematical abstraction that is extremely useful to solve physics problems, but they do not reflect reality. The most fundamental nature of reality, as quantum mechanics shows, is discrete, not continuous. Second, this idea of an infinite number of contingent causes is infinitely more complex than the idea of one necessary cause: Occam’s razor is violated badly. Third, the sum of a certain number of contingent causes is still contingent, no matter if the sum is finite or infinite. In conclusion, the infinite number of contingent causes hypothesis does not solve the contingency problem, it just makes it infinitely bigger. You say you don’t understand what a necessary being is. I won’t pretend here: I don’t understand either. However, that doesn’t prevent me from having a strong conviction that this is the most rational solution to the mystery of reality. Regarding the theory of everything, I would love for physicists one day to find the ultimate equation that explains all fundamental forces. While I’m not even sure such an equation exists (after 60 years of string theory and 30 of loop quantum gravity scientists are still clueless about how to derive the parameters of the standard model), the hope is always there. However, I don’t believe such an equation will be self evident as laws of logic are, because, as you correctly pointed out, tautologies (like 2+2=4) do not provide any additional information. Tautologies don’t have any “creative” power, so they cannot be the cause of anything. But even granting there exists a self evident equation that explains every phenomenon in the universe, still the problem remains: the laws of physics need to be applied to some given initial conditions. Even assuming, given those initial conditions, we are able to perfectly explain the evolution of every single process in the universe with that magic self evident equation, still we are clueless about why the initial conditions were the way they were. This is something no physical theory will ever be able to explain, by definition, because physics starts after a set of conditions are given. But the problem is that those initial conditions are contingent: for example, there’s a certain amount of energy in the universe. Why that amount and not another? But let’s even assume somehow there’s a self evident reason why those initial conditions were the way they were, well at that point you just found your god-the “theory of everything” is that necessary cause of everything that exists. Based on the definition I gave of God, you are not an atheist anymore. We simply disagree on the nature of God, but we don’t disagree on the existence of God anymore. Hope I was able to clarify some of your doubts.
!! "IT IS FINISHED" John 19:30, IF you really BELIEVE and TRUST in the finished work of Christ ON THE CROSS for SALVATION plus nothing THAN YOU ARE SAVED! (Acts 16:30-31) YES You will still have a fleshly nature (OLD man) E.G. Romans 7! Paul tells us the struggle with the flesh but there should be a change in one’s life style (the NEW man the Holy Spirit) = good works ("James" 2:24 - but not saving works).The problem is us Christians who cannot stop writing books, conducting seminars, conferences and social media moving the goal posts (i.e. the true meaning of REPENT = in the Greek is (Metanoia) "A CHANGE OF MIND" from sinning, from unbelief to belief. It may surprise many Christians to learn that the phrase “Repent of your sins “or “Repent from your sins is nowhere in the Bible!) Yes, there is a time and place for outreach material, but we need to stop mudding the waters and confusing believers and non-believers to a very simple message. It's all about breast beating and pride to what we want others to believe not finding out for ourselves from the scriptures. Jesus could not be clearer saying “we need to be like a CHILD to enter the gates of heaven”, a childlike faith and trust, (Matthew 18:3-5). The Bible was not given to us for our confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) or to add any extra biblical revelations, the Holy spirit is our guide and it's not for our own personal interpretation of the scriptures to what we fill the scriptures are saying to us but want the author intended to say to us, is what matters the most. Our spiritual goal isn't to understand the Bible; our spiritual goal is to know the Lord and grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ through a study of His word. (2 Peter 1:20-21) Scripture is clear in its main teachings and doctrines. People don’t need any special knowledge or training to understand sin, grace, forgiveness, and salvation. Bible interpretation is, essentially, the practice of seeking to discover what God is communicating to you on your pilgrimage through life. Each believer is to examine the Bible with the utmost care, to search (1 Peter 1:11)...BY FREE GRACE, THROUGH FAITH ALONE, CHRIST ALONE, PLUS NOTHING!! (Ephesians 2:8-9) In love, God bless.