...Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?
Many religious people become evil. Satan was the anointed cherub. Jesus said if a unclean spirit goes out of a person,it wanders in dry places, and if the person is just clean those spirits will come back and he be 7 times as bad as before.
Do any of you Calvinist haters have an explanation for this verse: Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
The very premise that god re-created himself, to sacrifice himself to himself, to appease himself as a loophole to break the rules that he himself created (and could change whenever he wants to), just to save his “creation” from the "sins" of their ancestors who did not have the "knowledge of good and evil" to even know what committing a "sin" was because accessing the tree of knowledge to be able to make a “moral” decision was the “original sin” itself… And all that somehow required substitutional atonement through sacrificial blood magic as the only possible solution to “save” us from what could only be “god’s plan” that he intentionally created to be this way from the beginning, just to later individually pick who he wants to give the “gift” of revelation to, so that they can have reasonable justification to believe and even be able to qualify to be "saved" anyway (Ephesians 2:8, Matthew 11:27)… It's all just undeniable gibberish from a logical reasoning perspective. And yet the wilfully, blindly faithful sheep will claim that their “shepherd” is the source of all logic.
And... what's your point? If God gives us free will, then God creates the opportunity for evil/sin/disobedience to take place. The question about the verse must be, "What does this mean?"... in the light of all Scripture? ... what is the context? etc.... The Calvinist position is that God wrote this elaborate plan or play from before time determining the movement of every molecule, every rape, every torturous pain.... and so their can be no real rebellion or sin if God determined for it to happen. Free will is just an illusion and cruel joke from the Calvinist perspective. The Calvinist perspective makes God a monster more akin to a demonic creation than that of the Bible. And for the Calvinists who don't agree with exhaustive determinism... admit you are inconsistent in your theology and others will give you a pass for being a novice and stumbling through the education process. There's nothing wrong with that unless you choose to stay in an erroneous position because of pride like a James White. I was an inconsistent Calvinist for over 20 years until I took being a Berean serious and started being intellectually honest with Scripture and the questions surrounding Calvinism.
I liked the presentation, but i just don't see how Dr. Flowers was addressing the question of whether God is the author of evil within the presentation itself. He addresses mainly predestination. Perhaps ypu cpuld change the title of the video.
The Calvinist position that God created evil is based on their definition of predestination ... that God pre determined every butterfly flutter, every rape, every murder, every torturous sin, etc... (which makes God a monster). An alternative definition of predestination is presented by Flowers which makes God the creator of the opportunity to accept or reject Him, and the evil comes from our free will choice to reject Him. So, God is the author of opportunity and choice... not the author of evil. We are the authors of evil. Flowers just didn't fill in between the lines good enough.
Interpretations of predestination that God unilateraly determines the fate of individuals regardless of their choices , such views undermine the essential nature of human freedom and creativity
31:00 Wow! The argument Leighton gives here is a very powerful reframing of what might have seemed a slam dunk scripture for Calvinists. It's all about who is the "us" in Ephesians 1:4. The "us" are not simply those who somehow tumble out of their mothers already approved by God, but rather those that have sought out their salvation with fear and trembling. Great stuff!
But who seeks God? Romans 3 says No one. So Gods grace is still required. Man has the choice to choose what his heart desires. No mature calvinist would say we dont have a choice. Thats the mystery of God. His Sovereignty and our responsibility. But we do not have outright free will, God is in control.
@@hondotheology who said works? It’s all Gods grace. The Bible teaches Gods Sovereignty and man’s responsibility. They are both a yes to Gods in control and we have a choice. Mystery of God my friend.
So in other words, you are the ultimate cause of your salvation. Seeking, obeying, humbling yourself, fearing and trembling before the LORD, etc, are all virtuous acts. Scripture is clear that God works these things, (repentance, faith, humility, desire to seek HIm) in his elect. The religions of men are offended by this.
Indirectly with the tree of knowledge knowing adam and eve would fall however being Just he prepared the salvation Of sons and daughters to promote his glory! Isaiah45v7 refers
... Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them for evil, as the Lord had said, and as the Lord had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed.
...Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity.
...Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord.
This subject was discussed by C.G.Jung and Victor White in the early 60's Jung held that the Trinity was insufficient and posited a Quaternary, which he called the missing Fourth. I dont agree with him.
...For the Lord of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.
@InterestedInDansk Do you have a bible verse to support your theology? Unfortunately that god also "approves" the spontaneous slaughter of close to a quarter of all the unborn in a womb that it supposedly designed. That is also sick beyond belief.
@@downenout8705 Isaiah 49:1-7 Listen to me, O coastlands, and hearken, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name. 2 He made my mouth like a sharp sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me a polished arrow, in his quiver he hid me away. 3 And he said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” 4 But I said, “I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my recompense with my God.” 5 And now the Lord says, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God has become my strength- 6 he says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” Isaiah 48:1:6 Listen to me, O coastlands, and hearken, you peoples from afar. The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name. God is renowned for his capacity for Creation each woman through time has from her 12th week in gestation up to 12 million potential ovum at birth she has 2 million at puberty she has 500 left with which to manage her fertility. The female body is a fantastic miracle. In the womb before birth In Embryonica (which is the mind of God) the whole body of feminine ova are represented in concentric circles of beautiful orbiting orbs each one a potential person but there are many that are not fertilised but those that are fertilised are conceptions known to God who can take each potential child and without judgement can set up a tariff for salvation based upon what God knows about the past of that person. He sets the tariff to take into account the souls need for salvation and to achieve perfection in it. The soul has free will to take this into account but it does not have to , but at the souls Judgement God the Son knows what God the Father has bestowed upon him.
@@aletheia8054 , to be sure @IdolKiller will not answer you! More than a year ago, IdolKiller did not answer my question: "When was the last time you shared the GOSPEL with the lost soul/s?"
@@aletheia8054 , @IdollKiller will never answer you, much as he deliberately avoided my question: "When was the last time you shared the Gospel with the lost souls?" BTW, Leighton Flowers evaded my question too!
...Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words.
...Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.
The story of Lazareth. "Dead like Lazareth" is not biblical. Jesus didn't call Lazareth from the dead for the sake of using Lazareth as an example of salvation. He called Him to use him as a sign for the Jews who require signs to believe. Faith is the evidence of things UNSEEN. John 11 41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. 42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. 43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. 44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. 45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
For the Calvinists that want to use Isaiah to settle this, Isaiah 45:7 was written in Hebrew, not English. As a bilingual person, I can tell you that when translating into English from another language there are almost always multiple options to translate a word. In fact, while the KJV translates the passage, "I create evil", the NKJV and ESV give, "I create calamity", which conveys less intention. Quote mining is no help here.
Many multitudes following the TEACHER! The Disciples said, TEACHER many hungers. Send them away so can find their own food to eat! Yeshua Jesus Christ said, do not send them away! Shared "i" Am come forth! The Disciples said, TEACHER here's a little Lad with a BASKET of bread and a fish!
Evil is what offends God. The Calvinist position that God created evil is based on their definition of predestination ... that God pre determined every butterfly flutter, every rape, every murder, every torturous sin, etc... (and then blames us for what He made us do...which makes God a monster more akin to a demonic creation than that presented in the Bible). An alternative definition of predestination is presented by Flowers which makes God the creator of the opportunity to accept or reject Him, and the evil comes from our free will choice to reject Him. So, God is the author of opportunity and choice... not the author of evil. We are the authors of evil. Flowers just didn't fill in between the lines good enough.
Does the punishments of a Holy God towards the sinner evil or just? Does killing the entire world through a great flood an act of an evil God? Be careful about putting God in a box and usurping the sovereignty of God bc of your own "wisdom." Just remember that a Holy and just God can never be unjust or evil. What I do believe is that God will choose certain people, beyond his own will, to carry out His purposes.
What's your point? The Augustinian-Calvinistic portrayal of God is more akin to a demonic creation like Zeus than the Triune God of the Bible. The Augustinian position comes from Gnostic and Heathen interpretations of the Bible... eisegesis... not exegesis. The Calvinist definition of sovereignty is that God predetermined everything including rebellion and sin and then holds us responsible for what God made us do. That goes against His character of Holy and just.... to make us robots to act out a evil, gross and wicked play for His own good pleasure. No, God's sovereignty is God's ability to stick His finger in our soup any time He chooses, but thankfully, He gives us a free will choice to accept or reject Him. We are the authors of evil... not God.
@sonnyh9774 I think you are over simplifying things. BTW I'm not a Calvinists or any other labels. I believe in the only true God of the Bible. Whatever God does is sovereign and just. I find it amusing how lecturers think they know God fully. They should be more humble.
_"Does the punishments of a Holy God towards the sinner evil or just?"_ It is just and Leighton would 100% agree. However that's not what Calvinism teaches. Calvinism teaches that God first makes someone a sinner via divine decree, then decrees for that sinner to commit sins, then blames and punishes that sinner for those sins He determined for him to commit. The sinner had no say or choice in the matter whatsoever. Now this view of God's "justice" is what Leighton objects to.
The 2 destinations God created hell and heaven. In Him is the ticket to heaven. Not in Him is the ticket to hell. It's so simple even yall should be able to grasp the reality
We forget that the first century Christians and Jews regarded the Holy Spirit as the *ruach* a purely feminine entity. There is in fact a Nag Hammadi book entitled *The exegesis of the soul* and the first line goes, _The sages that came before us gave the soul a feminine name. She is also feminine in nature, and she even has a womb_ Ephraim the Syrian a 4th century hymnological preacher wrote a hymn based upon Simeon's prophesy to Mary *and a sword shall pierce your own soul* _If by God's Holy Ghost thou art beguiled_ _There will be born in thee the Eternal Child_ _If like Mary, virginal and pure_ _Then God will impregnate your soul for sure_ _God make me pregnant, and his spirit shadow me_ _What good does Gabriel's _*_Ave, Mary_*_ do_ Unless he give me that same greeting too?_ Another a mystic Angelus Silesius wrote; *As once a Virgin fashioned the whole earth. So by a Virgin it shall have rebirth* Clearly the Virgin is the Holy Spirit and her children are uniquely _immaculate conceptions_ These children appear at judgment but judgment does not occur until the soul cannot be reborn anymore, Luke 20:35-36 says *they cannot die anymore* at which time _they must become the children of God_ The Essenes also have a thanksgiving hymn in which a human soul is called a *crucible* in which a *wonderful counsellor* struggles to become a celestial child. *The sons of Light and Darkness of the first century Christians and Essenes* The Community Rule of the Essenes states the belief that before we are born God the Father has total knowledge of our whole design and purpose, and as we come into the world before our souls enter our foetal frame we are assigned an angel of light and an angel of darkness, it is the mature Christian to make certain for the good of his soul that the angel of light is in the ascendant position and remains there. Simeon is the person who reveals to Mary that the Divine Word will transform her soul into a celestial child but until then every soul struggles to be released into the Celestial light and if a person is filled with the truth he is already impregnated to become a celestial child
Man made religion is really bad. Really bad. God is love? Then look at the definition of love in your book of Corinthians. The best thing people can do is walk away from man made religion.
