I would suggest to any who question whether John Piper is suggesting that God meticulously causes [in the sense that He puts the sinful desire in the molester's heart] child molestation that you read the following from Desiring God Ministries. @t
If God predestined many to hell, then they are dammed before they are born--before they have committed any sins. Thus, God created them with the purpose of being dammed; this implies that dammed humans can participate in some very vile behaviors. God did not create Adam and Eve as divine/supernatural beings; He created them as humans--imperfect with a natural bend toward foolish choices. This is called being human, and God allowed humans to populate the world. They were not cast out of the garden until after they sinned. Humans are depraved but not totally depraved because they have the ability to accept or reject God.
@@artemusbowdler7508 Perhaps you need to read the text of Scripture. God did not create Adam with a natural bent toward foolish [sinful] choices. The text clearly states that God made Adam in His own image and made man upright. Adam waa made mutable so that he might sin but could also have chosen to remain in his integrity. There is no question that fallen have the ability to choose to obey or disobey God, to submit to His clear revelations of Himself or to suppress that revelation in unrighteousness or to be greatful, to glorify God and worship Him alone. Romans one makes it clear that sinners universally suppress God's truth in unrighteousness. We are free to choose what we desire most at a given time but we are not free to choose what we do not desire. The truth is that because of Adam's trangression , we are all condemned before we are born. God has determined to save a multitude that no one can number because He is gracious and merciful and to leave others to their own just condemntation because He is holy and just. Paul wrote that we, believers, were by nature [a phrase that consistently in the NT means by birth] children of wrath [deserving of wrath] just like the rest of mankind. Unless you deny God's exhaustive omniscience of all things future, you must understand that before God created anything, He knew that if He created billions were certain to perish in rebellion and unbelief. He either approved that such would be the case or He disapproved of it. If He approved that it would occur [and He clearly did by creating, that is to determine it. Unless you are an Open Theist universalist, you have to acknowledge that such is the case. Otherwise, God's omniscience would be imperfect. God's decree does not cause anyone to act contrary to His law. To say that God decrees a thing does not mean that He necessarily does anything to cause what He has decreed to occur. As Thomas Watson wrote, "God has a hand in the action where sin is but no hand in the sin of the action." God did not cause the treachery of Joseph's brothers, but the text make it clear that He intended it because He intended to use their sinful actions to bring about a good purpose. See also Isa. 10.
@@TheBereanVoice Then why did Adam and Eve disobey God? Why did God give Adam a choice if he was made in the image of God? You use hermeneutical summersaults to weasel around the weaknesses of your Calvinistic dogma.
@arpensIron127 Did you read every post in this thread? I know this; I am asking a Calvinist this question. If you cannot earn salvation through good works, you cannot lose your salvation through bad works; however, if you are saved through faith, then you are unsaved through the absence of faith. "Elect" does not not mean salvation; God's grace was extended to the Ephesians who heard the gospel message through the preaching of Paul. “For by grace [Paul preached to the Ephesians the good news] are ye saved through faith [Ephesians believed in the gospel message and were saved] ; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God (Salvation was not earned by good works: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Saved unto Lordship), which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:9-10).
Calvin was 26 when he wrote Institutes, and there was no book like it before. He was a lawyer and a Chatholic priest by education. I also felt so stupid that I almost slipped down that hole. Calvinist worship a different god than Jesus of the Holy Scriptures
Finally, someone else has the courage to say what others are too afraid to say. You're right, brother. Calvinism acribes the characteristics of a tyrannical, genocidal, and deceitful God to the God of the Bible. As much as they would deny it its exactly what they promote.
@@SirMillz Perhaps you can tell me in what way you imagine that the God in whom Calvinist believe is different from the God who has revealed Himself in Scripture. Either put up or shut up.
@@SalvadoporGracia If you are going to alledge such blasphemous claims, you need, at a minimum, to attempt to demonstrate from real quotes from actual Calvinists that what you have alledged is a reality.
How can anyone that professes to believe in the incomprehensible reality of Jesus the Christ, be so fleshly as to identify themselves as something other than discples of CHRIST, especially choosing to base your identity on a mere man. Why would I call myself a calvinist, or any kind of other " ist ", " tist", or " dist ". Colossians chapter 2, explains who Christ is and that we are COMPLETE in HIM!
@Brotheral-pb1oj Careful. "Disciples of Christ" is a denomination. I'm sure you wouldn't want to identify with a denomiantion. Of course, we identify as followers of Christ, not as followers of Calvin. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that "Calvinism" is simply a nick-name for those who are soteriological Monergist. Perhaps if you tried, you could make a more banal comment.
@TheBereanVoice I love you much! And you're very sharp, clear, and concise. I love those qualities. I actually was simply referring to what Jesus Himself said about making Disciples. Truthfully I don't see how adding anything to that can be anything but meaningless, since the emphasis is supposedly to be on Christ and Christ alone. I don't see how saying one is a disciple of Christ constitutes being a denomination, yet I will say that if it is a denomination, it is what Jesus said, not what any man has imagined! My point is this: Why would any believer in Christ, willingly put emphasis on any, label, title, organization, as it relates to one's faith, when Jesus ALONE is the fulfillment of salvation? I'd love to hear your answer. I'm not beyond being enlightened.
@@Brotheral-pb1oj My answer is simply that so-called Calvinists have not chosen that designation for ourselves. It was assigned to us by those who oppose our views. I prefer to refer to my views as "soteriological monergism." Yet, if I describe what I believe about these issues, someone will invariably identify me as a "Calvinist." I do not claim to be a follower of Calvin. There are several areas in which I would disagree with both his doctrine and his practice. Simply saying one is a disciple of Christ does not make one a part of that denomination but there is a denomination called "The Disciples of Christ." Are you willing to affirm that you are a part of that denomination? I suspect not. But be careful because any label can be misunderstood.
@TheBereanVoice Thank you much. I do have a better understanding now, and I do appreciate your resolve. Although I do agree to disagree with your doctrine, I respect your professionalism, and sincerety in your belief, and I do think that you're an effective expositor. Thanks again, and stay blessed.
@@Brotheral-pb1oj Thank you for your kind response. I don't ask for agreement from those who do not yet understand and embrace our doctrine. All I ask is that our views be accurately represented and that we be treated as other than demon spawn.
Hey elder in the faith, I am a "Provisionist" and have worked with Leighton on a few things. And have been involved with the podcast for 6 years. As a matter of fact I recently sent him one of your videos, which is why, I think, he is responding to this video you put up today. I get it, no one likes to be misrepresented. Because to be honest it is lying. The things Flowers (and not just Flowers) says about what Calvinists teach are footnoted with citations from Calvin himself, Augustine, Dr James White, Dr RC Sproul, Dr Piper, and numerous others. Nothing Flowers says is without foundation. One point you made, which I understand, about God not being the "author of evil" we have always said that the confession says that. The point of our argument is that logically, without any philosophical steps, that if God decreed all things, that logically makes him the author of evil. And in many Calvinistic podcasts which we critique they say God "authored all of history". We know and thank God Calvinists still try to maintain that God is not the author of evil, Flowers and others like myself encourage Calvinists in that fact often on our podcasts (I hold on as well), we just think the theology itself nessecitates it. For Flowers and I, we have been dealing with this millenial new generation of Calvinists who most dont even know that historical Calvinists believed and taught that the atonement was sufficient for the whole world, but only efficient for the elect. So often, when we deal with them they limit everything about the atonement and word it in such a way to be so outside of historical Calvinists that if they know John Bunyan, Isaac Watts, Calvin, Augustine and a host of other Calvinists who believed in the universal "extent" of the atonement they would possibly drop that point or be so bad, as RC Sproul said "A four pointer is a Arminian" and would cast the out of Reformed theology. I really am sorry if you understand us to be misrepresenting YOU. I along with Flowers understand that the older generation of Calvinists like yourself and those prior to you were much more consistent with Scripture and were not, and are not, the neo Calvinists of today. I'm so sorry. But our polemics are focused on this new generation, who I think you also would want to seperate from.
Kevlar Provisionalist Theology, The answer is simple. All he needs to do is state that there are some so-called Calvinists who have departed from the Calvinistic doctrine that has been held for hundreds of years. I know he quotes Calvin,, Piper, Sproul, White et. al. But not one of them would agree in causal determinism in the sense that God's decree causes sinners to act wickedly. That is simply not what any of them are saying. We believe that God has determined to use second causes and the free actions of His creatures to bring about his sovereign purpose. Yes, He is actively involved in effectively accomplishing His decree, but He does not need to put evil thoughts and purposes into sinner's minds to accomplish his purpose. If younger folks who wish to call themselves "Calvinists" do not agree with that, then they are not Calvinists.
Provisionalism 101 If you or Leighton D.Min are not stating our view as we would state it but taking excerpts from Calvin, Piper et. al., out of the broader context in which they were written or spoken, then you are being dishonest. In the interest of charity, I would like to think Leighton is simply too obtuse to understand our doctrine, but I fear he is a man who is willing to twist the statements others have made [read LIE] in order to promote his agenda.
Your comment here was very thoughtful and kind. I live in the DFW area and met with Leighton for lunch about 5 years ago now (although I could be way off on that). And you guys are doing great work. For me personally, I’ve written my first of what I hope will be several books, and plan to start making videos soon. I’ve got a different take on Romans 9 that I think ultimately settles this entire debate.
Late Augustinian Gnostic influenced philosophical fatalistic determinism imposed onto Scripture by a former Gnostic - and by John Calvin drawing from his philosophy is NOT the gospel of Christ. The gospel; which means good news: is not the false “gospel” message of “bad news for most”: “Smile. God MIGHT love you.” That’s not the gospel of the New Testament.
@rosschenault4227 You can't identify one idea that Calvinists hold in common with Gnosticism. And Calvinists don't believe in fatalistic determinism either. Whether you like it or not, the gospel is bad news for those who refuse to repent. Additionally, you can't find a single example in the apostolic message recorded in the Book of the Acts of anyone telling sinners indescriminately. "Smile. God loves you." Clearly, that is not the gospel of the NT either. If you are going to comment on my channel, at least try to get the facts before you do. Otherwise, I will block you and delight in doing so.
Calvinism is an obsession. Some people see Calvinism in every verse, on every page, and central to the Bible. The speaker sounds like questioning Calvinism causes him severe emotional trauma.
@@TheBereanVoice The Calvinism debate is a dead-end. It only exacerbates quarraling. What we can say with certainty of Biblical warrant is that believers are saved. Trying to unravel and pry into eternal decrees is a fools errand.
@@bibleblessingsministries2964 All one needs to do is believe what God has revealed. There is no need to pry into eternal decrees. Those are inscrutable. What is not inscrutable is what God has clearly revealed. Believing God's clear revelation does not exacerbate quarraling. A misrepresentation of what God has revealed exacerbates quarraling.
Some people, like you, can't see God's sovereign activity anywhere. Feel free to remain comfortable in your ignorance. I won't waste my time trying to convince you of anything. Enjoy your superficial and puerile existence.
Have you read "Calvin's Institutes." John Calvin does not believe in "Calvinism." He does not desire to comprehend those doctrines that can only be apprehended by faith. A Calvinist has "settled" a doctrine with reason rather than with "faith in Jesus Christ our Lord."
Yes, I have read the institutes. What you are trying to express is a bit opaque, but there is no way Calvin would not have agreed with what Calvinists believe. The reality is you don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about.
I have seen his response video. And, I do understand that some understand Calvinism and still reject it. That has nothing to do with my point. My point is that He doesn't understand Calvinism even though he claims to have been a Calvinist at one time. I once believed what he believes and I understand it very well. If he once believed what Calvinists believe, he should at a minimum be able to articulate it correctly. He does not. He is either deliberately misrepresenting what we believe or he never understood what we believe. I don't mind people disagreeing with what I believe. I do mind them misrepresenting it. Spurgeon said, "How earnestly do they set themselves to confute what no one defends."
The issue is NOT that he doesn't understand Calvinism because after 50 years in it, it would be arrogant to say he doesn't understand it. The issue is that with every Calvinist I met and debated what my own problems with these doctrines, they ALL had different responses to each letter of their mantra TULIP. They would often say, when unable to respond biblically to my argument, "well, I'm a four point Calvinist" or "well. I'm a three point Calvinist." It's Impossible for you to say, "he doesn't understand Calvinism" because who knows which point of Calvinism you hold to be solid, and which ones you choose to claim, as most Calvinists do, "Its a mystery." The whole doctrine is a house of cards that many are starting to see with each video from ex-calvinist.
@@eugenejoseph7076 What Calvinists believe is not defined by what someone you may have interacted with on social media believes but by our confessions of faith. If you want to konw what Calvinists believe you need to read the Canons of Dort, the Belgic Confession, WCF, London Baptist confession of Faith 1689, the Philadelphia Confession 1689. You will not find in any of those confessions what Flowers claims.
@@eugenejoseph7076 Flowers was never a Calvinist and he certainly hasn't spent 50 years in it. I don't think he is even that old. Calvinistic doctrine is not defined by someone you may have chatted with on social media. Read the confessions that have defined Calvinism and have been around for hundreds of years.
Well I am glad I really did leave Calvinism behind and begin a process of returning to a God who is loving and kind. It's a real battle to achieve this. Whilst in the end Calvinism stands or falls by how faithfully or not it is to scripture the cynical attitude and gracelessness towards Leighton Flowers is enough to put anyone off, and I have seen an awful lot of this on youtube comment sections where anyone has dared to move away from Calvinism. Calvinists by their attitude are a living epistle that something isn't quite right. This piece came over as somewhat embittered rather than satire.
@kenbeach5021 If you imagine that Calvinism teaches that God isn't loving and kind, you never understood Calvinism. Flowers jumped on the Calvinism bandwagon when it was cool to be a Calvinist and then jumped off when he saw a financial opportunity. He has no understanding of Calvinism and regularly misrepresents our views. To leave Calvinism, one must ignore a great deal of Scripture and take a great deal of Scripture out of context. If you think Calvinism denies that God is loving and kind, you never understood Calvinism. If he weren't, you and I would be burning in hell right now. If you think we are hard on Flowers, just wait until he has to give an account of himself when he stands before God in judgment. He thinks nothing can be true if fallen creatures don't have control over it. If that were the case, nothing would be true. I would far rather trust God to govern my life than to trust myself.
@kenbeach5021, If you imagine that Calvinism teaches that God is not loving and kind, you might find the following quote from Calvin confusing. He wrote, "For he aboundeth in pardoning. Now, because it is difficult to remove terror from trembling minds, Isaiah draws all argument from the nature of God, that he will be ready to pardon and to be reconciled. Thus the Holy Spirit dwells on this part of doctrine, because we always doubt whether or not God is willing to pardon us; for, although we entertain some thoughts of his mercy, yet we do not venture fully to believe that, it belongs to us. It is not without reason, therefore, that this clause is added, that we may not be hindered by uncertainty or doubt as to his infinite compassion toward us." and "For as the heavens are higher than the earth. This agrees well with that passage in which David, describing the mercy of God, says, (Psalm 103:11) that it is as much more excellent "as the heavens are higher than the earth;" for although the application is different, yet the meaning is the same. In short, God is infinitely compassionate and infinitely ready to forgive; so that it ought to be ascribed exclusively to our unbelief, if we do not obtain pardon from him."
@kenbeach5021 Hodge wrote, "God’s dealings, even with reprobate sinners, are full of tenderness and compassion. All the day long he extends the arms of his mercy, even to the disobedient and the gainsaying." And you imagine that you were ever a Calvinist if you were denying that God is loving and kind? You really need to get a grip.
@kenbeach5021, If you people would stop misrepresenting our views, you would no longer see us confronting clowns like Leighton for his prodigious lies.
@kenbeach5021, Commenting on Romans 10:21John Murray wrote, " Verse 20 must not be dissociated in interpretation and application from verse 21. It is the contrast that is particularly relevant to the present interest.The contrast is that between the favour shown to the Gentiles and the disobedience of Israel. The aggravated character of the latter is made apparent by the terms that are used to express God’s longsuffering and lovingkindness: “All the day long did I stretch out my hands”. In Gifford’s words, “it is a picture of ‘the everlasting arms’ spread open in unwearied love”.²⁵ The overtures of grace are not merely represented as rejected but as made to “a disobedient and gainsaying people”. The perversity of Israel, on the one hand, and the constancy andintensity of God’s lovingkindness, on the other, are accentuated by the fact that the one derives its character from the other." So much for the idea that Calvinism teaches that God is not loving and kind. You have been lied to my friend.
Bait and switch, kinda typical of Calvinists... What a dishonest take as well. Saying God has assigned some people a sinful nature in which they choose to do only evil of their own accord, makes Good the ultimate cause.. no amount of compatiblism nonsense can change that basic logical fact.
Who do you imagine believes that God "assigned" SOME people a sinful nature. Perhaps you have never read Eph. 2:1-3. There is no question that God is the Prime mover. In that sense, He is the ultimate cause of all that occurs. What happens would never happen if God had not intended to permit to occur. That does not mean that God is ever the proximate cause of sinful actions. Joseph's brothers acted wickedly according to their evil intentions but they were doing what God intended for them to do without CAUSING them to do it because He had a good purpose for permitting their actions. Compatibilism in the theological sense is not the same as compatibilism in a philosophical sense as compatible with Causal Determinism. Causal determinism is not a doctrine that Calvinists believe.
Over the pass 50 years, the more I study the Bible, the stronger becomes my belief in God’s complete sovereignty. ‘God is not man’ and our problem is that we think ‘He is altogether like ourselves.’, and He’s not. There is absolutely no way mankind can be saved apart from God’s sovereign decree. I don’t have a PhD or ThD but I do have a mind trained in the Bible, Science and Law, and I believe Dr. Flowers is teaching a false unbiblical doctrine.
I would suggest that it is the Calvinist who limits God's sovereignty. For some reason they assume God cannot accomplish his will while at the same time allowing human autonomy. The two are not contradictory. Also, I find Calvinists are usually locked into a mindset that sees reading and considering carefully arguments counter to their dogma as a beneath them. They have an unheathy defensiveness, elitism, and contempt for those who hold Biblical views contrary to theirs.
Your sarcasm and mockery are not becoming a believer. Your fake humility verges on deception. Rather than attacking Dr. Flowers, perhaps you could use scripture to make your case. Your presentation is very off putting.
You can reject Calvinism, but you can't deny election and predestination is clearly taught in scripture. When people say they reject Calvinism (I know nothing of Calvin by the way) they are basically saying they don't like the fact God is sovereign and does what he well wants to do. It's feelings over what is revealed in scripture. Why can't God do what ever he wants? "For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” Romans 9:15 "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." Romans 9:18
@@artemusbowdler7508 Is that what u think of the word of God? I'm also amazed at the level of hatred coming from those who speak against calvinists Surely we can disagree on certain topics, but I think some forget that if someone has believed upon Christ, he/she is saved and is a brother/sister in the Lord. To hate a brother is to be a murderer at heart according to scripture I fully believe in the doctrine of election, but, I still love those who disagree and call Jesus their Lord
Nobody's rejecting that God is sovereign and does what he well wants. We just think you have misunderstood election and predestination, and forced your meanings on them to fit your presuppositions.
@@faithmatterspodcast umm, same can be said about you. Eisegesis can go both ways! But, the difference is, none of you have bothered to explain these verses (has nothing to do with Calvin, but what scripture plainly says) "For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” Romans 9:15 "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." Romans 9:18 "44“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day" John 6:44 "Many are called, few are chosen" Matt 22:14 I'd like to hear your thoughts in these passages (there are so many more we can discuss after these! You cant just ignore them, nor do violence to scripture by trying to twist them into saying something they are not
@@FearNot777 They've been explained dozens of times, right here on TH-cam, and even very recently. "none of you have bothered to explain these verses" Look up Dr. Malcom Yarnell and Dr. Joel Korytko on Romans 9 for starters.
