I am a calvinist, but have been listening to your videos, i am open to maybe being wrong. One thing I must say is thank you for the way you represent and explain Calvinism and the main teachers. There’s a lot of respect in the way you discuss it and I really appreciate that and it makes me want to listen more. After all we are all brothers and sisters united in love
The Calvinist view: the word for “know” is the Greek ginosko. The word for “foreknow” used in Romans 8:29 is proginosko. The prefix “pro” is added to the word “ginosko.” So it makes sense to say that God is knowing once He predestines. In other words, He only knows the predestined ones. Romans 8:29 describes a predetermined relationship in the knowledge of God whereby God brings the salvation relationship into existence by decreeing it into existence ahead of time. Flowers states in the video that Calvinist believe Proginosko means for-chosen. Calvinist believe Proginosko means for-loved as it is a personal relationship with Christ. RC sproul has a great article on this.
When Paul says God foreknew us, he is speaking of God's knowledge of us as persons. He is speaking of His decision to enter into a relationship with us, to set His love on us (9:13). It is because He chose to love us that we will believe. Only those whom God chooses to love in this special way can be saved, and all those whom He has chosen to love in this way will be saved. Dr. R.C. Sproul comments in his book Romans, "We could reasonably translate this text [Rom. 8:29], 'Those whom he foreloved [those whom he knew in a personal, intimate, redemptive sense from all eternity] he predestined.'"
@@ShepherdMinistry But none of what you are saying refutes that God predestined some to eternal damnation before they were born. Before they ever sinned, before they heard the Gospel or had the opportunity to respond to repent and believe. Only One existed before creation. Jesus WARNS those who do not BELIEVE. Luke 13:3,5. John 8:24 Yes, even the Pharisees he WARNS. “Unless you” Jesus clearly says it is their choice. “You will” Jesus is clearly saying the consequences of not repenting and not believing (as Jesus stated in Luke and John) are in the FUTURE. It was NOT predetermined or predestined. Nicodemus was a Pharisee who did choose to believe, although it appears it took time to be convinced and courageous and to come forward. John 7:50,51, John 19:39 yes, even the Pharisees were given the response ability (responsibility). Apparently in Calvinism there is no option for forgiveness. No election, sorry no salvation The Bible actually says salvation to election (election = for God’s purpose)
@@ShepherdMinistry In one of your comments you wrote, "Only those whom God chooses to love in this special way can be saved". I'm reading this to mean God chooses only some people to love and to save? But then how do you interpret passages like 1 Timothy 2:3-6: "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. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, WHO GAVE HIMSELF AS A RANSOM FOR ALL..."
Leighton, I am absolutely loving these short vids. I'm a nerd who loves your 2 hour videos, but these shorter vids are ministering to those among us with short attention spans. I love supporting your ministry and continue to be so grateful to Him for your labors. Blessings!
Thank you Thank you Dr Flowers. That is the best interpretation of Romans 8 i have ever heard. About to teach on making disciples and was using romans 8 . What we are predestined to do is be conformed to His image. GOD BLESS
I just watched a refutation of James white of this video and it was terrible he misrepresents what you say terribly and people can't even tell. I don't necessarily go with your interpretation but it's definitely more possible than that of Calvinist and arminians. James white used to be my favorite apologist but now it's sad I hadn't noticed how his strongest ability is to misrepresent others.
@@NunyaBizness-X Look at the context. Paul is lamenting about the Jewish people not recognizing their Messiah. And God is talking about the people groups, and that they were blessed through Jacob, not Esau. God hated that Esau and his progeny would be separate from Him, that they were essentially "created for wrath" because they would remain separate from God and not realize the Glory He had prepared with reconciliation through Jesus. Which, is the setup for introducing the gentiles. If God really made Esau only for wrath or hated him, why did Esau live a "good" life and what happened with the Edomites? Wouldn't that mean that babies, unborn, and mentally incapable of comprehending their own failures are unjustly punished? How do you reconcile that to Luke 14 if Hate can only mean Calvinist hate there? Calvinists stop at 30 because 31-32 show that the real comparison is an extension of God choosing the Israelites and eventually including the gentiles, not unconditional election.
Dr. Flowers your channel is such a blessing. My wife asked me why Calvinists are wrong on this verse and all I had to do was type Soteriology 101 Romans 8 and... there it was. Thank you again and GOD Bless you.
No one is foreknown until they are in christ. If you're in christ then you are no longer in time but in eternity which has no beginning and no end. That intimate relationship is in christ, And Adam knew his wife and bore a son. We are his bone and his flesh his bride. Great video God bless you
That's just assuming that foreknown means "in Christ". Foreknown does not just mean an intimate relationship if you study the use of the word. The Pharisees use it of Paul.
This was really stumping me, despite your explanation. Until I focused and stared at the beginning of verse 28.... "And we know" .... THAT right there means that Paul is telling them "Listen ! We already know what happens to those people who LOVE God ! He does X Y & Z (all talking about past actions)". After I had the epiphany, the whole thing made CLEAR PERFECT SENSE and the context LOCKED into place very nicely. You are one of the best scripturally sound teachers on TH-cam that I have found !!!
@@davidthomas9276 Everyone is called according to Matthew 22 ! But it is up to the human being to respond to His call ! Remember Paul in Acts 26, when he was sharing his Damascus conversion to King Agrippa "I was not DISOBEDIENT to the heavenly vision". He knew it was his choice to surrender his will to GODS will and follow Him. God loves EVERYONE that whoever believes in His Son WILL HAVE eternal life
Thank you for making this passage make sense from a non-Calvinistic perspective! I have been posting them on my FB page and my Reformed friend is asking questions. So grateful for these short videos!
macolyis you’re reading correctly, but you’re adding your own suppositions as to how it works. Go to bible gateway, click on KJV, and type ‘faith of Christ’ in the search bar. When someone believes they are grafted into Christ. It is the faith OF Christ, the faith that Christ expressed in His earthly ministry, that justifies us. This faith OF Christ is the original perfect faith that is righteous, that stands before God justified. Believers are given the faith OF Christ by Gods grace and justified through it.
macolyis Jesus is the author of our faith... Heb 5: 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; He’s the author of our faith as in the object of our faith. He is the one whom our faith is about. It began with His obedience on the cross and will end with His appearing (finisher)..... 1Pe 1: 7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: 8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. The flesh profits nothing because you can’t will or work yourself to be saved. That’s not to say that you can’t believe it receive Christ. Those are aspects that are contrasted in scripture.... Rom 9: 30 ¶ What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; Jhn 1: 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. This passage clearly says that those who receive Him are given the power to become the sons of God which is the new birth (indwelling of the Spirit)..... Rom 8: 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. So first you receive Jesus, then you’re born of God (given the power to become the sons of God which is the Helper). It’s clear that receiving Jesus is not the will of the flesh (keeping the law) nor of blood (you don’t have to be a descendant of Abraham) nor the will of man (you don’t have to put in some great effort or strive to obtain it). Just receive/believe. Simple.
@macolyis Question. Why was Jesus amazed by how much faith the Roman Centurion Soldier had if he was the one that gave him the faith? I don't agree with everything from Leighton but he made a point with that question. "it's like saying we're all born underwater, unable to breathe underwater. And God is the only one who can give you a breathing apparatus, then once he gives it to someone, he's amazed that they can breathe underwater."
Before you do that, do this. Consider who Paul was talking to in Romans. The Jews right? Then, go read the entire story of Esau and Jacob. Start with when Rebecca is pregnant! Note God's understanding that Esau, although the first born, was unfit to bring the Messiah's lineage forward. He was a hedonist. No faith at all. Jacob wanted to do the right thing, just kept doing it the wrong way. Also note that God tells Rebecca his plan: the elder will serve the younger. Then the birthright is transferred to Jacob BY ESAU, so he can eat. Then, when Isaac is on his death bed, "no integrity" Esau, wants his birthright. And Rebecca, who knows God's intent, steps in and prevents Isaac from giving the birthright to the wrong son. She makes sure it goes to Jacob. The purpose of all this was to be clear to the Jews that their righteousness did not come through the Law, or by birthright, but it came through faith alone. Look for Pastor Allen Nolan, Cornerstone Fellowship- Genesis series #53, 54.
Leighton, I had a recent epiphany about this issue. Christian marriage, as I understand it, is to represent the love Christ has for His church via a Christian man and his love and devotion to his wife and vice versa. The process by which we meet, woo, court and eventually become one with our wives in a Christian marriage, I see that this parallels exclusively to non-calvinistic teaching. The calvinist view seems to align much more with the forced marriages in many other religions. Just thought I would share that with you as I found it to be very eye-opening.
An interesting insight drawing this comparison, I tend to agree. A person's understanding of the nature of God goes a long way to defining there relationship with God and ultimately there relationship with their fellow man. When Calvin condemned someone to death he later stated, in essence, that he was saving God the trouble and even decades later did not recant or repent of his actions in doing so, but reaffirmed the same. It clearly displays his view of who and what God is. While scripture reinforces that God IS love, not as an adjective but as a noun, Calvin preferred to focus on the harshest possible attributes which could be applied to God and embrace them as if flailing himself with the chains of his own sin and calling it good. Calvinst/Reformed preachers have a favorite sermon that challenges people to people to swallow their 'bitter pill' about what seems unjust to us that God made people who are going to hell because He refuses to grant saving grace for no other reason than because it pleases Him to do so and who are we to question God.... And those who will swallow that pat each other on the back for their spiritual insight and maturity....even if it turns out that He hates their own children whom they love and would lay down their own life as Christ did for us..... but... why would anyone do that for someone that God hates? There is no "Bitter Pill" in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the Good News, the very Power of God unto Salvation to all who will believe. And all can, but not all will. And for that they will die for their sins, not the sins of Adam, but their own sin. (I feel sort like taking up a collection now) ;)
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT very well said, both of you (Mark LeClair too)! On the topic of the "bitter pill," I recently had a discussion with a calvinist concerning the charge of equal ultimacy (aka double predestination) that is frequently leveled at the calvinist doctrine of election. They answer that by saying that God actively elects, but takes no action regarding the non-elect, thus He does not actively reprobate them in eternity past and is not guilty of the charge. I commented that while the answer is logical the end result does not prevent God's character from being maligned. If I assume the calvinist position that God elects people unto salvation in eternity past, and if God has elected some and simply done nothing with the rest, He is guilty of neglecting them to their eternal destruction. At the very least He becomes neglectful. It only gets worse when you consider that He will judge the non-elect in the future for not doing what they are incapable of doing. In other words, to do nothing to save a person when you can do something is blameworthy and it's infinitely blameworthy if that something is to save them from eternal damnation. There's just no getting around it. Calvinism impugns the character of God.
@@a.k.7840 Thanks, I agree. Cavlinists conclusions cannot avoid God being responsible for those souls sent to Hell no matter how they desire to 'spin' it. It's interesting to note scripture says that Hell was 'prepared' for Satan and his angels. There is no mention of it being originally intended as a place for the souls of men. Those having their belief system bound in TULIP are always befuddled by the question "why do some not believe" as if it was so mysterious a question as to demand a deep theological answer. It's funny to see the look on their face when confronted with the simple, obvious, and logical response that... 'they just wouldn't believe.' It is not my opinion that contextual reading of scripture supports Total Depravity as equaling Total Inability. It may be a minor point but I think of it this way regarding; "He will judge the non-elect in the future for not doing what they are incapable of doing."(Calvinist viewpoint) So, what is the reason a person will go to Hell? Does a person go to hell because they have sinned, or, does a person go to hell for rejecting the Gospel of Christ? I believe, ultimately, people will go to hell for rejecting, not believing in, the Gospel of Christ. Jn 8:24, speaking to the Pharisees Christ said;"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." .....the reason is "if ye believe not". The question becomes 'why' they don't believe. It would seem it could be said, at this point, that the condemnation of man to hell is more for rejecting Christ than for sin. Because Christ already solved the sin issue for anyone who will believe. And the vast preponderance of scripture I see suggests any man can believe. God repeatedly speaks to man throughout scripture as being able and responsible to believe. Christ also spoke to people as if they were capable to believe, and He often bemoaned the fact of those who would not when they did not, as did the Apostles. It seems Paul did not think he was wasting his time with trying to persuade King Agrippa or that the outcome was inevitable. The Gospel is the power of salvation to all who will believe, it's just that some will not. That is no mystery about that to people who believe we have a libertarian free will to choose what we believe, it's no more complicated than answering the question, "what did you have for breakfast?". Unfortunately, rather than a simple reading of scriptural texts in context Calvinist impose TULIP in one form or another on every scripture and as a result they must ultimately 'adjust' scripture to 'fit' as needed. Once it gets 'stuck' in their mind they just cannot see beyond it, and the paradigm becomes a vicious cycle. Well, all have sinned, but some believe we are actually guilty of Adams sin from birth. I do not. I believe our own sin is inevitable because of the consequences of Adam's sin which brought a curse on the earth to which we are subjected. It's not the same thing. Pelagius was wrong to suggest we could avoid it. Without blood sacrifice there is no solution for sin, the price for sin is death, and it will be paid. The question becomes, who's blood will be used to pay the price. That choice is ours to make. And if that is not true... then I was obviously destined to believe it is. I am a victim of circumstances.
I’ve been taking notes from your podcasts a leaving them through out my Bible to make my own. Study Bible. Would you consider doing one of your own with your colleges
If foreknown refers to the past, then what does glorified refer to? Most would interpret "glorified" in a proleptic sense of a future event of glorification where saints will receive an immortal body.
This is a good point. And I hope Leighton might address it. From his perspective i believe it might look like this: 8:28 looks to be demonstrated in 29 a predestining into Christ-likeness SO THAT He would be "the" firstborn among them. Meaning the former confirms not that ladder but the foundation of the one's who are conformed to His image. 30 looks like a confirmation of 29. Those who were predestined unto Chris-likeness will be those who were called, justified, and LIKE THE FIRSTBORN (doing that former AS ladder sequence we find in 29), will also be glorified. But in every commentary, i can find whether Calvinist or not...all agree that "Glorified" is God's view of eternity and pointing toward our resurrected state. I think the reason "glorified" is also a view into the future (although Leighton sees this as looking at the past, is the link to Christ as the firstborn of that final state we yet can't see) is because of what is done sequentially in 29: Those God knew before (believers) he called and justified -- and as far as we can see that looking back... Jesus as the firstborn of that category (we conform to Him) is Jesus--and we see Him glorified in scripture...so shall those who believe also.