Nice verses that apply to the nation of Israel and not others. The Bible also says if your eye offend thee, pluck it out... and go and do likewise... so, are you going to obey the Scriptures? I hope not, because that would be incorrect interpretation and incorrect application.
Regarding his discussion at around 29:50, and Paul's use of the phrase "in Him," or "in Christ." Since Ephesians 1:1 and 3 are Paul’s first uses of the phrase “in Christ,” it sets the context for how the phrase will be used in later verses. Here, it is used to describe the sphere into which God’s blessing and choosing takes place, that is, based on who Christ is, and through His work of redemption, God has both blessed and chosen individuals. This meaning is more apparent in verses 19-20 where the phrase “in Christ” is shown specifically to be the sphere of God’s operation. Also, the words “in Him” is a very specific phrase used by Paul in Romans 5 and elsewhere to describe the Federal Headship of Christ over His people. That is, Christ represented those who were given to Him by the Father (John 6:44), that His work was specifically for them (cf. Romans 6:6, 8, Matthew 1:21), to bring them life (1 Corinthians 15:22). Therefore, in verses 3 and 4, The phrases “in Christ,” and “in Him” do not modify the word “us,” as if to describe WHO God blessed and chose, as if God chose those who have already chosen Him, since that would make His act of choosing superfluous, but instead it modifies the word “chose,” and it describes HOW God chose, and this is PRECISELY what Verse 5 says - “through Jesus Christ…” it speaks to the sphere, or the context in which God’s choosing took place. It is a reminder of the Federalism spoken of in Romans 5 whereby Christ is the representative of all of those who from eternity past were relationally foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified (Romans 8:28-30) by Him (Romans 6:1-14; Colossians 2:12; 3:1-2). Simply stated, God’s choice of electing love in eternity past must be understood in terms of its relationship to Christ.
Dr. Flowers’ analogy about seeing the duck or the rabbit wrongly presupposes that seeing the drawing one way (his way)is correct, while seeing the drawing another way (Calvin’s way)is somehow wrong. He mistakenly assumes that if a Calvinist would just step back and understand the Bible His way, then they too would be write like him. Romans 9 properly examined dos not support an An Arminian understanding.
He actually used it as an illustration to show that if you step back and objectively look at scripture, you could at least understand his position. He specifically said that he's fine if you still disagree with him, as long as you understand his position.
@ Oh I understand his position alright. I’ve been listening to him “DE-CALVINIIZE” the word of God for almost 3 years. Instead of having a legitimate Christian ministry that simply teaches what the Bible DOES say, Flowers has been teaching his followers to reject the plain reading of Holy Scripture if there is even a hint of it agreeing with the teachings of a 16th century theologian named John Calvin, as if Calvin were some kind of demonic heretic that should have been burned at the stake, rather than following the natural flow of the author’s intent in context, which Flowers doesn’t seem to be able to do to save his life.
Flowers' theology is so filled with errors that spring from "fine sounding arguments" and "philosophy and empty deceit according to the traditions of men," it's difficult to begin anywhere. But one of his unbiblical premises is that people do not have free will unless we can choose OR CHOOSE OTHERWISE. That's not true! The creature is bound by it's nature, and because of Adam's fall, we have his fallen nature and not only do we NOT choose t he things of God, they are foolishness to fallen man (1 Cor 2:14) Yes, I know Flowers has his "explanation" of this verse, but it's just as out of context with the rest of scripture as everything he teaches. Man DOES choose according to HIS NATURE and this is why Ephesians 2 says "BY NATURE we are objects of wrath." A rattlesnake has free will to do what it CHOOSES to do, but ALL that it can choose are the things a rattlesnake wants. It cannot choose a new nature so that it will not behave like a rattlesnake anymore and neither can fallen man "choose" to not be fallen. This is why GOD must do a work INSIDE of us "taking away our heart of stone and GIVING us a heart of flesh." THIS is what being born again by the LIVING WORD/SPIRIT is all about! But the Spirit goes where IT wills (John 3) And Jesus reveals the father to whom HE wills (Matt 11:27) Just as Jesus told Peter when Peter understood who Jesus was but others did not "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in Heaven." As a matter of fact, God gave the law to Israel ALONE. He NEVER evangelized the masses of gentiles but "overlooked their times of ignorance" and "allowed them to go their own way" leaving them "without hope and without God." What does "Without hope mean????" It means the gentiles had no hope in the Old Covenant, other than a few God allowed in. But even Israel did not obey. WHY DID THEY NOT OBEY? Because God was showing them (and us) that "BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED!" God's loud and clear message was "APART FROM ME YOU CAN DO NOTHING!" The law was intended to show Israel they were helpless and thus, was a "schoolmaster" to drive them to Christ! And as Isaiah said in Isaiah 1:9 and Paul quoted in Romans 9:29 "Unless THE LORD had left a remnant (by HIS choosing) NONE OF THEM would have been saved!" So yes, God gave a very real law to Israel and very real commands to obey. Yet, Israel did not and COULD NOT obey. So there's goes Flowers' definition of "free will." Israel did EXACTLY what they wanted; They turned AWAY from God! "ALL we like sheep have gone astray, EACH OF US has turned HIS OWN WAY!" And God said that man and his "free will" were precisely the PROBLEM with the Old Covenant. "God found fault with THE PEOPLE" (see Hebrews 8) Yet Flowers wants to believe and teach that man still has the ability to "choose" to seek and obey God! Unbelievable!
At 11:23, "Until you can really see clearly that 2+2=5 and 2+2=4, and entertain the thought that 2+2 might actually equal 5, you're not really qualified to say which one is more accurate."
God is never the author of evil He does use it for good. The Bible says as much. He is sovereign of course. We do what is our nature. All our acts are evil without the grace of God. In darkness we love our sin. In the light we hate our sin. We are the authors of evil under the power of darkness and our own flesh. We battle not with flesh and blood giving great depths to mans evil deeds when unrestrained by Gods grace. Satan is the author of evil.
@ReformedView717 'Sin' is not 'evil.' You're confusing the two. Did you read the verse? Doesn't sound like it. The same God that gave us the tree of the knowledge of good and evil certainly gave us evil.
@ if sin isn’t evil then it would be good. There’s right and wrong. Sin is the result of evil deeds tempted by Satan, that is justly punished by God. Clever words sir. It’s a narrow gate.
Provisionism without availability is nonsense It took four thousand years For Christ to come and die for the sins of the world, and another two thousand years for the gospel to be spread as far as it is today. It took eighteen hundred years for China to receive the Gospel via Hudson Tayler. How are we to reconcile this with provisionism. Who's hands will the blood be upon who deprived these people from the provision, or was God behind where and when the gospel went.
Romans says that we are without excuse because of natural revelation and our consciences. Paul says in Acts that God doesn't leave Gentiles without testimony, because God sends rain to them to give them crops and fills their hearts with joy. Even on provisionism, people who are without direct knowledge of Christ are without excuse, because God doesn't just leave people to their own devices without showing Himself to them. I think on provisionism, God judges people according to the light they have been given. It is also interesting to think about the Magi who visited Jesus at His birth. They were probably Gentiles, and yet they followed a star to visit the Jewish Messiah and offer Him worship. Muslims all over the place are having dreams of Jesus and coming to Him because of that.
Ignorance was once winked at. Acts 17 24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; . 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; BUT NOW commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, IN THAT HE HATH RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD. Do you seriously think the news of the resurrection took 1800 years to get to China? Maybe the gospel was brought and rejected over and over again until it was brought and received via Hudson Tayler. I refuse to believe that news such as the resurrection took 1800 years to circulate. That sort of news travels far and fast. Before Jesus, there were the prophets.
@@KISStheSON... > Do you seriously think the news of the resurrection took 1800 years to get to China? Probably, yes. But this is undeniable: it took over 1500 years for the news of the resurrection to reach the Western Hemisphere. How do I know? Because no one with the Gospel could get there! It wasn't discovered until C Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492. But your point is still lacking: for provisionalism to be true, **EVERY** man/woman/child must be made a sincere Gospel offer. Otherwise, true Provision has not been made for them. ("How can they believe .. without a preacher?") I say this with all humility: Only someone completely bereft of world history would be naive enough to think that every man/woman/child has heard the Gospel. They have all interacted with General Revelation (Rom 1). But that is not enough to save anyone anywhere. You need a Gospel proclamation in order to be saved (Rom 10). General Revelation is enough to condemn. It is not enough to save.
@@KISStheSON... It is pure fantasy to believe that the Gospel came to China over. and over again. The facts are that when Hudson Taylor arrived there the whole nation was pagan and never heard of the name of Christ.The same is true of David Livingstone in Africa, William Carrey in India and David Brainerd to the American Indian. Are you saying that all of the millions of people from these nations who lived and died without ever hearing the name of Christ could of been saved by believing in natural revelation displayed in creation? Add to that that there are even today many that have not heard the name of Christ. Are you advocating for an alternative way of salvation other than the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? Doesn't it make more sense to believe that God in his sovereignty appointed the times and seasons when these nations would hear the Gospel? If you don't believe this you could always join the Mormons who believe that Jesus after his resurrection went and preached to all the nations of the world..