Sean Vaughn Of course, we are controlled by our desires. [see for example Jer. 18:12]. Since when has having sinful desires been a good excuse for anything? Jesus said, that to look on a woman to desire her sexually is to have committed adultry with her already. You will be judged for your thoughts and desires as well as for your actions. Only God's grace can deliver us from ourselves. I can't imagine how you can sleep at night if you believe the course of human events is controlled human free will.
I don't care what ANY Calvinist says. What does God say in his book? The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9). God would like everyone saved, but when people keep rejecting him he eventually gives up on them and like Pharaoh, hardens their heart. Paul explains this in Romans chapter 9.
"God gives up on them"??? It appears that you don't believe in God's perfect omniscience of all things future. Do you honestly believe that God is waiting patiently for sinners to repent whom He has known from eternity will never do so? I believe God has published His desire for the sinner's repentance. Being holy, He cannot desire that people continue in their sinful rebellion, but the verse you quoted is a poor one to demonstrate that point. Are you unaware of the fact that God had expressed His intention to harden Pharoah's heart before Pharoah ever disobeyed His command to let His people go? You might wish to ask to whom Peter was writing in 2 Peter 3:9 and to whom "us" refers. You don't honestly believe that God waits patiently, hoping that someone he knows will never believe will do what He knows perfectly they will never do, do you?
4:44: If you challenge Calvinists that God would *never* meticulously and exhaustively decree sins like child-rape (James 1:17), Calvinists respond by asking, "Well, did God know it would happen? If He did know, then He must have decreed it." So, Calvinists parlay divine omniscience into divine determinism. Calvinists can't fathom the idea that God could know the future without also causing it. They just can't fathom that. If God knows it, He had to have caused it. Right? No. God can know Peter's imminent denial without causing his denial.
@richardcoordsYou should spend time finding out what Calvinists actually believe. Who believes God, by His decree, determines to CAUSE all that will occur in His world. God can also decree Peter's imminent denial without causing it. Acts 4:27-28 makes it clear that God determined beforehand what Herod, Pilate, the Jews and Gentile did in crucifying Jesus but He caused none of it. The point I would make relative to God's omniscience is that if God knew all that would occur in His world [and He did], He either approved that it would be or He did not approve that it would be. If He approved that it would occur, that is to decree it. [Paraphrased from Jonathan Edwards].
The ignorance of some of you people is mind boggling. If you are going to attempt to argue against Calvinism, please attempt to educate yourself first.
Ben Anderson, For some reason, I can't read your entire comment but I will respond to your definition of "free will." First, it would be helpful if you would show me the verse or verses that indicate that sinners are free to choose righteousness and that their sinful choices are outside God's control. My Bible states that God is the one who is effectively accomplishing all according to the counsel of His will. The Lord of hosts [armies] has sworn saying, "Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand. " It sounds as if the Assyrians were under Yahweh's control. Read Isa. 14:27. Second, I would suggest that you avoid defining such terms using an English dictionary. If you can find a verse in which we are told that sinner's have a will that is completely independent of fallen human nature or that sinners are outside of God's control, please attempt to apply this definition to it. Such a definition can be helpful in a court of law. Did the person act under the control of another person so that they were forced to do what they did or did they commit the crime of their own free will." Did they freely choose to do what they did, or were they forced to act contrary to their desires? In that sense, sinners have free will. We choose what we choose freely and voluntarily, but we do not choose that for which we have no desire and to which our entire being is totally averse.
TULIP is purpose built to take the focus off Christ alone for salvation. T - removes our requirement to believe in Jesus (says we can’t) U - removes our requirement to believe in Jesus (says we’re already saved) L - removes our requirement to believe in Jesus (says Jesus atonement wasn’t for all sin just the chosen, back to point U) I - removes our requirement to believe in Jesus (says we can’t believe God will make us believe) P - removes our requirement to believe in Jesus. (Says God will make us preserve) Any teaching that takes the focus off Christ alone for salvation is a false teaching.
@andrewtsousis3130 You obviously have no clue. The sinner's inability because of unwillingness to believe does not remove their responsibility to repent and believe. Unconditional election is not salvation. Calvinists do not think there is no responsibility to believe. If any of the elect should refuse to believe, they would be lost just like the rest. So-called limited atonement does not mean that Jesus' redemptive work was not of infinite value and abundantly sufficient to save any and every sinner. It does not obviate the necessity of faith in Jesus. God does not MAKE anyone believe. He removes our disposition to resist His command to believe and repent and gives us the desire to find in Christ our all in all. Perseverance means that we will continue to find in Christ our all in all until the end of our lives. I dare you to watch my series on Romans and Hebrews and find any place where iI "take the focus off of Jesus alone for salvation." th-cam.com/video/PKzvyOWap0Y/w-d-xo.htmlsi=PaOcJL3j5zoQaJhk th-cam.com/video/gl6UHgC3EOc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=mmuNYq5A8HGskTbA
@@TheBereanVoice if anyone has to question if their family and friends are “elect”, their hope for salvation is not in Christ alone, it’s in “election”. Christs work on the cross, takes a back-seat to “election” in Calvinism.
@@TheBereanVoice Plain scripture proves Calvinisim and TULIP to be false. Bible: And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the lord shall be saved. Calvinism: And it shall come to pass that only those predestined by the lord in eternity past will call on his name to be saved. Bible: The lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is long suffering to us ward, not willing that any should perish, but all shall come to repentance. Calvinism: The lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is long suffering to the elect, determined that they will not perish, and will be granted repentance. Bible: For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Calvinism: For God so loved the elect only, that He gave his only son for them, and regenerates their heart enabling them to believe in Him so that they alone will not perish but have eternal life. Bible: If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Calvinism: If you’re one of the elect from eternity past, you will confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and God will regenerate your heart so you can believe that God raised Him from the dead, for you were predestined to be saved.
@@andrewtsousis3130 That is why Calvinists don't ask whether a person is elect or not? That is not our business. . Our concern is whether a person has repented and believed God's promise of pardon and justification based on the redemptive work of Christ. And no, Jesus' redemptive work does not take a back-seat to election. I don't know where you get this crap but you could not be more wrong.
@@andrewtsousis3130 Much of what you have written here [not all since you have completely misrepresented what Calvinists believe about some of these verses] is an example of the either/or fallacy. You truly need to study what Calvinists actually believe before you display your prodigious ignorance further.
I'm going through videos and books by Dr. Leighton Flowers and others taking a view between Calvinism and Armenianism. It doesn't have to be black or white.
Flowers is on the Pelagian side of Arminianism, not between Arminianism and Calvinism. And it is black or white. Either sinners are truly dead in trespasses and sins or they are not. Flowers says they are not. Paul says they are. It is that simple.
I agree sinners are dead in trepasses and sins, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that God eliminates their ability to choose Him when presented with the Gospel. Dogmatism prevents people from pursuing further investigation and often puts God in a box. I'm still investigating.
@@BillMcFadden To be dead spiritually renders a person as incapable of operating in the spiritual realm as physical death renders a person incapable of operating in the physical realm. Making sinners spiritually alive is God's work. The gospel itself cannot effect that work. Unless you eisegete a text and read the idea of the sinner's free will decision into it, [You will not find Paul even suggesting that the sinner's decision effects spiritual life in any of these texts] you will never find free will in any text. For example, in Ephesians 2 Paul did not even hint at the idea that it was the sinner's decision that caused his spiritual resurrection. He wrote, "But God. . ." not "But you. . ." Additionally, 1 Cor. 1:30 clearly states that it is of God that believers are united to Christ. That would not be true if union with Christ were effected by the sinner's decision to humble himself and believe the gospel. Paul makes it clear in Romans one that sinners universally suppress God's truth in unrighteousness. Additionally, sinners universally regard the gospel as foolishness and sinners universally hate the light [Jesus and the good news about Him] and will not come to the light lest their deeds be exposed. The gospel itself cannot produce faith. If it could, everyone who heard it would believe. Certainly the gospel is one of the things of the Spirit since He is the one who has revealed the gospel to the apostles. Paul stated very clearly that the natural [soulish] man does not welcome the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know [love or approve] them because they are discerned by means of the Spirit and the soulish man is a person without the Spirit [see Jude 19].
@@BillMcFadden And God doesn't "eliminate" anyone's ability to choose Him. Unregenerate sinners are under the dominion of sin as a result of Adam's sin. How else could we all have been "by nature" [this phrase refers in Scripture what a person is by birth] children of wrath [deserving of wrath] just like the rest of mankind? Why else would the psalmist write that he was shaped in iniquity and conceived in sin?
Greg, We Calvinists emphasize human responsibility as much if not more than we do God's sovereignty. We all have a responsibility to state issues accurately.
@@TheBereanVoice That’s the whole point! God sovereignly determines all things and yet the sinner is held responsible for doing what God has determined for him to do. How does that work? Me no comprendo.
@@gregjay9933 I don’t pretend to understand completely how these things work. Neither did the apostle Paul. That is why he wrote, “. . .how inscrutable are His judgments [His decree] and His ways [the providential outworking of that decree] past tracing out.” It helps to understand that to say God has decreed all that will occur in His world, does not mean that He actively causes all that occurs. What is clear is that God holds sinners responsible because we do not choose or act contrary to our desires. I have never chosen to do a single thing that I did not want to do most at any given time. When we sin, we do so because we freely and voluntarily choose to do so apart from external constraint. We never sin because God has given us the desire to do so. When God judicially gives people over, He does not give them over to desires that are not their own. If we were God’s robots or puppets, we would never sin. I would urge you to study the interaction between Yahweh and the King of Assyria [Isa 10]. Additionally, I would urge you to watch my video, “Do Calvinists believe God is the author of sin?” and R.C. Sproul’s video, “If God is Sovereign, How Can Man Be Free.”
@@TheBereanVoice Since God decrees all that occurs does it really matter who is the cause of the actions? That which has been decreed will come to pass no matter who is the cause of the actions, therefore, the sinner is still held responsible for actions that have been decreed whether he is the cause or not. Seems a bit unfair to me. I don’t think it is accurate to say, “we do not choose or act contrary to our desires.” I often desire to eat pastries from the bakery and eat pizza every Friday night along with a can of coke, but I choose not to because I not only fear the rise of my cholesterol level, I fear the lashing from my wife. I’m sure we could all think of many examples of where we act contrary to our desires; it’s called self-control. It seems to me that in Isa 10 God warns of judgement for the evil doer and the only thing that is decreed is that judgement will surely come. There is nothing in this passage to suggest that God determines all that happens. My question is this - how is the sinner responsible for unbelief when he was not regenerated, nor given the faith or a heart of flesh in order to believe?
@@gregjay9933 If God were the cause of the sinful action and then judged sinners for the action, one might imagine some injustice. God is not tempted to evil and He does not tempt to evil. That is he does not draw people into sin by giving them a desire for it. If God's determining to use the sinner's fallenness to accomplish His holy purposes seems unfair to you, perhaps you need read and carefully study Romans 9:19ff. The sinner is responsible for his unbelief because it is his unbelief. If effectual calling or regeneration did not exist, sinners would not be without responsibility for their unbelief. In Isa 10, the king is the axe in Yahweh's hand. He is controlling the axe but the axe is responsible because what was in his heart [purpose] was not the same as what was in God's heart [purpose].
All of us who teach and preach will stand before God and answer for our teaching and how it affected people. I'm just not foolish enough to preach any other gospel than what Jesus preached (John 3:16) and what Paul preached (Romans 10:13). Oh, I know that you guys (Calvinists) think that you are really doing something, but just remember God is the first and final authority on what He Himself is communicating in His word. You certainty seem so brave and confident, you will one day see if you are this confident before our God.
And He will declare that I was right and you and your ilk were wrong. I dare you to compare the "evangelistic" jargon that you people use with the message the apostles and their companions preached as recorded in the Book of the Acts. Hint: You will never find your mesage there.
God decrees "Whatsoever comes to pass" but in such a way it doesn't make God the author. I believe that I save myself but in such a way it doesn't violate God's Sovereignty. These are both absurd but Calvinists actually believe the first one.
@Richard Rz It appears you are too obtuse to understand that God decreeing all that happens and God causing all that occurs are not the same. If God's decree were the proximate cause of all that occurs, the idea that His decree does not make Him the author of sin would be ridiculous. God has not decreed to cause anyone to sin. The problem is your inability to hold in your pea brain two biblical concepts that seem to contradict your idea of God's character and actions. There is a group of verses that clearly state that God has an unchangable purpose which He will infallibly accomplish. "My purpose shall stand and I will do all my pleasure" He is the one who effectively accomplishes ALL according to the counsel [wise decree] of His will. And there is at least one verse that states that God is not allured to evil and He does not allure anyone to sin. Both ideas must be held in tension. The conclusion must be that God has determined all that will occur in His world without being the proximate cause of all that occurs. He clearly predetermined the actions of those wicked men who crucified Jesus and yet He did nothing [apart from withholding His restraint and common grace] to cause any of them to act as they acted.
Typical pejorative/ad hominem laced response. It is always the other fellow's "obtuseness" or "ignorance" or "pride" or "__________". You'll also notice that he begins with the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. This is the Calvinist's favorite game. "God decreeing all that happens and God causing all that occurs are not the same." These are all PHILOSOPHICAL constructs without a shred of Biblical support. Example: “Man is spiritually dead therefore God must regenerate (save) him before he can be saved.” The Calvinist god repeatedly commands a dead corpse to do this or that. Common sense would lead one to believe that to equate spiritual death to physical death is a mistake. The plain sense of Scripture dictates that. But that’s not good enough for the Calvinist. It strains credulity for him. His investment in error won’t allow him to be satisfied with that. Calvinism is the rotten fruit of a corrupt root - a pagan hermanutic brought about by a PHILOSOPHICAL approach to seeming Biblical inconsistencies instead of a Scriptural approach to reconciliation of seeming inconsistencies. Calvinism is man's attempt to explain salvation out of his sin-marred reason, an Augustinian seerstone if you will.@@TheBereanVoice
Yet another profoundly stupid statement. One would think you people would want to stop looking as if you have no brains and no understanding of anything related to Scripture.
According to your logic, if a person does not have a terminal degree (doctorate) and the doctrine has been around for over 500 years and it does not have very many followers, then the doctrine is correct? Islam fits this criteria. Your whole premise and approach is severely flawed. How did you get an MA at Westminster? Occam's razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as 'Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.'" If you use Occam's approach to studying the Bible, you would not be a Calvinist.
Calvinism is sytem TULP by which is added to scripture which misrepresents contradicts and kills the freewill of mankind. God does not ordain everything such as sin or salvation God desires all mankind to be saved and come to the point of salvation .The Gospel is to believed he does the saving,if by calvinism you are chosen to go to hell then he cant desire you to be saved. People are held responsible at the judgement,if God chose them to go hell then God is responsible. everyones name who is to be saved is already in the lambs book of life from the foundation of the earth because in his foreknowledge God knows those who will call upon the name of the Lord and believe the gospel ,its also true he knows those who will not call upon the Lord to believe the gospel thats why there not in the book of life from the foundation of the world ,he Elohim nows your freewill discision on to believe in him before the foundation of the earth ,
@garycumner6804 I don't intend to waste my time correcting your prodigious misunderstanding of what Calvinists believe. I have produced almost 250 videos. I suggest you watch them and interact with them. There are 37 of those that address passages on which Calvinists and synergists disagree. Additionally, I have produced series on Romans and Hebrews. I plan to make a short video soon on free will, [what Calvinists deny about free will and what we affirm]. That should help with your grossly distorted view. You will also find a video in which I distinguish God ordaining all that occurs from God CAUSING [as the proximate cause] all that occurs. I have also addressed whether God desires the repentance of every sinner and yet has determined to leave some to perish. Even you believe God, knowing that billions would perish if He created, decided to proceed with creation. If by creating, He approved that what He knew for certain would occur, then He determined it. Let me know when you have watched my videos and we can have an informed discussion.
It is interesting you are rejecting Calvinism because of some author you are currently reading. Should not your theology be based on scripture and not on books about scripture. You should say I believe or disbelieve because of what scripture says and what the Holy Spirit is showing. Now if any man have not the Spirit he is none of His! You are not going to be saved by doctrine but through "knowing" God. Just because you have sound doctrine does not mean you are saved. To be saved you must love the Lord they God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. I believe in reformed theology because it best explains scripture to me. I came out of the Arminian camp but the Bible never made any sense to me until I started thinking along reformed lines. The more I just read scripture and turned from reading about scripture the more the Bible made sense. But you must be born again!! I spend a lot of time seeking God's face, calling on the name of the Lord, praying without ceasing, and/or building up my my holy faith praying in the Holy Ghost if you will. I believe I know God and that He knows me. There must be a personal relationship. True believers are the bride of Christ. They should long for His presence and to be with Him. God is not interested in mail order brides!!!
@@TheBereanVoice Why don't you indicate in the title of the video that it's satire? I wasted my time watching some of your dumb video because I thought it was about someone genuinely explaining why they rejected the false doctrinal system of Calvinism.
@@ETube1971 It isn't a false doctrine and if you are so stupid as to believe anything Leighton says, you deserve to be deceived into watching a video that makes fun of him.
Jack, Jack, Jack 🙄...I can't help but think that you're trying to give the impression that you, as well as most Calvinists, believe that Jesus actually *expiated* the sins of all human beings; that you believe in a "universal" atonement!!! That's misleading Jack 🙊 at the least, brother. Just admit it: on your view, God never loved seriously (i.e., salvifically); never expiated the sins of; and is pleased to punish for eternity untold numbers of those God never chose to love so as to save them; whose sins were never actually covered by the blood of Christ. 🤺
I'm not sure who Jack is but I have no trouble freely confessing that God did not send Jesus to make propitiation for those who will perish in their sins. You are showing your ignorance simply by asking such a question. Perhaps you can show me a biblical passage that states that Jesus died to cover anyone's sins with His blood. Any more of your stupid crap and I will mute you.
Leighton Flowers has a Masters in Divinity with Biblical languages, so he does have scholarship in original languages it's just not his area of expertise so he is not a fluent speaker of these languages. This does not mean he can't do proper word study analysis of original languages as part of his hermanutical process in rendering scriptural truth. His Phd is in the field of soteriology but he has been a director of apologetics for a large institution (can't quite remember exactly the name so I won't try to put the name here). I'm sure he is knowledgeable in many other areas aside from the subject of this video. I would caution though in general taking for granted that anyone's proclamations of truth are accurate just because of scholarship or the amount of social media followers they have; I think Dr. Flowers would tell you the same thing.
He doesn't even understand how the language works. He doesn't have a PhD. He has a DMin and it is not in the field of soterilogy, or as he would say Shoteriology. additionally, he violates every hermenutical principle in the book. The truth is, he has a cash cow and he intends to milk it all the way to the bank. To him, it doesn't matter how many people he leads astray. Nice that he has you duped, but the intelligent among us aren't buying it.
@@TheBereanVoice if there is anyone who is clueless about hermanutics it's you, but that's understandable coming from someone who questions God's integrity and refuses to face where the conclusions of your beliefs lead. At least have the honesty and courage to "face the music" of your own beliefs. Leighton has a Phd from New Orleans Theological Seminary, an accredited institution, so I would advise you to quit braking the 9th commandment. If anyone is being "duped" it's you; but then again you have no interest in the truth, you just want to follow a deceitful system that corrupts and manipulates scripture. I have had discussions with the likes of you before and have found it to be a worthless endeavor, and so I won't waste my time with you. Feel free to resort to third grade mentality name calling if it makes you feel better about yourself. Have a nice day.