Saints are glorified at the point of Physical death. This is seen at the transfiguration where Moses and Elijah appear 'in glory' Luke 9:30-31. At the resurrection is when this glory will be revealed to the creation and the resulting liberation of creation will take place Romans 8:18-23.
@@rob5462 the transfiguration was a vision (Matt 17:9) of the eternal kingdom, in fulfilment of Jesus' prophecy to his disciples (Matt 16:28) that some of them would see before their deaths. Paul tells us that there is a timing to physical glorification (1 Cor 15:35, 42-54) which happens at Jesus' return (1 Cor 15:23). Those who are dead in Christ will be made alive only at his return.
@@duguoqing84 Although Rob does bring up an interesting point. Rob is using scripture to describe how glorification might mean something that happens in seed form when we die--and ultimately fulfilled and realized in the literal resurrection. Please note the following references: PULPIT COMMENTARY τὸ ὅραμα, "what bad been seen." ELLICOTT'S COMMENTARY Commentary: "The Greek word for “vision,” it may be noted, means simply “what they had seen,” and does not suggest, as the English word does, the thought of a dream-state in the beholders." In addition, Jesus said not to tell anyone about this vision until he rose from the dead. In that, there is a link to this moment and Christ's resurrection. When we think upon Christ's resurrection we understand that Christ is now currently glorified. And as we are hidden in Him...as sure as He literally is glorified, so shall we be. Also, Moses and Elijah were literally talking to Jesus--it was real. Plus the Father confirmed Christ as His Son there too (the voice of God in the clouds was not a vision as we might understand but a reality seen and heard). The reason for the transfiguration was to represent Christ's soon resurrection representatively seen in the vision on the mountain (that ultra-white part was a prophetic visionary look at near prophecy fulfilled). Another main aspect of the overall vision was a witness and confirmation before his disciples that the law and the prophets were now being handed over to THE PROPHET, Christ. So the vision was was also a living testimony confirming Christ as the New Covenant Maker. Since this was confirming Christ to such a lofty biblical and scriptural transition, it would need deeper confirmation such as a living and active supernatural vision and transfiguration. Therefore I think that this example that Rob gives is actually perhaps "the answer" to this. For it does show a glory of Moses and Elijah. It shows Christ's glory, and it is all done in reference to the resurrection glorification. Because this vision occurred during the feast of tabernacles, it is thought among many that this feast will be the time when the rapture occurs.
@@duguoqing84 "Those who are dead in Christ will be made alive only at his return." I believe to depart is to be with the Lord: 2 Cor 5:8 & Phil 1:23-24. Also, please note that in Revelation 6:9-11 & 7:13-17 these are non-resurrected saints that are immediately alive and in the presence of the Lord. Blessings. :)
Now that I see it, I can’t unsee it. But I wish you would have gone further to verse 33 and explain its use of the word elect. 😅 Was this addressed in another video? I’m still looking. Thank you!
Yes there are other videos. But what you must understand is that the word elect in verse 33 is in reference to those who have faith in Christ and the word election used in Romans 9 is in reference to election to service. Look at the greek words and see how theyre used throughout the bible and you can get a better understanding :)
It is very interesting. However, foreknow and foresee are not the same thing. And if God knows all things, he knows the beginning and the end, then he already knows his elect. It is beyond our earthly comprehension, but we can say that those whose names are written in the book since before time are already known to God, even as the last days are yet to unfold. If we are true followers of God, this does not change things either way, as we do all things through God and for God. Love will see us through and we should never be in conflict with another true elect of God. May peace be with you:-)
@@TheOtherCaleb You got saved because you chose Christ with your libertarian free will so I don’t see any reason why you could not deny him with your free will. It does not make sense to me but feel free to enlighten me on this since I don’t understand this perspective. I am a calvinist so no need to defend the doctrine of eternal security.
Thank you Dr. Flowers for explaining these verses which seemingly support Calvinism, but in reality do not. I find it almost unbelievable that any Christian with even the most basic knowledge of God and the scriptures could support a doctrine that our God of love sends people to hell regardless of their spiritual choices. Thank you for exposing this lie and clarifying the truth. God bless you.
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Romans 9:10-13, 16 The Bible is abundantly clear.
God invented science and reason. Calvanistic doctrine is so illogical that u don't need scripture to realize that an all loving God wouldn't behave in this way.
@@danielbernardesfalcao2648 The passage Romans 9 refer to the choice made between 2 nations God choose Israel instead of the edomites also says about Esau selling his inheritance.
What does Paul mean “the Man Jesus Christ” would this confuse the first hearers of Paul’s letter as to divinity? Why not “the God/Man” My non inspired temptation as an early scribe of this text. Thoughts?
Could have added a little more to this; there was a time where God didn't know the believer, Galatians 4:9: "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?" At some point, you weren't known by God, but after believing you are. The foreknowledge in Romans 8:29-30 is referring to the very moment a person was known by God, at that moment in time when they believed. So since God is in the future in Rom. 8 (hence why "glorified" is in past tense), the foreknowledge refers to the event in the past when a person started to have saving faith in Christ. This passage just teaches that every believer is predestined for glorification (another great passage for Eternal Security), not that God chose some random person unconditionally and predestined them for justification or glorification. Foreknowledge here is God in the future looking into the past, not God before the foundation of the world looking into the future.
Calvinism falls apart at its very foundation. If God has predestined some of us as Elect and the rest as Reprobate and nothing in this life can change the Reprobate’s mind, even the very word of God, than no matter what that person does, even if with all their ability they surrender to God and Love Him as best as they can, it does not matter because if they weren’t predestined as an Elect they are going to Hell no matter what.
The lost sinner is not going to choose God and love him to begin with. This is why God predestine the elect. Your understanding of scripture falls apart not Calvinism.
@@stevie6621 Jesus chose Judas,Judas chose not to believe.What you choose are the cause of becoming a reprobate.Romans 1 is clear about this. ''Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. '' Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; ''
9:55 "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" Romans 9. Jude says "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ORDAINED to this condemnation" etc
My first question is, where are you getting the -"and sisters"- from? Here is my answer as to what that means. In order to understand what that means, you'd have to understand what Paul is actually saying in these verses, _Flowers is close, but he misses the boat a bit._ *Think about what Jesus said about Solomon in Matthew 12:42.* *Jesus is greater than Solomon.* Between those two, Christ would be the firstborn..he'd have the preeminence. But of course *Christ is greater than all the people God call in the OT.* People like Moses, David, Abraham, Issac, and so on and so forth.
I don't think they will address it. Because Paul is explaining Gods sovereignty, that He can do as He wills...like the potter. Many will take the position of the clay telling the potter how they should be fitted.
@@jmmx69 Look at the context. Paul is lamenting about the Jewish people not recognizing their Messiah. And God is talking about the people groups, and that they were blessed through Jacob, not Esau. God hated that Esau and his progeny would be separate from Him, that they were essentially "created for wrath" because they would remain separate from God and not realize the Glory He had prepared with reconciliation through Jesus. Which, is the setup for introducing the gentiles. If God really made Esau only for wrath or hated him, why did Esau live a "good" life and what happened with the Edomites? Wouldn't that mean that babies, unborn, and mentally incapable of comprehending their own failures are unjustly punished? How do you reconcile that to Luke 14 if Hate can only mean Calvinist hate there? Calvinists stop at 30 because 31-32 show that the real comparison is an extension of God choosing the Israelites and eventually including the gentiles, not unconditional election.
@@jmmx69 You assume it is talking about God's sovereignty the way you mean it, but it's not. It's talking about God's sovereignty the way Paul meant it. That God has the right to cast away a lump of clay if it is unsuitable, not that He made it unsuitable in the first place as you assume. And thanks for strawammning. And Leighton has dealt with this numerous times. God watch it!
@@GrahameGould Thanks. I've watched them. I understand the arguement that Leighton is trying to make in those videos, which is that Paul is speaking about corporate Israel and corporate Gentiles, and not individuals. However, Pharoah did not represent corporate Egypt. And you can't corporatize John 6:44, 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.' Or, John 6:65, 'So Jesus added, “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.” Though it's a difficult concept for the mind of man to grasp, no one chooses, unless they are first chosen to do so.
In Hebrews 8:12 we read that God declares that He will remember the sins of the redeemed no more. Now, if God is omniscient (and He is), how could this knowledge be outside of His remembrance (recall to knowledge)? I would suggest that God willingly chooses to dump (for lack of a better term) said knowledge from His omniscience. Could it be possible that God also simply chooses not to know our future actions in detail? Without diminishing His wisdom and knowledge, could we hold a position that God has provided every means to avoid temptation, come to the knowledge of the truth and live according to the law written upon our hearts (as taught in scripture) AND He elects to not direct our outcomes and decisions without our invitation to do so? To be more clear: Could He have predestined all of us for glory while leaving all of us with the free will to choose otherwise and since the callings and giftings of God are without repentance, we may choose to use or abuse those gifts and that God simply works beyond the effects of our collective poor choices to bring about blessing for those who surrender? He knew me before because He created me. I was conceived in His mind before I was knit together in my mother's womb, no? That alone makes me foreknown...does it not? I have done my best here to point to scripture without misrepresenting what I believe is evident in the context therein. I could be wrong but I do believe this may very well be the simplest interpretation. Grace and peace to all.
I’m on your side but could you explain the term effectual in context of your argument. Maybe you should use some other term that people could relate to.
Proverbs 9:8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
It mentions first fruits in Romans 8 and every other chapter about predestination etc. eph 1 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
I’ve been teaching my 6 year old about false dichotomies as how to spot them. I hold up a pencil and ask if it is a pen or a fork... he looks at me and raises his eyebrows like I’m a joker.... perhaps I am... perhaps I am.
5:48 I believe this interpretation makes a lot of sense but how does verse 30 fit in with it??? Hmm “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Romans 8:30
I tried really hard to follow your logic Dr. Flowers. But I am unconvinced of your soteriological view. As a former Wesleyan who came face to face with hard questions from atheists and my own questions as I’ve studied scripture, I’ve found the rigor of Reformed theology to be most satisfying to me. I am more convinced than ever of Calvin’s theology. It passes the exegetical and philosophical tests . I really believe that most people hold a presupposition one way or the other prior to reading the texts and it often skews what would otherwise be a clear understanding of scripture. Once the presupposition is challenged, then the reader will use all of his intellect to find a way around the clear reading of scripture in order to arrive at the conclusion that he wants. This, I believe is what you have done. I give you credit for trying. You are obviously smart and know the word of God. But as Luther said “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason .......my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe”.
@@peterfox7663 What would you say is your biggest problem with Calvinistic soteriology? Don’t worry, I won’t criticize you or even debate it. I’m just curious.
@@johntrevett2944 I think the L is challenging from a scriptural basis as well. Though it seems logical if one accepts the U. When I evangelize, I tell people that Jesus died for all who will believe in Him. Which I know is true. People in this vain generation need to hear that the gospel message doesn’t revolve around them like they think so many other things should. They need to feel desperate for Christ and seek His forgiveness rather than hear a constant message that Jesus loves them, no matter what. I’m speaking generally of course. There are many people who do need to hear that God loves them. But if atonement was actually made for every person then it seems to me I would need to accept universalism. Which isn’t scriptural at all. The deep things of an eternal God are challenging.
@@Declared-righteous Spot on! I don’t care for the wording “Limited atonement”. “Definitive Election” is a much better way to say it. I understand that God has predestined those before the foundation of the world, and scripture does say Christ died for many (the many being those who He predestined). I just don’t know that I could defend that scripturely. I’m glad you have read scripture and are leaning more towards reformed theology. I was raised in a reformed church, so maybe I haven’t put aside my presuppositions well enough. However, I have found that you don’t have to jump through so many hoops, to redefine words, or just completely ignore certain passages in order to see that reformed theology is definitely more accurate. At the end of the day though, as long as you agree with me on the Gospel, then that’s all that matters.
Matthew 7:23 - And then will I declare to them, 'I never KNEW you; depart from me, you evildoers.' Can you explain to the meaning of the word "knew" as Jesus use it?
I'm sovereign. This morning I decided to drive into town and hit golf balls. I'm sovereign. I decided to eat breakfast at Braums instead of Whataburger.
All things means that which you don't have control over , like a drunk driver slamming into your car and your paralyzed from the waist down . Doesn't mean things , habits which you practice . Remember God can stop anything bad from happening to you that you don't have control over if it's going to benefit you spiritually .
How can a person be saved, reconciled to God, if by nature that person is dead in sin ? How can a spiritually dead person choose to believe if, spiritually speaking, that person has no life, no desire, no interest (because spiritually dead) ? How can a person spiritually dead come to life if God did not decide to give life ? Why do some believe and not all ? God has chosen a people to save, he has given that people to his Son as His Bride, and Christ came to save that people. And all those God has chosen (foreknown) will come to Christ in faith, because in due time God will give them life to believe in Jesus Christ.
Those known in Christ through faith makes the most sense to me (Galatians 4:8-9). Paul's readers in Rome are living under emperor Nero. Christians are being fed to wild beasts in arenas, hung on poles and lit on fire to light night parties, and being crucified. Paul's readers are concerned that those who have died for Christ are dying before Christ returns. Paul is comforting Christians by telling them that these slain believers and other faithful believers who have died before Christ returns are already considered glorified to God. Just read 8:35-39. Martyrs and the faithful dead fits so well: [35] Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? [36] Just as it is written, “For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” [37] But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. [38] For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, [39] nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Dr Flowers, how do Calvinists explain the need for missionaries to spread the Word? Or do they simply not believe it, or conveniently skip that part? Thank you :)
I’m not the Dr., but I am a Calvinist. First off, let us understand that a lot of great missionaries were Calvinist, so this part isn’t being skipped. Calvinists see Jesus as a “Calvinist”. It’s a worldview. When Jesus says for “those who have eyes to see and ears to hear”, we believe that he’s speaking to the elect. Election isn’t a closed system, in other words, people who are depraved in sin today will give there life to Christ tomorrow. So we don’t know as Christians, who will believe or who will not believe. Romans 10:17 says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” This is why Jesus commanded us to spread the gospel to all creation. The difference is, you won’t find a Calvinist who will be “seeker friendly” by trying to impress the lost and “convince” them to believe in the gospel. Simply put, Calvinists will preach the gospel to the unbeliever and he/she will either have ears to hear and eyes to see, or not. That is up to God.