@@Chupie77777 Are you advocating for an alternative way of salvation other than the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Cornnelius was a man who responded to the light he had; he was a pious man filled with good works, but even he could not be saved without hearing the gospel. It seems to me that God is a whole lot more selective in regards to when and where and to who the Gospel comes too.
Google "oxymoron", "reasonable" and the religious usage of faith, not the colloquial conflation with "trust" or "confidence" but "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", then take a long, hard look at your channel name and at least try to stop being at best a wilfully ignorant hypocrite or at worse, a blatantly lying manipulator... "I don't have a real problem with ignorance. We are all ignorant about a variety of subjects we are not currently aware of. The real problem is when that ignorance is wilful, baseless and used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who has the nerve to present facts you don't want to accept." - anyone who actually cares about verifiable reality
It would appear to me that Flowers would have difficulty expressing his views on the immutable nature of the Being of God . Could he perhaps engage with Dolezal or Matthew Barrett ?
What Leighton says at the 12 minute mark is so important. Until you've taken the time and effort to try and understand all the views surrounding a difficult passage of scripture, you really aren't qualified to discuss it deeply. One might think that Christians would be the supreme examples of understanding and charity in these areas, but are we? If you've been a Christian for any length of time you know that we definitely are not.
If his comment at the 12 minute mark is crucial, then it would be to his demise. Frequently, when he tries to describe Calvinism, Calvinists respond by saying "No - you're misrepresenting what we believe" and "you don't understand Calvinism". (Even non-Calvinists who have studied will tell you that he doesn't properly represent Calvinism) So according to Leighton, he is not qualified to discuss it deeply.
I agree to a degree...and disagree. Who determines who is qualified? I agree that we should do the best we can to look at all the possibilities of interpretation, but even staff theologians change their positions because even though they have put years of study in , they still don't have all the right answers and the argument could be made that they aren't qualified. Our job is to gather as much truth as possible and teach others our best compilation of truth in a gentle and rational way.... always being ready to change our position when provided the evidence. We will never arrive at omniscience and never really be qualified. To your point, there is wisdom in knowing when to be quiet and let others speak and also knowing when to ask difficult questions. I've played the fool many a time in that regard. I encourage every man to banter, argue, and question what is presented as "truth". The more you do this, the faster you will grow... as a general rule. The mature believers need to play with the up and coming like a lion will play with a cub. The cub is learning and interaction is necessary. Interact with the cubs out there and they will learn. We will roll our eyes, but play .... we must.
@@Tim.Foster123 You're confusing "representation" with "accusation". Just because there's an accusation made against Calvinism, doesn’t mean there was necessarily misrepresentation. Learn to dicern the two. Representation is akin to "This is what Calvinism claims." Accusation is akin to "We believe Calvinism leads to the following erroneous logical conclusions." The reason Calvinists constantly throw out the phrase "You don't understand Calvinism" is because they're convinced that if someone truly and genuinely understood Calvinism, they would necessarily believe it. Therefore Calvinists think that if someone vehemently rejects Calvinism, it must be because they haven't truly understood it. The reason I know they think this way is because I have asked many Calvinists if they know of a true born-again believer who truly understands Calvinism and yet outright rejects it. Except for one person, all of them said no, and some even said that's not possible.
Is that really what you got out of this video, brother? You can have all the knowledge in the world, but without love, you gain nothing. Remember that God is love.
Leighton Flowers' challenge: "Very Few people have a maturity level who would stop arguing before listening and start saying, ' I understand what you are saying ", is not really the issue but agreeing to disagree with him! I've seen Leighton raise his voice & squint his eyes w/ people whom he disagrees with, butt in/interfere while his opponent explains his side, and then bounce back in the rebuttal portion w/ teeth gnashing & gritting!
God is properly said to ordain, and thus be the *ultimate cause* of all things (Ephesians 1:10-11, Romans 11:36, James 4:13-15) -even the evil acts of men- (cf. Revelation 17:17, 2 Samuel 12:11-12, 1 Kings 22:19-23 / 2 Chronicles 18:18-22), however, He is never the *proximate,* or *efficient* cause of evil, and scripture regards only the proximate or efficient cause of evil as the chargeable or blameworthy party. Regarding God being the ultimate cause of even the evil acts of men, in the following passages, we see God actively determining, decreeing, setting, predestining, or sending men to perform an action, and for those men who are doing what God has set them to do, it is a sin, an evil act, since they perform the action according to their own wicked intentions, and they could not have done otherwise; God is the ultimate cause of the action that men perform, and yet He is innocent of sin, while men are morally accountable for sin since they are the proximate or efficient cause of the sin in the action that God has ordained: Genesis 50:20, 1 Kings 12:15, Job 1:13-15, 17, 21, Isaiah 10:5-6, Judges 9:22-23, 1 Samuel 2:25, 16:14, 18:10, 19:9, 2 Samuel 12:11-12, Psalm 105:24-25, Proverbs 16:4, Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, 1 Peter 2:8-10, Romans 9:22, Acts 2:22-23, 4:27-28, Deuteronomy 2:30.
> however, He is never the proximate, or efficient cause of evil, and scripture regards only the proximate or efficient cause of evil as the chargeable or blameworthy party. Usually when I see someone rail against Calvinism (or predestination in particular), they demonstrate an inability to comprehend the point you're making about God never being the proximate/efficient cause of evil. I describe the same concept in terms of God being the formal/final cause, but not the efficient/material cause of evil. Job described the same thing, albeit a bit more bluntly: [+] And he said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and ***the LORD has taken away***; blessed be the name of the LORD.” ++ In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong ++. (Job 1:21-22) I've talked to many bona-fide evangelical Arminians who insisted that Job did sin, even though the Scriptures plainly say he did not sin.
Thank you pop Leighton for attending unto our own! Remembering who said "if ye Love me"! Love you too without shame but with boldness! Gratitude and Honor
Luke 14: 25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters-yes, even their own life-such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” “The best Cure for Christianity is reading the bible.” - Mark Twain
Calvinists MUST believe that God is a sinful dictator who is the author of every bad and evil things. If Calvinists had the Agape love of God in them for one minute, they would never believe what they teach.
@aletheia8054 it's quite obvious that you don't understand the Bible. God didn't and He doesn't create evil,as anyone who knows the Bible will know. And as anyone who knows God will know.
You sound like you believe evil is a thing to be created. Have you considered that evil is the absence of God? That evil is everything without God? Free will allows that view. God is all good, all wisdom, all compassion, all justice, etc. So, do you think it can make sense that evil is rejection of that?
@@suzannedebusschere1607 Even if evil lacks ontological substance, free will isn't necessary for evil to exist. God can ordain the category of evil to exist without a free agent to instantiate evil thoughts/words/deeds. EG, He creates the category of evil simply by creating a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That tree can be created before Lucifer or Adam fell into sin.
@suzannedebusschere1607 It is the absence of God. It's the concept and arguments about God's existence and necessity. It's the ramifications of the death of God on all his creation, a change in nature and the laws governing it. The Bible is about the knowledge of good and evil. Life and death. Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. :10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
Leighton Flowers' challenge: "Very Few people have a maturity level who would stop arguing before listening and start saying, ' I understand what you are saying ", is not really the issue but agreeing to disagree with him! I've seen Leighton raise his voice & squint his eyes w/ people whom he disagrees with, butt in/interfere while his opponents explain their side, and then bounce back in the rebuttal portion w/ his teeth gnashing & gritting!
Polite discussion is very different than formal debate. Plus, yes, he also does sometimes get upset when people are dishonest interlocutors and deliberately misrepresent him and his beliefs.
I really believe that Dr. Flowers does an excellent job of teaching the best perspective of which view is correct and which view is incorrect when it comes to determinism verses provisionism. His illustrations have always been the best tools for understanding such complicated issues. In this program he does a brilliant job in using the rabbit/duck drawing to help guide people into seeing both perspectives. His use of the airplane that is going from point a to point b was also brilliant in helping people comprehend how predestination works in a provisionist perspective. Great job Dr. Flowers. To be fair to you I do have some criticisms that are not based upon you being to fair to calvinists. In fact my criticism is why I finally unsubscribed from your enlightening shows. My criticism is that it seems that many from your side of the tracks go a bridge to far in your zeal to prove the love of God and His justice that you promote people like William Lane Craig who is an open theistic evolutionist and has just written a book where he denies a literal Adam. Craig mocks creationists who hold to a young earth perspective and says they are an embarrassment to the church.Why do people always have to go a bridge too far and not be balanced with scripture. Instead we build up a great apologetics case for properly and hermanuticly dividing God's word with soteriology and in the next breath promote ideas that destroy the foundation of the Christian religion such as theistic evolution. You do an impressive job on the one hand and then it is as if you destroy all you have established in the next breath. If things like the creation account are dismantled to fit an unbelieving aethistic mindset why should we believe anything else in scripture like the Exodus crossing, King David being a real person, Jonah being a real prophet that was swallowed by a real fish, etc. Surely you trust the words of Christ don't you when he speaks of a real worldwide flood, a real Jonah, a real Moses that lifted up a real brazen serpent, a real Adam and Eve, etc? Sometimes living in your intellectual world of academia you strain at the gnats of TULIP while swallowing the mountain of unbelief found in theistic evolution that breeds apostacy. You could be used by God in a much greater capacity if you would forsake your theistic evolutionist bias and properly exegetically step back and try and understand that you cannot have your cake and eat it to on the subject of the historicty of scripture. The root of this allowance for diverse views is this arena is ultimatly linked to raw unbelief and trust in plain obvious scripture. I know you understand this issue but because of your love for men you make allowances for totally nonsensical teachings like uniformitarianism that removes miracles from the earth and the catastrophic world wide flood of Noah's time. Christ verified all things like the worldwide flood, the destruction of Sodom, a real Moses, a real Adam, a real creation, a real 10 commandments etc. Why is it so hard to forsake academia and just follow Christ and believe His word as real historical truth. If you finagle around such things why not finagle around the resurrection or a real Christ? A follower of Christ should not make allowances for such blatant unbelief.