@@bwc6520 In what way do you imagine that I question God's integrity? I beleive all that God has revealed about Himself and nothing more. No, Leighton does not have PhD. He holds a DMin, That is a degree for those who can't cut it intellectually. I have 8 years of Theological and Biblical education beyone secondary school. I have studied the biblical languages extensively. How much biblical and linguistic training do you have? I am glad you don't wish to engage me further since you are not worth my valuable time
By the way, Flowers took two courses in Greek. That hardly constitutes scholarship in biblical languages. Perhaps rather than persist in making your scurrilous accusations, you might want to put your money where your mouth is.
@@TheBereanVoice your like the Pope, all that studying and you still couldn't discern your way out of a wet paper bag. I am not interested in taking your money from you. Your someone who can look truth in the face and call it false.
If I am grumpy, it is because clowns like Leighton continue to misrepresent what we beleive. I have never been more convinced that soteriological Monergism is correct.
@@TheBereanVoice I don’t know of any non-Calvinists that don’t believe the same thing. Of course we believe that God did it all with regard to salvation. It’s an argument that doesn’t need to be, yet here we are .
@@humanson143 No, non-Calvinists don't beleive the same, Every synergist I have even interacted with has believed that God responds to the sinner's free will decision. Calvinists believe that sinnners respond to God's effectual call by a free will decision. In the synergist's system, it is the sinner who distinguishes themself from other less humble, less pliable, less spiritual sinners. That isn't exactly God doing it all with regard to salvation now is it?
@@TheBereanVoice Why are you being dishonest by saying that "Calvinists believe that sinners respond to God's effectual call by a free will decision"? If someone makes a "decision" without any chance of making any other decision how can that be considered a "free will decision"? That isn't a decision at all. A free will decision involves at least 2 viable choices with a genuine possibility that the person can make any of the choices. That's not what you believe when it comes to someone deciding whether to repent and put their faith in Christ or not. You believe that God alone decided before the foundation of the world what someone will do when it comes to either repenting and believing in Christ or not. What decision does the person really have in that case? None.
It is clear from hearing you speak that the following things are true. A.) You really have NOT listened very extensively to Leighton Flowers. B.) You haven't heard other former Calvinists. C.) These great men have quoted Calvin himself, Augustine, Piper, RC Sproul, James White, and many others to present what "Calvinists believe". Your little sarcastic video leaves much to be desired. You really DON'T know the depths of Calvinism. It seems you haven't even read the "Confessions of faith". I'm not convinced that you truly are a Calvinist.
@fredmiller6166 I have been a Calvinist for better than 55 years. I think I know by now what Calvinists believe. I know what Calvin taught. I have read him thoroughly. I also know what the modern Calvinists you have cited believed. I can guarantee you that Flowers is misrepresenting our views. What part of Calvinism do you imagine that I would deny?
@fredmiller6166 What I can guarantee you is that neither Calvin nor Calvinists believed/believe in causal determinism. That God has determined what will occur in His world and is providentially, actively engaged in bring about what He has determined will occur does not mean that He is the proximate cause of all that occurs. And yes, I have read and understand the Confessions of Faith and the Canons of Dort. If you understand chapter 3 of the WCF, The LBC 1689, the Philadelphia Confession 1742, you will know that Calvinists have roundly rejected the idea that God is the author of sin, or that He violates the will of the creature in the outworking of His decree. Perhaps you can tell me what aspect of Calvinism you imagine I would deny.
You Believing or not believing is not the question. Is this doctrine of predetermined history true or not? Read and do your own study. Stop giving your critical mind over to men! John 16:13. Learn from the Holy Spirit. He is the one you should be listening to.
@@eugenejoseph7076 - i don’t quite know what you mean by “giving my critical mind over to men” - i exercise hermeneutics in my bible study, so yes the Holy Spirit is definitely my teacher.
Dig a little deeper and you’ll see the early church didn’t teach Calvinism. As far as how much you’ve studied and all the letters after your name or any other teachers name that’s just boastful pride, no better than the pharisees. I believe Jesus used fishermen. If reading the scriptures doesn’t pierce your heart the only thing you have to stand on are your degrees. Pure utter nonsense.
Of course, God uses fishermen, but He also used people like Luke and other highly educated men. It would be difficult to argue that Paul was just an ignorant fisherman. The only people who despise higher education are those who don't have it. There are many doctrines the early Church did not teach with the same clarity that, over the course of Church history, have made their way into our creeds and confessions. The early leaders of the Church were too busy fighting errors like Gnosticism and other errors to have been as definitive about other issues as were later confessions and creeds. I can show you quite a number of statements from the so -called Fathers that indicate that they believed in sovereign election, pervasive sinful corruption, the imputation of Adam's sin etc. No, I don't stand on my degrees, but I highly value the education that stands behind them.
I don’t despise education I despise arrogance. If your defense is solid there’s no need to use sarcasm (flesh tearing) to defend your stance. As an earlier commenter pointed out instead of attacking Dr. Flowers you could’ve made your rebuttal of his beliefs using scripture.
@@laurabethuy3585 I was not attacking Flowers. I was showing that he is lying about what Calvinists believe. I was not attempting t rebutt his beliefs. If you want to see me rebutting his beliefs, watch my series "Battleground Passages."
It appears that you are accusing me of arrogance. Since you don't know me and do not know my heart, perhaps you can tell me what right you have to play God.
@@TheBereanVoice Your arrogance comes shining through in your video and in your comments. We don't have to be God in order to discern the attitude of someone like you. You make it very clear.
Only when you pull random verses out of context and then add your own. I've listened to a few and they pluck a verse from a chapter or two of Romans then combine it with a verse from Peter. On and on it goes. The one thing they excell at is bashing others.
@@StringofPearls55 I have an idea. Why don't you watch my TH-cam series on Romans and show me how I have taken any verse out context? I think you are thinking about synergists who regularly rip verses from their contexts and attempt to establlish their views bases on a handful of verses.
Making a statement of faith that professes biblical doctrines is one thing. To then go on and add something that one must believe that effectually negates that statement, is the very essence of what it means to be in a cult. You can't say men have free will and also deny it, any more that you can limit atonement to the very elect when you have misrepresented the biblical doctrine of election in the context in which it was written. Calvinists cause confusion because that is what Calvin did and that is who they have chosen to follow. Yet we have a video of Dr. James White attempting to evangelize a mormon actually stating to him that the doctrines of TULIP are not found in scripture therefore he can't use them as an excuse. Perhaps you have a different understanding of 'confusion' but that example does it for me!
Robin Q, Thanks for sharing with us the evidence of your profound ignorance regarding these issues. Do you suppose "free will" might be used in two different senses, one of which we deny and the other of which we affirm? Perhaps you can tell us whether Jesus was one with the Father or separate and distinct from the Father. Does that question confuse you?
@@TheBereanVoice No that doesn't confuse me one bit: Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. John 10:30 I and my Father are one. John 14:9-11 (KJV) 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
@@robinq5511 It seems that you acknowledge that seemingly contradictory ideas can both be true but in different senses, e.g., sinners can be said to have free will in one sense and not in another sense.
@@TheBereanVoice The error I see in Calvin's ideas on free will come from the fact that he neglected to consider God's work in Israel that gives us a proper biblical understanding of faith vs works as well as God's grace and man's free will. They were afterall given to us as 'ensamples' (1 Cor 10:11) of what NOT to do lest we find ourselves worshiping an idol and not the true God.
That was childish, first of all. Second, it was a careless assessment of Flowers’ positions. Change your attitude and you may be able to improve your biblical beliefs.
I don't really care whether you think it was childish or not, but it was a spot on assessment of the great heretic's positions. Flowers regularly lies about what Calvinists believe and anyone who isn't completely ignorant knows it. If it weren't for a bunch of ignorant Southern Baptists, [knowledgable Southern Baptists would be something of an oxymoron] he would have no followers at all
Hi, I am not sure if you are addressing me in this comment. If so, please let me know how you think I am making things up about Calvinists and Calvinism.
@gerritkalkman4384 I don't know if you are addressing me in this comment but if so, can you tell me how I am making up things about Calvinists and Calvinism?
This video is a disappointment. I see the point you're trying to make. However, the tone and the failure to think critically about Calvinism help nobody who might sincerely have questions.
Well, if you have questions, watch my series titled, "Battleground Passages," and "The danger of faulty presuppositions." If you are sufficiently obtuse as to believe anything Leighton Flowers and his followers have to say, there is probably little hope for you.
@@TheBereanVoice Well, you know, I didn't even know who Mr. Flowers was. For me, one of the marks of a true follower of Christ is that they engage with other folks in a truly Christlike manner, which I felt you failed to do in your video, and certainly in your response here. Suggesting that people thinking differently than you are "stupid" or "obtuse"? Does that sound like a heart that is full of the love of Christ? 2 Corinthians 13:5, Galatians 5: 22-23.
@@jasonthiessen7873 What would you call people who after being told time after time that they are misrepresenting your views, continue to do so after being corrected, but who insist that they are not doing so? If that isn't stupid and obtuse, I don't know what is. I would be happy to interact with you about what we actually believe but it is characteristic of those who disagree with Calvinists to horribly misrepresent us. Paul said that he wished the Judaizers would emasculate themselves and he called the High Priest a wall where men urinated. I think he was full of the Christ. Jesus himself called people liars. Anyone who loves God is going to hate those who blaspheme His name as many Provisionists do.
Good for you. Everyone should question their Framework. Like my pastor said we need to have a big B bible and a small F framework. I rejected Calvinism based off of reading John Piper, RC Sproul, and James White. What was being said by these fine gentleman is clearly in contradiction with scripture. I only later learned that the root of Calvinism was Gnostic in origin. Vaya con Dios
@@TheBereanVoice I know they believe what they said. That's why I rejected Calvinism. However the Gnostic origins of Calvinism have been well documented in history. That's where I got it from. I got this from years of research however you can get it with two books. "While in Carthage, still as a young man, Augustine left the Christian church to follow the Manichaean Gnostic religion." Read "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism" Dr. Ken Wilson And "The Myth of Pelagianism" by Dr. Ali Bonner You will also then know that Augustine slandered (read Bore false witness) against Pelagius. That Pelagius denied and denounced the accusation of Augustine in front of a church court. He was then tried in absentia for the exact things he has previously been tried for and denied and denounced. We have three letters from Augustine where he admitted he didn't care what Pelagius really taught. He said that a system of self salvation needed to be denied in official capacity. Then the ol' Switcheroo takes place. The Brand new to the church (never seen before by Christians or Jews, Gnostics knew it well though) deterministic interpretation gets inserted, by redefining words to mean what they had never meant prior. I can listen to John MacAurther, and Paul Washer and really be edified by the sermon. He along with every other Calvinist I listen to regularly preach like my choices, and intentions matter. I listen to Douglas Wilson religiously, he truly is a word smith. However all of them change tone when they preach about Calvinism, I get whiplash every time. I can't be a Calvinist because of what the text of scripture says. I refuse to allow a philosophical framework (like Calvinism) change meanings in the text, instead of trying to understand what the authors meant. Especially when a Calvinistic reading of scripture makes the Bible contradict itself. If you reject EDD (exhaustive divine determinism), theistic fatalism, or any of its many other acronyms, then you can reconcile scripture. I am not saying that Calvinists are trying to be Gnostics just that the root of it, in Augustine is. John Calvin's The Institutes leans heavily on the writings of Augustine as he admits. Augustine's last eighteen years to be precise. The rest of the time he wrote just like the rest of the church from Jesus until that day. That's why my favorite preacher to this day is a reformed pastor. Like Spurgeon he is a very inconsistent Calvinist. When I came out of Atheism I was leaning Reformed and studied it at great length. Once I found that White, Piper, and Sproul put forward a deterministic model (that I recognize from my fellow atheists, only with God instead of Physics etc.) I knew that I wasn't in the right place yet, scripturally speaking. God cannot love all and not love all. God cannot determine all things and, not determine some things: Jeremiah 19:5 English Standard Version (God) "and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, 👉which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind👈" 1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. If God is the one who puts the Faith (or Pre-regeneration) in us then all should be saved. Not all are saved. God either failed, lied, or people can reject the free offer of the gospel, in spite of what God wants for us. Like AW Tozer said. “God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters in Christ, they just as St Paul said have been led astray by vain philosophy. Vaya con Dios
@@malvokaquila6768 No, the gnostic origins of Calvinism are not well documented. You cannot show me a single doctrine that Calvinists and Gnostics hold in common. That is all just a load of BS. Perhaps you can tell me who you think believes in Exhaustive Divine Determinism in a causal sense? Who do you think denies that God has granted limited freedom to sinners? Do you not understand that there is a difference between God's holy desire that sinners repent and his determination to secure the salvation of an innumerable multitude? If He had determined to save every sinner, He would have done so. If He had done nothing more than provide a possibility of salvation, all would be lost. There is no question that God has given limited moral freedom to sinners but that is the problem, not the solution.
@@malvokaquila6768 You seem to have conveniently left out the part about Augustine leaving and rebutting Manicheism. Someone has well said that if you think there is any affinity between Calvinism and Gnosticism you either misunderstand Calvinism or Gnosticism or both.
@@malvokaquila6768 Please consider the following differences between Calvinism and Manichaeism Manichaeism God-Polytheistic competing good and evil deities represented by light and darkness. All things material are evil and all things spiritual are good. Creation-A cosmic accident in which light which is good has been comingled with matter (darkness) which is evil. The Fall-Consists in creation itself. It consists in the comingling of light with darkness. Election-There were two groups within Manichaeism, the Elected and the Laymen [hearers]. We do not know how the Manichaeans decided who where elected, and who were not. Perhaps schooling and family background played into the equation. The hope of the layman was to be reborn as an elected one. Salvation-Involves the liberation of slivers of light from the evil, material body. In this world, small pieces of light are constantly being disentangled from the darkness, and the sun and the moon are two chariots bringing these pieces from the material (evil) world and back to the divine world and to the Pleroma. These particles of divine light can be seen in what we know as “the milky way.” Salvation in Gnosticism is achieved by self-knowledge, and human beings are regarded as capable of achieving this gnosis. Calvinism God-Monotheistic Trinitarianism-God is good and holy and sovereign over good and evil. He is the only Potentate. Creation-The sovereign act of our all-wise God by which He, out of nothing, brought the universe and all its inhabitants into being. He then declared all things created to be “good.” The Fall-The rebellion of Adam, whom God had created as His image bearer and appointed as the representative head of His descendants, against Him. Election-God’s sovereign, gracious, eternal unconditional, and unchangeable decision to rescue and restore a fixed number of particular fallen sinners for the manifestation of His eternal glory. Salvation-God’s monergistic work in which He reconciles, rescues, declares righteous and restores sinners, body and spirit, from the ravages of sin.
@@TheBereanVoice I guess it's directed in response to me since I mentioned being Christlike, but after a year transpired, interesting. And no, I don't recall the Lord delivering a 15ish minute end-to-end sarcastic diatribe so if there's a passage the presents the example I'm game to read it. And it's wonderful to read a nearby comment about someone who spent decades in Calvinism and abandoned the ideology.
Amber, No. Hyper Calvinism goes beyond Calvinism and denies that we are to preach the gospel promise of pardon to all sinners. If sinners perish under God's wrath it is because they have suppressed God's revelation of Himself. God does nothing randomly. If God saves any sinner it is despite our rebellion and totally by His mercy and grace.
Respectfully Sir, you need to do more research on your own system. You can start with the (TULIP). It clearly teachs what Calvinist believed. Dr Flowers is simply exposing it. Your attempt at scarcism failed !
NO he isn't. He is misrepresenting what Calvinists believe. Perhaps you should read the Canon's of Dordt and the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. The terms used in TULIP can be terribly misleading and they do not accurately represent what is affirmed in the creeds and confessions. I have been a Calvinist for better than half a century and I think I know what Calvinism teaches. It isn't what that charlatan claims.
@@TheBereanVoice I've read the Canon's, as well as the Counter Remonstrance of 1611, & Philadelphia Confession. What, either espoused by Flowers or found in TULIP, does not align with the doctrinal assertions put forth in those documents?
@@googplussucks4275 For one thing, Flowers by the very title of his movement, suggests that Calvinists believe God has made no infinitely valuable and abundantly sufficient provision for any and every sinner to whom the gospel is preached. We believe there is no less provision for every sinner than Flowers believes. As you know, having read the Canons, that is not the issue in so-called limited atonement. Additionally, Flowers states that Calvinists believe in CAUSAL determinism, As you know from the Philadelphia Confession, we have categorically denied that God is the author of sin but that in the providential outworking of His decree, He does no violence to the creature's will but accomplishes His purpose using second causes etc. Unlike what Flowers suggests, we strongly deny that God treats His creatures puppets or robots. I could go on and on. I am not suggesting that we don't believe the doctrines represented by TULIP, but that some of those terms have been misunderstood by those who oppose Calvinism. Fot example, some have interpreted "Irrestible grace" to mean something like "divine rape" in which God FORCES sinners to do something they are unwilling to do. As you should know. That is not the way we understand God's effectual call at all.
@@TheBereanVoice What "infinitely valuable and abundantly sufficient provision" has God made for those who He supposedly decided should not have any opportunity for salvation and instead were predestined to spend eternity in the lake of fire?
Debating theology ISN'T IMPORTANT. What the world needs is people trying to act like Jesus. We don't need more intellectualizing--we need more heart. We need more love, tolerance, charity, and forgiveness. Whereas, intellectualizing is a distraction and an excuse not to try and act like Jesus. IT'S OBVIOUS. And please don't respond to this comment by sending me an isolated quote from the Bible which attempts to defend your endless intellectualizing. Your responses are boring. Instead, have the courage to try and act like Jesus. NO MORE EXCUSES. NO MORE EXCUSES.
Thanks for the support. I must have sounded a little angry. But I'm tired of hearing others intellectualize, and sometimes I do it, too. @@carrotstick1970
Look at how many times Jesus’ spoke about doctrine in the Scriptures and then note the consequences for neglecting it (in His own words). Your comments are not Biblical and are the reason we’re in the theological desert we’re in today.
@@johnmcdonald4553 Your false doctrine of Calvinism makes our holy, just God as cruel and exclusive. Pride is not just a regular sin; pride is the root of all sin, and pride is the root of the false doctrine of Calvinism.