@@levibaer18 Thank you for your answer. It was very clear and to the point. Also stated your position well. I respectfully disagree. Jesus died for all of us but unfortunately some will choose not to follow Him. And that, to me, is the key point. Accountability - so that I may be judged according to my words and deeds, after having heard the Good News and made the choice to reject or accept Jesus' sacrifice. Not a hubristic choice but rather being absolutely flattened by humility. To know that, without His mercy, I do not stand a chance. It is thus, indeed, up to God.
I like the explanation but Calvinism is not only based on Romans 8: 28-30 so what do you make of other text such as John 6:44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day".
So if it not all the work of God that we are saved, meaning we have to choose to be saved....doesn’t it indicate “work” in the sinner’s side ...that he can boast about? Please reply. Thanks
Q: WHO are the many brethren? ROMANS 8:29 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the FIRSTBORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN. These are the OT saints who God foreknew in the past before Christ and who God predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son even though Christ had not yet come to this earth. They died in FAITH and were predestined according to Romans 8:28,29 to be conformed to the image of God’s Son even though they lived in a time prior to Christ. So when Jesus rose from the dead and lead captivity captive and redeemed all who died in faith before Him, He was the firstborn among all of them. They were still waiting in Abraham’s bosom for Christ and had not yet been re-born spiritually because death and the grave were not conquered yet. This simple fact confirms even further that those being talked about in Romans 8:28,29 were those who had died in faith prior to Christ and were counted among those referered to as the “many brethren” in verse 29. God predestined these men that lived before Christ that they would STILL be conformed to the image of His Son even though they had lived prior to Christ. So when Christ rose from the dead He would be the first born among all of them whom He lead out of Abraham’s bosom. QUESTION: Are we today in 2019 counted among the “many brethren” in Romans 8:29 that Christ was the firstborn among? A: Of course not because Christ rose from the dead 2000 years ago and it was at that SPECIFIC TIME in history that He became the first born. So He was only the firstborn among the many brethren that lived BEFORE Him and not those who still had not come into existence like you and I. ...Scripture is crystal clear there was a time where we were NOT known intimately by God, yet reformers claim they always were??? EPHESIANS 2:12 12 THAT AT THAT TIME YE WERE WITHOUT CHRIST, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, HAVING NO HOPE, AND WITHOUT GOD in the world: GALATIANS 4:8,9 8 Howbeit then, WHEN YE KNEW NOT GOD, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 9 But now, AFTER THAT YE HAVE KNOWN GOD, OR RATHER ARE KNOWN OF GOD how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? **QUESTION: So how do reformers claim that they were known of God before the foundation of the world when Galatians 4:9 clearly speaks against them on this????
Pk Amponn Your question has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Please post a new comment in the main comment section for all to see and I’d be happy to respond.
Pk Amponn are you reading the verse assuming those who need to pluck their eyes out are believers in danger of losing their salvation if they don’t? If your right eye is offending an unbeliever to the point that it’s the only thing preventing him from accepting Christ as Saviour and he simply won’t let go then yes pluck it out so he can save himself from this untoward generation. Has nothing to do with a true believer losing something. As far as people who think they’re saved but they’re actually not because they haven’t FULLY trusted Christ but are rather trusting themselves then they don’t have anything to lose because THEY NEVER HAD IT. Few things I would say: 1) Some freewill choices have eternal consequences such as being spiritually circumcised with Christ. How can a human reverse a SPIRITUAL operation? 2) Once we truly believe our lives are now hid with Christ and our salvation is not ours to lose it’s HIS. So how can you lose something that’s not in your hands to lose? 3) Salvation comes to those who FULLY trust Christ as their saviour which entails believing in faith that He WILL save you. If you think you can lose your salvation then you’re not fully trusting Christ. In that case your belief is in vain. He will say depart from me I never knew you. Let me ask you this question today right now as you’re reading this who are you trusting in for your salvation? What’s the cutoff point for losing it? Grace is no longer grace if it be of works. Can you confidently say you have eternal life right now? If you think you have to contribute something to your salvation then you don’t fully believe what Christ did is sufficient. So to summarize you can’t lose something you never had to begin with. And you can’t lose something that’s not yours to lose. It’s His to lose and He’s promised to never forsake you. Even if you deny Him He can’t deny Himself who lives inside you. If you’re trusting in your obedience then you’re not fully trusting Christ and in that case you’re not actually saved.
More examples in scripture of God's foreknowledge. (Jesus talking to Peter) Joh_16:30 Now are we sure that ((thou knowest all things,)) and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. Joh_21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, ((thou knowest all things)); thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Joh 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. Joh 21:19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
You have to understand God's moral will and His sovereign will for man. For example a teacher's moral will is that everyone pass their exam but in reality many fails. You cannot twist word of God and His will according to your liking 🙏
While I agree with your understanding of foreknew (proginosko) I think to complete the analysis here you have to also back up and deal with the term called (klatos) and the remainder of the context. Pointing out a flaw in John Piper's analysis of Romans 8:29 doesn't really de-Calvinize the passage, and to refute the quote from Calvin I think you really need to address Romans 9:14-26 not just state it is not biblical.
Respect to Dr Flowers for keeping the comments turned on for his videos - some of his opponents are not so keen to hear from their viewers. But isn't it time he came up with some catchy, religious-sounding titles for his beliefs? After all, if you can sell Calvinism as "Doctrines of Grace" or "The Golden Chain of Redemption" - just think what that marketing approach could achieve when applied to sound theology!
One must understand that Paul uses the aorist here because he is speaking to believers. He does the same in 1 Cor 1:9. These have all been called, justified and glorified. The latter because of their position in Christ, because they stand in him. To maintain that he is speaking of the saints of old is wrong, although these things were true of them too.
This is not a good exegesis to the passage, the context as rightly stated, is the "current sufferings" and the comfort is that God Has predestined those who suffer "now" to salvation, so nothing will separate the suffering Christian from the Love of God, not even our current suffering. The people that Paul is referring to in this passage are the current Christians who suffer due to faith in Christ Jesus.
It’s been my understanding that God is not predestinating individuals but His church. If you want to be predestined become part of His body. If you chose to draw back then you are no longer part of the predestined church. When it says those He predestined He also called it means that He only calls the predestined but Jesus said many are called, but few chosen. So if it’s individuals who are called not all the predestined will be chosen.
The idea of Corporate Predestination seems ridiculous. Doesn’t Paul flat out say that the advantage of being born Jewish was not salvation, but being given the k owl edge of salvation and being the line of the Messiah? This is another proof that Predestination is not about salvation but the sanctification process and or the purpose God leads us to weather we believe (Paul being called to be an apostle) or pharaoh being called to his position because he was a hard headed SoB that would defy God to a historic extent.
I am not a Calvinist. Why does God give people so many warnings (Both in NT and OT) and so many prophets (OT) to beg the people to repent? He doesn't say, "some will repent, some wont" or "ill make some repent" but he warns all of Israel to repent. Meaning they have a choice. Yeah Total Depravity is true IF God were to completely and totally withdraw himself (reprobation/unpardonable sin) from a person like said in Romans about those who once had the mind of Christ but refused to retain it and were given over to reprobate minds, no one is naturally born with a reprobate mind. Also, in all the testimonies I see from Godly people it seems to teach against Calvinism, has anyone seen the testimonies of Firebrand Ministries? In her testimony God prophesied over her from a pastor and God told her to not let the enemy have his way with her and God told her to cooperate with him and choose him. The other testimony is from John Ramirez, he was satanist and he found himself in Hell while he was still alive and God brought him back and told him he will give him one more chance and told him to repent or be condemned forever. I've never heard of any testimony that specifically prooves Calvinism right, i've heard of testimonies of people who had a sudden change of heart and just knew they were saved in a special moment (I have a friend who has a testimony like that) and that's about the closest testimony to Calvinism i've heard, but i've never EVER heard of a testimony that confirms of limited atonement or anything like that.
I know its been awhile since you posted this but I thought I would offer you this. Pay attention to what God says that He will do: Ezekiel 36:22-28 22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. Specifically in verse 27 God says that He will CAUSE the Israelites to walk in His statutes and to be careful to obey His rules. This is what God will do to a people who has profaned His name. Just a thought.
@Soteriology101 thank you for showing people that a God that would predestine certain people for Hell based on no doing of their own cannot be a true god as that would be evil.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. John 3:17-18 ESV Everyone is hell bound, that is the default position. God chooses to have mercy on some, but allows the rest to be justly punished for their sin. You believe this makes God evil?
@@orvillewright548 if God is wiser than we His judgement must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil. On the other hand, if God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say ‘God is good’, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say ‘God is we know not what’. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear-and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity-when the consquence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing-may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.
Tatiana J The doctrine of total depravity is a concept regarding the state of people, not the state of Christianity. All people are born under the stain of original sin. We will all get one of two things, justice or mercy. No one will be able to accuse God of being evil for allowing a person to continue to live in sin. Mercy is not owed to anyone.
@@orvillewright548 we can if He made those specifically for salvation and those for damnation, if those people had no decision to put their faith in truth or lies.
"God is Omniscient, not Omni-deterministic". THIS sums it up. Calvinists confuse God's Omniscience with his Omnipotence. The result is Omni-deterministic. While God is ULTIMATELY in control, He NEVER violates a person's free will. He already knows how people will choose because there is nothing He cannot know. But He never forces person how to choose.
The "natural man" - those the god of this world has blinded - those held captive to do his will - they have free will ?? They don't even have free will within the domain of darkness - let alone the Spiritual realm. Does fallen flesh ever agree with God - show me a verse ? no verse, exactly 1 Cor 2:14 kjv But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM,
Before the Foundation of the World ,,,, In the Mind of Christ,,, Yahweh created everything and everyone and rehearsed the plan of time. When perfect , He said , Let what's in ME Be Out There !
I just feel like all his channel tries to accomplish is to explain away the plain meaning of the texts and the historical exegesis. People read it straight forward and see calvinism, and then people run to Leighton (who else do they look to) in order to trying to explain it away. From my current perspective, that's what I see. I'm open to being wrong..but there is so much explanation that has to be delivered to change the meaning. It seems more twisting than the calvinist view on this text.
Why does it even have to come to a simple understanding of foreknew? “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God (sound like this is limited to those who love God, and believe in Him) to those who are called according to His purpose (you have covered plenty of passages stating the God calls everyone, but these were called according to His purpose and as you have cover His purpose is to save, so isn’t this simply referring to those who have been called and responded in faith) For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined (The most quoted phrase of Jesus is, “if you want to gain your life, you must lose it.” If you have surrendered to Jesus then wouldn’t you logically move from a relationship of foreknowledge to being predestined to complete the journey) become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;” The very simple beginning to this interpretation is why Calvinists would jump in with BUT HE LOVED US FIRST, once again ignoring that He loved the WORLD.
I'm sorry but if I truly believed the Calvinistic doctrinal interpretation of predestination and determinism, I would experience no contrition for my sins. Why would I? Because according to Calvinism, God predestined and determined me to sin and then receive and believe or reject and not believe the gospel depending on His sovereign choice. Basically He made me sin, then He either made me repent or reject the gospel. That is equivalent to me forming a lump of clay into a hard ball, throwing it through my neighbors window, and then blaming the clay. Calvinism puts all of the sin and blame on God Himself, consider the following verses; James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Dear Calvinist, you are complicating the simplicity of scripture by making a mystery where there is no mystery. You're over philosophizing these scriptures. It is not arrogance to believe a sinner can respond to God's mercy out of his on free will, nor is it a work .Arrogance is believing that somehow you were more special to God than your neighbor Bob, because lucky you was chosen before you did anything right or wrong to end up in heaven, whereas poor Bob gets to suffer for eternity because for some reason God felt like He deserved to be punished for all time for the sins that He determined that he would do.
After an incredible amount of scripture, read in context; Romans 8:28, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose”, is NOT explaining how God has predestined everything in our lives to work out in our favor(“for good”)/ using it to make us(special chosen people) come to Christ/using everything to make us “more like Him”/using even evil to give us a special gift or calling for His purpose. I believe This is an incredibly evil perspective of God and skews who He is to mankind, and subtlety promotes a selfish perspective in anyone who adopt this world view/philosophy. If anyone who is born of God and knows God, under the New Covenant, they understand that God DOES NOT use evil to bring us to Himself but Love(the Person and Life of His crucified and resurrected Son for us). Reading Romans chapters 4 through 12, consecutively and without biases, anyone would see how God, for a New Covenant believer, uses the truth of the gospel/the grace of God and His righteousness given to us as a gift, is what He offers to us to receive by faith and uses the gospel message to change/save us, mature us, that we may grow up to be confident sons and daughters. And even in evil circumstances/sufferings/trials, we can see good come out of it…BECAUSE we are in that place, on behalf of Christ, to reveal the Father to others(unselfish perspective view of God and why we are saved). So BECAUSE, through the GOOD NEWS, we now get to understand who we are, in Him, and why we are alive(to reveal Him for the sake of others), all fears may be gone. This explains the last few verses of Romans 8; “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. ❤️🔥Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: “For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”(Romans 8:31-39 NKJV)
Beware Dr Flowers is misrepresenting Calvinism in this video. How? Flowers states Calvinists beleive Proginosko= Forchosen. Calvinist believe it means foreloved (an intimate relationship). He is speaking of His decision to enter into a relationship with us, to set His love on us (9:13). It is because He chose to love us that we will believe. Only those whom God chooses to love in this special way can be saved, and all those whom He has chosen to love in this way will be saved. Dr. R.C. Sproul comments in his book Romans, "We could reasonably translate this text [Rom. 8:29], 'Those whom he foreloved [those whom he knew in a personal, intimate, redemptive sense from all eternity] he predestined.'" We see Adam knew Eve because it was an intimate relationship. Genesis 4:1 [1] Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.” We see Jesus saying He didn’t know certain “beleivers” who didn’t have true saving faith. Matthew 7:22-23 [22] On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ Forknew are those who God foreloved having an intimate relationship with before they were placed on earth.