@mikefoht2738 your detail of unsubscribing to Leighton’s channel is strikingly similar to the thousands of unbelievers who reject Christ and Christianity based solely on bad experiences in church and with processing Christians. Praise God that the Way, the Truth and the Life is not dependent on the fallibility of its followers. Truth remains the same. No one is perfect and if you live your life based on the perfection or imperfection of humans then you’re in for a rough ride. Set human imperfections aside and focus on the Truth of Scriptures.
Leighton Flowers' challenge: "Very Few people have a maturity level who would stop arguing before listening and start saying, ' I understand what you are saying ", is not really the issue but agreeing to disagree with him! I've seen Leighton raise his voice & squint his eyes w/ people whom he disagrees with, butt in/interfere while his opponents explain their side, and then bounce back in the rebuttal portion w/ his gnashing & gritting!
Could you clarify whether you are claiming LF himself is actually a proponent of theistic evolution and if so, why? I have never seen him espouse this view.
His interview with Sean McDowell lays out various plausible Christian views of Genesis, creation, Adam, etc. They don't threaten the reality of Jesus or Christian faith or the Bible.
I do not remember the exact show. Leighton knows. He was dealing with answers that apologists give for alternatives to the worldwide flood of Noah. In other words, because the apologists he hangs around cannot handle explaining to secular God haters how God could kill every man woman and child on the earth he allows a stupid local flood theory as an viable option which turns the Bible on its head and turns it into utter nonsense. Maybe some of you smart guys can explain how God is not a liar if Noah's flood was only a local flood? Why did He give us a rainbow covenant and promise to never flood the earth again if it was a local flood? Didn't we just witness a local flood with this hurricane season? Doesn't that plainly make God untrustworthy and a boldfaced liar? Didn't He promise never to have a local flood again? All of scripture is thrown out the window to men who make allowances for theistic evolution. It contradicts scripture at every turn. But smart academics think they can weasel their way around plain scripture and trust foolish theories of men above the historical true history found in scripture. If the Bible says their was a real place like Sodom we can find it. If the Bible tells us God created all things in 6 literal days we can rest assured it is correct. In the creation account we see that whenever the word day has a number in front of it it can only mean a 24 hour day. Then when it uses the words evening and morning this emphasizes that it is a 24 hour day not billions of years. But stubborn men who love Darwin more than scripture are too embarrassed to accept plain scripture. This is why it is an obvious sin that such smart men like Leighton who correctly divides the scripture on soteriology is willing to throw scripture under the bus and accept men's anti scriptural theories like this. A ten year old reading the Bible uses better exegesis than Leighton uses when it comes to his allowance of theistic evolution.The root of theistic evolution is unbelief, period. Plain scripture in plain historical context as confirmed by all the Prophets, all the apostles and Christ Himself are denigrated to figurative things and non literal events. But because Leighton likes people like William Lane Craig (and others at his university who holds to similar views) 3:03 he is willing to throw Christ and scripture under the bus for favor with man. If Leighton would repent I would love to subscribe back to his channel. He is gifted and I love how he uses great illustrations in all of his shows to help a person understand the context of scripture when dealing with soteriology. He just fails miserably with dealing with the historicity of scripture. People are dumb if they think the gospel does not involve details of real historical events that took place as revealed in scripture. You cannot seperate the gospel from history. And as far as me sounding like I am leaving the faith to become some aethist like some weirdo wrote in a reply, does it sound like I am promoting aethism? I have spent most of my life serving God and have no.plans of forsaking Him. The sad reality is that people who denigrate and disbelieve scripture as authentic history are always first in line to become aethists. I think Leighton needs a little iron sharpening iron and he is dead wrong for making any allowance of vast ages into scripture that are clearly not there. I could quote almost the entire Bible to prove my position. Both science and scripture are on my side. Gravity does not flood the highest mountains to the depth of 20 feet in a local flood. Their is no need to have God bring all the animals to Noah if it was not a worldwide flood. The scripture plainly tells us that everyone died accept Noah's family. Jesus affirmed the flood account. If you want to use that illogical mindset, why would Jesus tell us it will be just like in the days of Noah before He returns if the whole world was not going to be involved? Should I be a deceiver and preach that Jesus is coming back to a Mesopatamian world instead of the whole world? Was Jesus intimating that only the Middle East would be in rebellion before His return? I could go on and on with this ridiculous way of reinterpreting plain scripture and Leighton is fully aware of what his position is.
@ 1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;a yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.c
@@pinknoise365 You forgot to add "...by God's decree" at the end. It's always good to remind your readers who's behind everything you're complaining about.
@@gk.4102 define decree then explain how God is to blame for the actions of man. Also, is God responsible for both the evil and good men do or only the evil? Do men freely choose evil or does God make them choose evil?
@@pinknoise365 _"define decree"_ Google: an official order issued by a legal authority. It's God's sovereign determination/order/decision. Since God determines everything in Calvinism, it follows that he determined whatever you're complaining about in your post which you ended with a weird "Soooooo..." as if you're expecting God to give you an explanation for what He decreed or something. _"then explain how God is to blame for the actions of man. Also, is God responsible for both the evil and good men do or only the evil?"_ In Calvinism, God determines everything, thus He's responsible and author of everything. For us, God is responsible for what He determines and we're responsible for what we determine. _"Do men freely choose evil or does God make them choose evil?"_ In Calvinism, men do what they've been predetermined to do. The word "choice" or "freely" are nonsensical in Calvinism but they use it anyway. For us, yes men freely choose evil.
@ You are adding to the definition 👉against the will of man👈 But man desires to sin. God does not make man sin nor does he tempt man as according to your teaching.
@@pinknoise365 _"You are adding to the definition "against the will of man"..._ I never mentioned the phrase "against the will of man". _"But man desires to sin"_ That's because in Calvinism God determines EVERYTHING including man's desire to sin. _"God does not make man sin nor does he tempt man as according to your teaching."_ Correct. James 1:13
If god created the set of everything, and if evil is a subset of everything, then god created evil. That is bulletproof logic. Now, let's hear what a Christian Apologist concludes using twisted Christian logic, special pleading, and weasel words. >:-)
@@peterfox7663 The clergy 'manages' the truth. Managed truth isn't truth at all. The Jewish clergy plagiarized Mesopotamian mythology, calling it both history and God's Word, which has distorted the lives of billions of people. Full disclosure by the Christian clergy would require their admitting to the clergy telling followers of "The Prince of Peace," killing 700 million people. Anything less is lying by omission. Anyone with such a record lacks any mandate to pontificate what is morally right and wrong to others. If that were not enough, Christianity is a con game based on the clergy's lies of their 'knowledge' about what occurs after death, their claim that they know the mind of God, and their claim they have the power to assuage the anger of a homicidal God, a god they created. ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, if I lied to you to take money and benefits from you, I could go to prison for fraud or extortion, which are felonies. ON A SOCIETAL LEVEL, if I, as a clergyman, lied to you for your money and benefits, I am constitutionally protected no matter how many times I deceive you, and the money or benefits I take from you under false pretenses are tax-free. How’s that for a con game? As for Apologists, they aren't interested in the truth; they are interested in what works, and their reputations reflect that.
@@thomasfryxelius5526 the will of a man being free isn’t a topic of the Bible at all. It came from Greek philosophy. Not the Bible. The first person to use the term was Saint Augustine.
He does not know God who is capable of doing anything He wishes. Isa 45:7 KJV I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
You quoted the King James version. If you will look at other translations, including the New King James, this is how it reads, "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.’ Isaiah also says in Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
@sharonlouise9759 the versions you are reading are water down versions of the hebrew word for evil. Thanks to kjv version that sticks to the true meaning in hebrew. The speaker wanted those the versions you are using because it stand to his narrative. Let me ask you about God who knows everything, who created satan who does all the evil to His creations?
How awesome is God almighty that even evil finds its origins in His eternal plan and ultimate purpose He has in mind for it to the praise of His glory.🎉😎
How does God create evil? Does he author it or does He simply walk into a room and crap hits the fan. All I have to do is mention the name Jesus and evil manifests itself.
...Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?
And... what's your point? Nobody can read your mind.
Many religious people become evil. Satan was the anointed cherub. Jesus said if a unclean spirit goes out of a person,it wanders in dry places, and if the person is just clean those spirits will come back and he be 7 times as bad as before.
Do any of you Calvinist haters have an explanation for this verse:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
The very premise that god re-created himself, to sacrifice himself to himself, to appease himself as a loophole to break the rules that he himself created (and could change whenever he wants to), just to save his “creation” from the "sins" of their ancestors who did not have the "knowledge of good and evil" to even know what committing a "sin" was because accessing the tree of knowledge to be able to make a “moral” decision was the “original sin” itself… And all that somehow required substitutional atonement through sacrificial blood magic as the only possible solution to “save” us from what could only be “god’s plan” that he intentionally created to be this way from the beginning, just to later individually pick who he wants to give the “gift” of revelation to, so that they can have reasonable justification to believe and even be able to qualify to be "saved" anyway (Ephesians 2:8, Matthew 11:27)… It's all just undeniable gibberish from a logical reasoning perspective. And yet the wilfully, blindly faithful sheep will claim that their “shepherd” is the source of all logic.
It does not say god creates evil!
What does it say?
And... what's your point? If God gives us free will, then God creates the opportunity for evil/sin/disobedience to take place. The question about the verse must be, "What does this mean?"... in the light of all Scripture? ... what is the context? etc.... The Calvinist position is that God wrote this elaborate plan or play from before time determining the movement of every molecule, every rape, every torturous pain.... and so their can be no real rebellion or sin if God determined for it to happen. Free will is just an illusion and cruel joke from the Calvinist perspective. The Calvinist perspective makes God a monster more akin to a demonic creation than that of the Bible. And for the Calvinists who don't agree with exhaustive determinism... admit you are inconsistent in your theology and others will give you a pass for being a novice and stumbling through the education process. There's nothing wrong with that unless you choose to stay in an erroneous position because of pride like a James White. I was an inconsistent Calvinist for over 20 years until I took being a Berean serious and started being intellectually honest with Scripture and the questions surrounding Calvinism.
@@robertmccully2792God said, “I make peace and create evil.”
I liked the presentation, but i just don't see how Dr. Flowers was addressing the question of whether God is the author of evil within the presentation itself. He addresses mainly predestination. Perhaps ypu cpuld change the title of the video.