@@johnmcdonald4553 2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a soldier that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
You believe a false gospel that's what Calvinism is Gnosticism heresy There are 2 Gospels one is true one is false 1)Gospel(Good news) says:God so loved the world he gave his only son that WHOEVER BELIEVES in him shall not perish but have everlasting life 2)Gospel(terrible news) says: God so loved the predestined elect that he sent his only son to die for those whom he chose before the foundations of the world to be at his side while he damned the rest to Hell Which ones the true gospel(Good news)?both can't be correct,one sides wrong the other is right Are these the same gospels? BE HONEST BEFORE GOD LIEINGS AN ABOMINATION If not then ones under a curse according to Galatians 1:6-9,which ever sides right must not fellowship with those who preach a false Gospel,and are we going to fail like the Corinthian church failed in 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 an easily put up with those who preach a false gospel and another Jesus that has not be preached? Stop following popular Christianity and let's follow scripture The truth is IF YOUR a CALVINIST/REFORMED THEOLOGIAN and are HONEST YOU would have to come to the same conclusion I have and forsake fellowship with non Calvinist because they preach a different good news then the one you preach, if anyone is preaching opposite of what you may believe the true gospel is (Calvinism) then you can't consider non Calvinist saved according to galatians. Its very saddening that anyone holds this demonic view of God and I pray they repent, because it seems that in the same way the pharisees rejected Gods will for their lives and his knowledge so as to be saved is the same way many calvinist have been given over because they refuse to heed to true gospel for the sake of being apart of a bearded club of false Greek gnostic philosophy
@ThePreacherman9 Please consider the purpose clause in John 3:16, It begins with the word "that" in case you don't know what a purpose clause is. Please tell me what the verse states about any purpose or intention of God to save those who will never believe. Additionally, perhaps you can show me how the gospel message Calvinists preach differs from the apostolic message recorded in Acts. I can show you many ways in which the soteriological synergists' message differs from the apostolic message. Please consider the following contrasts between Gnosticism and Calvinism. Gnosticism was polytheistic. It posited an inferior creating god who created the material world and a higher god who ruled over the creator god. In addition, they believed there were emanations from the Pleroma God, who does not create, originally emanated archons (powers), like the light from the sun, seen, but not physical. One of the archons, Sophia ("wisdom"), in a moment of weakness, produced the Demi-Urge, who then created a physical [and inherently evil] universe, including humans. Calvinists are monothestic and believe God exists in three distinct persons. Gnostics were dualists who posited the idea that all matter, including corporeal beings, is evil and Spirit is good. A lesser and evil god created the material world which is inherently evil. Calvinists believe all that God created is good. Gnostics believed that “the fall” was the creation of matter itself by the Demi-Urge. They had no concept of human responsibility or free will in the proper sense of that term. Calvinists believe that all were represented by Adam, their federal head and fell in him, but that all are responsible for their own rebellion against God. We are both sinners by birth and sinners by choice. Gnostics believed that salvation involved the liberation of light slivers that have been trapped in evil [because material] beings so that they might return to the spirit [good] world. Calvinists believe that salvation not only grants sinners a right judicial standing before God, but also that it frees the believer from the reigning power of sin and conforms us more and more to Christ’s image. Gnostics believed that salvation came through an esoteric revelation [a hidden knowledge (gnosis) that was given only to some]. Calvinists believe that God has revealed Himself universally [both in general and special revelation] so that there are none without some knowledge of God. All that sinners need to know about God and His ways with men has been clearly and universally revealed. Gnostics believed that salvation involved release from the material world which is inherently evil into the spiritual realm which was inherently good. Calvinists believe that salvation involves the forgiveness of sins and restoration of a right relationship with God. Gnostics --Jesus [or some unknown creature like him] came as a teacher who would grant the knowledge [gnosis] necessary to escape the material world and return to the spirit world. Calvinists believe that Jesus, God in the flesh, came to redeem a people for Himself who would be zealous of good works. Manichean Gnostics with whom Augustine was associated prior to his conversion believed: MG--God-Polytheistic competing good and evil deities represented by light and darkness. All things material are evil and all things spiritual are good. Calvinists believe there is only one true God who created all things and all that came from His hand was good. MG--Creation-A cosmic accident in which light which is good has been comingled with matter (darkness) which is evil. Calvinists [see above] MG--The Fall-Consists in creation itself. It consists in the comingling of light with darkness. Calvinists [see above]. MG--Election-There were two groups within Manichaeism, the Elected and the Laymen [hearers]. We do not know how the Manichaeans decided who were elected, and who were not. Perhaps schooling and family background played into the equation. The hope of the layman was to be reborn as an elected one. Calvinists believe that election is God’s eternal and unchangeable decree in which He purposed to redeem and save an innumerable multitude from a fallen mass of humanity who richly deserved His wrath and curse. MG--Salvation-Involves the liberation of slivers of light from the evil, material body. In this world, small pieces of light are constantly being disentangled from the darkness, and the sun and the moon are two chariots bringing these pieces from the material (evil) world and back to the divine world and to the Pleroma. These particles of divine light can be seen in what we know as “the milky way.” Salvation in Gnosticism is achieved by self-knowledge, and human. Calvinists [see above]. So perhaps you can explain to me what Calvinists believe in common with Gnostics.
@@TheBereanVoice Youve been warned is obvious you'd rather depend on gnostic wisdom and wisdom of man warned against I'm 1 Corinthians 1,I pray you open your eyes and stop spreading these demonic Hereies that started with gnostics
Do all people who hold to the label "calvinist" believe the exact same things or are there very different beliefs people hold under the label calvinism?
"Ignorant of Calvinism" He did his doctoral dissertation on Calvinism. Every single thing he says about Calvinism is most of the time a quote or confession from a modern or historical Calvinist. There is absolutely nothing that Flowers asserts about Calvinism that is not a actual foundation of Calvinistic doctrine. Flowers and myself believe misrepresentation is actually lying, and we go out of our way to be honest and represent Calvinism honestly. The ignorance of Calvinism might be on you. Or maybe you actually don't like what actual Calvinism teaches.
Keegan Kidder If someone says they are a Calvinist they need to know the historic position/perspective. I would say that a consistent Calvinist is evangelistic and does not have a distorted view of the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man.
@@CaldwellApologetics Sovereign just means that God rules as he pleases and we all affirm that, we just believe God sovereignly decided to give man a limited amount of freedom. Sovereign does not mean divine determinism. Also, what if someone disagrees with you on what the standard is to be a "consistent calvinist". Who now is the true calvinist? Is it you, or the calvinist that disagrees with you? See how quickly that thinking unravels? Beyond that though, you didn't answer my question at all. Do people who wear the label "calvinist" hold a wide range of beliefs about calvinism? Simple yes or no would do. If yes, then which "calvinism" specifically is Dr. Flowers ignorant of? Who should Dr. Flowers critique that is a "consistent calvinist".
Keegan Kidder Friend all you have do is read the historic Calvinistic position like the Canons of Dort. All Christians, Calvinists and non-Calvinists, differs on things like eschatology, etc. That is nothing new. I do not have to agree with everything John Calvin wrote to be a Calvinist either. But if I believe that evangelism was fruitless I would be betraying the tenets of historic Calvinism which comport with Scripture. Labels mean nothing without an examination of the convictions behind it. All convictions need to subsumed under the authority of Scripture
Nice job. That PHD and all those followers are way more important than any Biblical Truth. Reformed Theology put God in His actual place of Sovereignty and let me understand a God/Christ centered Gospel over the Man centered ones taught in most churches. I'm unapologetically Reformed because God knows me from Womb to Tomb. He knew I would come to Him, I just didn't, and had to take my own path to Salvation. It's near impossible to comprehend predestination until you really give God all the Glory He deserves. God knows whose coming to Him and who will deny Him to their dying breath and He uses both for His will and purpose. Calvinism isn't for those ears that want to be tickled.
Here is the claim being made by the westminster confession: 1. God decrees everything that happens. 2. He is not just foreseeing the future and predicting it, but He has decreed what will happen. i.e He wants whatever happens to Happen. He has declared that it will happen. 3. God doesn't do violence to the will of the creature (though he saves people in an "irresistable" manner). So when a pedophile rapes a child. Its because God has decreed it. He has not merely predicted it based on his foreknowledge of the conditions and the rapist's character. He wants it to happen. Of course, he doesn't cause the rapist to act ( in an immediate sense). The rapist acts on his own will. But since God is sovereign, and his decrees are not just predictions, there is nothing else the rapist could have done except what God decreed that he do- I.e rape the child. I dont blame Leighton for being "confused". There is no logical or rational way to bring all these concepts together, and so people end up being confused between primary and secondary causes, the hidden will of God etc. The question people ask is "did God want this to happen"? I dont see how a calvinist can honestly say anything other than yes. Similarly for salvation, 1. Jesus death as an atonement is "sufficient" to save all people. 2. Jesus atonement expiates the Sin of only those who will believe. 3. God makes sure only the elect receive saving faith. The above view is 4 point calvinism. Its not something many calvinists like John Piper hold to. They are just more consistent and claim that Jesus only died for the elect.
Ashwin, I would strongly suggest that you read my book, “The Grace That Saves.” You can find it at www.amazon.com/author/randyseiver. If Leighton had ever been a Calvinist, as he falsely claims, he would not be confused about what Calvinists believe. Let me attempt to respond briefly to your assertions/questions. 1. Yes, God decrees everything that happens, meaning that from all eternity, He has drawn a boundary between what He would either cause to occur or permit to occur in His world and what He would prevent or restrain. If He decided that it would occur, He decreed it. 2. No, God does not merely foresee what will occur. He knows perfectly what will occur because He has decided it would occur. His decree makes an action no more certain to occur than His perfect knowledge that it would occur. If His omniscience of what would certainly occur was perfect, then what He knew perfectly would occur must certainly occur otherwise His knowledge would have been imperfect. Neither in the case of His decision or perfect omniscience does God cause the action to occur. He is the first cause in the sense that nothing that occurs could have occurred had He not decided that it would occur in His world. God does not desire and cannot desire that sinners sin. What He desires is the greater good that He has intended to bring about through the evil He has determined to permit and use for His glory [the manifestation of His glorious attributes], and the eternal and spiritual good of His people. If God knew perfectly that a person was going to commit a rape, could have prevented it, and decided not to prevent it, then He decided beforehand that it would certainly occur, i.e., He decreed that it would occur. God’s decree makes an action no more to occur certain than His perfect omniscience of that action beforehand. In both cases, it is an unalterable certainty. The rapist does what he wants to do and could not have done other than he did, otherwise God’s perfect knowledge of his action would have been faulty. 3. God does not violate the will of the creature (though he saves sinners in an irresistible manner). God saves sinners by giving them a new disposition and by removing their determination to resist Him. He never does so by violating their wills. If sinners come to Christ in faith and repentance, they come because they sincerely desire to do so. People’s confusion about such matters should not be blamed on Calvinistic doctrine but on false shepherds who have concealed the truth and failed to exposit biblical passages in a systematic way. Whether you like it or not, the Scriptures clearly teach that the term “will of God” can be used in more than one way and that actions and events have primary and secondary causes. Similarly for salvation, 1. Jesus death as an atonement is "sufficient" to save all people. This is not a four-point Calvinists’ position. It is clearly expressed in the original statement of so-called 5 point Calvinsm [the Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine]. This death is sufficient for all because of its infinite value and because what one sinner needs to reconcile him to God is no different from what any other sinner needs. The issue has nothing to do with sufficiency. 2. Jesus atonement expiates the Sin of only those who will believe. This is not an exclusively Calvinistic view. Everyone who is not a Universalist acknowledges that the sins of unbelievers are not expiated. If Jesus had satisfied God’s wrath for every sinner, every sinner would be justified. 3. God makes sure only the elect receive saving faith. God is God. He has the right to grant mercy to whom He will and deny it to whom He will. Some receive grace and mercy; some receive justice; no one receives injustice. God has not done and is not doing anything to prevent any sinner’s saving faith. Jesus’ redemptive work secured all the blessings of the New Covenant for His chosen people including God writing His law on their minds and hearts, removing their stony hearts and giving them a heart of flesh, giving them a new disposition and putting His Spirit within them. These privileges belong to believers alone and were secured for them at the cross. The issue in this doctrine has nothing to do with the sufficiency of that work to expiate sin. Had it been God’s intention to secure the blessings of the New Covenant for every person without exception, every person without exception would be inclined to obey God and seek Christ as He is offered in the gospel. The above view is 4 point calvinism. Its not something many calvinists like John Piper hold to. They are just more consistent and claim that Jesus only died for the elect. This is precisely what Piper et. al. believe. This issue is the intention and design of Jesus’ redemptive work, not its sufficiency.
@@TheBereanVoice You are adding a false equivalence between decree and foreknowledge. Decreeing something is qualitatively different from just permitting it. God himself asserts this difference in the scripture: Jeremiah 19:They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. Jeremiah 7:31 They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire--something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind. God totally denies that he has decreed actions such as burning children as sacrifice to Molech or Baal. Its obvious He has not prevented these actions, but permitting something is not the same as decreeing it. Thw difference is that one decrees what is one's will. One desires that the vent happens. Mere Permission does not indicate desire. The point of emphasizing on God's decree is that he is decreeing according to his good pleasure.
@@Ashwin2584 I have not equated God's omniscience of all things future and God's decree. Perhaps you should read my comments again. What I wrote is that God's perfect omniscience of all things future makes all that God has known perfectly will occur certain to occur. If they do not occur, then God's knowledge of their [imagined] occurrence could not have been perfect. Neither in the case of God's perfect omniscience nor in the case of God's decree does God actively cause all that occurs. In the case of His decree, He does not merely permit what occurs but has decided or determined to permit [or in some cases cause] what occurs. If He knows perfectly that something will occur, could have prevented its occurrence and has chosen to permit its occurrence because He has a good purpose for it, then He has decreed it. He has determined beforehand that it will be done. You must either deny God's perfect omniscience or His omnipotence to avoid this conclusion. Given the verses you have obviously grossly misinterpreted, I suspect you think there are some things that God simply did not know and didn't see coming. In fact, if you truly believe in an autonomous will, He could not have seen them coming.
@@Ashwin2584 In these verses, Jeremiah 19:They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. Jeremiah 7:31 They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire--something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind. Yahweh was not denying His perfect knowledge that these events would occur. What He was denying was that He had commanded such practices as a part of His worship. It had not even entered His mind to command such a practice. Perhaps the term "decree" has led to your misunderstanding of our view. We do not mean by that term that God has commanded all that will occur. In fact, the Scriptures clearly distinguish between what God has commanded [which often does not occur] and what He has determined before will be done [which always occurs].
@@Ashwin2584 We would distinguish between merely permitting an event and determining to permit an event. Yes, God does all that He has pleased according to His predetermined will, but that does not mean that He necessarily approves of the event, choice, or action itself. God's revealed will is that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn and live, yet it is clear that the wicked die in their impenitence. When that occurs, since God could have prevented it, it must occur because He has decided to permit it.
@@webgold3408 Yes, I would like to have it, but mail is somewhat unreliable here in Costa Rica. Perhaps I could give you a US address where my wife will be in March.
Are you so obtuse that you don't realize that the works that JMac is talking about are produced by God's grace and not by the believer. Additionally, none of the good works that God produces form any part of the basis of a person's justification before God. Some of you people are so stupid it is frightening.
@garycumner6804 You might wish to read the Scriptures to find out what they teach on this matter. What would you think of a preacher who told his hearers they needed to repent and do works to demonstrate their repentance?
@@TheBereanVoice No mate iam not obtuse about jmac teaching about Gods grace and works i no its not from the holy spirit therefore its a lying spirit not so not so stupid afterall or arrogant
@@TheBereanVoice I no scriptures very well and how to rightly divide the word correctly iam not taking i by the servants of satan who speak another gospel and distort the truth iam far above satans kingdom
@@garycumner6804 Yes Mate, you are obtuse. You seem to have no clue about the biblical teaching that genuine faith will give evidence of itself. It has nothing to do with the basis of justification before God. Of course, it is from the Holy Spirit. Paul's purpose in preaching the gospel was to turn sinners from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they might receive the forgiveness of sins. People who have not been delivered from Satan's power haven;t been delivered from the guilt of sin either. He also preached that they should repent and do works demonstrating the genuineness of their repentance.
@geoffrust6787 I can support everything I believe from clear biblical texts taken in their proper context and all you have are your pitiful proof-text, mercylessly ripped from their context that support nothing but your prodiguous ignorance of biblical truth.
But it is a bunch of tripe that accurately describes the way Leighton Flowers and other synergists misrepresent Calvinists and our views. If you don't like it, don't watch it. I would prefer that beautiful people watch my videos so go away.
I would suggest to any who question whether John Piper is suggesting that God meticulously causes [in the sense that He puts the sinful desire in the molester's heart] child molestation that you read the following from Desiring God Ministries. @t
If God predestined many to hell, then they are dammed before they are born--before they have committed any sins. Thus, God created them with the purpose of being dammed; this implies that dammed humans can participate in some very vile behaviors. God did not create Adam and Eve as divine/supernatural beings; He created them as humans--imperfect with a natural bend toward foolish choices. This is called being human, and God allowed humans to populate the world. They were not cast out of the garden until after they sinned. Humans are depraved but not totally depraved because they have the ability to accept or reject God.
@@artemusbowdler7508 Perhaps you need to read the text of Scripture. God did not create Adam with a natural bent toward foolish [sinful] choices. The text clearly states that God made Adam in His own image and made man upright. Adam waa made mutable so that he might sin but could also have chosen to remain in his integrity.
There is no question that fallen have the ability to choose to obey or disobey God, to submit to His clear revelations of Himself or to suppress that revelation in unrighteousness or to be greatful, to glorify God and worship Him alone. Romans one makes it clear that sinners universally suppress God's truth in unrighteousness. We are free to choose what we desire most at a given time but we are not free to choose what we do not desire.
The truth is that because of Adam's trangression , we are all condemned before we are born. God has determined to save a multitude that no one can number because He is gracious and merciful and to leave others to their own just condemntation because He is holy and just. Paul wrote that we, believers, were by nature [a phrase that consistently in the NT means by birth] children of wrath [deserving of wrath] just like the rest of mankind.
Unless you deny God's exhaustive omniscience of all things future, you must understand that before God created anything, He knew that if He created billions were certain to perish in rebellion and unbelief. He either approved that such would be the case or He disapproved of it. If He approved that it would occur [and He clearly did by creating, that is to determine it. Unless you are an Open Theist universalist, you have to acknowledge that such is the case. Otherwise, God's omniscience would be imperfect.
God's decree does not cause anyone to act contrary to His law. To say that God decrees a thing does not mean that He necessarily does anything to cause what He has decreed to occur. As Thomas Watson wrote, "God has a hand in the action where sin is but no hand in the sin of the action." God did not cause the treachery of Joseph's brothers, but the text make it clear that He intended it because He intended to use their sinful actions to bring about a good purpose. See also Isa. 10.
@@TheBereanVoice Then why did Adam and Eve disobey God? Why did God give Adam a choice if he was made in the image of God? You use hermeneutical summersaults to weasel around the weaknesses of your Calvinistic dogma.
@@artemusbowdler7508ve us a choice because he created us to love and be loved by him. Love has to be a choice it cannot be forced.
@arpensIron127 Did you read every post in this thread? I know this; I am asking a Calvinist this question. If you cannot earn salvation through good works, you cannot lose your salvation through bad works; however, if you are saved through faith, then you are unsaved through the absence of faith. "Elect" does not not mean salvation; God's grace was extended to the Ephesians who heard the gospel message through the preaching of Paul. “For by grace [Paul preached to the Ephesians the good news] are ye saved through faith [Ephesians believed in the gospel message and were saved] ; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God (Salvation was not earned by good works: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works (Saved unto Lordship), which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:9-10).
Calvin was 26 when he wrote Institutes, and there was no book like it before. He was a lawyer and a Chatholic priest by education. I also felt so stupid that I almost slipped down that hole. Calvinist worship a different god than Jesus of the Holy Scriptures
Finally, someone else has the courage to say what others are too afraid to say. You're right, brother. Calvinism acribes the characteristics of a tyrannical, genocidal, and deceitful God to the God of the Bible. As much as they would deny it its exactly what they promote.
@TheZOSO420 I'm convinced that Calvanists worship a different god than the Jesis Christ of the Holy Scriptures, whether they know it or not.
I agree with you completely!
@@SirMillz Perhaps you can tell me in what way you imagine that the God in whom Calvinist believe is different from the God who has revealed Himself in Scripture. Either put up or shut up.