There seems to be a lot of assumptions being made here. The author speaks about context but limits the context and adds an interpretation about Israel's past which the current context doesn't seem to indicate. Romans 8 is about the security of the believer hence v1 and vv 38-39 and vv28-30 is validation of the believers security being rooted in God's effectual call from before the foundation of the world, which flows out of the great rhetorical question from Romans 7:24 "Who will rescue me from this body of death?". Paul doesn't deal with Israel specifically until chapters 9-11, so to use Israel's history as an interpretive lens clouds the interpretation instead of helping it.
That’s not true exactly Paul talks a lot about Israelites in romans before romans 9. He talks about the Jews in chapter 2. he talks about Abraham in chapter 4. He talks a lot about the law in romans 7. This is because Roman Christianity started different from every other church. Rome had not had an apostle sent to it yet at the time. The Christians in Rome had been converted not by the preaching of an apostle but by Jews who had been converted while they had traveled and came back to Rome. Christians in Rome where probably half or even a majority of them where Jews. You can presuppose this because before romans 8 Paul mentions the Jews in romans 2. talks a lot about Abraham in chapter 4 and the law in 2/7. this is contrary to the way he spoke to gentiles in acts 17. So he must be addressing Jews throughout. To read more of the early church at Rome I’d suggest you read Christians at Rome from Paul to valentinus. Christians in Rome at the time where probably a majority of converts from Judaism and Paul address them throughout romans 1-8 so expecting them to look back into the scriptures to those that love god wouldn’t be weird at all. I’d argue this interpretation is just as consistent with romans as any other. For a few reasons. Paul addresses Jews in romans 2 as if they are the main readers of this letter. Romans 4 goes on great lengths to show Abraham was justified through faith. Romans 2/7 goes into the law and how it cant justify. So with a large Jewish audience who knows the Old Testament this view would still make sense. So let’s move on to your point about how this is about security. His interpretation is also just as fitting with the security of the believer. If you have faith like Abraham had you are justified like Abraham was (through faith chapter 4) Because as verse 28 says “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,” So Paul is going back to how where you justified in the Old Testament? By faith. So those who have faith are predestined for the same things Abraham received through his faith. This is still Paul talking about security. But even if he didn’t mention Israel or the Jews in romans 1-8 it wouldn’t matter. You could still take this view. chapter divisions where added later and romans 8 could still be the first mention of Israel and be a transition to Israel in chapters 9-11 For a narrative to flow properly it need transitions. Romans 8 could still be a transition to romans 9.
@@Mw-mo2wg You still can't change the immediate context of Romans 8 to fit his interpretation and redefine Rom 8:28-30. The point again is the security of the believer. You can't divorce it.
@@Bo-gt5do I literally put a whole paragraph into how his view still gives you the security of the believer. I suggest you reread my post. I also gave you the context tell me what other book in the Bible do you say don’t worry about chapters 1-7 read chapter 8 by it’s self. Chapter 7 is context for 8 as 6 is for 5 and so on. You can’t ignore the context of Christianity in Rome at the time and chapters 1-7 and still say I’m ignoring the context. You don’t have to take my view but don’t tell me I’m ignoring the “context” because you want to throw out the points I made using chapters 1-7
@@Mw-mo2wg I mean no offense. The point that I am making is that the Flowers changes what Romans 8:28-30 means and the context of Rom 8 doesn't allow for it. Even though you can say that Flowers interpretation allows for security of believers still doesn't answer the primary issue that Paul is arguing for in Romans 8:28-30. Paul is clearly not referring to Israel in the context, he is referring to the Church. To say other wise you have to read into the text (not saying that you are doing so). Guys like Flowers are so anti-Calvinist that their hermeneutic becomes inconsistent in order to argue against as opposed to taking the text at face value.
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Romans 9:10-13, 16 The bible is abundantly clear about God choosing the ones he wants, and the reason for his choice is not the merits of these chosen, but his grace. I think the Christians have to stop trying to do PR with God so that he's more palatable to the world and start trusting him to do what he wants with the pure gospel we teach.
Is it possible that Gods purpose was that non perish but all to come to know him. Or that God has tied all over to sin so he could have mercy on them all. As in Adam all die in Jesus all will be made alive. Why do we assume that God did not have a plan to redeem all his creation isn’t that more within his character.
If you are referring to Christian Universal Redemption then yes I believe in the Greek term Apokatastasis. This is a belief that many in the early church believed ( the first 300-500 years of the church)
Because it’s clear all over scripture that the prerequisite to salvation is belief and faith on who Jesus is and what He did on the cross and why. That much is clear. When we believe, that’s what makes us new and the Spirit resides in us and seals us for salvation. Without the believing and the faith, it can’t happen. But it’s available for all who want it.
Non-Calvinist: So, what do you think, have you ever considered that before? Calvinist: You just hate God's Soverignty. Non-Calvinist: That's not true, did you listen to the argument? Calvinist: Whatever, you are just a glory grabber, you want God's Glory for your own. Non-Calvinist: Do you agree the explanation for Forknew is at least a reasonable explanation in place of your idea for it meaning Pre-Chosen? Calvinist: Whatever, Calvinism is the Gospel. You just hate the doctrines of Grace. Non-Calvinist: Huh?
Spot on! They never address the issue. They just divert attention to their assertions. Whenever a Calvinist sits to address the issue and realizes they are losing, they immediately switch back to the assertions and straw-manning. The few who do will tell you they will go research and get back. Kiss that conversation goodbye. You will find that same fella arguing elsewhere the same set of reasoning he was rebuked for and claimed to go investigate. Showing the "I will go investigate it" was just a ruse to run off to someone else not as discerning as you. This is why I see the majority of them as hypocrites, not someone who doesn't know.
@@michelhaineault6654 That is because in your English translation, a Calvinist sees ordained BEFORE believe and assumes that is the order in the Greek. You are forgiven for your ignorance but men like John Calvin, John MacArthur, John Piper knows better and would dare not in a theological debate use that verse
@@michelhaineault6654 That is not Greek. That is looking through a concordance which is good but has nothing to do with what you are claiming. Your claim is in the Greek "ordain" comes before "believing" because one has to be ordained to beleve so your manage theology claims but the Greek of that proof text says otherwise. So, I don't know what rabbit you are pulling off. If you don't understand what I am saying, simply ask.
@@michelhaineault6654 Hi Michael, I am sorry to say, your response, I have found, is typical among Calvinists. Instead of dealing with the argument at hand, it seems many go and find a scripture the think is saying the opposite and use it as a weapon against the Scriptures themselves. And No, it is not stupid to looka at a word and see how it is typically or unanimously used else where in scripture to help bring understanding to a passage. How sad for you. By the way, that is a very arbitrary and novel understanding of the word "ordained" randomly selecting a word and inventing a novel definition so as to prove your fallacious assertion, is right out of the Calvinist script. Good job following the Pied Piper's playbook to a T. Kind regards.
Jesus, the Christ declares that the Temple is his father's House, sir; you say it is Jesus Christ's house, sir; hence; one of you has got to be patently WRONG! His believers may hear his voice, yet only if they will, sir, now, think and correct your thinking, or remain a goat-brained mentality, in vast error, sir!
Dr. FLOWERS, IN TIME AROUND 3:58, YOU SAID THAT THE FOREKNOWLEDGE AND PREDESTINATE OF GOD IN ROMANS 8:29 REFERS TO ROMANS 11:12 ABOUT GOD FOREKNOWING THE ISRAELITES... THIS CANNOT BE BECAUSE IN ROMANS 11:12 PAUL WAS REFERRING TO THE NATION OF ISRAEL AS THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OR CHOSEN NATION, BUT IN ROMANS 8:29 PAUL REFERS TO INDIVIDUAL NOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE OR NATION.... EXAMPLE ACTS 13:48 (KJV) ''And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and ''''AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.'''' =>>> THIS IS THE TRUE REFERENCE TO ROMANS 8:29.... INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE PREDESTINED TO BE SAVED OR TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF GOD'S SON....
May I humbly suggest that you take another look at your exegesis of verse 28 before you move on. It is interesting that when you read back verse 28 you ignore the definite article before agathos that is even printed out on the screen. If it had of actually been there in the original MSS (but it wasn't) it would have pointed to the meaning of "the" good. However, the original anarthrous construction here, along with the basic meaning of agathos as being a "good" of intrinsic value, should make it obvious that this is not something that will be obtainable by any believer in this life. And taking another look at your exegesis will help as you move on to the next verse. As proginosko is used in verse 29 it is a third person singular and that, along with the fact that proginosko is only used in the New Testament with God as the subject, should make it obvious that God is in view here and certainly not "those in the past." God is producing the action of the verb. So are you basically dancing around the theological Doctrine of Divine Decrees? The Omniscience of God is not discussed here. Omniscience must precede the Decrees while Foreknowledge follows the Decrees. Therefore, Foreknowledge is more limited in scope because following the Decrees it only deals with those Decrees. Nothing can be Foreknown until it is first Decreed because only the Divine Decrees establishes reality. Reality is entered into the Decrees and is described as election, foreknowledge, and foreordination: election being the point of the decisions; foreknowledge being the recognition of the decisions; foreordination being the function of the decisions. And all of this is in reference to those mature believers mentioned at the end of verse 28 - ......who are called according to HIS purpose.
Very bad argument right from the start. Romans 11:1 KJV - I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God did not castaway His people which He foreknew (v2). What was Paul saying? God did not castaway Paul who was an Israelite. How can a studied ThD not see this? Yikes!
Except that he goes into how the Jews were cut off for a time in Romans 10 and 11. This poses a contradiction to your stated “intention of Paul”. If Paul is meaning to ease the mind of the believer, he wouldn’t point to a group that God just blinded for a time. 1.) He’s describing a situation that has no assurance, which negates your states context of Paul’s intention. 2.) In the very next verse, verse 30, it says that those who are called are also glorified. If he’s supposedly talking about the Jews he formerly knew, then he’s contradicting himself because they’ve been cutoff, not glorified.
But it said those who he foreknew he predestined....but God knew the Pharaoh. Do you believe he conformed him to Christ's image?😂. Guys, Calvinism is just what the bible sounds like when we take it seriously.
@@michelhaineault6654 No, God will vomit both Calvin and Arminus. Only those trusting in God's Word in context and living it out are secured in Christ.
@@michelhaineault6654why is Peter asking you to make every EFFORT to make your calling and election sure? Is he a synergist? Think about it with your thinking cap on now. If you cannot think on why his statement contradicts the synergist slogan Calvinist often jump at, it is because you are not studying the text but yanking at buzz words.
Jesus, the Christ declares that the Temple is his father's House, sir; you say it is Jesus Christ's house, sir; hence; one of you has got to be patently WRONG! His believers may hear his voice, yet only if they will, sir, now, think and correct your thinking, or remain a goat-brained mentality, in vast error, sir!
I am a calvinist, but have been listening to your videos, i am open to maybe being wrong. One thing I must say is thank you for the way you represent and explain Calvinism and the main teachers. There’s a lot of respect in the way you discuss it and I really appreciate that and it makes me want to listen more. After all we are all brothers and sisters united in love
This video is a bad representation of Calvinism.
The Calvinist view: the word for “know” is the Greek ginosko. The word for “foreknow” used in Romans 8:29 is proginosko. The prefix “pro” is added to the word “ginosko.” So it makes sense to say that God is knowing once He predestines. In other words, He only knows the predestined ones.
Romans 8:29 describes a predetermined relationship in the knowledge of God whereby God brings the salvation relationship into existence by decreeing it into existence ahead of time.
Flowers states in the video that Calvinist believe Proginosko means for-chosen. Calvinist believe Proginosko means for-loved as it is a personal relationship with Christ. RC sproul has a great article on this.
When Paul says God foreknew us, he is speaking of God's knowledge of us as persons. He is speaking of His decision to enter into a relationship with us, to set His love on us (9:13). It is because He chose to love us that we will believe. Only those whom God chooses to love in this special way can be saved, and all those whom He has chosen to love in this way will be saved. Dr. R.C. Sproul comments in his book Romans, "We could reasonably translate this text [Rom. 8:29], 'Those whom he foreloved [those whom he knew in a personal, intimate, redemptive sense from all eternity] he predestined.'"
@@ShepherdMinistry But none of what you are saying refutes that God predestined some to eternal damnation before they were born. Before they ever sinned, before they heard the Gospel or had the opportunity to respond to repent and believe.
Only One existed before creation. Jesus WARNS those who do not BELIEVE. Luke 13:3,5. John 8:24 Yes, even the Pharisees he WARNS. “Unless you” Jesus clearly says it is their choice.
“You will” Jesus is clearly saying the consequences of not repenting and not believing (as Jesus stated in Luke and John) are in the FUTURE. It was NOT predetermined or predestined. Nicodemus was a Pharisee who did choose to believe, although it appears it took time to be convinced and courageous and to come forward. John 7:50,51, John 19:39 yes, even the Pharisees were given the response ability (responsibility).
Apparently in Calvinism there is no option for forgiveness. No election, sorry no salvation
The Bible actually says salvation to election (election = for God’s purpose)
@@ShepherdMinistry In one of your comments you wrote, "Only those whom God chooses to love in this special way can be saved". I'm reading this to mean God chooses only some people to love and to save? But then how do you interpret passages like 1 Timothy 2:3-6:
"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. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, WHO GAVE HIMSELF AS A RANSOM FOR ALL..."
Leighton, I am absolutely loving these short vids. I'm a nerd who loves your 2 hour videos, but these shorter vids are ministering to those among us with short attention spans. I love supporting your ministry and continue to be so grateful to Him for your labors. Blessings!