It seems to have been misnamed/mistitled.
The Calvinist position that God created evil is based on their definition of predestination ... that God pre determined every butterfly flutter, every rape, every murder, every torturous sin, etc... (which makes God a monster). An alternative definition of predestination is presented by Flowers which makes God the creator of the opportunity to accept or reject Him, and the evil comes from our free will choice to reject Him. So, God is the author of opportunity and choice... not the author of evil. We are the authors of evil. Flowers just didn't fill in between the lines good enough.
Yep, the presentation was about predestination. Not sure why they titled it that way.
@@sonnyh9774 I create evil -- Isaiah 45.7. check and mate sonny
Interpretations of predestination that God unilateraly determines the fate of individuals regardless of their choices , such views undermine the essential nature of human freedom and creativity
31:00
Wow! The argument Leighton gives here is a very powerful reframing of what might have seemed a slam dunk scripture for Calvinists. It's all about who is the "us" in Ephesians 1:4. The "us" are not simply those who somehow tumble out of their mothers already approved by God, but rather those that have sought out their salvation with fear and trembling. Great stuff!
But who seeks God? Romans 3 says No one. So Gods grace is still required. Man has the choice to choose what his heart desires. No mature calvinist would say we dont have a choice. Thats the mystery of God. His Sovereignty and our responsibility. But we do not have outright free will, God is in control.
so, the self-righteous. the good works people. the salvation by works. good grief man listen to yourself
@@hondotheology who said works? It’s all Gods grace. The Bible teaches Gods Sovereignty and man’s responsibility. They are both a yes to Gods in control and we have a choice. Mystery of God my friend.
@@ReformedView717 not talking to you man
So in other words, you are the ultimate cause of your salvation. Seeking, obeying, humbling yourself, fearing and trembling before the LORD, etc, are all virtuous acts. Scripture is clear that God works these things, (repentance, faith, humility, desire to seek HIm) in his elect. The religions of men are offended by this.
Since there is not a microphone in the audience, the host should remind speakers to repeat the questions.
Indirectly with the tree of knowledge knowing adam and eve would fall however being
Just he prepared the salvation
Of sons and daughters to promote his glory!
Isaiah45v7 refers
... Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them for evil, as the Lord had said, and as the Lord had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed.
...Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity.
...Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord.
This subject was discussed by C.G.Jung and Victor White in the early 60's
Jung held that the Trinity was insufficient and posited a Quaternary, which he called the missing Fourth. I dont agree with him.
...For the Lord of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.
Thy SON of MAN as a little child born "i" FEET resting upon 3 commands under Grace!
Okay, he talked 90%+ about Calvinism. The title "Is God the author of evil" is what I wanted to hear about.
you must be new to leighton flowers. this is all he knows
Flowers is a one trick pony and cannot speak about anything else 🤷🏼♂️
Babies and the unborn are not wicked, they are innocent and need our love and care, for you say that they are deserving of hell is sick beyond belief.
You are right, God approves each child that comes into the world
@InterestedInDansk Do you have a bible verse to support your theology?
Unfortunately that god also "approves" the spontaneous slaughter of close to a quarter of all the unborn in a womb that it supposedly designed. That is also sick beyond belief.
@@InterestedInDanskUnfortunately my reply has been hidden, to see it change how comments are sorted.
@@downenout8705
Isaiah 49:1-7 Listen to me, O coastlands,
and hearken, you peoples from afar.
The Lord called me from the womb,
from the body of my mother he named my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharp sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me a polished arrow,
in his quiver he hid me away.
3 And he said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”
4 But I said, “I have labored in vain,
I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity;
yet surely my right is with the Lord,
and my recompense with my God.”
5 And now the Lord says,
who formed me from the womb to be his servant,
to bring Jacob back to him,
and that Israel might be gathered to him,
for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord,
and my God has become my strength-
6 he says:
“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
and to restore the preserved of Israel;
I will give you as a light to the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”
Isaiah 48:1:6
Listen to me, O coastlands,
and hearken, you peoples from afar.
The Lord called me from the womb,
from the body of my mother he named my name.
God is renowned for his capacity for Creation each woman through time has from her 12th week in gestation up to 12 million potential ovum at birth she has 2 million at puberty she has 500 left with which to manage her fertility.
The female body is a fantastic miracle.
In the womb before birth In Embryonica (which is the mind of God) the whole body of feminine ova are represented in concentric circles of beautiful orbiting orbs each one a potential person but there are many that are not fertilised but those that are fertilised are conceptions known to God who can take each potential child and without judgement can set up a tariff for salvation based upon what God knows about the past of that person.
He sets the tariff to take into account the souls need for salvation and to achieve perfection in it.
The soul has free will to take this into account but it does not have to , but at the souls Judgement God the Son knows what God the Father has bestowed upon him.
Watching now
What church do you go to?
@@aletheia8054bro you are a freaking troll
@@aletheia8054 , to be sure @IdolKiller will not answer you! More than a year ago, IdolKiller did not answer my question: "When was the last time you shared the GOSPEL with the lost soul/s?"
@@aletheia8054 Watch the channel and you'll find out. Stop harassing people.
@@aletheia8054 , @IdollKiller will never answer you, much as he deliberately avoided my question: "When was the last time you shared the Gospel with the lost souls?" BTW, Leighton Flowers evaded my question too!
...Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words.
Is God Sovereign? Is the better question
Flowers is rapidly heading toward Open Theism 😢
...Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.
...Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house.
Evil is intrinsically linked to human freedom
but not the God who created humanity? Evil has a purpose in God’s hands. Maybe stop trying to take it out of His very capable hands.
It was God who wrote the possibility of evil into the fabric of reality. (Presumably, he had his reasons.)
Evil is the consequence for the misuse of freedom.
@@danieltemelkovski9828while God is aware of the existence of evil ,He does not directly determine it
The story of Lazareth.
"Dead like Lazareth" is not biblical.
Jesus didn't call Lazareth from the dead for the sake of using Lazareth as an example of salvation. He called Him to use him as a sign for the Jews who require signs to believe.
Faith is the evidence of things UNSEEN.
John 11
41 Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.
42 And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.
43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
For the Calvinists that want to use Isaiah to settle this, Isaiah 45:7 was written in Hebrew, not English. As a bilingual person, I can tell you that when translating into English from another language there are almost always multiple options to translate a word. In fact, while the KJV translates the passage, "I create evil", the NKJV and ESV give, "I create calamity", which conveys less intention. Quote mining is no help here.
Me too Warren :)
Many multitudes following the TEACHER! The Disciples said, TEACHER many hungers. Send them away so can find their own food to eat! Yeshua Jesus Christ said, do not send them away! Shared "i" Am come forth! The Disciples said, TEACHER here's a little Lad with a BASKET of bread and a fish!
Need to define evil.
Evil is what offends God. The Calvinist position that God created evil is based on their definition of predestination ... that God pre determined every butterfly flutter, every rape, every murder, every torturous sin, etc... (and then blames us for what He made us do...which makes God a monster more akin to a demonic creation than that presented in the Bible). An alternative definition of predestination is presented by Flowers which makes God the creator of the opportunity to accept or reject Him, and the evil comes from our free will choice to reject Him. So, God is the author of opportunity and choice... not the author of evil. We are the authors of evil. Flowers just didn't fill in between the lines good enough.
The absence of good.
Does the punishments of a Holy God towards the sinner evil or just? Does killing the entire world through a great flood an act of an evil God? Be careful about putting God in a box and usurping the sovereignty of God bc of your own "wisdom." Just remember that a Holy and just God can never be unjust or evil. What I do believe is that God will choose certain people, beyond his own will, to carry out His purposes.
What's your point? The Augustinian-Calvinistic portrayal of God is more akin to a demonic creation like Zeus than the Triune God of the Bible. The Augustinian position comes from Gnostic and Heathen interpretations of the Bible... eisegesis... not exegesis. The Calvinist definition of sovereignty is that God predetermined everything including rebellion and sin and then holds us responsible for what God made us do. That goes against His character of Holy and just.... to make us robots to act out a evil, gross and wicked play for His own good pleasure. No, God's sovereignty is God's ability to stick His finger in our soup any time He chooses, but thankfully, He gives us a free will choice to accept or reject Him. We are the authors of evil... not God.
@sonnyh9774 I think you are over simplifying things. BTW I'm not a Calvinists or any other labels. I believe in the only true God of the Bible. Whatever God does is sovereign and just. I find it amusing how lecturers think they know God fully. They should be more humble.
_"Does the punishments of a Holy God towards the sinner evil or just?"_
It is just and Leighton would 100% agree. However that's not what Calvinism teaches.
Calvinism teaches that God first makes someone a sinner via divine decree, then decrees for that sinner to commit sins, then blames and punishes that sinner for those sins He determined for him to commit. The sinner had no say or choice in the matter whatsoever. Now this view of God's "justice" is what Leighton objects to.
The 2 destinations God created hell and heaven. In Him is the ticket to heaven. Not in Him is the ticket to hell. It's so simple even yall should be able to grasp the reality
We forget that the first century Christians and Jews regarded the Holy Spirit as the *ruach* a purely feminine entity.
There is in fact a Nag Hammadi book entitled *The exegesis of the soul* and the first line goes, _The sages that came before us gave the soul a feminine name. She is also feminine in nature, and she even has a womb_
Ephraim the Syrian a 4th century hymnological preacher wrote a hymn based upon Simeon's prophesy to Mary *and a sword shall pierce your own soul*
_If by God's Holy Ghost thou art beguiled_
_There will be born in thee the Eternal Child_
_If like Mary, virginal and pure_
_Then God will impregnate your soul for sure_
_God make me pregnant, and his spirit shadow me_
_What good does Gabriel's _*_Ave, Mary_*_ do_
Unless he give me that same greeting too?_
Another a mystic Angelus Silesius wrote;
*As once a Virgin fashioned the whole earth.
So by a Virgin it shall have rebirth*
Clearly the Virgin is the Holy Spirit and her children are uniquely _immaculate conceptions_
These children appear at judgment but judgment does not occur until the soul cannot be reborn anymore, Luke 20:35-36 says *they cannot die anymore* at which time _they must become the children of God_
The Essenes also have a thanksgiving hymn in which a human soul is called a *crucible* in which a *wonderful counsellor* struggles to become a celestial child.