@@SalvadoporGracia If you are going to alledge such blasphemous claims, you need, at a minimum, to attempt to demonstrate from real quotes from actual Calvinists that what you have alledged is a reality.
How can anyone that professes to believe in the incomprehensible reality of Jesus the Christ, be so fleshly as to identify themselves as something other than discples of CHRIST, especially choosing to base your identity on a mere man. Why would I call myself a calvinist, or any kind of other " ist ", " tist", or " dist ". Colossians chapter 2, explains who Christ is and that we are COMPLETE in HIM!
@Brotheral-pb1oj
Careful. "Disciples of Christ" is a denomination. I'm sure you wouldn't want to identify with a denomiantion. Of course, we identify as followers of Christ, not as followers of Calvin. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that "Calvinism" is simply a nick-name for those who are soteriological Monergist. Perhaps if you tried, you could make a more banal comment.
@TheBereanVoice I love you much! And you're very sharp, clear, and concise. I love those qualities. I actually was simply referring to what Jesus Himself said about making Disciples. Truthfully I don't see how adding anything to that can be anything but meaningless, since the emphasis is supposedly to be on Christ and Christ alone. I don't see how saying one is a disciple of Christ constitutes being a denomination, yet I will say that if it is a denomination, it is what Jesus said, not what any man has imagined! My point is this: Why would any believer in Christ, willingly put emphasis on any, label, title, organization, as it relates to one's faith, when Jesus ALONE is the fulfillment of salvation? I'd love to hear your answer. I'm not beyond being enlightened.
@@Brotheral-pb1oj
My answer is simply that so-called Calvinists have not chosen that designation for ourselves. It was assigned to us by those who oppose our views. I prefer to refer to my views as "soteriological monergism." Yet, if I describe what I believe about these issues, someone will invariably identify me as a "Calvinist." I do not claim to be a follower of Calvin. There are several areas in which I would disagree with both his doctrine and his practice.
Simply saying one is a disciple of Christ does not make one a part of that denomination but there is a denomination called "The Disciples of Christ." Are you willing to affirm that you are a part of that denomination? I suspect not. But be careful because any label can be misunderstood.
@TheBereanVoice Thank you much. I do have a better understanding now, and I do appreciate your resolve. Although I do agree to disagree with your doctrine, I respect your professionalism, and sincerety in your belief, and I do think that you're an effective expositor. Thanks again, and stay blessed.
@@Brotheral-pb1oj Thank you for your kind response. I don't ask for agreement from those who do not yet understand and embrace our doctrine. All I ask is that our views be accurately represented and that we be treated as other than demon spawn.
Hey elder in the faith,
I am a "Provisionist" and have worked with Leighton on a few things. And have been involved with the podcast for 6 years. As a matter of fact I recently sent him one of your videos, which is why, I think, he is responding to this video you put up today.
I get it, no one likes to be misrepresented. Because to be honest it is lying. The things Flowers (and not just Flowers) says about what Calvinists teach are footnoted with citations from Calvin himself, Augustine, Dr James White, Dr RC Sproul, Dr Piper, and numerous others. Nothing Flowers says is without foundation.
One point you made, which I understand, about God not being the "author of evil" we have always said that the confession says that. The point of our argument is that logically, without any philosophical steps, that if God decreed all things, that logically makes him the author of evil. And in many Calvinistic podcasts which we critique they say God "authored all of history".
We know and thank God Calvinists still try to maintain that God is not the author of evil, Flowers and others like myself encourage Calvinists in that fact often on our podcasts (I hold on as well), we just think the theology itself nessecitates it.
For Flowers and I, we have been dealing with this millenial new generation of Calvinists who most dont even know that historical Calvinists believed and taught that the atonement was sufficient for the whole world, but only efficient for the elect. So often, when we deal with them they limit everything about the atonement and word it in such a way to be so outside of historical Calvinists that if they know John Bunyan, Isaac Watts, Calvin, Augustine and a host of other Calvinists who believed in the universal "extent" of the atonement they would possibly drop that point or be so bad, as RC Sproul said "A four pointer is a Arminian" and would cast the out of Reformed theology.
I really am sorry if you understand us to be misrepresenting YOU. I along with Flowers understand that the older generation of Calvinists like yourself and those prior to you were much more consistent with Scripture and were not, and are not, the neo Calvinists of today. I'm so sorry. But our polemics are focused on this new generation, who I think you also would want to seperate from.
Kevlar Provisionalist Theology,
The answer is simple. All he needs to do is state that there are some so-called Calvinists who have departed from the Calvinistic doctrine that has been held for hundreds of years. I know he quotes Calvin,, Piper, Sproul, White et. al. But not one of them would agree in causal determinism in the sense that God's decree causes sinners to act wickedly. That is simply not what any of them are saying. We believe that God has determined to use second causes and the free actions of His creatures to bring about his sovereign purpose. Yes, He is actively involved in effectively accomplishing His decree, but He does not need to put evil thoughts and purposes into sinner's minds to accomplish his purpose. If younger folks who wish to call themselves "Calvinists" do not agree with that, then they are not Calvinists.
@@TheBereanVoice I am live right now talking about this if you want to chime in
@@pccj316 Sorry I missed this. I was making a response video that I am about to upload. I hope you will encourage Dr. Flowers to watch it.
Provisionalism 101
If you or Leighton D.Min are not stating our view as we would state it but taking excerpts from Calvin, Piper et. al., out of the broader context in which they were written or spoken, then you are being dishonest. In the interest of charity, I would like to think Leighton is simply too obtuse to understand our doctrine, but I fear he is a man who is willing to twist the statements others have made [read LIE] in order to promote his agenda.
Your comment here was very thoughtful and kind. I live in the DFW area and met with Leighton for lunch about 5 years ago now (although I could be way off on that). And you guys are doing great work.
For me personally, I’ve written my first of what I hope will be several books, and plan to start making videos soon. I’ve got a different take on Romans 9 that I think ultimately settles this entire debate.
Late Augustinian Gnostic influenced philosophical fatalistic determinism imposed onto Scripture by a former Gnostic - and by John Calvin drawing from his philosophy is NOT the gospel of Christ. The gospel; which means good news: is not the false “gospel” message of “bad news for most”:
“Smile. God MIGHT love you.” That’s not the gospel of the New Testament.
@rosschenault4227
You can't identify one idea that Calvinists hold in common with Gnosticism. And Calvinists don't believe in fatalistic determinism either.
Whether you like it or not, the gospel is bad news for those who refuse to repent. Additionally, you can't find a single example in the apostolic message recorded in the Book of the Acts of anyone telling sinners indescriminately. "Smile. God loves you." Clearly, that is not the gospel of the NT either.
If you are going to comment on my channel, at least try to get the facts before you do. Otherwise, I will block you and delight in doing so.
@@TheBereanVoice the gospel is bad news to those who do not believe.believe on the Lord jesus christ and you shall be saved no clauses added
Your vitriol toward others says it all.
It isn't vitriol at all. It is a matter of calling out Leighton's prodigious lies.
Most Calvanist are like that. It’s very telling.
Calvinism is an obsession. Some people see Calvinism in every verse, on every page, and central to the Bible. The speaker sounds like questioning Calvinism causes him severe emotional trauma.
Liars like Leighton Flowers cause many people emotional trauma.
@@TheBereanVoice The Calvinism debate is a dead-end. It only exacerbates quarraling. What we can say with certainty of Biblical warrant is that believers are saved. Trying to unravel and pry into eternal decrees is a fools errand.
@@TheBereanVoice
th-cam.com/video/CMRzNVBTMC8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=UZ5v2LB2ENiZKILi
@@bibleblessingsministries2964 All one needs to do is believe what God has revealed. There is no need to pry into eternal decrees. Those are inscrutable. What is not inscrutable is what God has clearly revealed. Believing God's clear revelation does not exacerbate quarraling. A misrepresentation of what God has revealed exacerbates quarraling.
Some people, like you, can't see God's sovereign activity anywhere. Feel free to remain comfortable in your ignorance. I won't waste my time trying to convince you of anything. Enjoy your superficial and puerile existence.
Have you read "Calvin's Institutes." John Calvin does not believe in "Calvinism." He does not desire to comprehend those doctrines that can only be apprehended by faith. A Calvinist has "settled" a doctrine with reason rather than with "faith in Jesus Christ our Lord."
Yes, I have read the institutes. What you are trying to express is a bit opaque, but there is no way Calvin would not have agreed with what Calvinists believe. The reality is you don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about.
Why can you not admit that many people do understand Calvinism and still reject it. You should watch his response video.
I have seen his response video. And, I do understand that some understand Calvinism and still reject it. That has nothing to do with my point. My point is that He doesn't understand Calvinism even though he claims to have been a Calvinist at one time. I once believed what he believes and I understand it very well. If he once believed what Calvinists believe, he should at a minimum be able to articulate it correctly. He does not. He is either deliberately misrepresenting what we believe or he never understood what we believe.
I don't mind people disagreeing with what I believe. I do mind them misrepresenting it. Spurgeon said, "How earnestly do they set themselves to confute what no one defends."
The issue is NOT that he doesn't understand Calvinism because after 50 years in it, it would be arrogant to say he doesn't understand it. The issue is that with every Calvinist I met and debated what my own problems with these doctrines, they ALL had different responses to each letter of their mantra TULIP. They would often say, when unable to respond biblically to my argument, "well, I'm a four point Calvinist" or "well. I'm a three point Calvinist." It's Impossible for you to say, "he doesn't understand Calvinism" because who knows which point of Calvinism you hold to be solid, and which ones you choose to claim, as most Calvinists do, "Its a mystery." The whole doctrine is a house of cards that many are starting to see with each video from ex-calvinist.
@@eugenejoseph7076 What Calvinists believe is not defined by what someone you may have interacted with on social media believes but by our confessions of faith. If you want to konw what Calvinists believe you need to read the Canons of Dort, the Belgic Confession, WCF, London Baptist confession of Faith 1689, the Philadelphia Confession 1689. You will not find in any of those confessions what Flowers claims.
@@eugenejoseph7076 Flowers was never a Calvinist and he certainly hasn't spent 50 years in it. I don't think he is even that old.
Calvinistic doctrine is not defined by someone you may have chatted with on social media. Read the confessions that have defined Calvinism and have been around for hundreds of years.
Well I am glad I really did leave Calvinism behind and begin a process of returning to a God who is loving and kind. It's a real battle to achieve this.
Whilst in the end Calvinism stands or falls by how faithfully or not it is to scripture the cynical attitude and gracelessness towards Leighton Flowers is enough to put anyone off, and I have seen an awful lot of this on youtube comment sections where anyone has dared to move away from Calvinism.
Calvinists by their attitude are a living epistle that something isn't quite right.
This piece came over as somewhat embittered rather than satire.
@kenbeach5021
If you imagine that Calvinism teaches that God isn't loving and kind, you never understood Calvinism. Flowers jumped on the Calvinism bandwagon when it was cool to be a Calvinist and then jumped off when he saw a financial opportunity. He has no understanding of Calvinism and regularly misrepresents our views. To leave Calvinism, one must ignore a great deal of Scripture and take a great deal of Scripture out of context. If you think Calvinism denies that God is loving and kind, you never understood Calvinism. If he weren't, you and I would be burning in hell right now.
If you think we are hard on Flowers, just wait until he has to give an account of himself when he stands before God in judgment.
He thinks nothing can be true if fallen creatures don't have control over it. If that were the case, nothing would be true. I would far rather trust God to govern my life than to trust myself.
@kenbeach5021,
If you imagine that Calvinism teaches that God is not loving and kind, you might find the following quote from Calvin confusing. He wrote, "For he aboundeth in pardoning. Now, because it is difficult to remove terror from trembling minds, Isaiah draws all argument from the nature of God, that he will be ready to pardon and to be reconciled. Thus the Holy Spirit dwells on this part of doctrine, because we always doubt whether or not God is willing to pardon us; for, although we entertain some thoughts of his mercy, yet we do not venture fully to believe that, it belongs to us. It is not without reason, therefore, that this clause is added, that we may not be hindered by uncertainty or doubt as to his infinite compassion toward us." and "For as the heavens are higher than the earth. This agrees well with that passage in which David, describing the mercy of God, says, (Psalm 103:11) that it is as much more excellent "as the heavens are higher than the earth;" for although the application is different, yet the meaning is the same. In short, God is infinitely compassionate and infinitely ready to forgive; so that it ought to be ascribed exclusively to our unbelief, if we do not obtain pardon from him."
@kenbeach5021
Hodge wrote, "God’s dealings, even with reprobate sinners, are full of tenderness and compassion. All the day long he extends the arms of his mercy, even to the disobedient and the gainsaying." And you imagine that you were ever a Calvinist if you were denying that God is loving and kind? You really need to get a grip.
@kenbeach5021,
If you people would stop misrepresenting our views, you would no longer see us confronting clowns like Leighton for his prodigious lies.
@kenbeach5021,
Commenting on Romans 10:21John Murray wrote, " Verse 20 must not be dissociated in interpretation and application from verse 21.
It is the contrast that is particularly relevant to the present interest.The contrast is that between the favour shown to the Gentiles and the disobedience of Israel.
The aggravated character of the latter is made apparent by the terms that are used to express God’s longsuffering and lovingkindness: “All the day long did I stretch out my hands”. In Gifford’s words, “it is a picture of ‘the everlasting
arms’ spread open in unwearied love”.²⁵ The overtures of grace are not merely represented as rejected but as made to “a disobedient and gainsaying people”.
The perversity of Israel, on the one hand, and the constancy andintensity of God’s lovingkindness, on the other, are accentuated by the fact that the one
derives its character from the other."
So much for the idea that Calvinism teaches that God is not loving and kind. You have been lied to my friend.
Bait and switch, kinda typical of Calvinists... What a dishonest take as well.
Saying God has assigned some people a sinful nature in which they choose to do only evil of their own accord, makes Good the ultimate cause.. no amount of compatiblism nonsense can change that basic logical fact.
Who do you imagine believes that God "assigned" SOME people a sinful nature. Perhaps you have never read Eph. 2:1-3. There is no question that God is the Prime mover. In that sense, He is the ultimate cause of all that occurs. What happens would never happen if God had not intended to permit to occur. That does not mean that God is ever the proximate cause of sinful actions. Joseph's brothers acted wickedly according to their evil intentions but they were doing what God intended for them to do without CAUSING them to do it because He had a good purpose for permitting their actions. Compatibilism in the theological sense is not the same as compatibilism in a philosophical sense as compatible with Causal Determinism. Causal determinism is not a doctrine that Calvinists believe.
Over the pass 50 years, the more I study the Bible, the stronger becomes my belief in God’s complete sovereignty. ‘God is not man’ and our problem is that we think ‘He is altogether like ourselves.’, and He’s not. There is absolutely no way mankind can be saved apart from God’s sovereign decree. I don’t have a PhD or ThD but I do have a mind trained in the Bible, Science and Law, and I believe Dr. Flowers is teaching a false unbiblical doctrine.
I would suggest that it is the Calvinist who limits God's sovereignty. For some reason they assume God cannot accomplish his will while at the same time allowing human autonomy. The two are not contradictory.
Also, I find Calvinists are usually locked into a mindset that sees reading and considering carefully arguments counter to their dogma as a beneath them. They have an unheathy defensiveness, elitism, and contempt for those who hold Biblical views contrary to theirs.
I think using fake humility to make your point is dishonest.
I am not using fake humility. I am making fun of idiots who continue to misrepresent Calvinists.
Your sarcasm and mockery are not becoming a believer. Your fake humility verges on deception. Rather than attacking Dr. Flowers, perhaps you could use scripture to make your case. Your presentation is very off putting.
@@KeithJeffries-pw9xv Tell someone who cares. Flowers needs to stop lying.
@ rm5700 do you say that because you don't like his biblical review of calvism
@@LouisHolley-p4e Yes. He completely misrepresents what Calvinists believe.
Thank you Father for saving a wretched like me , I once was lost but now I am found, was blind but now I see . All glory, honor and praise to God !!!
You can reject Calvinism, but you can't deny election and predestination is clearly taught in scripture.
When people say they reject Calvinism (I know nothing of Calvin by the way) they are basically saying they don't like the fact God is sovereign and does what he well wants to do.
It's feelings over what is revealed in scripture.
Why can't God do what ever he wants?
"For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Romans 9:15
"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." Romans 9:18
Balderdash
@@artemusbowdler7508
Is that what u think of the word of God? I'm also amazed at the level of hatred coming from those who speak against calvinists
Surely we can disagree on certain topics, but I think some forget that if someone has believed upon Christ, he/she is saved and is a brother/sister in the Lord.
To hate a brother is to be a murderer at heart according to scripture
I fully believe in the doctrine of election, but, I still love those who disagree and call Jesus their Lord
Nobody's rejecting that God is sovereign and does what he well wants. We just think you have misunderstood election and predestination, and forced your meanings on them to fit your presuppositions.
@@faithmatterspodcast umm, same can be said about you. Eisegesis can go both ways!
But, the difference is, none of you have bothered to explain these verses (has nothing to do with Calvin, but what scripture plainly says)
"For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Romans 9:15
"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." Romans 9:18
"44“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day" John 6:44
"Many are called, few are chosen" Matt 22:14
I'd like to hear your thoughts in these passages (there are so many more we can discuss after these! You cant just ignore them, nor do violence to scripture by trying to twist them into saying something they are not
@@FearNot777 They've been explained dozens of times, right here on TH-cam, and even very recently.
"none of you have bothered to explain these verses" Look up Dr. Malcom Yarnell and Dr. Joel Korytko on Romans 9 for starters.
Sean Vaughn
Of course, we are controlled by our desires. [see for example Jer. 18:12]. Since when has having sinful desires been a good excuse for anything? Jesus said, that to look on a woman to desire her sexually is to have committed adultry with her already. You will be judged for your thoughts and desires as well as for your actions. Only God's grace can deliver us from ourselves. I can't imagine how you can sleep at night if you believe the course of human events is controlled human free will.
I don't care what ANY Calvinist says. What does God say in his book? The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9). God would like everyone saved, but when people keep rejecting him he eventually gives up on them and like Pharaoh, hardens their heart. Paul explains this in Romans chapter 9.
"God gives up on them"??? It appears that you don't believe in God's perfect omniscience of all things future. Do you honestly believe that God is waiting patiently for sinners to repent whom He has known from eternity will never do so? I believe God has published His desire for the sinner's repentance. Being holy, He cannot desire that people continue in their sinful rebellion, but the verse you quoted is a poor one to demonstrate that point. Are you unaware of the fact that God had expressed His intention to harden Pharoah's heart before Pharoah ever disobeyed His command to let His people go?
You might wish to ask to whom Peter was writing in 2 Peter 3:9 and to whom "us" refers. You don't honestly believe that God waits patiently, hoping that someone he knows will never believe will do what He knows perfectly they will never do, do you?
Would be funny if, by God's Grace, you eventually came away from Calvinism...😅
That would be one of the greatest tragedies of my life, Who would want to stop believing in God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture?
You mean the New World Translation?
4:44: If you challenge Calvinists that God would *never* meticulously and exhaustively decree sins like child-rape (James 1:17), Calvinists respond by asking, "Well, did God know it would happen? If He did know, then He must have decreed it." So, Calvinists parlay divine omniscience into divine determinism. Calvinists can't fathom the idea that God could know the future without also causing it. They just can't fathom that. If God knows it, He had to have caused it. Right? No. God can know Peter's imminent denial without causing his denial.