Keep on doing the mini episodes! I love your ministry, but I can't watch the 1-3 hr long ones.
⁹9999090
⁹9999090
Thank you Thank you Dr Flowers. That is the best interpretation of Romans 8 i have ever heard. About to teach on making disciples and was using romans 8 . What we are predestined to do is be conformed to His image. GOD BLESS
I just watched a refutation of James white of this video and it was terrible he misrepresents what you say terribly and people can't even tell. I don't necessarily go with your interpretation but it's definitely more possible than that of Calvinist and arminians. James white used to be my favorite apologist but now it's sad I hadn't noticed how his strongest ability is to misrepresent others.
This was terrific!!! Absolutely LOVE these for sharing!!!
How do we explain Romans 9:11-24
@@NunyaBizness-X Look at the context. Paul is lamenting about the Jewish people not recognizing their Messiah. And God is talking about the people groups, and that they were blessed through Jacob, not Esau. God hated that Esau and his progeny would be separate from Him, that they were essentially "created for wrath" because they would remain separate from God and not realize the Glory He had prepared with reconciliation through Jesus. Which, is the setup for introducing the gentiles.
If God really made Esau only for wrath or hated him, why did Esau live a "good" life and what happened with the Edomites? Wouldn't that mean that babies, unborn, and mentally incapable of comprehending their own failures are unjustly punished? How do you reconcile that to Luke 14 if Hate can only mean Calvinist hate there? Calvinists stop at 30 because 31-32 show that the real comparison is an extension of God choosing the Israelites and eventually including the gentiles, not unconditional election.
Dr. Flowers your channel is such a blessing. My wife asked me why Calvinists are wrong on this verse and all I had to do was type Soteriology 101 Romans 8 and... there it was. Thank you again and GOD Bless you.
No one is foreknown until they are in christ. If you're in christ then you are no longer in time but in eternity which has no beginning and no end. That intimate relationship is in christ, And Adam knew his wife and bore a son.
We are his bone and his flesh his bride.
Great video
God bless you
That's just assuming that foreknown means "in Christ".
Foreknown does not just mean an intimate relationship if you study the use of the word. The Pharisees use it of Paul.
This was really stumping me, despite your explanation. Until I focused and stared at the beginning of verse 28.... "And we know" .... THAT right there means that Paul is telling them "Listen ! We already know what happens to those people who LOVE God ! He does X Y & Z (all talking about past actions)". After I had the epiphany, the whole thing made CLEAR PERFECT SENSE and the context LOCKED into place very nicely. You are one of the best scripturally sound teachers on TH-cam that I have found !!!
Are you saying first we love Him, then He calls us?
@@davidthomas9276 Everyone is called according to Matthew 22 ! But it is up to the human being to respond to His call ! Remember Paul in Acts 26, when he was sharing his Damascus conversion to King Agrippa "I was not DISOBEDIENT to the heavenly vision". He knew it was his choice to surrender his will to GODS will and follow Him. God loves EVERYONE that whoever believes in His Son WILL HAVE eternal life
It doesn’t fix the problem…
That's *so close to what Paul is saying,* but it's still -not everything he was saying.-
Thank you for making this passage make sense from a non-Calvinistic perspective! I have been posting them on my FB page and my Reformed friend is asking questions. So grateful for these short videos!
macolyis which translation do you use? I can clear up this confusion provided you use the right translation.
macolyis you’re reading correctly, but you’re adding your own suppositions as to how it works.
Go to bible gateway, click on KJV, and type ‘faith of Christ’ in the search bar.
When someone believes they are grafted into Christ. It is the faith OF Christ, the faith that Christ expressed in His earthly ministry, that justifies us. This faith OF Christ is the original perfect faith that is righteous, that stands before God justified. Believers are given the faith OF Christ by Gods grace and justified through it.
@macolyis; therefore, how would Jesus, the Christ have been able to believe, dummy!
He was in flesh too, stupid!!
macolyis
Jesus is the author of our faith...
Heb 5: 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
He’s the author of our faith as in the object of our faith. He is the one whom our faith is about. It began with His obedience on the cross and will end with His appearing (finisher).....
1Pe 1: 7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
The flesh profits nothing because you can’t will or work yourself to be saved. That’s not to say that you can’t believe it receive Christ. Those are aspects that are contrasted in scripture....
Rom 9: 30 ¶ What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Jhn 1: 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
This passage clearly says that those who receive Him are given the power to become the sons of God which is the new birth (indwelling of the Spirit).....
Rom 8: 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
So first you receive Jesus, then you’re born of God (given the power to become the sons of God which is the Helper).
It’s clear that receiving Jesus is not the will of the flesh (keeping the law) nor of blood (you don’t have to be a descendant of Abraham) nor the will of man (you don’t have to put in some great effort or strive to obtain it). Just receive/believe.
Simple.
@macolyis Question. Why was Jesus amazed by how much faith the Roman Centurion Soldier had if he was the one that gave him the faith? I don't agree with everything from Leighton but he made a point with that question. "it's like saying we're all born underwater, unable to breathe underwater. And God is the only one who can give you a breathing apparatus, then once he gives it to someone, he's amazed that they can breathe underwater."
Thank you. Keep up the good work.
Thank you, dear Brother. 🌹🌹🌹
Do you have a video that covers chapter 9? When it goes on to mention Pharaoh and Esau?
Both Dr Flowers and Mike Winger have pretty good videos on it.
Before you do that, do this.
Consider who Paul was talking to in Romans. The Jews right?
Then, go read the entire story of Esau and Jacob. Start with when Rebecca is pregnant! Note God's understanding that Esau, although the first born, was unfit to bring the Messiah's lineage forward. He was a hedonist. No faith at all. Jacob wanted to do the right thing, just kept doing it the wrong way. Also note that God tells Rebecca his plan: the elder will serve the younger. Then the birthright is transferred to Jacob BY ESAU, so he can eat.
Then, when Isaac is on his death bed, "no integrity" Esau, wants his birthright. And Rebecca, who knows God's intent, steps in and prevents Isaac from giving the birthright to the wrong son. She makes sure it goes to Jacob.
The purpose of all this was to be clear to the Jews that their righteousness did not come through the Law, or by birthright, but it came through faith alone.
Look for Pastor Allen Nolan, Cornerstone Fellowship- Genesis series #53, 54.
Yes, many. Search his channel.
Leighton,
I had a recent epiphany about this issue. Christian marriage, as I understand it, is to represent the love Christ has for His church via a Christian man and his love and devotion to his wife and vice versa. The process by which we meet, woo, court and eventually become one with our wives in a Christian marriage, I see that this parallels exclusively to non-calvinistic teaching. The calvinist view seems to align much more with the forced marriages in many other religions. Just thought I would share that with you as I found it to be very eye-opening.
An interesting insight drawing this comparison, I tend to agree. A person's understanding of the nature of God goes a long way to defining there relationship with God and ultimately there relationship with their fellow man. When Calvin condemned someone to death he later stated, in essence, that he was saving God the trouble and even decades later did not recant or repent of his actions in doing so, but reaffirmed the same. It clearly displays his view of who and what God is.
While scripture reinforces that God IS love, not as an adjective but as a noun, Calvin preferred to focus on the harshest possible attributes which could be applied to God and embrace them as if flailing himself with the chains of his own sin and calling it good.
Calvinst/Reformed preachers have a favorite sermon that challenges people to people to swallow their 'bitter pill' about what seems unjust to us that God made people who are going to hell because He refuses to grant saving grace for no other reason than because it pleases Him to do so and who are we to question God.... And those who will swallow that pat each other on the back for their spiritual insight and maturity....even if it turns out that He hates their own children whom they love and would lay down their own life as Christ did for us..... but... why would anyone do that for someone that God hates?
There is no "Bitter Pill" in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the Good News, the very Power of God unto Salvation to all who will believe. And all can, but not all will.
And for that they will die for their sins, not the sins of Adam, but their own sin.
(I feel sort like taking up a collection now) ;)
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT very well said, both of you (Mark LeClair too)! On the topic of the "bitter pill," I recently had a discussion with a calvinist concerning the charge of equal ultimacy (aka double predestination) that is frequently leveled at the calvinist doctrine of election. They answer that by saying that God actively elects, but takes no action regarding the non-elect, thus He does not actively reprobate them in eternity past and is not guilty of the charge. I commented that while the answer is logical the end result does not prevent God's character from being maligned. If I assume the calvinist position that God elects people unto salvation in eternity past, and if God has elected some and simply done nothing with the rest, He is guilty of neglecting them to their eternal destruction. At the very least He becomes neglectful. It only gets worse when you consider that He will judge the non-elect in the future for not doing what they are incapable of doing. In other words, to do nothing to save a person when you can do something is blameworthy and it's infinitely blameworthy if that something is to save them from eternal damnation. There's just no getting around it. Calvinism impugns the character of God.
@@a.k.7840 Thanks, I agree. Cavlinists conclusions cannot avoid God being responsible for those souls sent to Hell no matter how they desire to 'spin' it.
It's interesting to note scripture says that Hell was 'prepared' for Satan and his angels. There is no mention of it being originally intended as a place for the souls of men.
Those having their belief system bound in TULIP are always befuddled by the question "why do some not believe" as if it was so mysterious a question as to demand a deep theological answer. It's funny to see the look on their face when confronted with the simple, obvious, and logical response that... 'they just wouldn't believe.'
It is not my opinion that contextual reading of scripture supports Total Depravity as equaling Total Inability.
It may be a minor point but I think of it this way regarding;
"He will judge the non-elect in the future for not doing what they are incapable of doing."(Calvinist viewpoint)
So, what is the reason a person will go to Hell?
Does a person go to hell because they have sinned, or, does a person go to hell for rejecting the Gospel of Christ?
I believe, ultimately, people will go to hell for rejecting, not believing in, the Gospel of Christ. Jn 8:24, speaking to the Pharisees Christ said;"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." .....the reason is "if ye believe not". The question becomes 'why' they don't believe.
It would seem it could be said, at this point, that the condemnation of man to hell is more for rejecting Christ than for sin. Because Christ already solved the sin issue for anyone who will believe. And the vast preponderance of scripture I see suggests any man can believe. God repeatedly speaks to man throughout scripture as being able and responsible to believe. Christ also spoke to people as if they were capable to believe, and He often bemoaned the fact of those who would not when they did not, as did the Apostles. It seems Paul did not think he was wasting his time with trying to persuade King Agrippa or that the outcome was inevitable. The Gospel is the power of salvation to all who will believe, it's just that some will not. That is no mystery about that to people who believe we have a libertarian free will to choose what we believe, it's no more complicated than answering the question, "what did you have for breakfast?".
Unfortunately, rather than a simple reading of scriptural texts in context Calvinist impose TULIP in one form or another on every scripture and as a result they must ultimately 'adjust' scripture to 'fit' as needed. Once it gets 'stuck' in their mind they just cannot see beyond it, and the paradigm becomes a vicious cycle.
Well, all have sinned, but some believe we are actually guilty of Adams sin from birth. I do not. I believe our own sin is inevitable because of the consequences of Adam's sin which brought a curse on the earth to which we are subjected. It's not the same thing. Pelagius was wrong to suggest we could avoid it.
Without blood sacrifice there is no solution for sin, the price for sin is death, and it will be paid.
The question becomes, who's blood will be used to pay the price.
That choice is ours to make.
And if that is not true... then I was obviously destined to believe it is.
I am a victim of circumstances.
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT I 100% agree with everything you just said! Well stated!
I’ve been taking notes from your podcasts a leaving them through out my Bible to make my own. Study Bible. Would you consider doing one of your own with your colleges
Thank you for this video. I didn't know that proginosko could simply mean to know in the past.
If foreknown refers to the past, then what does glorified refer to?
Most would interpret "glorified" in a proleptic sense of a future event of glorification where saints will receive an immortal body.
This is a good point. And I hope Leighton might address it. From his perspective i believe it might look like this:
8:28 looks to be demonstrated in 29 a predestining into Christ-likeness SO THAT He would be "the" firstborn among them. Meaning the former confirms not that ladder but the foundation of the one's who are conformed to His image.
30 looks like a confirmation of 29. Those who were predestined unto Chris-likeness will be those who were called, justified, and LIKE THE FIRSTBORN (doing that former AS ladder sequence we find in 29), will also be glorified.
But in every commentary, i can find whether Calvinist or not...all agree that "Glorified" is God's view of eternity and pointing toward our resurrected state.
I think the reason "glorified" is also a view into the future (although Leighton sees this as looking at the past, is the link to Christ as the firstborn of that final state we yet can't see) is because of what is done sequentially in 29:
Those God knew before (believers) he called and justified -- and as far as we can see that looking back...
Jesus as the firstborn of that category (we conform to Him) is Jesus--and we see Him glorified in scripture...so shall those who believe also.
Saints are glorified at the point of Physical death. This is seen at the transfiguration where Moses and Elijah appear 'in glory' Luke 9:30-31. At the resurrection is when this glory will be revealed to the creation and the resulting liberation of creation will take place Romans 8:18-23.
@@rob5462 the transfiguration was a vision (Matt 17:9) of the eternal kingdom, in fulfilment of Jesus' prophecy to his disciples (Matt 16:28) that some of them would see before their deaths.
Paul tells us that there is a timing to physical glorification (1 Cor 15:35, 42-54) which happens at Jesus' return (1 Cor 15:23). Those who are dead in Christ will be made alive only at his return.
@@duguoqing84 Although Rob does bring up an interesting point. Rob is using scripture to describe how glorification might mean something that happens in seed form when we die--and ultimately fulfilled and realized in the literal resurrection. Please note the following references:
PULPIT COMMENTARY τὸ ὅραμα, "what bad been seen."
ELLICOTT'S COMMENTARY Commentary: "The Greek word for “vision,” it may be noted, means simply “what they had seen,” and does not suggest, as the English word does, the thought of a dream-state in the beholders."