*The sons of Light and Darkness of the first century Christians and Essenes*
The Community Rule of the Essenes states the belief that before we are born God the Father has total knowledge of our whole design and purpose, and as we come into the world before our souls enter our foetal frame we are assigned an angel of light and an angel of darkness, it is the mature Christian to make certain for the good of his soul that the angel of light is in the ascendant position and remains there.
Simeon is the person who reveals to Mary that the Divine Word will transform her soul into a celestial child but until then every soul struggles to be released into the Celestial light and if a person is filled with the truth he is already impregnated to become a celestial child
Man made religion is really bad. Really bad. God is love? Then look at the definition of love in your book of Corinthians. The best thing people can do is walk away from man made religion.
...Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil against thee.
Nice verses that apply to the nation of Israel and not others. The Bible also says if your eye offend thee, pluck it out... and go and do likewise... so, are you going to obey the Scriptures? I hope not, because that would be incorrect interpretation and incorrect application.
This is such a wonderful video!
🎉🎉
Regarding his discussion at around 29:50, and Paul's use of the phrase "in Him," or "in Christ."
Since Ephesians 1:1 and 3 are Paul’s first uses of the phrase “in Christ,” it sets the context for how the phrase will be used in later verses. Here, it is used to describe the sphere into which God’s blessing and choosing takes place, that is, based on who Christ is, and through His work of redemption, God has both blessed and chosen individuals. This meaning is more apparent in verses 19-20 where the phrase “in Christ” is shown specifically to be the sphere of God’s operation.
Also, the words “in Him” is a very specific phrase used by Paul in Romans 5 and elsewhere to describe the Federal Headship of Christ over His people. That is, Christ represented those who were given to Him by the Father (John 6:44), that His work was specifically for them (cf. Romans 6:6, 8, Matthew 1:21), to bring them life (1 Corinthians 15:22).
Therefore, in verses 3 and 4, The phrases “in Christ,” and “in Him” do not modify the word “us,” as if to describe WHO God blessed and chose, as if God chose those who have already chosen Him, since that would make His act of choosing superfluous, but instead it modifies the word “chose,” and it describes HOW God chose, and this is PRECISELY what Verse 5 says - “through Jesus Christ…” it speaks to the sphere, or the context in which God’s choosing took place. It is a reminder of the Federalism spoken of in Romans 5 whereby Christ is the representative of all of those who from eternity past were relationally foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified (Romans 8:28-30) by Him (Romans 6:1-14; Colossians 2:12; 3:1-2). Simply stated, God’s choice of electing love in eternity past must be understood in terms of its relationship to Christ.
Lying right out of the gate. " ...leaving people in their sins that they ultimately have no control over..."
That is not taught in Calvinism.
Nope God is Holy, Holy, Holy, Holy in Jesús ñame
Amen!
Dr. Flowers’ analogy about seeing the duck or the rabbit wrongly presupposes that seeing the drawing one way (his way)is correct, while seeing the drawing another way (Calvin’s way)is somehow wrong. He mistakenly assumes that if a Calvinist would just step back and understand the Bible His way, then they too would be write like him. Romans 9 properly examined dos not support an An Arminian understanding.
He actually used it as an illustration to show that if you step back and objectively look at scripture, you could at least understand his position. He specifically said that he's fine if you still disagree with him, as long as you understand his position.
@ Oh I understand his position alright. I’ve been listening to him “DE-CALVINIIZE” the word of God for almost 3 years. Instead of having a legitimate Christian ministry that simply teaches what the Bible DOES say, Flowers has been teaching his followers to reject the plain reading of Holy Scripture if there is even a hint of it agreeing with the teachings of a 16th century theologian named John Calvin, as if Calvin were some kind of demonic heretic that should have been burned at the stake,
rather than following the natural flow of the author’s intent in context, which Flowers doesn’t seem to be able to do to save his life.
That's not at all what he said. We're you even listening?
@ Actually, no I wasn’t listening. Why don’t you tell me what he was saying.
@@jazzmankey so you admit to commenting about something you didn't bother listening to? Interesting.
Excellent, except for the assertion of dualism @ 23:02. Dualism is a pagan belief (Egyptian, Greek, etc.).
Flowers' theology is so filled with errors that spring from "fine sounding arguments" and "philosophy and empty deceit according to the traditions of men," it's difficult to begin anywhere.
But one of his unbiblical premises is that people do not have free will unless we can choose OR CHOOSE OTHERWISE.
That's not true! The creature is bound by it's nature, and because of Adam's fall, we have his fallen nature and not only do we NOT choose t he things of God, they are foolishness to fallen man (1 Cor 2:14) Yes, I know Flowers has his "explanation" of this verse, but it's just as out of context with the rest of scripture as everything he teaches.
Man DOES choose according to HIS NATURE and this is why Ephesians 2 says "BY NATURE we are objects of wrath."
A rattlesnake has free will to do what it CHOOSES to do, but ALL that it can choose are the things a rattlesnake wants.
It cannot choose a new nature so that it will not behave like a rattlesnake anymore and neither can fallen man "choose" to not be fallen.
This is why GOD must do a work INSIDE of us "taking away our heart of stone and GIVING us a heart of flesh."
THIS is what being born again by the LIVING WORD/SPIRIT is all about!
But the Spirit goes where IT wills (John 3)
And Jesus reveals the father to whom HE wills (Matt 11:27)
Just as Jesus told Peter when Peter understood who Jesus was but others did not
"Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in Heaven."
As a matter of fact, God gave the law to Israel ALONE. He NEVER evangelized the masses of gentiles but "overlooked their times of ignorance" and "allowed them to go their own way" leaving them "without hope and without God." What does "Without hope mean????" It means the gentiles had no hope in the Old Covenant, other than a few God allowed in.
But even Israel did not obey.
WHY DID THEY NOT OBEY?
Because God was showing them (and us) that "BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW SHALL NO FLESH BE JUSTIFIED!"
God's loud and clear message was "APART FROM ME YOU CAN DO NOTHING!"
The law was intended to show Israel they were helpless and thus, was a "schoolmaster" to drive them to Christ!
And as Isaiah said in Isaiah 1:9 and Paul quoted in Romans 9:29
"Unless THE LORD had left a remnant (by HIS choosing) NONE OF THEM would have been saved!"
So yes, God gave a very real law to Israel and very real commands to obey.
Yet, Israel did not and COULD NOT obey. So there's goes Flowers' definition of "free will."
Israel did EXACTLY what they wanted; They turned AWAY from God!
"ALL we like sheep have gone astray, EACH OF US has turned HIS OWN WAY!"
And God said that man and his "free will" were precisely the PROBLEM with the Old Covenant. "God found fault with THE PEOPLE" (see Hebrews 8)
Yet Flowers wants to believe and teach that man still has the ability to "choose" to seek and obey God!
Unbelievable!
At 11:23, "Until you can really see clearly that 2+2=5 and 2+2=4, and entertain the thought that 2+2 might actually equal 5, you're not really qualified to say which one is more accurate."
God is never the author of evil He does use it for good. The Bible says as much. He is sovereign of course. We do what is our nature. All our acts are evil without the grace of God. In darkness we love our sin. In the light we hate our sin. We are the authors of evil under the power of darkness and our own flesh. We battle not with flesh and blood giving great depths to mans evil deeds when unrestrained by Gods grace. Satan is the author of evil.
Ridiculous, read Isaiah 45:7. Without 'evil' we would not know good.
@@timothy4557 A sinner in sin loves their sin unless your saying the Bible is in error?
@ReformedView717 'Sin' is not 'evil.' You're confusing the two. Did you read the verse? Doesn't sound like it. The same God that gave us the tree of the knowledge of good and evil certainly gave us evil.
@ if sin isn’t evil then it would be good. There’s right and wrong. Sin is the result of evil deeds tempted by Satan, that is justly punished by God. Clever words sir. It’s a narrow gate.
@ReformedView717 Get a lexicon and leave your pride at the door.
Provisionism without availability is nonsense It took four thousand years For Christ to come and die for the sins of the world, and another two thousand years for the gospel to be spread as far as it is today. It took eighteen hundred years for China to receive the Gospel via Hudson Tayler. How are we to reconcile this with provisionism. Who's hands will the blood be upon who deprived these people from the provision, or was God behind where and when the gospel went.
Romans says that we are without excuse because of natural revelation and our consciences. Paul says in Acts that God doesn't leave Gentiles without testimony, because God sends rain to them to give them crops and fills their hearts with joy.
Even on provisionism, people who are without direct knowledge of Christ are without excuse, because God doesn't just leave people to their own devices without showing Himself to them. I think on provisionism, God judges people according to the light they have been given.
It is also interesting to think about the Magi who visited Jesus at His birth. They were probably Gentiles, and yet they followed a star to visit the Jewish Messiah and offer Him worship.
Muslims all over the place are having dreams of Jesus and coming to Him because of that.
Ignorance was once winked at.
Acts 17
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
. 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; BUT NOW commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, IN THAT HE HATH RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD.
Do you seriously think the news of the resurrection took 1800 years to get to China?
Maybe the gospel was brought and rejected over and over again until it was brought and received via Hudson Tayler.
I refuse to believe that news such as the resurrection took 1800 years to circulate. That sort of news travels far and fast.
Before Jesus, there were the prophets.
@@KISStheSON... > Do you seriously think the news of the resurrection took 1800 years to get to China?
Probably, yes.
But this is undeniable: it took over 1500 years for the news of the resurrection to reach the Western Hemisphere. How do I know? Because no one with the Gospel could get there! It wasn't discovered until C Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492.
But your point is still lacking: for provisionalism to be true, **EVERY** man/woman/child must be made a sincere Gospel offer. Otherwise, true Provision has not been made for them. ("How can they believe .. without a preacher?")
I say this with all humility: Only someone completely bereft of world history would be naive enough to think that every man/woman/child has heard the Gospel.
They have all interacted with General Revelation (Rom 1). But that is not enough to save anyone anywhere. You need a Gospel proclamation in order to be saved (Rom 10). General Revelation is enough to condemn. It is not enough to save.