@richardcoordsYou should spend time finding out what Calvinists actually believe. Who believes God, by His decree, determines to CAUSE all that will occur in His world. God can also decree Peter's imminent denial without causing it. Acts 4:27-28 makes it clear that God determined beforehand what Herod, Pilate, the Jews and Gentile did in crucifying Jesus but He caused none of it.
The point I would make relative to God's omniscience is that if God knew all that would occur in His world [and He did], He either approved that it would be or He did not approve that it would be. If He approved that it would occur, that is to decree it. [Paraphrased from Jonathan Edwards].
The ignorance of some of you people is mind boggling. If you are going to attempt to argue against Calvinism, please attempt to educate yourself first.
Ben Anderson,
For some reason, I can't read your entire comment but I will respond to your definition of "free will." First, it would be helpful if you would show me the verse or verses that indicate that sinners are free to choose righteousness and that their sinful choices are outside God's control. My Bible states that God is the one who is effectively accomplishing all according to the counsel of His will. The Lord of hosts [armies] has sworn saying, "Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand. " It sounds as if the Assyrians were under Yahweh's control. Read Isa. 14:27.
Second, I would suggest that you avoid defining such terms using an English dictionary. If you can find a verse in which we are told that sinner's have a will that is completely independent of fallen human nature or that sinners are outside of God's control, please attempt to apply this definition to it. Such a definition can be helpful in a court of law. Did the person act under the control of another person so that they were forced to do what they did or did they commit the crime of their own free will." Did they freely choose to do what they did, or were they forced to act contrary to their desires? In that sense, sinners have free will. We choose what we choose freely and voluntarily, but we do not choose that for which we have no desire and to which our entire being is totally averse.
TULIP is purpose built to take the focus off Christ alone for salvation.
T - removes our requirement to believe in Jesus (says we can’t)
U - removes our requirement to believe in Jesus (says we’re already saved)
L - removes our requirement to believe in Jesus (says Jesus atonement wasn’t for all sin just the chosen, back to point U)
I - removes our requirement to believe in Jesus (says we can’t believe God will make us believe)
P - removes our requirement to believe in Jesus. (Says God will make us preserve)
Any teaching that takes the focus off Christ alone for salvation is a false teaching.
@andrewtsousis3130
You obviously have no clue.
The sinner's inability because of unwillingness to believe does not remove their responsibility to repent and believe.
Unconditional election is not salvation. Calvinists do not think there is no responsibility to believe. If any of the elect should refuse to believe, they would be lost just like the rest.
So-called limited atonement does not mean that Jesus' redemptive work was not of infinite value and abundantly sufficient to save any and every sinner. It does not obviate the necessity of faith in Jesus.
God does not MAKE anyone believe. He removes our disposition to resist His command to believe and repent and gives us the desire to find in Christ our all in all.
Perseverance means that we will continue to find in Christ our all in all until the end of our lives.
I dare you to watch my series on Romans and Hebrews and find any place where iI "take the focus off of Jesus alone for salvation."
th-cam.com/video/PKzvyOWap0Y/w-d-xo.htmlsi=PaOcJL3j5zoQaJhk
th-cam.com/video/gl6UHgC3EOc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=mmuNYq5A8HGskTbA
@@TheBereanVoice if anyone has to question if their family and friends are “elect”, their hope for salvation is not in Christ alone, it’s in “election”. Christs work on the cross, takes a back-seat to “election” in Calvinism.
@@TheBereanVoice Plain scripture proves Calvinisim and TULIP to be false.
Bible:
And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the lord shall be saved.
Calvinism:
And it shall come to pass that only those predestined by the lord in eternity past will call on his name to be saved.
Bible:
The lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is long suffering to us ward, not willing that any should perish, but all shall come to repentance.
Calvinism:
The lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is long suffering to the elect, determined that they will not perish, and will be granted repentance.
Bible:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Calvinism:
For God so loved the elect only, that He gave his only son for them, and regenerates their heart enabling them to believe in Him so that they alone will not perish but have eternal life.
Bible:
If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Calvinism:
If you’re one of the elect from eternity past, you will confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and God will regenerate your heart so you can believe that God raised Him from the dead, for you were predestined to be saved.
@@andrewtsousis3130 That is why Calvinists don't ask whether a person is elect or not? That is not our business. . Our concern is whether a person has repented and believed God's promise of pardon and justification based on the redemptive work of Christ. And no, Jesus' redemptive work does not take a back-seat to election. I don't know where you get this crap but you could not be more wrong.
@@andrewtsousis3130 Much of what you have written here [not all since you have completely misrepresented what Calvinists believe about some of these verses] is an example of the either/or fallacy. You truly need to study what Calvinists actually believe before you display your prodigious ignorance further.
I'm going through videos and books by Dr. Leighton Flowers and others taking a view between Calvinism and Armenianism. It doesn't have to be black or white.
Flowers is on the Pelagian side of Arminianism, not between Arminianism and Calvinism. And it is black or white. Either sinners are truly dead in trespasses and sins or they are not. Flowers says they are not. Paul says they are. It is that simple.
I agree sinners are dead in trepasses and sins, but that doesn't neccessarily mean that God eliminates their ability to choose Him when presented with the Gospel. Dogmatism prevents people from pursuing further investigation and often puts God in a box. I'm still investigating.
@@BillMcFadden To be dead spiritually renders a person as incapable of operating in the spiritual realm as physical death renders a person incapable of operating in the physical realm. Making sinners spiritually alive is God's work. The gospel itself cannot effect that work. Unless you eisegete a text and read the idea of the sinner's free will decision into it, [You will not find Paul even suggesting that the sinner's decision effects spiritual life in any of these texts] you will never find free will in any text. For example, in Ephesians 2 Paul did not even hint at the idea that it was the sinner's decision that caused his spiritual resurrection. He wrote, "But God. . ." not "But you. . ." Additionally, 1 Cor. 1:30 clearly states that it is of God that believers are united to Christ. That would not be true if union with Christ were effected by the sinner's decision to humble himself and believe the gospel.
Paul makes it clear in Romans one that sinners universally suppress God's truth in unrighteousness. Additionally, sinners universally regard the gospel as foolishness and sinners universally hate the light [Jesus and the good news about Him] and will not come to the light lest their deeds be exposed. The gospel itself cannot produce faith. If it could, everyone who heard it would believe. Certainly the gospel is one of the things of the Spirit since He is the one who has revealed the gospel to the apostles. Paul stated very clearly that the natural [soulish] man does not welcome the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know [love or approve] them because they are discerned by means of the Spirit and the soulish man is a person without the Spirit [see Jude 19].
@@BillMcFadden And God doesn't "eliminate" anyone's ability to choose Him. Unregenerate sinners are under the dominion of sin as a result of Adam's sin. How else could we all have been "by nature" [this phrase refers in Scripture what a person is by birth] children of wrath [deserving of wrath] just like the rest of mankind? Why else would the psalmist write that he was shaped in iniquity and conceived in sin?
@@TheBereanVoice If God doesn't eliminate anyone's ability to choose Him, do all men and women then have the ability to choose Him?
So Leighton Flowers is so powerful he can thwart God's control over His elect and lead them astray. John Calvin just rolled in his grave.
Greg,
We Calvinists emphasize human responsibility as much if not more than we do God's sovereignty. We all have a responsibility to state issues accurately.
@@TheBereanVoice That’s the whole point! God sovereignly determines all things and yet the sinner is held responsible for doing what God has determined for him to do. How does that work? Me no comprendo.
@@gregjay9933
I don’t pretend to understand completely how these things work. Neither did the apostle Paul. That is why he wrote, “. . .how inscrutable are His judgments [His decree] and His ways [the providential outworking of that decree] past tracing out.”
It helps to understand that to say God has decreed all that will occur in His world, does not mean that He actively causes all that occurs.
What is clear is that God holds sinners responsible because we do not choose or act contrary to our desires. I have never chosen to do a single thing that I did not want to do most at any given time. When we sin, we do so because we freely and voluntarily choose to do so apart from external constraint. We never sin because God has given us the desire to do so. When God judicially gives people over, He does not give them over to desires that are not their own. If we were God’s robots or puppets, we would never sin.
I would urge you to study the interaction between Yahweh and the King of Assyria [Isa 10]. Additionally, I would urge you to watch my video, “Do Calvinists believe God is the author of sin?” and R.C. Sproul’s video, “If God is Sovereign, How Can Man Be Free.”
@@TheBereanVoice Since God decrees all that occurs does it really matter who is the cause of the actions?
That which has been decreed will come to pass no matter who is the cause of the actions, therefore, the sinner is still held responsible for actions that have been decreed whether he is the cause or not. Seems a bit unfair to me.
I don’t think it is accurate to say, “we do not choose or act contrary to our desires.” I often desire to eat pastries from the bakery and eat pizza every Friday night along with a can of coke, but I choose not to because I not only fear the rise of my cholesterol level, I fear the lashing from my wife. I’m sure we could all think of many examples of where we act contrary to our desires; it’s called self-control.
It seems to me that in Isa 10 God warns of judgement for the evil doer and the only thing that is decreed is that judgement will surely come. There is nothing in this passage to suggest that God determines all that happens.
My question is this - how is the sinner responsible for unbelief when he was not regenerated, nor given the faith or a heart of flesh in order to believe?
@@gregjay9933
If God were the cause of the sinful action and then judged sinners for the action, one might imagine some injustice. God is not tempted to evil and He does not tempt to evil. That is he does not draw people into sin by giving them a desire for it.
If God's determining to use the sinner's fallenness to accomplish His holy purposes seems unfair to you, perhaps you need read and carefully study Romans 9:19ff.
The sinner is responsible for his unbelief because it is his unbelief.
If effectual calling or regeneration did not exist, sinners would not be without responsibility for their unbelief.
In Isa 10, the king is the axe in Yahweh's hand. He is controlling the axe but the axe is responsible because what was in his heart [purpose] was not the same as what was in God's heart [purpose].
All of us who teach and preach will stand before God and answer for our teaching and how it affected people. I'm just not foolish enough to preach any other gospel than what Jesus preached (John 3:16) and what Paul preached (Romans 10:13). Oh, I know that you guys (Calvinists) think that you are really doing something, but just remember God is the first and final authority on what He Himself is communicating in His word. You certainty seem so brave and confident, you will one day see if you are this confident before our God.
And He will declare that I was right and you and your ilk were wrong. I dare you to compare the "evangelistic" jargon that you people use with the message the apostles and their companions preached as recorded in the Book of the Acts. Hint: You will never find your mesage there.
God decrees "Whatsoever comes to pass" but in such a way it doesn't make God the author.
I believe that I save myself but in such a way it doesn't violate God's Sovereignty.
These are both absurd but Calvinists actually believe the first one.
@Richard Rz
It appears you are too obtuse to understand that God decreeing all that happens and God causing all that occurs are not the same. If God's decree were the proximate cause of all that occurs, the idea that His decree does not make Him the author of sin would be ridiculous. God has not decreed to cause anyone to sin. The problem is your inability to hold in your pea brain two biblical concepts that seem to contradict your idea of God's character and actions. There is a group of verses that clearly state that God has an unchangable purpose which He will infallibly accomplish. "My purpose shall stand and I will do all my pleasure" He is the one who effectively accomplishes ALL according to the counsel [wise decree] of His will. And there is at least one verse that states that God is not allured to evil and He does not allure anyone to sin. Both ideas must be held in tension. The conclusion must be that God has determined all that will occur in His world without being the proximate cause of all that occurs. He clearly predetermined the actions of those wicked men who crucified Jesus and yet He did nothing [apart from withholding His restraint and common grace] to cause any of them to act as they acted.
Typical pejorative/ad hominem laced response. It is always the other fellow's "obtuseness" or "ignorance" or "pride" or "__________". You'll also notice that he begins with the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. This is the Calvinist's favorite game. "God decreeing all that happens and God causing all that occurs are not the same." These are all PHILOSOPHICAL constructs without a shred of Biblical support. Example: “Man is spiritually dead therefore God must regenerate (save) him before he can be saved.” The Calvinist god repeatedly commands a dead corpse to do this or that. Common sense would lead one to believe that to equate spiritual death to physical death is a mistake. The plain sense of Scripture dictates that. But that’s not good enough for the Calvinist. It strains credulity for him. His investment in error won’t allow him to be satisfied with that. Calvinism is the rotten fruit of a corrupt root - a pagan hermanutic brought about by a PHILOSOPHICAL approach to seeming Biblical inconsistencies instead of a Scriptural approach to reconciliation of seeming inconsistencies. Calvinism is man's attempt to explain salvation out of his sin-marred reason, an Augustinian seerstone if you will.@@TheBereanVoice
Did you hear your self
Here are some very very strange comments 😮
Yet another profoundly stupid statement. One would think you people would want to stop looking as if you have no brains and no understanding of anything related to Scripture.
John Calvin didn’t even understand Calvinism
Perhaps if you tried you could make a more banal statement.
According to your logic, if a person does not have a terminal degree (doctorate) and the doctrine has been around for over 500 years and it does not have very many followers, then the doctrine is correct? Islam fits this criteria. Your whole premise and approach is severely flawed. How did you get an MA at Westminster? Occam's razor: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as 'Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.'" If you use Occam's approach to studying the Bible, you would not be a Calvinist.
And one would have to assume you don't believe the doctrine of the Trinity
I don't have an MA from WTS. I hold a ThM. You are an idiot if you imagine that Occam's razor can be applied to Scripture.
@@TheBereanVoice Balderdash
@@TheBereanVoice Name calling is not beyond a Calvinist.
@@TheBereanVoice I have a Psalm 82 worldview.
Calvinism is sytem TULP by which is added to scripture which misrepresents contradicts and kills the freewill of mankind. God does not ordain everything such as sin or salvation God desires all mankind to be saved and come to the point of salvation .The Gospel is to believed he does the saving,if by calvinism you are chosen to go to hell then he cant desire you to be saved. People are held responsible at the judgement,if God chose them to go hell then God is responsible. everyones name who is to be saved is already in the lambs book of life from the foundation of the earth because in his foreknowledge God knows those who will call upon the name of the Lord and believe the gospel ,its also true he knows those who will not call upon the Lord to believe the gospel thats why there not in the book of life from the foundation of the world ,he Elohim nows your freewill discision on to believe in him before the foundation of the earth ,
@garycumner6804
I don't intend to waste my time correcting your prodigious misunderstanding of what Calvinists believe. I have produced almost 250 videos. I suggest you watch them and interact with them. There are 37 of those that address passages on which Calvinists and synergists disagree. Additionally, I have produced series on Romans and Hebrews. I plan to make a short video soon on free will, [what Calvinists deny about free will and what we affirm]. That should help with your grossly distorted view. You will also find a video in which I distinguish God ordaining all that occurs from God CAUSING [as the proximate cause] all that occurs. I have also addressed whether God desires the repentance of every sinner and yet has determined to leave some to perish. Even you believe God, knowing that billions would perish if He created, decided to proceed with creation. If by creating, He approved that what He knew for certain would occur, then He determined it.
Let me know when you have watched my videos and we can have an informed discussion.
It is interesting you are rejecting Calvinism because of some author you are currently reading. Should not your theology be based on scripture and not on books about scripture. You should say I believe or disbelieve because of what scripture says and what the Holy Spirit is showing. Now if any man have not the Spirit he is none of His! You are not going to be saved by doctrine but through "knowing" God. Just because you have sound doctrine does not mean you are saved. To be saved you must love the Lord they God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.
I believe in reformed theology because it best explains scripture to me. I came out of the Arminian camp but the Bible never made any sense to me until I started thinking along reformed lines. The more I just read scripture and turned from reading about scripture the more the Bible made sense. But you must be born again!! I spend a lot of time seeking God's face, calling on the name of the Lord, praying without ceasing, and/or building up my my holy faith praying in the Holy Ghost if you will. I believe I know God and that He knows me. There must be a personal relationship. True believers are the bride of Christ. They should long for His presence and to be with Him. God is not interested in mail order brides!!!
The video was intended to be satirical. I haven't rejected Calvininism. To do so would require a rejection of the sacred Scriptures.
@@TheBereanVoice Why don't you indicate in the title of the video that it's satire? I wasted my time watching some of your dumb video because I thought it was about someone genuinely explaining why they rejected the false doctrinal system of Calvinism.
@@ETube1971 It isn't a false doctrine and if you are so stupid as to believe anything Leighton says, you deserve to be deceived into watching a video that makes fun of him.
That PHD is something. 😂
You have no better presentation than many issues of calvinism. You start wirh reactions not able to start your own.
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Jack, Jack, Jack 🙄...I can't help but think that you're trying to give the impression that you, as well as most Calvinists, believe that Jesus actually *expiated* the sins of all human beings; that you believe in a "universal" atonement!!! That's misleading Jack 🙊 at the least, brother.
Just admit it: on your view, God never loved seriously (i.e., salvifically); never expiated the sins of; and is pleased to punish for eternity untold numbers of those God never chose to love so as to save them; whose sins were never actually covered by the blood of Christ. 🤺
I'm not sure who Jack is but I have no trouble freely confessing that God did not send Jesus to make propitiation for those who will perish in their sins. You are showing your ignorance simply by asking such a question.
Perhaps you can show me a biblical passage that states that Jesus died to cover anyone's sins with His blood.
Any more of your stupid crap and I will mute you.
Leighton Flowers has a Masters in Divinity with Biblical languages, so he does have scholarship in original languages it's just not his area of expertise so he is not a fluent speaker of these languages. This does not mean he can't do proper word study analysis of original languages as part of his hermanutical process in rendering scriptural truth. His Phd is in the field of soteriology but he has been a director of apologetics for a large institution (can't quite remember exactly the name so I won't try to put the name here). I'm sure he is knowledgeable in many other areas aside from the subject of this video. I would caution though in general taking for granted that anyone's proclamations of truth are accurate just because of scholarship or the amount of social media followers they have; I think Dr. Flowers would tell you the same thing.
He doesn't even understand how the language works.
He doesn't have a PhD. He has a DMin and it is not in the field of soterilogy, or as he would say Shoteriology. additionally, he violates every hermenutical principle in the book.
The truth is, he has a cash cow and he intends to milk it all the way to the bank. To him, it doesn't matter how many people he leads astray. Nice that he has you duped, but the intelligent among us aren't buying it.
@@TheBereanVoice if there is anyone who is clueless about hermanutics it's you, but that's understandable coming from someone who questions God's integrity and refuses to face where the conclusions of your beliefs lead. At least have the honesty and courage to "face the music" of your own beliefs. Leighton has a Phd from New Orleans Theological Seminary, an accredited institution, so I would advise you to quit braking the 9th commandment. If anyone is being "duped" it's you; but then again you have no interest in the truth, you just want to follow a deceitful system that corrupts and manipulates scripture. I have had discussions with the likes of you before and have found it to be a worthless endeavor, and so I won't waste my time with you. Feel free to resort to third grade mentality name calling if it makes you feel better about yourself. Have a nice day.
@@bwc6520 In what way do you imagine that I question God's integrity? I beleive all that God has revealed about Himself and nothing more.
No, Leighton does not have PhD. He holds a DMin, That is a degree for those who can't cut it intellectually.
I have 8 years of Theological and Biblical education beyone secondary school. I have studied the biblical languages extensively. How much biblical and linguistic training do you have?
I am glad you don't wish to engage me further since you are not worth my valuable time
By the way, Flowers took two courses in Greek. That hardly constitutes scholarship in biblical languages. Perhaps rather than persist in making your scurrilous accusations, you might want to put your money where your mouth is.
@@TheBereanVoice your like the Pope, all that studying and you still couldn't discern your way out of a wet paper bag. I am not interested in taking your money from you. Your someone who can look truth in the face and call it false.