In addition, Jesus said not to tell anyone about this vision until he rose from the dead. In that, there is a link to this moment and Christ's resurrection. When we think upon Christ's resurrection we understand that Christ is now currently glorified. And as we are hidden in Him...as sure as He literally is glorified, so shall we be.
Also, Moses and Elijah were literally talking to Jesus--it was real. Plus the Father confirmed Christ as His Son there too (the voice of God in the clouds was not a vision as we might understand but a reality seen and heard). The reason for the transfiguration was to represent Christ's soon resurrection representatively seen in the vision on the mountain (that ultra-white part was a prophetic visionary look at near prophecy fulfilled). Another main aspect of the overall vision was a witness and confirmation before his disciples that the law and the prophets were now being handed over to THE PROPHET, Christ. So the vision was was also a living testimony confirming Christ as the New Covenant Maker. Since this was confirming Christ to such a lofty biblical and scriptural transition, it would need deeper confirmation such as a living and active supernatural vision and transfiguration.
Therefore I think that this example that Rob gives is actually perhaps "the answer" to this. For it does show a glory of Moses and Elijah. It shows Christ's glory, and it is all done in reference to the resurrection glorification. Because this vision occurred during the feast of tabernacles, it is thought among many that this feast will be the time when the rapture occurs.
@@duguoqing84 "Those who are dead in Christ will be made alive only at his return." I believe to depart is to be with the Lord: 2 Cor 5:8 & Phil 1:23-24. Also, please note that in Revelation 6:9-11 & 7:13-17 these are non-resurrected saints that are immediately alive and in the presence of the Lord. Blessings. :)
Absolutely agree that any philosophical explanation to interpret and understand Romans 8:28 is a way to change it's true meaning.
Now that I see it, I can’t unsee it. But I wish you would have gone further to verse 33 and explain its use of the word elect. 😅 Was this addressed in another video? I’m still looking. Thank you!
Yes there are other videos. But what you must understand is that the word elect in verse 33 is in reference to those who have faith in Christ and the word election used in Romans 9 is in reference to election to service. Look at the greek words and see how theyre used throughout the bible and you can get a better understanding :)
Thank you Sir for this. Your interpretation of that passage makes more sense than that of the Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
It is very interesting. However, foreknow and foresee are not the same thing. And if God knows all things, he knows the beginning and the end, then he already knows his elect. It is beyond our earthly comprehension, but we can say that those whose names are written in the book since before time are already known to God, even as the last days are yet to unfold. If we are true followers of God, this does not change things either way, as we do all things through God and for God. Love will see us through and we should never be in conflict with another true elect of God. May peace be with you:-)
Umm what else is there to comprehend if u think both Calvinists and non Calvinists are wrong?
What about the word proorizo? What is the meaning there vs 29?
Can you please give some recommendations of non calvanist bible commentary’s?
Very helpful. Thanks Uncle Leighton
Thank you Dr. Flowers, without you there would be far less Radio Free Geneva programs.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe in eternal security if you don’t believe in unconditional election.
Why?
Nice name ! 🔥
Why? Eternal security is an institute of God’s grace for those who believe. Does God not have the power to keep the ones who accept him saved?
@@TheOtherCaleb You got saved because you chose Christ with your libertarian free will so I don’t see any reason why you could not deny him with your free will. It does not make sense to me but feel free to enlighten me on this since I don’t understand this perspective. I am a calvinist so no need to defend the doctrine of eternal security.
@@j316slaveofchrist6 Thank you fellow slave🥰
Thank you Dr. Flowers for explaining these verses which seemingly support Calvinism, but in reality do not. I find it almost unbelievable that any Christian with even the most basic knowledge of God and the scriptures could support a doctrine that our God of love sends people to hell regardless of their spiritual choices. Thank you for exposing this lie and clarifying the truth. God bless you.
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Romans 9:10-13, 16
The Bible is abundantly clear.
God invented science and reason. Calvanistic doctrine is so illogical that u don't need scripture to realize that an all loving God wouldn't behave in this way.
@@danielbernardesfalcao2648 The passage Romans 9 refer to the choice made between 2 nations God choose Israel instead of the edomites also says about Esau selling his inheritance.
What does Paul mean “the Man Jesus Christ” would this confuse the first hearers of Paul’s letter as to divinity? Why not “the God/Man”
My non inspired temptation as an early scribe of this text.
Thoughts?
Could have added a little more to this; there was a time where God didn't know the believer, Galatians 4:9: "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?" At some point, you weren't known by God, but after believing you are.
The foreknowledge in Romans 8:29-30 is referring to the very moment a person was known by God, at that moment in time when they believed. So since God is in the future in Rom. 8 (hence why "glorified" is in past tense), the foreknowledge refers to the event in the past when a person started to have saving faith in Christ. This passage just teaches that every believer is predestined for glorification (another great passage for Eternal Security), not that God chose some random person unconditionally and predestined them for justification or glorification.
Foreknowledge here is God in the future looking into the past, not God before the foundation of the world looking into the future.
i told ya, quit on the mind travel, boy
Calvinism falls apart at its very foundation. If God has predestined some of us as Elect and the rest as Reprobate and nothing in this life can change the Reprobate’s mind, even the very word of God, than no matter what that person does, even if with all their ability they surrender to God and Love Him as best as they can, it does not matter because if they weren’t predestined as an Elect they are going to Hell no matter what.
The lost sinner is not going to choose God and love him to begin with. This is why God predestine the elect. Your understanding of scripture falls apart not Calvinism.
@@stevie6621 Jesus chose Judas,Judas chose not to believe.What you choose are the cause of becoming a reprobate.Romans 1 is clear about this.
''Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. ''
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; ''
@@matt_h_27 scripture on Judas chosen for perdition?
@@matt_h_27 did you even read the whole of Romans 1?
stevie6621 Have you ever heard cognitive dissonance?
Beautifully explained. The passage is so simple once you've been shown .
Great teaching!
9:55 "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" Romans 9. Jude says "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ORDAINED to this condemnation" etc
so that He would be the (D)firstborn among many brothers and sisters;
What does this mean exactly?
My first question is, where are you getting the -"and sisters"- from? Here is my answer as to what that means.
In order to understand what that means, you'd have to understand what Paul is actually saying in these verses, _Flowers is close, but he misses the boat a bit._
*Think about what Jesus said about Solomon in Matthew 12:42.* *Jesus is greater than Solomon.* Between those two, Christ would be the firstborn..he'd have the preeminence. But of course *Christ is greater than all the people God call in the OT.* People like Moses, David, Abraham, Issac, and so on and so forth.
That's a good interpretation of Romans 8. However, what do you do with Romans 9?
I don't think they will address it. Because Paul is explaining Gods sovereignty, that He can do as He wills...like the potter. Many will take the position of the clay telling the potter how they should be fitted.
@@jmmx69 Look at the context. Paul is lamenting about the Jewish people not recognizing their Messiah. And God is talking about the people groups, and that they were blessed through Jacob, not Esau. God hated that Esau and his progeny would be separate from Him, that they were essentially "created for wrath" because they would remain separate from God and not realize the Glory He had prepared with reconciliation through Jesus. Which, is the setup for introducing the gentiles.
If God really made Esau only for wrath or hated him, why did Esau live a "good" life and what happened with the Edomites? Wouldn't that mean that babies, unborn, and mentally incapable of comprehending their own failures are unjustly punished? How do you reconcile that to Luke 14 if Hate can only mean Calvinist hate there? Calvinists stop at 30 because 31-32 show that the real comparison is an extension of God choosing the Israelites and eventually including the gentiles, not unconditional election.
Leighton has done numerous vidoes on Romans 9. Go watch them.
@@jmmx69 You assume it is talking about God's sovereignty the way you mean it, but it's not. It's talking about God's sovereignty the way Paul meant it. That God has the right to cast away a lump of clay if it is unsuitable, not that He made it unsuitable in the first place as you assume.
And thanks for strawammning.
And Leighton has dealt with this numerous times. God watch it!
@@GrahameGould
Thanks. I've watched them. I understand the arguement that Leighton is trying to make in those videos, which is that Paul is speaking about corporate Israel and corporate Gentiles, and not individuals. However, Pharoah did not represent corporate Egypt. And you can't corporatize John 6:44, 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.'
Or, John 6:65, 'So Jesus added, “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.”
Though it's a difficult concept for the mind of man to grasp, no one chooses, unless they are first chosen to do so.
In Hebrews 8:12 we read that God declares that He will remember the sins of the redeemed no more. Now, if God is omniscient (and He is), how could this knowledge be outside of His remembrance (recall to knowledge)? I would suggest that God willingly chooses to dump (for lack of a better term) said knowledge from His omniscience. Could it be possible that God also simply chooses not to know our future actions in detail? Without diminishing His wisdom and knowledge, could we hold a position that God has provided every means to avoid temptation, come to the knowledge of the truth and live according to the law written upon our hearts (as taught in scripture) AND He elects to not direct our outcomes and decisions without our invitation to do so?
To be more clear: Could He have predestined all of us for glory while leaving all of us with the free will to choose otherwise and since the callings and giftings of God are without repentance, we may choose to use or abuse those gifts and that God simply works beyond the effects of our collective poor choices to bring about blessing for those who surrender? He knew me before because He created me. I was conceived in His mind before I was knit together in my mother's womb, no? That alone makes me foreknown...does it not? I have done my best here to point to scripture without misrepresenting what I believe is evident in the context therein. I could be wrong but I do believe this may very well be the simplest interpretation. Grace and peace to all.
Interesting perspective. Seems like a reasonable conclusion.
There is only one option, the truth, Christ is the saviour of all. None will be lost.
I’m on your side but could you explain the term effectual in context of your argument. Maybe you should use some other term that people could relate to.
I've never seen where comments and "live chat" were open at the same time. Interesting.
Hi!
Proverbs 9:8
Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
Romans 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Not sure if I missed it, but who exactly are the “called according to His purpose?”
Those he foreknew
Are we those he foreknew? How do these verses apply to us?
It mentions first fruits in Romans 8 and every other chapter about predestination etc. eph 1 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
I’ve been teaching my 6 year old about false dichotomies as how to spot them. I hold up a pencil and ask if it is a pen or a fork... he looks at me and raises his eyebrows like I’m a joker.... perhaps I am... perhaps I am.
you said i am, 2 times even, you must really be God Almighty
5:48 I believe this interpretation makes a lot of sense but how does verse 30 fit in with it??? Hmm
“Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”
Romans 8:30
I tried really hard to follow your logic Dr. Flowers. But I am unconvinced of your soteriological view. As a former Wesleyan who came face to face with hard questions from atheists and my own questions as I’ve studied scripture, I’ve found the rigor of Reformed theology to be most satisfying to me. I am more convinced than ever of Calvin’s theology. It passes the exegetical and philosophical tests . I really believe that most people hold a presupposition one way or the other prior to reading the texts and it often skews what would otherwise be a clear understanding of scripture. Once the presupposition is challenged, then the reader will use all of his intellect to find a way around the clear reading of scripture in order to arrive at the conclusion that he wants. This, I believe is what you have done. I give you credit for trying. You are obviously smart and know the word of God. But as Luther said “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason .......my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe”.
I fail to see how Calvinism holds to Biblical or philosophical logic. It is only consistent within itself.
@@peterfox7663 What would you say is your biggest problem with Calvinistic soteriology? Don’t worry, I won’t criticize you or even debate it. I’m just curious.
You are correct. The only point in the TULIP that has no scriptural support is the L.
@@johntrevett2944 I think the L is challenging from a scriptural basis as well. Though it seems logical if one accepts the U. When I evangelize, I tell people that Jesus died for all who will believe in Him. Which I know is true. People in this vain generation need to hear that the gospel message doesn’t revolve around them like they think so many other things should. They need to feel desperate for Christ and seek His forgiveness rather than hear a constant message that Jesus loves them, no matter what. I’m speaking generally of course. There are many people who do need to hear that God loves them. But if atonement was actually made for every person then it seems to me I would need to accept universalism. Which isn’t scriptural at all. The deep things of an eternal God are challenging.
@@Declared-righteous Spot on! I don’t care for the wording “Limited atonement”. “Definitive Election” is a much better way to say it. I understand that God has predestined those before the foundation of the world, and scripture does say Christ died for many (the many being those who He predestined). I just don’t know that I could defend that scripturely. I’m glad you have read scripture and are leaning more towards reformed theology. I was raised in a reformed church, so maybe I haven’t put aside my presuppositions well enough. However, I have found that you don’t have to jump through so many hoops, to redefine words, or just completely ignore certain passages in order to see that reformed theology is definitely more accurate. At the end of the day though, as long as you agree with me on the Gospel, then that’s all that matters.
Is 7:42 William Lane Craig's perspective?
God knew we would believe, there fore he called us.God gives us free will to reject or accept the truth....
I am not a Calvinist but interpret 8 28 to mean we become more Christlike through our sufferings and difficulties
Matthew 7:23 - And then will I declare to them, 'I never KNEW you; depart from me, you evildoers.' Can you explain to the meaning of the word "knew" as Jesus use it?
"Knew" = "owned"
Keep the Feasts of the Lord by the Spirit once for all time becoming a Temple made without hands , Glorified
Who are the elect in Romans8:33?
I'm sovereign. This morning I decided to drive into town and hit golf balls. I'm sovereign. I decided to eat breakfast at Braums instead of Whataburger.
All things means that which you don't have control over , like a drunk driver slamming into your car and your paralyzed from the waist down . Doesn't mean things , habits which you practice . Remember God can stop anything bad from happening to you that you don't have control over if it's going to benefit you spiritually .
How can a person be saved, reconciled to God, if by nature that person is dead in sin ?
How can a spiritually dead person choose to believe if, spiritually speaking, that person has no life, no desire, no interest (because spiritually dead) ?
How can a person spiritually dead come to life if God did not decide to give life ?
Why do some believe and not all ?
God has chosen a people to save, he has given that people to his Son as His Bride, and Christ came to save that people.
And all those God has chosen (foreknown) will come to Christ in faith, because in due time God will give them life to believe in Jesus Christ.
