As a non-Calvinist I have to say the Calvinist was very gracious for allowing Leighton to do most of the talking. That approach is not easy; especially when it’s his broadcast and could want to defend his position to his subs. Much respect to him, reminded me that judging a group by its more sassy adherents is not true for the whole.
Amen, I’m a Calvinist but we need to always remember that we’re brothers. We’re brothers and sisters who fight a lot maybe lol but brothers and sisters nonetheless. So we should have lots of love and compassion for one another even with differing views on stuff.
Watch his other videos. He's just like the rest - rag other denominations behind their backs but when you're face to face, oh all of a sudden he's kind and compassionate and patient and loving.. I'm not saying he's a bad man. I'm just saying he's different when he's around only Calvinists. Typical, though
That we should bear well with those who preach another God, Jesus, Spirit and Gospel as Paul in Corinthians rebukes? Everything about this conversation was nice, up until the point Leighton Flowers considers a false preacher to be his brother in Christ. You even said "brethren", implying that Calvinism, that perverts the very core fundamentals of Biblical Christianity, is part of Biblical Christianity. This actually does more harm than good, and you are giving false validation that someone is a Christian when they are not. Allowing wolves into the fold, and further enabling the damnable doctrines of Calvinism to spread. Just as we can still hold cordial conversations with Mormons without calling them brethren, we can do the same with Calvinists. It is Christians like yourself and Leighton Flowers that gives Calvinism the ability to continue infiltrating our churches, institutions and communities to beguile more victims into it.
@@gerrydean76962 Corinthians 11 King James Version 11 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. Question: According to Paul, are Christians supposed to bear well with those who preach another Jesus that didn't sacrifice Himself for the sin of the world, another Spirit and another Gospel? Second question: Would you consider calling that false preacher your "brother in Christ", as bearing well with him?
Calvinists once dominated Baptist church life in America. A survey done in 1793 early Baptist historian John Asplund estimated that there were 1,032 Baptist churches in America. Out of those, 956 of them were calvinist congregations. Today, In North America, the Southern Baptist Convention has 47,198 churches and 13,223,122 members, and the National Baptist Convention, USA has 21,145 churches and 8,415,100 members. A 2012 lifeway poll claims about 30% are calvinistic. The Puritans were Calvinist. Presbyterians descend from Scottish Calvinists. Many early Baptists were Calvinist. But in the 19th century, Protestantism moved toward the non-Calvinist belief that humans must consent to their own salvation. Arminianism was a response to the Reformation. Do a search on Augustus Toplady and Laud's Letters. You may find this of interest. @eiontactics9056
I’m not a Calvinist, but I respect anyone willing to have a conversation like this. Doesn’t matter what side you’re on, you can have Christ-like kindness.
@@chrismachin2166 That’s more like it. A typical Calvinist response. I read the Bible daily and preach it weekly. Not getting any closer to Calvinism. Further if anything. Watch this video and learn something, instead of just posting a snarky reply.
Gotta say, I have seen Pastor Keith and Dr. Flowers interact before and i love the conversations between the two. They both strongly hold to their beliefs, but are very gracious and cordial in their discussions. These conversations are a breath of fresh air!
How is a false preacher of Calvinism a Christian by your standards? I'm curious? It's proven that in order to believe in Calvinism you have to believe in perverted versions of God, Jesus and the Gospel. Saying a Calvinist preacher is a Christian, is the same as calling someone who preaches Mormonism a Christian.
@@eiontactics9056 I am no Calvinist, but if your version of the "gospel" is one that excludes everyone who believes in Reformed theology, then ironically you are the one who has a preverted view of the gospel.
@eiontactics9056 Therefore, He has mercy on whom He wills, And whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me, 'Then why does he still find fault for who has resisted his will? But indeed o man, Who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' Does not the Potter have power over the clay? From the same lump to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor? Romans 9:18-21
I am a former provisionist that’s now reformed. I think all the online witch hunts of both sides need to just stop. Conversations like this face to face really change the demeanor of the conversation for brothers and sisters in Christ and the unity of these discussions despite the disagreements we have are in need so much especially in the culture we’re in today.
You mean face-to-face, unity discussions like this? John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Amen. People like to hide behind a screen and anonymity to yell heresy at anyone who disagrees with them even in the slightest way. It's rooted in legalism and hate. Of course, legalism by definition is taking God's loving character away from His law so it only makes sense such people lack love. Whether you're Calvinist, Lutheran, Provisionist, Catholic, or Baptist we should all be loving first and foremost above all. Otherwise we are guilty of breaking one of the greatest commandments. Besides, if the whole purpose of debate is to bring each other to the truth, how can that happen through insult and condemnation? Unless of course your reason for debating is purely selfish and a desire to be right. God bless.
@MoStBlEsSeD LORD refused me once from debatting him. It's not Gods will or it would've happened. Change only occurs from the power of God, not the words of man.