This has to be satire. Calvinists don't believe what is brought up.
Yes, it is satire.
Sounds like you’re grumpy because you now realize you’ve been wrong the last 50 plus years.
If I am grumpy, it is because clowns like Leighton continue to misrepresent what we beleive. I have never been more convinced that soteriological Monergism is correct.
@@TheBereanVoice I don’t know of any non-Calvinists that don’t believe the same thing. Of course we believe that God did it all with regard to salvation. It’s an argument that doesn’t need to be, yet here we are .
@@humanson143 No, non-Calvinists don't beleive the same, Every synergist I have even interacted with has believed that God responds to the sinner's free will decision. Calvinists believe that sinnners respond to God's effectual call by a free will decision. In the synergist's system, it is the sinner who distinguishes themself from other less humble, less pliable, less spiritual sinners. That isn't exactly God doing it all with regard to salvation now is it?
@@TheBereanVoice Why are you being dishonest by saying that "Calvinists believe that sinners respond to God's effectual call by a free will decision"? If someone makes a "decision" without any chance of making any other decision how can that be considered a "free will decision"? That isn't a decision at all. A free will decision involves at least 2 viable choices with a genuine possibility that the person can make any of the choices. That's not what you believe when it comes to someone deciding whether to repent and put their faith in Christ or not. You believe that God alone decided before the foundation of the world what someone will do when it comes to either repenting and believing in Christ or not. What decision does the person really have in that case? None.
It is clear from hearing you speak that the following things are true.
A.) You really have NOT listened very extensively to Leighton Flowers.
B.) You haven't heard other former Calvinists.
C.) These great men have quoted Calvin himself, Augustine, Piper, RC Sproul, James White, and many others to present what "Calvinists believe".
Your little sarcastic video leaves much to be desired. You really DON'T know the depths of Calvinism.
It seems you haven't even read the "Confessions of faith".
I'm not convinced that you truly are a Calvinist.
@fredmiller6166
I have been a Calvinist for better than 55 years. I think I know by now what Calvinists believe. I know what Calvin taught. I have read him thoroughly. I also know what the modern Calvinists you have cited believed. I can guarantee you that Flowers is misrepresenting our views. What part of Calvinism do you imagine that I would deny?
@fredmiller6166
What I can guarantee you is that neither Calvin nor Calvinists believed/believe in causal determinism. That God has determined what will occur in His world and is providentially, actively engaged in bring about what He has determined will occur does not mean that He is the proximate cause of all that occurs. And yes, I have read and understand the Confessions of Faith and the Canons of Dort. If you understand chapter 3 of the WCF, The LBC 1689, the Philadelphia Confession 1742, you will know that Calvinists have roundly rejected the idea that God is the author of sin, or that He violates the will of the creature in the outworking of His decree.
Perhaps you can tell me what aspect of Calvinism you imagine I would deny.
God is NOT the author of sin, He is NOT the source of evil! - Reformed Theology does not teach this, and I certainly do not believe it !!!
You Believing or not believing is not the question. Is this doctrine of predetermined history true or not? Read and do your own study. Stop giving your critical mind over to men! John 16:13. Learn from the Holy Spirit. He is the one you should be listening to.
@@eugenejoseph7076 - i don’t quite know what you mean by “giving my critical mind over to men” - i exercise hermeneutics in my bible study, so yes the Holy Spirit is definitely my teacher.
Dig a little deeper and you’ll see the early church didn’t teach Calvinism. As far as how much you’ve studied and all the letters after your name or any other teachers name that’s just boastful pride, no better than the pharisees. I believe Jesus used fishermen. If reading the scriptures doesn’t pierce your heart the only thing you have to stand on are your degrees. Pure utter nonsense.
Of course, God uses fishermen, but He also used people like Luke and other highly educated men. It would be difficult to argue that Paul was just an ignorant fisherman. The only people who despise higher education are those who don't have it.
There are many doctrines the early Church did not teach with the same clarity that, over the course of Church history, have made their way into our creeds and confessions. The early leaders of the Church were too busy fighting errors like Gnosticism and other errors to have been as definitive about other issues as were later confessions and creeds. I can show you quite a number of statements from the so -called Fathers that indicate that they believed in sovereign election, pervasive sinful corruption, the imputation of Adam's sin etc.
No, I don't stand on my degrees, but I highly value the education that stands behind them.
I don’t despise education I despise arrogance. If your defense is solid there’s no need to use sarcasm (flesh tearing) to defend your stance.
As an earlier commenter pointed out instead of attacking Dr. Flowers you could’ve made your rebuttal of his beliefs using scripture.
@@laurabethuy3585 I was not attacking Flowers. I was showing that he is lying about what Calvinists believe. I was not attempting t rebutt his beliefs. If you want to see me rebutting his beliefs, watch my series "Battleground Passages."
It appears that you are accusing me of arrogance. Since you don't know me and do not know my heart, perhaps you can tell me what right you have to play God.
@@TheBereanVoice Your arrogance comes shining through in your video and in your comments. We don't have to be God in order to discern the attitude of someone like you. You make it very clear.
Predestination is the scriptural word!
Yes, it is.
Only when you pull random verses out of context and then add your own. I've listened to a few and they pluck a verse from a chapter or two of Romans then combine it with a verse from Peter. On and on it goes. The one thing they excell at is bashing others.
@@StringofPearls55 I have an idea. Why don't you watch my TH-cam series on Romans and show me how I have taken any verse out context? I think you are thinking about synergists who regularly rip verses from their contexts and attempt to establlish their views bases on a handful of verses.
@@TheBereanVoice Why don't you just point me to a biblical story or even a parable that teaches Calvinism?
@@TheBereanVoice I'm hopeful said story would consist of a full paragraph, at least.
Making a statement of faith that professes biblical doctrines is one thing. To then go on and add something that one must believe that effectually negates that statement, is the very essence of what it means to be in a cult. You can't say men have free will and also deny it, any more that you can limit atonement to the very elect when you have misrepresented the biblical doctrine of election in the context in which it was written. Calvinists cause confusion because that is what Calvin did and that is who they have chosen to follow. Yet we have a video of Dr. James White attempting to evangelize a mormon actually stating to him that the doctrines of TULIP are not found in scripture therefore he can't use them as an excuse.
Perhaps you have a different understanding of 'confusion' but that example does it for me!
Robin Q,
Thanks for sharing with us the evidence of your profound ignorance regarding these issues. Do you suppose "free will" might be used in two different senses, one of which we deny and the other of which we affirm?
Perhaps you can tell us whether Jesus was one with the Father or separate and distinct from the Father. Does that question confuse you?
@@TheBereanVoice No that doesn't confuse me one bit:
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
John 14:9-11 (KJV)
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
@@robinq5511 It seems that you acknowledge that seemingly contradictory ideas can both be true but in different senses, e.g., sinners can be said to have free will in one sense and not in another sense.
@@TheBereanVoice
The error I see in Calvin's ideas on free will come from the fact that he neglected to consider God's work in Israel that gives us a proper biblical understanding of faith vs works as well as God's grace and man's free will. They were afterall given to us as 'ensamples' (1 Cor 10:11) of what NOT to do lest we find ourselves worshiping an idol and not the true God.
@@robinq5511 That makes no sense at all.
That was childish, first of all. Second, it was a careless assessment of Flowers’ positions. Change your attitude and you may be able to improve your biblical beliefs.
I don't really care whether you think it was childish or not, but it was a spot on assessment of the great heretic's positions. Flowers regularly lies about what Calvinists believe and anyone who isn't completely ignorant knows it. If it weren't for a bunch of ignorant Southern Baptists, [knowledgable Southern Baptists would be something of an oxymoron] he would have no followers at all
I think you are making things up about Calvinists and Calvinism. Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Hi, I am not sure if you are addressing me in this comment. If so, please let me know how you think I am making things up about Calvinists and Calvinism.
@gerritkalkman4384
I don't know if you are addressing me in this comment but if so, can you tell me how I am making up things about Calvinists and Calvinism?
You have faithfully kept the Calvinist practice of dishonest rhetorical methods.
@markriley7122
Perhaps you can identify the "dishonest rhetorical methods" you imagine I have employed."
You're just rejecting double predestination.
I actually happen to believe in double predestination but not in a supra-lapsarian sense and I do not believe in equal ultimacy.
This is a very unconvincing argument for or against anything. It must be satire against something
Of course, it is satire. I guess you win the prize.
This video is a disappointment. I see the point you're trying to make. However, the tone and the failure to think critically about Calvinism help nobody who might sincerely have questions.
Well, if you have questions, watch my series titled, "Battleground Passages," and "The danger of faulty presuppositions." If you are sufficiently obtuse as to believe anything Leighton Flowers and his followers have to say, there is probably little hope for you.
@@TheBereanVoice Well, you know, I didn't even know who Mr. Flowers was. For me, one of the marks of a true follower of Christ is that they engage with other folks in a truly Christlike manner, which I felt you failed to do in your video, and certainly in your response here. Suggesting that people thinking differently than you are "stupid" or "obtuse"? Does that sound like a heart that is full of the love of Christ? 2 Corinthians 13:5, Galatians 5: 22-23.
@@jasonthiessen7873 What would you call people who after being told time after time that they are misrepresenting your views, continue to do so after being corrected, but who insist that they are not doing so? If that isn't stupid and obtuse, I don't know what is.
I would be happy to interact with you about what we actually believe but it is characteristic of those who disagree with Calvinists to horribly misrepresent us.
Paul said that he wished the Judaizers would emasculate themselves and he called the High Priest a wall where men urinated. I think he was full of the Christ. Jesus himself called people liars. Anyone who loves God is going to hate those who blaspheme His name as many Provisionists do.
Good for you. Everyone should question their Framework. Like my pastor said we need to have a big B bible and a small F framework. I rejected Calvinism based off of reading John Piper, RC Sproul, and James White. What was being said by these fine gentleman is clearly in contradiction with scripture. I only later learned that the root of Calvinism was Gnostic in origin.
Vaya con Dios
Calvinism has nothing to do with Gnosticism. And what these men have said was right on target.
@@TheBereanVoice I know they believe what they said. That's why I rejected Calvinism.
However the Gnostic origins of Calvinism have been well documented in history. That's where I got it from. I got this from years of research however you can get it with two books.
"While in Carthage, still as a young man, Augustine left the Christian church to follow the Manichaean Gnostic religion."
Read
"The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism" Dr. Ken Wilson
And
"The Myth of Pelagianism" by Dr. Ali Bonner
You will also then know that Augustine slandered (read Bore false witness) against Pelagius. That Pelagius denied and denounced the accusation of Augustine in front of a church court. He was then tried in absentia for the exact things he has previously been tried for and denied and denounced. We have three letters from Augustine where he admitted he didn't care what Pelagius really taught. He said that a system of self salvation needed to be denied in official capacity. Then the ol' Switcheroo takes place. The Brand new to the church (never seen before by Christians or Jews, Gnostics knew it well though) deterministic interpretation gets inserted, by redefining words to mean what they had never meant prior.
I can listen to John MacAurther, and Paul Washer and really be edified by the sermon. He along with every other Calvinist I listen to regularly preach like my choices, and intentions matter. I listen to Douglas Wilson religiously, he truly is a word smith. However all of them change tone when they preach about Calvinism, I get whiplash every time.
I can't be a Calvinist because of what the text of scripture says. I refuse to allow a philosophical framework (like Calvinism) change meanings in the text, instead of trying to understand what the authors meant. Especially when a Calvinistic reading of scripture makes the Bible contradict itself. If you reject EDD (exhaustive divine determinism), theistic fatalism, or any of its many other acronyms, then you can reconcile scripture. I am not saying that Calvinists are trying to be Gnostics just that the root of it, in Augustine is. John Calvin's The Institutes leans heavily on the writings of Augustine as he admits. Augustine's last eighteen years to be precise. The rest of the time he wrote just like the rest of the church from Jesus until that day.
That's why my favorite preacher to this day is a reformed pastor. Like Spurgeon he is a very inconsistent Calvinist. When I came out of Atheism I was leaning Reformed and studied it at great length. Once I found that White, Piper, and Sproul put forward a deterministic model (that I recognize from my fellow atheists, only with God instead of Physics etc.) I knew that I wasn't in the right place yet, scripturally speaking. God cannot love all and not love all. God cannot determine all things and, not determine some things:
Jeremiah 19:5
English Standard Version
(God) "and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, 👉which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind👈"
1 Timothy 2:3-4
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
If God is the one who puts the Faith (or Pre-regeneration) in us then all should be saved. Not all are saved. God either failed, lied, or people can reject the free offer of the gospel, in spite of what God wants for us.
Like AW Tozer said.
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.”
I love my Calvinist brothers and sisters in Christ, they just as St Paul said have been led astray by vain philosophy.
Vaya con Dios
@@malvokaquila6768 No, the gnostic origins of Calvinism are not well documented. You cannot show me a single doctrine that Calvinists and Gnostics hold in common. That is all just a load of BS.
Perhaps you can tell me who you think believes in Exhaustive Divine Determinism in a causal sense? Who do you think denies that God has granted limited freedom to sinners?
Do you not understand that there is a difference between God's holy desire that sinners repent and his determination to secure the salvation of an innumerable multitude? If He had determined to save every sinner, He would have done so. If He had done nothing more than provide a possibility of salvation, all would be lost.
There is no question that God has given limited moral freedom to sinners but that is the problem, not the solution.
@@malvokaquila6768 You seem to have conveniently left out the part about Augustine leaving and rebutting Manicheism. Someone has well said that if you think there is any affinity between Calvinism and Gnosticism you either misunderstand Calvinism or Gnosticism or both.
@@malvokaquila6768 Please consider the following differences between Calvinism and Manichaeism
Manichaeism
God-Polytheistic competing good and evil deities represented by light and darkness. All things material are evil and all things spiritual are good.
Creation-A cosmic accident in which light which is good has been comingled with matter (darkness) which is evil.
The Fall-Consists in creation itself. It consists in the comingling of light with darkness.
Election-There were two groups within Manichaeism, the Elected and the Laymen [hearers]. We do not know how the Manichaeans decided who where elected, and who were not. Perhaps schooling and family background played into the equation. The hope of the layman was to be reborn as an elected one.
Salvation-Involves the liberation of slivers of light from the evil, material body. In this world, small pieces of light are constantly being disentangled from the darkness, and the sun and the moon are two chariots bringing these pieces from the material (evil) world and back to the divine world and to the Pleroma. These particles of divine light can be seen in what we know as “the milky way.” Salvation in Gnosticism is achieved by self-knowledge, and human beings are regarded as capable of achieving this gnosis.
Calvinism
God-Monotheistic Trinitarianism-God is good and holy and sovereign over good and evil. He is the only Potentate.
Creation-The sovereign act of our all-wise God by which He, out of nothing, brought the universe and all its inhabitants into being. He then declared all things created to be “good.”
The Fall-The rebellion of Adam, whom God had created as His image bearer and appointed as the representative head of His descendants, against Him.
Election-God’s sovereign, gracious, eternal unconditional, and unchangeable decision to rescue and restore a fixed number of particular fallen sinners for the manifestation of His eternal glory.
Salvation-God’s monergistic work in which He reconciles, rescues, declares righteous and restores sinners, body and spirit, from the ravages of sin.
Calvanists have a BIG GOD Who restores fallen humans. Man centered religion has a small God, but big people. Good luck with that!
Or perhaps, they have a big ego that asumes their views are correct without studying the counter arguments.
Humor or not, this video actually helped me to better understand primary and secondary causes. Thank you!
A less sarcastic approach would have been more Christ-like.
If I want your opinion I will ask for it
I was a 5-Pointer for 41 years. But now I am a non-Calvinist. Praise God!!!
Apparently, you haven't read some of the things Jesus' said. You don't seem to know what being Christlike means.
@@TheBereanVoice I guess it's directed in response to me since I mentioned being Christlike, but after a year transpired, interesting. And no, I don't recall the Lord delivering a 15ish minute end-to-end sarcastic diatribe so if there's a passage the presents the example I'm game to read it. And it's wonderful to read a nearby comment about someone who spent decades in Calvinism and abandoned the ideology.
@@williammarinelli2363 Well deal with it snowflake
Is Calvinism the same as hyper Calvinism? I hear both terms and one of them made me mad. One says that God damns random people to hell
Amber,
No. Hyper Calvinism goes beyond Calvinism and denies that we are to preach the gospel promise of pardon to all sinners. If sinners perish under God's wrath it is because they have suppressed God's revelation of Himself. God does nothing randomly. If God saves any sinner it is despite our rebellion and totally by His mercy and grace.
They're both traditions of man, hence the name.
You scared me when I saw that title...whew! Glad I listened!
Respectfully Sir, you need to do more research on your own system. You can start with the (TULIP). It clearly teachs what Calvinist believed. Dr Flowers is simply exposing it. Your attempt at scarcism failed !
NO he isn't. He is misrepresenting what Calvinists believe. Perhaps you should read the Canon's of Dordt and the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. The terms used in TULIP can be terribly misleading and they do not accurately represent what is affirmed in the creeds and confessions.
I have been a Calvinist for better than half a century and I think I know what Calvinism teaches. It isn't what that charlatan claims.
i would bet the rent money that you couldn't accurately state what Calvinists believe if your life depended on it.
@@TheBereanVoice I've read the Canon's, as well as the Counter Remonstrance of 1611, & Philadelphia Confession. What, either espoused by Flowers or found in TULIP, does not align with the doctrinal assertions put forth in those documents?
@@googplussucks4275 For one thing, Flowers by the very title of his movement, suggests that Calvinists believe God has made no infinitely valuable and abundantly sufficient provision for any and every sinner to whom the gospel is preached. We believe there is no less provision for every sinner than Flowers believes. As you know, having read the Canons, that is not the issue in so-called limited atonement. Additionally, Flowers states that Calvinists believe in CAUSAL determinism, As you know from the Philadelphia Confession, we have categorically denied that God is the author of sin but that in the providential outworking of His decree, He does no violence to the creature's will but accomplishes His purpose using second causes etc. Unlike what Flowers suggests, we strongly deny that God treats His creatures puppets or robots. I could go on and on.
I am not suggesting that we don't believe the doctrines represented by TULIP, but that some of those terms have been misunderstood by those who oppose Calvinism. Fot example, some have interpreted "Irrestible grace" to mean something like "divine rape" in which God FORCES sinners to do something they are unwilling to do. As you should know. That is not the way we understand God's effectual call at all.
@@TheBereanVoice What "infinitely valuable and abundantly sufficient provision" has God made for those who He supposedly decided should not have any opportunity for salvation and instead were predestined to spend eternity in the lake of fire?
Debating theology ISN'T IMPORTANT. What the world needs is people trying to act like Jesus. We don't need more intellectualizing--we need more heart. We need more love, tolerance, charity, and forgiveness. Whereas, intellectualizing is a distraction and an excuse not to try and act like Jesus. IT'S OBVIOUS. And please don't respond to this comment by sending me an isolated quote from the Bible which attempts to defend your endless intellectualizing. Your responses are boring. Instead, have the courage to try and act like Jesus. NO MORE EXCUSES. NO MORE EXCUSES.
Thank you, Brother. Your response was so beautifully, truthfully, and powerfully said.
Thanks for the support. I must have sounded a little angry. But I'm tired of hearing others intellectualize, and sometimes I do it, too. @@carrotstick1970
Look at how many times Jesus’ spoke about doctrine in the Scriptures and then note the consequences for neglecting it (in His own words). Your comments are not Biblical and are the reason we’re in the theological desert we’re in today.