Those known in Christ through faith makes the most sense to me (Galatians 4:8-9). Paul's readers in Rome are living under emperor Nero. Christians are being fed to wild beasts in arenas, hung on poles and lit on fire to light night parties, and being crucified. Paul's readers are concerned that those who have died for Christ are dying before Christ returns. Paul is comforting Christians by telling them that these slain believers and other faithful believers who have died before Christ returns are already considered glorified to God. Just read 8:35-39.
Martyrs and the faithful dead fits so well:
[35] Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? [36] Just as it is written, “For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” [37] But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. [38] For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, [39] nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Thank you for this message as those scriptures are very confusing for the average person.
Amen brother!
Thankyou
Thank you
How about simply answer this from the beginning.
Dr Flowers, how do Calvinists explain the need for missionaries to spread the Word?
Or do they simply not believe it, or conveniently skip that part? Thank you :)
Please answer the question Dr.
I’m not the Dr., but I am a Calvinist. First off, let us understand that a lot of great missionaries were Calvinist, so this part isn’t being skipped.
Calvinists see Jesus as a “Calvinist”. It’s a worldview. When Jesus says for “those who have eyes to see and ears to hear”, we believe that he’s speaking to the elect. Election isn’t a closed system, in other words, people who are depraved in sin today will give there life to Christ tomorrow. So we don’t know as Christians, who will believe or who will not believe. Romans 10:17 says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” This is why Jesus commanded us to spread the gospel to all creation. The difference is, you won’t find a Calvinist who will be “seeker friendly” by trying to impress the lost and “convince” them to believe in the gospel. Simply put, Calvinists will preach the gospel to the unbeliever and he/she will either have ears to hear and eyes to see, or not. That is up to God.
@@levibaer18 Thank you for your answer. It was very clear and to the point. Also stated your position well. I respectfully disagree. Jesus died for all of us but unfortunately some will choose not to follow Him. And that, to me, is the key point. Accountability -
so that I may be judged according to my words and deeds, after having heard the Good News and made the choice to reject or accept Jesus' sacrifice. Not a hubristic choice but rather being absolutely flattened by humility. To know that, without His mercy, I do not stand a chance. It is thus, indeed, up to God.
Makes so much sense
I like the explanation but Calvinism is not only based on Romans 8: 28-30 so what do you make of other text such as John 6:44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day".
I have many videos, articles and books going through these passages. I pray you will objectively consider them. Blessings
As well as Romans 9
So if it not all the work of God that we are saved, meaning we have to choose to be saved....doesn’t it indicate “work” in the sinner’s side ...that he can boast about? Please reply. Thanks
InThe Phillipines
soteriology101.com/2015/12/18/boast-worthy/
Q: WHO are the many brethren?
ROMANS 8:29
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the FIRSTBORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN.
These are the OT saints who God foreknew in the past before Christ and who God predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son even though Christ had not yet come to this earth.
They died in FAITH and were predestined according to Romans 8:28,29 to be conformed to the image of God’s Son even though they lived in a time prior to Christ.
So when Jesus rose from the dead and lead captivity captive and redeemed all who died in faith before Him, He was the firstborn among all of them.
They were still waiting in Abraham’s bosom for Christ and had not yet been re-born spiritually because death and the grave were not conquered yet.
This simple fact confirms even further that those being talked about in Romans 8:28,29 were those who had died in faith prior to Christ and were counted among those referered to as the “many brethren” in verse 29.
God predestined these men that lived before Christ that they would STILL be conformed to the image of His Son even though they had lived prior to Christ.
So when Christ rose from the dead He would be the first born among all of them whom He lead out of Abraham’s bosom.
QUESTION: Are we today in 2019 counted among the “many brethren” in Romans 8:29 that Christ was the firstborn among?
A: Of course not because Christ rose from the dead 2000 years ago and it was at that SPECIFIC TIME in history that He became the first born.
So He was only the firstborn among the many brethren that lived BEFORE Him and not those who still had not come into existence like you and I.
...Scripture is crystal clear there was a time where we were NOT known intimately by God, yet reformers claim they always were???
EPHESIANS 2:12
12 THAT AT THAT TIME YE WERE WITHOUT CHRIST, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, HAVING NO HOPE, AND WITHOUT GOD in the world:
GALATIANS 4:8,9
8 Howbeit then, WHEN YE KNEW NOT GOD, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
9 But now, AFTER THAT YE HAVE KNOWN GOD, OR RATHER ARE KNOWN OF GOD how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
**QUESTION: So how do reformers claim that they were known of God before the foundation of the world when Galatians 4:9 clearly speaks against them on this????
Pk Amponn Your question has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Please post a new comment in the main comment section for all to see and I’d be happy to respond.
Pk Amponn are you reading the verse assuming those who need to pluck their eyes out are believers in danger of losing their salvation if they don’t?
If your right eye is offending an unbeliever to the point that it’s the only thing preventing him from accepting Christ as Saviour and he simply won’t let go then yes pluck it out so he can save himself from this untoward generation.
Has nothing to do with a true believer losing something.
As far as people who think they’re saved but they’re actually not because they haven’t FULLY trusted Christ but are rather trusting themselves then they don’t have anything to lose because THEY NEVER HAD IT.
Few things I would say:
1) Some freewill choices have eternal consequences such as being spiritually circumcised with Christ.
How can a human reverse a SPIRITUAL operation?
2) Once we truly believe our lives are now hid with Christ and our salvation is not ours to lose it’s HIS.
So how can you lose something that’s not in your hands to lose?
3) Salvation comes to those who FULLY trust Christ as their saviour which entails believing in faith that He WILL save you.
If you think you can lose your salvation then you’re not fully trusting Christ.
In that case your belief is in vain.
He will say depart from me I never knew you.
Let me ask you this question today right now as you’re reading this who are you trusting in for your salvation?
What’s the cutoff point for losing it?
Grace is no longer grace if it be of works.
Can you confidently say you have eternal life right now?
If you think you have to contribute something to your salvation then you don’t fully believe what Christ did is sufficient.
So to summarize you can’t lose something you never had to begin with.
And you can’t lose something that’s not yours to lose.
It’s His to lose and He’s promised to never forsake you.
Even if you deny Him He can’t deny Himself who lives inside you.
If you’re trusting in your obedience then you’re not fully trusting Christ and in that case you’re not actually saved.
@Pk Amponn This is before the cross . Context
When are we conformed to his image ?
@Pk Amponn Reformed theology does not have the answer to the believers security. Both calvernism and Armianism lead to insecurity for the believer .
Slow to anger. Merciful .
These are excellent!
More examples in scripture of God's foreknowledge. (Jesus talking to Peter)
Joh_16:30 Now are we sure that ((thou knowest all things,)) and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
Joh_21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, ((thou knowest all things)); thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
Joh 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
Joh 21:19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
You have to understand God's moral will and His sovereign will for man. For example a teacher's moral will is that everyone pass their exam but in reality many fails. You cannot twist word of God and His will according to your liking 🙏
While I agree with your understanding of foreknew (proginosko) I think to complete the analysis here you have to also back up and deal with the term called (klatos) and the remainder of the context. Pointing out a flaw in John Piper's analysis of Romans 8:29 doesn't really de-Calvinize the passage, and to refute the quote from Calvin I think you really need to address Romans 9:14-26 not just state it is not biblical.
Respect to Dr Flowers for keeping the comments turned on for his videos - some of his opponents are not so keen to hear from their viewers. But isn't it time he came up with some catchy, religious-sounding titles for his beliefs? After all, if you can sell Calvinism as "Doctrines of Grace" or "The Golden Chain of Redemption" - just think what that marketing approach could achieve when applied to sound theology!
He likes the approval of others from the comments
One must understand that Paul uses the aorist here because he is speaking to believers. He does the same in 1 Cor 1:9. These have all been called, justified and glorified. The latter because of their position in Christ, because they stand in him. To maintain that he is speaking of the saints of old is wrong, although these things were true of them too.
This is not a good exegesis to the passage, the context as rightly stated, is the "current sufferings" and the comfort is that God Has predestined those who suffer "now" to salvation, so nothing will separate the suffering Christian from the Love of God, not even our current suffering. The people that Paul is referring to in this passage are the current Christians who suffer due to faith in Christ Jesus.
It’s been my understanding that God is not predestinating individuals but His church. If you want to be predestined become part of His body. If you chose to draw back then you are no longer part of the predestined church. When it says those He predestined He also called it means that He only calls the predestined but Jesus said many are called, but few chosen. So if it’s individuals who are called not all the predestined will be chosen.
John Calvin was a terribly misguided theologian.
He was an evil guy, not misguided.
@@juaneato how was he evil?
@@xintimidate If you don’t know, then you’re just willfully ignorant.
@@xintimidate For starters, he was fiercely antisemitic.
It’s all by design to justify sin in the life of the believer. They ignore what salvation is according to 1 John 3:7-9
The idea of Corporate Predestination seems ridiculous. Doesn’t Paul flat out say that the advantage of being born Jewish was not salvation, but being given the k owl edge of salvation and being the line of the Messiah? This is another proof that Predestination is not about salvation but the sanctification process and or the purpose God leads us to weather we believe (Paul being called to be an apostle) or pharaoh being called to his position because he was a hard headed SoB that would defy God to a historic extent.
Helps us when we pray? No, He helps us in our weakness
I am not a Calvinist. Why does God give people so many warnings (Both in NT and OT) and so many prophets (OT) to beg the people to repent? He doesn't say, "some will repent, some wont" or "ill make some repent" but he warns all of Israel to repent. Meaning they have a choice. Yeah Total Depravity is true IF God were to completely and totally withdraw himself (reprobation/unpardonable sin) from a person like said in Romans about those who once had the mind of Christ but refused to retain it and were given over to reprobate minds, no one is naturally born with a reprobate mind.
Also, in all the testimonies I see from Godly people it seems to teach against Calvinism, has anyone seen the testimonies of Firebrand Ministries? In her testimony God prophesied over her from a pastor and God told her to not let the enemy have his way with her and God told her to cooperate with him and choose him. The other testimony is from John Ramirez, he was satanist and he found himself in Hell while he was still alive and God brought him back and told him he will give him one more chance and told him to repent or be condemned forever. I've never heard of any testimony that specifically prooves Calvinism right, i've heard of testimonies of people who had a sudden change of heart and just knew they were saved in a special moment (I have a friend who has a testimony like that) and that's about the closest testimony to Calvinism i've heard, but i've never EVER heard of a testimony that confirms of limited atonement or anything like that.
I know its been awhile since you posted this but I thought I would offer you this. Pay attention to what God says that He will do:
Ezekiel 36:22-28
22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. 24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. 28 You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.
Specifically in verse 27 God says that He will CAUSE the Israelites to walk in His statutes and to be careful to obey His rules. This is what God will do to a people who has profaned His name. Just a thought.
And what do you do with Ephesians chapter 1? Not so easy to explain away.
Nice god bless you man !
@Soteriology101 thank you for showing people that a God that would predestine certain people for Hell based on no doing of their own cannot be a true god as that would be evil.
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 3:17-18 ESV
Everyone is hell bound, that is the default position. God chooses to have mercy on some, but allows the rest to be justly punished for their sin. You believe this makes God evil?
@@orvillewright548
if God is wiser than we His judgement must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil. On the other hand, if God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say ‘God is good’, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say ‘God is we know not what’. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear-and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity-when the consquence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing-may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.
Tatiana J
The doctrine of total depravity is a concept regarding the state of people, not the state of Christianity. All people are born under the stain of original sin. We will all get one of two things, justice or mercy. No one will be able to accuse God of being evil for allowing a person to continue to live in sin. Mercy is not owed to anyone.
@@orvillewright548 we can if He made those specifically for salvation and those for damnation, if those people had no decision to put their faith in truth or lies.
@@brandonvonbo9708
Show me a sinner who made “no decision” in sinning, I’ll wait.
"God is Omniscient, not Omni-deterministic". THIS sums it up. Calvinists confuse God's Omniscience with his Omnipotence. The result is Omni-deterministic. While God is ULTIMATELY in control, He NEVER violates a person's free will. He already knows how people will choose because there is nothing He cannot know. But He never forces person how to choose.
The "natural man" - those the god of this world has blinded - those held captive to do his will - they have free will ?? They don't even have free will within the domain of darkness - let alone the Spiritual realm. Does fallen flesh ever agree with God - show me a verse ? no verse, exactly
1 Cor 2:14 kjv
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:
for they are foolishness unto him:
NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM,
@@Pablo-p7y So Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. have no responsibility for the genocide of over 100 million people?
Before the Foundation of the World ,,,, In the Mind of Christ,,,
Yahweh created everything and everyone and rehearsed the plan of time. When perfect , He said , Let what's in ME Be Out There !
I just feel like all his channel tries to accomplish is to explain away the plain meaning of the texts and the historical exegesis. People read it straight forward and see calvinism, and then people run to Leighton (who else do they look to) in order to trying to explain it away.
From my current perspective, that's what I see. I'm open to being wrong..but there is so much explanation that has to be delivered to change the meaning.
It seems more twisting than the calvinist view on this text.
Why does it even have to come to a simple understanding of foreknew? “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God (sound like this is limited to those who love God, and believe in Him) to those who are called according to His purpose (you have covered plenty of passages stating the God calls everyone, but these were called according to His purpose and as you have cover His purpose is to save, so isn’t this simply referring to those who have been called and responded in faith) For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined (The most quoted phrase of Jesus is, “if you want to gain your life, you must lose it.” If you have surrendered to Jesus then wouldn’t you logically move from a relationship of foreknowledge to being predestined to complete the journey) become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;”
The very simple beginning to this interpretation is why Calvinists would jump in with BUT HE LOVED US FIRST, once again ignoring that He loved the WORLD.