@@KISStheSON... It is pure fantasy to believe that the Gospel came to China over. and over again. The facts are that when Hudson Taylor arrived there the whole nation was pagan and never heard of the name of Christ.The same is true of David Livingstone in Africa, William Carrey in India and David Brainerd to the American Indian. Are you saying that all of the millions of people from these nations who lived and died without ever hearing the name of Christ could of been saved by believing in natural revelation displayed in creation? Add to that that there are even today many that have not heard the name of Christ. Are you advocating for an alternative way of salvation other than the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? Doesn't it make more sense to believe that God in his sovereignty appointed the times and seasons when these nations would hear the Gospel? If you don't believe this you could always join the Mormons who believe that Jesus after his resurrection went and preached to all the nations of the world..
@@Chupie77777 Are you advocating for an alternative way of salvation other than the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Cornnelius was a man who responded to the light he had; he was a pious man filled with good works, but even he could not be saved without hearing the gospel. It seems to me that God is a whole lot more selective in regards to when and where and to who the Gospel comes too.
Google "oxymoron", "reasonable" and the religious usage of faith, not the colloquial conflation with "trust" or "confidence" but "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", then take a long, hard look at your channel name and at least try to stop being at best a wilfully ignorant hypocrite or at worse, a blatantly lying manipulator...
"I don't have a real problem with ignorance. We are all ignorant about a variety of subjects we are not currently aware of. The real problem is when that ignorance is wilful, baseless and used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who has the nerve to present facts you don't want to accept."
- anyone who actually cares about verifiable reality
It would appear to me that Flowers would have difficulty expressing his views on the immutable nature of the Being of God . Could he perhaps engage with Dolezal or Matthew Barrett ?
What Leighton says at the 12 minute mark is so important. Until you've taken the time and effort to try and understand all the views surrounding a difficult passage of scripture, you really aren't qualified to discuss it deeply. One might think that Christians would be the supreme examples of understanding and charity in these areas, but are we? If you've been a Christian for any length of time you know that we definitely are not.
If his comment at the 12 minute mark is crucial, then it would be to his demise. Frequently, when he tries to describe Calvinism, Calvinists respond by saying "No - you're misrepresenting what we believe" and "you don't understand Calvinism".
(Even non-Calvinists who have studied will tell you that he doesn't properly represent Calvinism)
So according to Leighton, he is not qualified to discuss it deeply.
I agree to a degree...and disagree. Who determines who is qualified? I agree that we should do the best we can to look at all the possibilities of interpretation, but even staff theologians change their positions because even though they have put years of study in , they still don't have all the right answers and the argument could be made that they aren't qualified. Our job is to gather as much truth as possible and teach others our best compilation of truth in a gentle and rational way.... always being ready to change our position when provided the evidence. We will never arrive at omniscience and never really be qualified. To your point, there is wisdom in knowing when to be quiet and let others speak and also knowing when to ask difficult questions. I've played the fool many a time in that regard. I encourage every man to banter, argue, and question what is presented as "truth". The more you do this, the faster you will grow... as a general rule. The mature believers need to play with the up and coming like a lion will play with a cub. The cub is learning and interaction is necessary. Interact with the cubs out there and they will learn. We will roll our eyes, but play .... we must.
@@Tim.Foster123 You're confusing "representation" with "accusation". Just because there's an accusation made against Calvinism, doesn’t mean there was necessarily misrepresentation. Learn to dicern the two.
Representation is akin to "This is what Calvinism claims."
Accusation is akin to "We believe Calvinism leads to the following erroneous logical conclusions."
The reason Calvinists constantly throw out the phrase "You don't understand Calvinism" is because they're convinced that if someone truly and genuinely understood Calvinism, they would necessarily believe it. Therefore Calvinists think that if someone vehemently rejects Calvinism, it must be because they haven't truly understood it. The reason I know they think this way is because I have asked many Calvinists if they know of a true born-again believer who truly understands Calvinism and yet outright rejects it. Except for one person, all of them said no, and some even said that's not possible.
He nevet got over the romans 9 debate and it shows
Is that really what you got out of this video, brother? You can have all the knowledge in the world, but without love, you gain nothing. Remember that God is love.
Leighton Flowers' challenge: "Very Few people have a maturity level who would stop arguing before listening and start saying, ' I understand what you are saying ", is not really the issue but agreeing to disagree with him! I've seen Leighton raise his voice & squint his eyes w/ people whom he disagrees with, butt in/interfere while his opponent explains his side, and then bounce back in the rebuttal portion w/ teeth gnashing & gritting!
Yes he is, he I the Lord have created good and evil, I the lord have done this.
God is properly said to ordain, and thus be the *ultimate cause* of all things (Ephesians 1:10-11, Romans 11:36, James 4:13-15) -even the evil acts of men- (cf. Revelation 17:17, 2 Samuel 12:11-12, 1 Kings 22:19-23 / 2 Chronicles 18:18-22), however, He is never the *proximate,* or *efficient* cause of evil, and scripture regards only the proximate or efficient cause of evil as the chargeable or blameworthy party.
Regarding God being the ultimate cause of even the evil acts of men, in the following passages, we see God actively determining, decreeing, setting, predestining, or sending men to perform an action, and for those men who are doing what God has set them to do, it is a sin, an evil act, since they perform the action according to their own wicked intentions, and they could not have done otherwise; God is the ultimate cause of the action that men perform, and yet He is innocent of sin, while men are morally accountable for sin since they are the proximate or efficient cause of the sin in the action that God has ordained: Genesis 50:20, 1 Kings 12:15, Job 1:13-15, 17, 21, Isaiah 10:5-6, Judges 9:22-23, 1 Samuel 2:25, 16:14, 18:10, 19:9, 2 Samuel 12:11-12, Psalm 105:24-25, Proverbs 16:4, Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, 1 Peter 2:8-10, Romans 9:22, Acts 2:22-23, 4:27-28, Deuteronomy 2:30.
> however, He is never the proximate, or efficient cause of evil, and scripture regards only the proximate or efficient cause of evil as the chargeable or blameworthy party.
Usually when I see someone rail against Calvinism (or predestination in particular), they demonstrate an inability to comprehend the point you're making about God never being the proximate/efficient cause of evil.
I describe the same concept in terms of God being the formal/final cause, but not the efficient/material cause of evil.
Job described the same thing, albeit a bit more bluntly:
[+] And he said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and ***the LORD has taken away***; blessed be the name of the LORD.”
++ In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong ++. (Job 1:21-22)
I've talked to many bona-fide evangelical Arminians who insisted that Job did sin, even though the Scriptures plainly say he did not sin.
Thank you pop Leighton for attending unto our own! Remembering who said "if ye Love me"! Love you too without shame but with boldness! Gratitude and Honor
Luke 14:
25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said:
26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters-yes, even their own life-such a person cannot be my disciple.
27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.”
“The best Cure for Christianity is reading the bible.”
- Mark Twain
Calvinists MUST believe that God is a sinful dictator who is the author of every bad and evil things. If Calvinists had the Agape love of God in them for one minute, they would never believe what they teach.
calvinism makes you feel bad! your theology makes you feel good and that's what matters!
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
@aletheia8054 it's quite obvious that you don't understand the Bible. God didn't and He doesn't create evil,as anyone who knows the Bible will know.
And as anyone who knows God will know.
@@alanhales6369 I do understand. God literally says he creates evil.
You: God does not create evil
God: “ I create evil”
@@alanhales6369 he's quoting scripture dude. have you even read the bible?
God created evil by rejecting it and making a clear distinction between good and evil.
There is that...
(although, to be more precise, we might want to say "God created the *category* of evil by rejecting it...")
You sound like you believe evil is a thing to be created. Have you considered that evil is the absence of God? That evil is everything without God? Free will allows that view. God is all good, all wisdom, all compassion, all justice, etc. So, do you think it can make sense that evil is rejection of that?
@@suzannedebusschere1607 Even if evil lacks ontological substance, free will isn't necessary for evil to exist. God can ordain the category of evil to exist without a free agent to instantiate evil thoughts/words/deeds.
EG, He creates the category of evil simply by creating a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That tree can be created before Lucifer or Adam fell into sin.
@suzannedebusschere1607 It is the absence of God. It's the concept and arguments about God's existence and necessity. It's the ramifications of the death of God on all his creation, a change in nature and the laws governing it.
The Bible is about the knowledge of good and evil. Life and death.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
@DonswatchingtheTube God is not dead
Leighton Flowers' challenge: "Very Few people have a maturity level who would stop arguing before listening and start saying, ' I understand what you are saying ", is not really the issue but agreeing to disagree with him! I've seen Leighton raise his voice & squint his eyes w/ people whom he disagrees with, butt in/interfere while his opponents explain their side, and then bounce back in the rebuttal portion w/ his teeth gnashing & gritting!
Polite discussion is very different than formal debate. Plus, yes, he also does sometimes get upset when people are dishonest interlocutors and deliberately misrepresent him and his beliefs.
I really believe that Dr. Flowers does an excellent job of teaching the best perspective of which view is correct and which view is incorrect when it comes to determinism verses provisionism. His illustrations have always been the best tools for understanding such complicated issues. In this program he does a brilliant job in using the rabbit/duck drawing to help guide people into seeing both perspectives. His use of the airplane that is going from point a to point b was also brilliant in helping people comprehend how predestination works in a provisionist perspective. Great job Dr. Flowers.
To be fair to you I do have some criticisms that are not based upon you being to fair to calvinists. In fact my criticism is why I finally unsubscribed from your enlightening shows. My criticism is that it seems that many from your side of the tracks go a bridge to far in your zeal to prove the love of God and His justice that you promote people like William Lane Craig who is an open theistic evolutionist and has just written a book where he denies a literal Adam. Craig mocks creationists who hold to a young earth perspective and says they are an embarrassment to the church.Why do people always have to go a bridge too far and not be balanced with scripture. Instead we build up a great apologetics case for properly and hermanuticly dividing God's word with soteriology and in the next breath promote ideas that destroy the foundation of the Christian religion such as theistic evolution. You do an impressive job on the one hand and then it is as if you destroy all you have established in the next breath. If things like the creation account are dismantled to fit an unbelieving aethistic mindset why should we believe anything else in scripture like the Exodus crossing, King David being a real person, Jonah being a real prophet that was swallowed by a real fish, etc. Surely you trust the words of Christ don't you when he speaks of a real worldwide flood, a real Jonah, a real Moses that lifted up a real brazen serpent, a real Adam and Eve, etc? Sometimes living in your intellectual world of academia you strain at the gnats of TULIP while swallowing the mountain of unbelief found in theistic evolution that breeds apostacy.