@@johnmcdonald4553 Your false doctrine of Calvinism makes our holy, just God as cruel and exclusive. Pride is not just a regular sin; pride is the root of all sin, and pride is the root of the false doctrine of Calvinism.
@@johnmcdonald4553 2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a soldier that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
You believe a false gospel that's what Calvinism is Gnosticism heresy
There are 2 Gospels one is true one is false
1)Gospel(Good news) says:God so loved the world he gave his only son that WHOEVER BELIEVES in him shall not perish but have everlasting life
2)Gospel(terrible news) says: God so loved the predestined elect that he sent his only son to die for those whom he chose before the foundations of the world to be at his side while he damned the rest to Hell
Which ones the true gospel(Good news)?both can't be correct,one sides wrong the other is right
Are these the same gospels? BE HONEST BEFORE GOD LIEINGS AN ABOMINATION
If not then ones under a curse according to Galatians 1:6-9,which ever sides right must not fellowship with those who preach a false Gospel,and are we going to fail like the Corinthian church failed in 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 an easily put up with those who preach a false gospel and another Jesus that has not be preached?
Stop following popular Christianity and let's follow scripture
The truth is IF YOUR a CALVINIST/REFORMED THEOLOGIAN and are HONEST YOU would have to come to the same conclusion I have and forsake fellowship with non Calvinist because they preach a different good news then the one you preach, if anyone is preaching opposite of what you may believe the true gospel is (Calvinism) then you can't consider non Calvinist saved according to galatians. Its very saddening that anyone holds this demonic view of God and I pray they repent, because it seems that in the same way the pharisees rejected Gods will for their lives and his knowledge so as to be saved is the same way many calvinist have been given over because they refuse to heed to true gospel for the sake of being apart of a bearded club of false Greek gnostic philosophy
@ThePreacherman9
Please consider the purpose clause in John 3:16, It begins with the word "that" in case you don't know what a purpose clause is. Please tell me what the verse states about any purpose or intention of God to save those who will never believe. Additionally, perhaps you can show me how the gospel message Calvinists preach differs from the apostolic message recorded in Acts. I can show you many ways in which the soteriological synergists' message differs from the apostolic message.
Please consider the following contrasts between Gnosticism and Calvinism.
Gnosticism was polytheistic. It posited an inferior creating god who created the material world and a higher god who ruled over the creator god. In addition, they believed there were emanations from the Pleroma
God, who does not create, originally emanated archons (powers), like the light from the sun, seen, but not physical. One of the archons, Sophia ("wisdom"), in a moment of weakness, produced the Demi-Urge, who then created a physical [and inherently evil] universe, including humans.
Calvinists are monothestic and believe God exists in three distinct persons.
Gnostics were dualists who posited the idea that all matter, including corporeal beings, is evil and Spirit is good. A lesser and evil god created the material world which is inherently evil.
Calvinists believe all that God created is good.
Gnostics believed that “the fall” was the creation of matter itself by the Demi-Urge. They had no concept of human responsibility or free will in the proper sense of that term.
Calvinists believe that all were represented by Adam, their federal head and fell in him, but that all are responsible for their own rebellion against God. We are both sinners by birth and sinners by choice.
Gnostics believed that salvation involved the liberation of light slivers that have been trapped in evil [because material] beings so that they might return to the spirit [good] world.
Calvinists believe that salvation not only grants sinners a right judicial standing before God, but also that it frees the believer from the reigning power of sin and conforms us more and more to Christ’s image.
Gnostics believed that salvation came through an esoteric revelation [a hidden knowledge (gnosis) that was given only to some].
Calvinists believe that God has revealed Himself universally [both in general and special revelation] so that there are none without some knowledge of God. All that sinners need to know about God and His ways with men has been clearly and universally revealed.
Gnostics believed that salvation involved release from the material world which is inherently evil into the spiritual realm which was inherently good.
Calvinists believe that salvation involves the forgiveness of sins and restoration of a right relationship with God.
Gnostics --Jesus [or some unknown creature like him] came as a teacher who would grant the knowledge [gnosis] necessary to escape the material world and return to the spirit world.
Calvinists believe that Jesus, God in the flesh, came to redeem a people for Himself who would be zealous of good works.
Manichean Gnostics with whom Augustine was associated prior to his conversion believed:
MG--God-Polytheistic competing good and evil deities represented by light and darkness. All things material are evil and all things spiritual are good.
Calvinists believe there is only one true God who created all things and all that came from His hand was good.
MG--Creation-A cosmic accident in which light which is good has been comingled with matter (darkness) which is evil.
Calvinists [see above]
MG--The Fall-Consists in creation itself. It consists in the comingling of light with darkness.
Calvinists [see above].
MG--Election-There were two groups within Manichaeism, the Elected and the Laymen [hearers]. We do not know how the Manichaeans decided who were elected, and who were not. Perhaps schooling and family background played into the equation. The hope of the layman was to be reborn as an elected one.
Calvinists believe that election is God’s eternal and unchangeable decree in which He purposed to redeem and save an innumerable multitude from a fallen mass of humanity who richly deserved His wrath and curse.
MG--Salvation-Involves the liberation of slivers of light from the evil, material body. In this world, small pieces of light are constantly being disentangled from the darkness, and the sun and the moon are two chariots bringing these pieces from the material (evil) world and back to the divine world and to the Pleroma. These particles of divine light can be seen in what we know as “the milky way.” Salvation in Gnosticism is achieved by self-knowledge, and human.
Calvinists [see above].
So perhaps you can explain to me what Calvinists believe in common with Gnostics.
@@TheBereanVoice Youve been warned is obvious you'd rather depend on gnostic wisdom and wisdom of man warned against I'm 1 Corinthians 1,I pray you open your eyes and stop spreading these demonic Hereies that started with gnostics
@@ThePreacherman9 The prayers of the wicked are an abomination to the Lord.
@ThePreacherman9
Can you tell me if you believe there are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction and vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory?
@@ThePreacherman9 Do you imagine that Paul was a Gnostic?
That Leigthon Flowers is something. 😂
Why on earth should anyone be interested in your wrong decisions? Your loss
I guess you didn't watch the video to the end.
I love your sense of humor ..! I love your videos to.. God bless you..
Then again, what would you know? 😘
This was so good brother Randy. I had to get my popcorn 🍿 Dr. Flowers never fails to demonstrate his abject ignorance about Calvinism.
Do all people who hold to the label "calvinist" believe the exact same things or are there very different beliefs people hold under the label calvinism?
"Ignorant of Calvinism"
He did his doctoral dissertation on Calvinism. Every single thing he says about Calvinism is most of the time a quote or confession from a modern or historical Calvinist.
There is absolutely nothing that Flowers asserts about Calvinism that is not a actual foundation of Calvinistic doctrine. Flowers and myself believe misrepresentation is actually lying, and we go out of our way to be honest and represent Calvinism honestly.
The ignorance of Calvinism might be on you. Or maybe you actually don't like what actual Calvinism teaches.
Keegan Kidder If someone says they are a Calvinist they need to know the historic position/perspective. I would say that a consistent Calvinist is evangelistic and does not have a distorted view of the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man.
@@CaldwellApologetics Sovereign just means that God rules as he pleases and we all affirm that, we just believe God sovereignly decided to give man a limited amount of freedom. Sovereign does not mean divine determinism. Also, what if someone disagrees with you on what the standard is to be a "consistent calvinist". Who now is the true calvinist? Is it you, or the calvinist that disagrees with you? See how quickly that thinking unravels?
Beyond that though, you didn't answer my question at all. Do people who wear the label "calvinist" hold a wide range of beliefs about calvinism? Simple yes or no would do. If yes, then which "calvinism" specifically is Dr. Flowers ignorant of? Who should Dr. Flowers critique that is a "consistent calvinist".
Keegan Kidder Friend all you have do is read the historic Calvinistic position like the Canons of Dort. All Christians, Calvinists and non-Calvinists, differs on things like eschatology, etc. That is nothing new. I do not have to agree with everything John Calvin wrote to be a Calvinist either. But if I believe that evangelism was fruitless I would be betraying the tenets of historic Calvinism which comport with Scripture. Labels mean nothing without an examination of the convictions behind it. All convictions need to subsumed under the authority of Scripture
Do you know that you missed the point entirely and you have no clue my friend what you're talking about
And what point to you think I have missed?
And what is it that you imagine I have no clue about?
i knew something was up when i saw the title, LOL
Nice job. That PHD and all those followers are way more important than any Biblical Truth. Reformed Theology put God in His actual place of Sovereignty and let me understand a God/Christ centered Gospel over the Man centered ones taught in most churches. I'm unapologetically Reformed because God knows me from Womb to Tomb. He knew I would come to Him, I just didn't, and had to take my own path to Salvation. It's near impossible to comprehend predestination until you really give God all the Glory He deserves. God knows whose coming to Him and who will deny Him to their dying breath and He uses both for His will and purpose. Calvinism isn't for those ears that want to be tickled.
Great to hear from you again, Brother.
So you were Reformed, now Pelagian because Laighton Flowers says so?
Watch to the end of the video. I wouldn't beleive Flower's description of a dog fight.
Great hearing from you again, Brother.
Here is the claim being made by the westminster confession:
1. God decrees everything that happens.
2. He is not just foreseeing the future and predicting it, but He has decreed what will happen. i.e He wants whatever happens to Happen. He has declared that it will happen.
3. God doesn't do violence to the will of the creature (though he saves people in an "irresistable" manner).
So when a pedophile rapes a child. Its because God has decreed it. He has not merely predicted it based on his foreknowledge of the conditions and the rapist's character. He wants it to happen. Of course, he doesn't cause the rapist to act ( in an immediate sense). The rapist acts on his own will. But since God is sovereign, and his decrees are not just predictions, there is nothing else the rapist could have done except what God decreed that he do- I.e rape the child.
I dont blame Leighton for being "confused".
There is no logical or rational way to bring all these concepts together, and so people end up being confused between primary and secondary causes, the hidden will of God etc.
The question people ask is "did God want this to happen"? I dont see how a calvinist can honestly say anything other than yes.
Similarly for salvation,
1. Jesus death as an atonement is "sufficient" to save all people.
2. Jesus atonement expiates the Sin of only those who will believe.
3. God makes sure only the elect receive saving faith.
The above view is 4 point calvinism. Its not something many calvinists like John Piper hold to. They are just more consistent and claim that Jesus only died for the elect.
Ashwin,
I would strongly suggest that you read my book, “The Grace That Saves.” You can find it at www.amazon.com/author/randyseiver. If Leighton had ever been a Calvinist, as he falsely claims, he would not be confused about what Calvinists believe.
Let me attempt to respond briefly to your assertions/questions.
1. Yes, God decrees everything that happens, meaning that from all eternity, He has drawn a boundary between what He would either cause to occur or permit to occur in His world and what He would prevent or restrain. If He decided that it would occur, He decreed it.
2. No, God does not merely foresee what will occur. He knows perfectly what will occur because He has decided it would occur. His decree makes an action no more certain to occur than His perfect knowledge that it would occur. If His omniscience of what would certainly occur was perfect, then what He knew perfectly would occur must certainly occur otherwise His knowledge would have been imperfect. Neither in the case of His decision or perfect omniscience does God cause the action to occur. He is the first cause in the sense that nothing that occurs could have occurred had He not decided that it would occur in His world.
God does not desire and cannot desire that sinners sin. What He desires is the greater good that He has intended to bring about through the evil He has determined to permit and use for His glory [the manifestation of His glorious attributes], and the eternal and spiritual good of His people.
If God knew perfectly that a person was going to commit a rape, could have prevented it, and decided not to prevent it, then He decided beforehand that it would certainly occur, i.e., He decreed that it would occur.
God’s decree makes an action no more to occur certain than His perfect omniscience of that action beforehand. In both cases, it is an unalterable certainty. The rapist does what he wants to do and could not have done other than he did, otherwise God’s perfect knowledge of his action would have been faulty.
3. God does not violate the will of the creature (though he saves sinners in an irresistible manner). God saves sinners by giving them a new disposition and by removing their determination to resist Him. He never does so by violating their wills. If sinners come to Christ in faith and repentance, they come because they sincerely desire to do so.
People’s confusion about such matters should not be blamed on Calvinistic doctrine but on false shepherds who have concealed the truth and failed to exposit biblical passages in a systematic way. Whether you like it or not, the Scriptures clearly teach that the term “will of God” can be used in more than one way and that actions and events have primary and secondary causes.
Similarly for salvation,
1. Jesus death as an atonement is "sufficient" to save all people.
This is not a four-point Calvinists’ position. It is clearly expressed in the original statement of so-called 5 point Calvinsm [the Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine]. This death is sufficient for all because of its infinite value and because what one sinner needs to reconcile him to God is no different from what any other sinner needs. The issue has nothing to do with sufficiency.
2. Jesus atonement expiates the Sin of only those who will believe.
This is not an exclusively Calvinistic view. Everyone who is not a Universalist acknowledges that the sins of unbelievers are not expiated. If Jesus had satisfied God’s wrath for every sinner, every sinner would be justified.
3. God makes sure only the elect receive saving faith.
God is God. He has the right to grant mercy to whom He will and deny it to whom He will. Some receive grace and mercy; some receive justice; no one receives injustice. God has not done and is not doing anything to prevent any sinner’s saving faith. Jesus’ redemptive work secured all the blessings of the New Covenant for His chosen people including God writing His law on their minds and hearts, removing their stony hearts and giving them a heart of flesh, giving them a new disposition and putting His Spirit within them. These privileges belong to believers alone and were secured for them at the cross.
The issue in this doctrine has nothing to do with the sufficiency of that work to expiate sin. Had it been God’s intention to secure the blessings of the New Covenant for every person without exception, every person without exception would be inclined to obey God and seek Christ as He is offered in the gospel.
The above view is 4 point calvinism. Its not something many calvinists like John Piper hold to. They are just more consistent and claim that Jesus only died for the elect.
This is precisely what Piper et. al. believe. This issue is the intention and design of Jesus’ redemptive work, not its sufficiency.
@@TheBereanVoice
You are adding a false equivalence between decree and foreknowledge.
Decreeing something is qualitatively different from just permitting it. God himself asserts this difference in the scripture:
Jeremiah 19:They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
Jeremiah 7:31
They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire--something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.
God totally denies that he has decreed actions such as burning children as sacrifice to Molech or Baal. Its obvious He has not prevented these actions, but permitting something is not the same as decreeing it.
Thw difference is that one decrees what is one's will. One desires that the vent happens.
Mere Permission does not indicate desire. The point of emphasizing on God's decree is that he is decreeing according to his good pleasure.
@@Ashwin2584 I have not equated God's omniscience of all things future and God's decree. Perhaps you should read my comments again. What I wrote is that God's perfect omniscience of all things future makes all that God has known perfectly will occur certain to occur. If they do not occur, then God's knowledge of their [imagined] occurrence could not have been perfect. Neither in the case of God's perfect omniscience nor in the case of God's decree does God actively cause all that occurs. In the case of His decree, He does not merely permit what occurs but has decided or determined to permit [or in some cases cause] what occurs. If He knows perfectly that something will occur, could have prevented its occurrence and has chosen to permit its occurrence because He has a good purpose for it, then He has decreed it. He has determined beforehand that it will be done.
You must either deny God's perfect omniscience or His omnipotence to avoid this conclusion. Given the verses you have obviously grossly misinterpreted, I suspect you think there are some things that God simply did not know and didn't see coming. In fact, if you truly believe in an autonomous will, He could not have seen them coming.
@@Ashwin2584
In these verses,
Jeremiah 19:They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
Jeremiah 7:31
They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire--something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.
Yahweh was not denying His perfect knowledge that these events would occur. What He was denying was that He had commanded such practices as a part of His worship. It had not even entered His mind to command such a practice.
Perhaps the term "decree" has led to your misunderstanding of our view. We do not mean by that term that God has commanded all that will occur. In fact, the Scriptures clearly distinguish between what God has commanded [which often does not occur] and what He has determined before will be done [which always occurs].
@@Ashwin2584
We would distinguish between merely permitting an event and determining to permit an event. Yes, God does all that He has pleased according to His predetermined will, but that does not mean that He necessarily approves of the event, choice, or action itself.
God's revealed will is that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn and live, yet it is clear that the wicked die in their impenitence. When that occurs, since God could have prevented it, it must occur because He has decided to permit it.
If you tune in to Soteriology101 right now Flowers is discussing your video
Question: Have you ever heard of "Decisional Regeneration". By the way, I like your videos. Keep up the good work.
If you are talking about the booklet by that title, yes, I read it many years ago.
Yes, the booklet is what I had in mind. I think it's message is just as valid today as it ever was.
@@webgold3408 I agree. I wish I still had a copy of it. Some of our synergists friends would do well to read it.
I have an extra copy of this booklet that i will give to you if you are interested . I will need your postal address if you would like to have it.
@@webgold3408 Yes, I would like to have it, but mail is somewhat unreliable here in Costa Rica. Perhaps I could give you a US address where my wife will be in March.
Your sarcasm makes your viewpoint very confusing
I probably wouldn't expect anyone called "stompnthegroungministries" to understand anything.
divide and conquer, internecine catfights in the church..plays into satans hands
There is no Grace in Calvinism its all works and perseverance and if you dont show works or perserverence were never saved qoute by john Mcarthur
Are you so obtuse that you don't realize that the works that JMac is talking about are produced by God's grace and not by the believer. Additionally, none of the good works that God produces form any part of the basis of a person's justification before God. Some of you people are so stupid it is frightening.
@garycumner6804
You might wish to read the Scriptures to find out what they teach on this matter. What would you think of a preacher who told his hearers they needed to repent and do works to demonstrate their repentance?
@@TheBereanVoice No mate iam not
obtuse about jmac teaching about Gods grace and works i no its not from the holy spirit therefore its a lying spirit not so not so stupid afterall or arrogant
@@TheBereanVoice I no scriptures very well and how to rightly divide the word correctly iam not taking i by the servants of satan who speak another gospel and distort the truth iam far above satans kingdom
@@garycumner6804 Yes Mate, you are obtuse. You seem to have no clue about the biblical teaching that genuine faith will give evidence of itself. It has nothing to do with the basis of justification before God. Of course, it is from the Holy Spirit. Paul's purpose in preaching the gospel was to turn sinners from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they might receive the forgiveness of sins. People who have not been delivered from Satan's power haven;t been delivered from the guilt of sin either. He also preached that they should repent and do works demonstrating the genuineness of their repentance.
One day Calvinists will stand before Jesus and he will say, "Who are you? I never knew you"
@geoffrust6787
I can support everything I believe from clear biblical texts taken in their proper context and all you have are your pitiful proof-text, mercylessly ripped from their context that support nothing but your prodiguous ignorance of biblical truth.
Thank you for your content!!
WHO CARES?! We are NOT interested.
Cool
I guess he is now a choice meat? 😂
Welcome to the TRUTH.
Bless you brother. I love the sarcasm. Lol
Yeah, it really reflects the typical arrogance of Calvinists. Thanks for showing your true colors.
another satirical bunch of tripe!!!
But it is a bunch of tripe that accurately describes the way Leighton Flowers and other synergists misrepresent Calvinists and our views. If you don't like it, don't watch it. I would prefer that beautiful people watch my videos so go away.
Lack of logic.
Flowers misrepresents calvinism over and over again. So sad.
Read the Bible and doctrine of men
clickbait
@villagesilat3Very astute observation. You must be a rocket scientist.
Flowers is a mess.
I disagree.
I agree, he is a mess.
You're a mess. Clean it up.