I'm sorry but if I truly believed the Calvinistic doctrinal interpretation of predestination and determinism, I would experience no contrition for my sins. Why would I? Because according to Calvinism, God predestined and determined me to sin and then receive and believe or reject and not believe the gospel depending on His sovereign choice. Basically He made me sin, then He either made me repent or reject the gospel. That is equivalent to me forming a lump of clay into a hard ball, throwing it through my neighbors window, and then blaming the clay. Calvinism puts all of the sin and blame on God Himself, consider the following verses; James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
Dear Calvinist, you are complicating the simplicity of scripture by making a mystery where there is no mystery. You're over philosophizing these scriptures. It is not arrogance to believe a sinner can respond to God's mercy out of his on free will, nor is it a work .Arrogance is believing that somehow you were more special to God than your neighbor Bob, because lucky you was chosen before you did anything right or wrong to end up in heaven, whereas poor Bob gets to suffer for eternity because for some reason God felt like He deserved to be punished for all time for the sins that He determined that he would do.
After an incredible amount of scripture, read in context; Romans 8:28, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose”, is NOT explaining how God has predestined everything in our lives to work out in our favor(“for good”)/ using it to make us(special chosen people) come to Christ/using everything to make us “more like Him”/using even evil to give us a special gift or calling for His purpose. I believe This is an incredibly evil perspective of God and skews who He is to mankind, and subtlety promotes a selfish perspective in anyone who adopt this world view/philosophy.
If anyone who is born of God and knows God, under the New Covenant, they understand that God DOES NOT use evil to bring us to Himself but Love(the Person and Life of His crucified and resurrected Son for us). Reading Romans chapters 4 through 12, consecutively and without biases, anyone would see how God, for a New Covenant believer, uses the truth of the gospel/the grace of God and His righteousness given to us as a gift, is what He offers to us to receive by faith and uses the gospel message to change/save us, mature us, that we may grow up to be confident sons and daughters. And even in evil circumstances/sufferings/trials, we can see good come out of it…BECAUSE we are in that place, on behalf of Christ, to reveal the Father to others(unselfish perspective view of God and why we are saved). So BECAUSE, through the GOOD NEWS, we now get to understand who we are, in Him, and why we are alive(to reveal Him for the sake of others), all fears may be gone.
This explains the last few verses of Romans 8;
“What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. ❤️🔥Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: “For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”(Romans 8:31-39 NKJV)
Beware Dr Flowers is misrepresenting Calvinism in this video.
How? Flowers states Calvinists beleive Proginosko= Forchosen. Calvinist believe it means foreloved (an intimate relationship).
He is speaking of His decision to enter into a relationship with us, to set His love on us (9:13). It is because He chose to love us that we will believe. Only those whom God chooses to love in this special way can be saved, and all those whom He has chosen to love in this way will be saved. Dr. R.C. Sproul comments in his book Romans, "We could reasonably translate this text [Rom. 8:29], 'Those whom he foreloved [those whom he knew in a personal, intimate, redemptive sense from all eternity] he predestined.'"
We see Adam knew Eve because it was an intimate relationship.
Genesis 4:1
[1] Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”
We see Jesus saying He didn’t know certain “beleivers” who didn’t have true saving faith.
Matthew 7:22-23
[22] On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Forknew are those who God foreloved having an intimate relationship with before they were placed on earth.
There seems to be a lot of assumptions being made here. The author speaks about context but limits the context and adds an interpretation about Israel's past which the current context doesn't seem to indicate. Romans 8 is about the security of the believer hence v1 and vv 38-39 and vv28-30 is validation of the believers security being rooted in God's effectual call from before the foundation of the world, which flows out of the great rhetorical question from Romans 7:24 "Who will rescue me from this body of death?". Paul doesn't deal with Israel specifically until chapters 9-11, so to use Israel's history as an interpretive lens clouds the interpretation instead of helping it.
That’s not true exactly Paul talks a lot about Israelites in romans before romans 9. He talks about the Jews in chapter 2. he talks about Abraham in chapter 4. He talks a lot about the law in romans 7.
This is because Roman Christianity started different from every other church. Rome had not had an apostle sent to it yet at the time.
The Christians in Rome had been converted not by the preaching of an apostle but by Jews who had been converted while they had traveled and came back to Rome. Christians in Rome where probably half or even a majority of them where Jews.
You can presuppose this because before romans 8 Paul mentions the Jews in romans 2. talks a lot about Abraham in chapter 4 and the law in 2/7. this is contrary to the way he spoke to gentiles in acts 17. So he must be addressing Jews throughout.
To read more of the early church at Rome I’d suggest you read Christians at Rome from Paul to valentinus.
Christians in Rome at the time where probably a majority of converts from Judaism and Paul address them throughout romans 1-8 so expecting them to look back into the scriptures to those that love god wouldn’t be weird at all.
I’d argue this interpretation is just as consistent with romans as any other. For a few reasons. Paul addresses Jews in romans 2 as if they are the main readers of this letter.
Romans 4 goes on great lengths to show Abraham was justified through faith. Romans 2/7 goes into the law and how it cant justify.
So with a large Jewish audience who knows the Old Testament this view would still make sense.
So let’s move on to your point about how this is about security. His interpretation is also just as fitting with the security of the believer. If you have faith like Abraham had you are justified like Abraham was (through faith chapter 4) Because as verse 28 says “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,”
So Paul is going back to how where you justified in the Old Testament? By faith. So those who have faith are predestined for the same things Abraham received through his faith. This is still Paul talking about security.
But even if he didn’t mention Israel or the Jews in romans 1-8 it wouldn’t matter. You could still take this view. chapter divisions where added later and romans 8 could still be the first mention of Israel and be a transition to Israel in chapters 9-11 For a narrative to flow properly it need transitions. Romans 8 could still be a transition to romans 9.
@@Mw-mo2wg You still can't change the immediate context of Romans 8 to fit his interpretation and redefine Rom 8:28-30. The point again is the security of the believer. You can't divorce it.
@@Bo-gt5do I literally put a whole paragraph into how his view still gives you the security of the believer. I suggest you reread my post. I also gave you the context tell me what other book in the Bible do you say don’t worry about chapters 1-7 read chapter 8 by it’s self.
Chapter 7 is context for 8 as 6 is for 5 and so on. You can’t ignore the context of Christianity in Rome at the time and chapters 1-7 and still say I’m ignoring the context.
You don’t have to take my view but don’t tell me I’m ignoring the “context” because you want to throw out the points I made using chapters 1-7
@@Mw-mo2wg I mean no offense. The point that I am making is that the Flowers changes what Romans 8:28-30 means and the context of Rom 8 doesn't allow for it. Even though you can say that Flowers interpretation allows for security of believers still doesn't answer the primary issue that Paul is arguing for in Romans 8:28-30. Paul is clearly not referring to Israel in the context, he is referring to the Church. To say other wise you have to read into the text (not saying that you are doing so). Guys like Flowers are so anti-Calvinist that their hermeneutic becomes inconsistent in order to argue against as opposed to taking the text at face value.
@@Bo-gt5do no offense taken
Yes, "AND WE KNOW". can't know anything w/o the past.
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Romans 9:10-13, 16
The bible is abundantly clear about God choosing the ones he wants, and the reason for his choice is not the merits of these chosen, but his grace.
I think the Christians have to stop trying to do PR with God so that he's more palatable to the world and start trusting him to do what he wants with the pure gospel we teach.
Is it possible that Gods purpose was that non perish but all to come to know him. Or that God has tied all over to sin so he could have mercy on them all. As in Adam all die in Jesus all will be made alive. Why do we assume that God did not have a plan to redeem all his creation isn’t that more within his character.
If you are referring to Christian Universal Redemption then yes I believe in the Greek term Apokatastasis. This is a belief that many in the early church believed ( the first 300-500 years of the church)
Because it’s clear all over scripture that the prerequisite to salvation is belief and faith on who Jesus is and what He did on the cross and why. That much is clear. When we believe, that’s what makes us new and the Spirit resides in us and seals us for salvation. Without the believing and the faith, it can’t happen. But it’s available for all who want it.
Non-Calvinist: So, what do you think, have you ever considered that before?
Calvinist: You just hate God's Soverignty.
Non-Calvinist: That's not true, did you listen to the argument?
Calvinist: Whatever, you are just a glory grabber, you want God's Glory for your own.
Non-Calvinist: Do you agree the explanation for Forknew is at least a reasonable explanation in place of your idea for it meaning Pre-Chosen?
Calvinist: Whatever, Calvinism is the Gospel. You just hate the doctrines of Grace.
Non-Calvinist: Huh?
Spot on! They never address the issue. They just divert attention to their assertions. Whenever a Calvinist sits to address the issue and realizes they are losing, they immediately switch back to the assertions and straw-manning. The few who do will tell you they will go research and get back. Kiss that conversation goodbye. You will find that same fella arguing elsewhere the same set of reasoning he was rebuked for and claimed to go investigate. Showing the "I will go investigate it" was just a ruse to run off to someone else not as discerning as you. This is why I see the majority of them as hypocrites, not someone who doesn't know.
@@michelhaineault6654
That is because in your English translation, a Calvinist sees ordained BEFORE believe and assumes that is the order in the Greek. You are forgiven for your ignorance but men like John Calvin, John MacArthur, John Piper knows better and would dare not in a theological debate use that verse
@@michelhaineault6654
That is not Greek. That is looking through a concordance which is good but has nothing to do with what you are claiming.
Your claim is in the Greek "ordain" comes before "believing" because one has to be ordained to beleve so your manage theology claims but the Greek of that proof text says otherwise. So, I don't know what rabbit you are pulling off. If you don't understand what I am saying, simply ask.
@@michelhaineault6654 Hi Michael, I am sorry to say, your response, I have found, is typical among Calvinists. Instead of dealing with the argument at hand, it seems many go and find a scripture the think is saying the opposite and use it as a weapon against the Scriptures themselves. And No, it is not stupid to looka at a word and see how it is typically or unanimously used else where in scripture to help bring understanding to a passage. How sad for you. By the way, that is a very arbitrary and novel understanding of the word "ordained" randomly selecting a word and inventing a novel definition so as to prove your fallacious assertion, is right out of the Calvinist script. Good job following the Pied Piper's playbook to a T. Kind regards.
Jesus, the Christ declares that the Temple is his father's House, sir; you say it is Jesus Christ's house, sir; hence; one of you has got to be patently WRONG!
His believers may hear his voice, yet only if they will, sir, now, think and correct your thinking, or remain a goat-brained mentality, in vast error, sir!
Dr. FLOWERS, IN TIME AROUND 3:58, YOU SAID THAT THE FOREKNOWLEDGE AND PREDESTINATE OF GOD IN ROMANS 8:29 REFERS TO ROMANS 11:12 ABOUT GOD FOREKNOWING THE ISRAELITES... THIS CANNOT BE BECAUSE IN ROMANS 11:12 PAUL WAS REFERRING TO THE NATION OF ISRAEL AS THE CHOSEN PEOPLE OR CHOSEN NATION, BUT IN ROMANS 8:29 PAUL REFERS TO INDIVIDUAL NOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE OR NATION.... EXAMPLE ACTS 13:48 (KJV) ''And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and ''''AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.'''' =>>> THIS IS THE TRUE REFERENCE TO ROMANS 8:29.... INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE PREDESTINED TO BE SAVED OR TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF GOD'S SON....
Just stop
May I humbly suggest that you take another look at your exegesis of verse 28 before you move on. It is interesting that when you read back verse 28 you ignore the definite article before agathos that is even printed out on the screen. If it had of actually been there in the original MSS (but it wasn't) it would have pointed to the meaning of "the" good. However, the original anarthrous construction here, along with the basic meaning of agathos as being a "good" of intrinsic value, should make it obvious that this is not something that will be obtainable by any believer in this life. And taking another look at your exegesis will help as you move on to the next verse. As proginosko is used in verse 29 it is a third person singular and that, along with the fact that proginosko is only used in the New Testament with God as the subject, should make it obvious that God is in view here and certainly not "those in the past." God is producing the action of the verb. So are you basically dancing around the theological Doctrine of Divine Decrees? The Omniscience of God is not discussed here. Omniscience must precede the Decrees while Foreknowledge follows the Decrees. Therefore, Foreknowledge is more limited in scope because following the Decrees it only deals with those Decrees. Nothing can be Foreknown until it is first Decreed because only the Divine Decrees establishes reality. Reality is entered into the Decrees and is described as election, foreknowledge, and foreordination: election being the point of the decisions; foreknowledge being the recognition of the decisions; foreordination being the function of the decisions. And all of this is in reference to those mature believers mentioned at the end of verse 28 - ......who are called according to HIS purpose.
Very bad argument right from the start.
Romans 11:1 KJV - I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
God did not castaway His people which He foreknew (v2).
What was Paul saying?
God did not castaway Paul who was an Israelite.
How can a studied ThD not see this?
Yikes!
Except that he goes into how the Jews were cut off for a time in Romans 10 and 11. This poses a contradiction to your stated “intention of Paul”. If Paul is meaning to ease the mind of the believer, he wouldn’t point to a group that God just blinded for a time.
1.) He’s describing a situation that has no assurance, which negates your states context of Paul’s intention.
2.) In the very next verse, verse 30, it says that those who are called are also glorified. If he’s supposedly talking about the Jews he formerly knew, then he’s contradicting himself because they’ve been cutoff, not glorified.
I think this is a prime example of taking a passage way out of its context because you think it fits well in your narrative. We must all be careful.
But it said those who he foreknew he predestined....but God knew the Pharaoh. Do you believe he conformed him to Christ's image?😂. Guys, Calvinism is just what the bible sounds like when we take it seriously.
But I can see the image of John Calvin in that grilled cheese sandwich.
Is it safe to assume John Calvin was elected to total digestion?
@@RichLuciano1 ;) .... it was inevitable.
@@michelhaineault6654
No, God will vomit both Calvin and Arminus. Only those trusting in God's Word in context and living it out are secured in Christ.
@@michelhaineault6654why is Peter asking you to make every EFFORT to make your calling and election sure?
Is he a synergist?
Think about it with your thinking cap on now. If you cannot think on why his statement contradicts the synergist slogan Calvinist often jump at, it is because you are not studying the text but yanking at buzz words.
Jesus, the Christ declares that the Temple is his father's House, sir; you say it is Jesus Christ's house, sir; hence; one of you has got to be patently WRONG!
His believers may hear his voice, yet only if they will, sir, now, think and correct your thinking, or remain a goat-brained mentality, in vast error, sir!