You could be used by God in a much greater capacity if you would forsake your theistic evolutionist bias and properly exegetically step back and try and understand that you cannot have your cake and eat it to on the subject of the historicty of scripture. The root of this allowance for diverse views is this arena is ultimatly linked to raw unbelief and trust in plain obvious scripture. I know you understand this issue but because of your love for men you make allowances for totally nonsensical teachings like uniformitarianism that removes miracles from the earth and the catastrophic world wide flood of Noah's time. Christ verified all things like the worldwide flood, the destruction of Sodom, a real Moses, a real Adam, a real creation, a real 10 commandments etc. Why is it so hard to forsake academia and just follow Christ and believe His word as real historical truth. If you finagle around such things why not finagle around the resurrection or a real Christ? A follower of Christ should not make allowances for such blatant unbelief.
@mikefoht2738 your detail of unsubscribing to Leighton’s channel is strikingly similar to the thousands of unbelievers who reject Christ and Christianity based solely on bad experiences in church and with processing Christians.
Praise God that the Way, the Truth and the Life is not dependent on the fallibility of its followers.
Truth remains the same.
No one is perfect and if you live your life based on the perfection or imperfection of humans then you’re in for a rough ride.
Set human imperfections aside and focus on the Truth of Scriptures.
Leighton Flowers' challenge: "Very Few people have a maturity level who would stop arguing before listening and start saying, ' I understand what you are saying ", is not really the issue but agreeing to disagree with him! I've seen Leighton raise his voice & squint his eyes w/ people whom he disagrees with, butt in/interfere while his opponents explain their side, and then bounce back in the rebuttal portion w/ his gnashing & gritting!
Could you clarify whether you are claiming LF himself is actually a proponent of theistic evolution and if so, why? I have never seen him espouse this view.
His interview with Sean McDowell lays out various plausible Christian views of Genesis, creation, Adam, etc. They don't threaten the reality of Jesus or Christian faith or the Bible.
I do not remember the exact show. Leighton knows. He was dealing with answers that apologists give for alternatives to the worldwide flood of Noah. In other words, because the apologists he hangs around cannot handle explaining to secular God haters how God could kill every man woman and child on the earth he allows a stupid local flood theory as an viable option which turns the Bible on its head and turns it into utter nonsense.
Maybe some of you smart guys can explain how God is not a liar if Noah's flood was only a local flood? Why did He give us a rainbow covenant and promise to never flood the earth again if it was a local flood? Didn't we just witness a local flood with this hurricane season? Doesn't that plainly make God untrustworthy and a boldfaced liar? Didn't He promise never to have a local flood again?
All of scripture is thrown out the window to men who make allowances for theistic evolution. It contradicts scripture at every turn. But smart academics think they can weasel their way around plain scripture and trust foolish theories of men above the historical true history found in scripture. If the Bible says their was a real place like Sodom we can find it. If the Bible tells us God created all things in 6 literal days we can rest assured it is correct. In the creation account we see that whenever the word day has a number in front of it it can only mean a 24 hour day. Then when it uses the words evening and morning this emphasizes that it is a 24 hour day not billions of years. But stubborn men who love Darwin more than scripture are too embarrassed to accept plain scripture.
This is why it is an obvious sin that such smart men like Leighton who correctly divides the scripture on soteriology is willing to throw scripture under the bus and accept men's anti scriptural theories like this. A ten year old reading the Bible uses better exegesis than Leighton uses when it comes to his allowance of theistic evolution.The root of theistic evolution is unbelief, period. Plain scripture in plain historical context as confirmed by all the Prophets, all the apostles and Christ Himself are denigrated to figurative things and non literal events. But because Leighton likes people like William Lane Craig (and others at his university who holds to similar views) 3:03 he is willing to throw Christ and scripture under the bus for favor with man.
If Leighton would repent I would love to subscribe back to his channel. He is gifted and I love how he uses great illustrations in all of his shows to help a person understand the context of scripture when dealing with soteriology. He just fails miserably with dealing with the historicity of scripture.
People are dumb if they think the gospel does not involve details of real historical events that took place as revealed in scripture. You cannot seperate the gospel from history.
And as far as me sounding like I am leaving the faith to become some aethist like some weirdo wrote in a reply, does it sound like I am promoting aethism? I have spent most of my life serving God and have no.plans of forsaking Him. The sad reality is that people who denigrate and disbelieve scripture as authentic history are always first in line to become aethists.
I think Leighton needs a little iron sharpening iron and he is dead wrong for making any allowance of vast ages into scripture that are clearly not there. I could quote almost the entire Bible to prove my position. Both science and scripture are on my side. Gravity does not flood the highest mountains to the depth of 20 feet in a local flood. Their is no need to have God bring all the animals to Noah if it was not a worldwide flood. The scripture plainly tells us that everyone died accept Noah's family. Jesus affirmed the flood account. If you want to use that illogical mindset, why would Jesus tell us it will be just like in the days of Noah before He returns if the whole world was not going to be involved? Should I be a deceiver and preach that Jesus is coming back to a Mesopatamian world instead of the whole world? Was Jesus intimating that only the Middle East would be in rebellion before His return? I could go on and on with this ridiculous way of reinterpreting plain scripture and Leighton is fully aware of what his position is.
Ahhh, when even the title of your talk attacks a position nobody holds.
Westminster confession of faith chapter 3.
@ 1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;a yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.c
“Let me explain why the Calvinists are wrong for believing something they expressly deny.”
For know it is impossible for ALL KNOWLEDGE GOD TO BE EVIL.
Man trusts his salvation in the man Leighton Flowers view. He teaches pelagianism. Soooooo…
@@pinknoise365 You forgot to add "...by God's decree" at the end. It's always good to remind your readers who's behind everything you're complaining about.
@@gk.4102 define decree then explain how God is to blame for the actions of man. Also, is God responsible for both the evil and good men do or only the evil? Do men freely choose evil or does God make them choose evil?
@@pinknoise365 _"define decree"_
Google: an official order issued by a legal authority.
It's God's sovereign determination/order/decision. Since God determines everything in Calvinism, it follows that he determined whatever you're complaining about in your post which you ended with a weird "Soooooo..." as if you're expecting God to give you an explanation for what He decreed or something.
_"then explain how God is to blame for the actions of man. Also, is God responsible for both the evil and good men do or only the evil?"_
In Calvinism, God determines everything, thus He's responsible and author of everything.
For us, God is responsible for what He determines and we're responsible for what we determine.
_"Do men freely choose evil or does God make them choose evil?"_
In Calvinism, men do what they've been predetermined to do. The word "choice" or "freely" are nonsensical in Calvinism but they use it anyway.
For us, yes men freely choose evil.
@ You are adding to the definition 👉against the will of man👈 But man desires to sin.
God does not make man sin nor does he tempt man as according to your teaching.
@@pinknoise365 _"You are adding to the definition "against the will of man"..._
I never mentioned the phrase "against the will of man".
_"But man desires to sin"_
That's because in Calvinism God determines EVERYTHING including man's desire to sin.
_"God does not make man sin nor does he tempt man as according to your teaching."_
Correct. James 1:13
If god created the set of everything, and if evil is a subset of everything, then god created evil. That is bulletproof logic.
Now, let's hear what a Christian Apologist concludes using twisted Christian logic, special pleading, and weasel words. >:-)
God created the ability to do what is wrong, of course determining what is considered evil. What is your point?
@@peterfox7663 The clergy 'manages' the truth. Managed truth isn't truth at all. The Jewish clergy plagiarized Mesopotamian mythology, calling it both history and God's Word, which has distorted the lives of billions of people.
Full disclosure by the Christian clergy would require their admitting to the clergy telling followers of "The Prince of Peace," killing 700 million people. Anything less is lying by omission. Anyone with such a record lacks any mandate to pontificate what is morally right and wrong to others. If that were not enough, Christianity is a con game based on the clergy's lies of their 'knowledge' about what occurs after death, their claim that they know the mind of God, and their claim they have the power to assuage the anger of a homicidal God, a god they created.
ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, if I lied to you to take money and benefits from you, I could go to prison for fraud or extortion, which are felonies. ON A SOCIETAL LEVEL, if I, as a clergyman, lied to you for your money and benefits, I am constitutionally protected no matter how many times I deceive you, and the money or benefits I take from you under false pretenses are tax-free. How’s that for a con game?
As for Apologists, they aren't interested in the truth; they are interested in what works, and their reputations reflect that.
pov: you're about to listen to the dumbest theology on the planet
Amen.
That can´t be true, he is not promoting calvinism
@@thomasfryxelius5526 he’s promoting free will philosophy.
@aletheia8054
Free will is biblical, determinism is not
@@thomasfryxelius5526 the will of a man being free isn’t a topic of the Bible at all.
It came from Greek philosophy. Not the Bible. The first person to use the term was Saint Augustine.
He does not know God who is capable of doing anything He wishes.
Isa 45:7 KJV I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
You quoted the King James version. If you will look at other translations, including the New King James, this is how it reads, "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.’ Isaiah also says in Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
@sharonlouise9759 the versions you are reading are water down versions of the hebrew word for evil. Thanks to kjv version that sticks to the true meaning in hebrew. The speaker wanted those the versions you are using because it stand to his narrative. Let me ask you about God who knows everything, who created satan who does all the evil to His creations?
How awesome is God almighty that even evil finds its origins in His eternal plan and ultimate purpose He has in mind for it to the praise of His glory.🎉😎
How does God create evil?
Does he author it or does He simply walk into a room and crap hits the fan.
All I have to do is mention the name Jesus and evil manifests itself.
@@signposts6189that's garbage theology, "God is light and on him there is no darkness" 1 John 1:5