@ManassehJones my bad I was referring to Keith debating him .. I should've typed that lol .. debates are important though sometimes .. good to have discussions
I am a non-Calvinist, that doesn't mean Arminian :-) first time I've ran across Keith and I was very impressed. This is definitely a brother I could talk to and converse about the differences in our theologies. God bless you Keith and keep up the good work. by the way, I have to agree with your question to flowers about what mercy infants need if they have not sinned. Great question.
I don't recognize the "Calvinism" of Leighton Flowers. I think his issue is within Southern Baptists. I don't listen to professional debaters, they paint with heavy strokes - not the reality.
@@daviddonovan3282 It’s funny that you contradict Calvinism with your own comment. Did Leighton convince you to become a Calvinist or did God predetermine or decree for you to believe it? Is Leighton “sovereign” or God?
@JohnK557 oooh, you caught me. i had been listening to Leighton Flowers and others, like him, (William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Greg Koukl, Steve Anderson, and others) for about 6 months as a young Christian. His near continual attacks on Calvinism, along with a you-tuber named Kevin Thompson, I think (he is on Beyond the Fundamentals YT channel), caused me to begin to test and attempt to validate what they were saying. I was new to theological studies and had never heard of this stuff before. It was that research and Scriptural study that led me to embrace Calvinism and, in turn, Reformed Theology, as I found time again their arguments weak and man-centered.
This conversation is the type of thing that still gives me faith that we can go through all this complex stuff and still have a Christ like spirit towards one another. Thanks for the great conversation from both, hope we get to see you two interact more and be a model to both calvinists and non calvinists out there.
I'm not a Calvinist, but huge respect to Keith for letting Leighton speak most of the time. A humble and honest conversation from both of them, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
My journey to Calvinist soteriology started with a lot of tears and grief over the state of humanity. I started to realize us humans didn’t truly have free will. While we could do what we wanted, we couldn’t choose what we wanted. Our every decision is based on genetics and environment; events outside our control. And God had seemingly tasked us with the immense job of finding the truth. There’s so much I could say about this journey, but in the end I found peace with accepting Calvinism, because accepting Calvinism means you accept that God is in control, and He knows best. This applies to everything from our salvation to events in the world. So to me, when I hear some brothers and sisters talking about how the “Calvinist god” is immoral, it doesn’t make sense. We all have to make sense of the fact that God allows suffering. But does He allow suffering because He respects our free will? Or because He has a greater purpose behind every terrible event? Calvinism chooses the latter.
*Also I know I’m not only talking about soteriology here, but also the problem of evil. I see both as very much connected by the rejection of libertarian free will in favor of compatibilism.
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 6 So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?
I honestly didn't think I would like this conversation because I disagree with so much of what Leighton Flowers believes. But, I was pleasantly surprised at how much I sincerely enjoyed it! My thanks to you both! But OH! SO many things I wanted to say, and so many questions!
@@danielwarton5343If you are “doctrines of grace” then what do you have to disagree with your friend at church and Leighton? They believe in Gods grace also, for all people though not just you and your camp…….
@@carlospadron488 I know. They are purposefully deceiving people by calling theistic determinism “doctrines of grace.” There is no Grace in Calvinism, Reformed Theology, or any other version of determinism….. Nothing more than “grace for me but not for thee.”
While I would disagree with Leighton on most things, I did enjoy meeting him and spending some time chatting with him. He was very friendly and personable.
@@dusty_roads_bbq you mean john 3:16 Biblical salvation not based on Augustine gnostic derived determinism or John Calvin 1500 proclamations or the non biblical tulip systematic ti follow mire recently? Salvation available to all men. That all men can accept or reject. God not dooming infants to eternal damnation in the womb even befits creation, or being a respecter of persons, by picking some for automatic salvation, passing by others for no apparent reason known to us or explained to use for automatic destruction eternally.?.
@@dusty_roads_bbq I think even non Believers know what it says and many came to christ with that gospel text which is the power unto salvation fir not done but all whosoever not a respected person of God. Buy all who believe. God has made provision for salvation even for the tax collector thief on the cross murderers liars rapist born booze drug sex addicted and homosexuals whores, the world even your and I. He stands at the door and knocks if any man hears his voice and opens the door christ awaits. Theology is fine and all but its comes down to the heart level and true belief as many unbelievers are the scribes and pharisees of today. Overburdened with books and books seminaries systematic languages christian colleges manmade doctrines and systematic multiple definitions semantics. These are helpful but can also be a stumbling block for many. When bible passages are twisted to a line with the systematic instead of the other way around. When the unlimited atonement is very simple. What must I do to be saved. The bible tells you. And not hope you were predestined as predestination did not die on the cross and cannot save your. For without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. Election oredestination dud not bleed for your. Jesus did. Instead put your faith in the only one that can 100 per cent save you by grace through faith as your faith does not save you and faith cones by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Jesus saves those who believe and he gets all the credit not a manmade tulip systematic or predestination election.
Let me start by saying I’m not a Calvinist. However, the cordial attitude displayed by both Leighton and the host are refreshing. I’m grateful that an actual conversation can be held by people with opposing theological views and still walk away friends. It doesn’t have to end any other way. The differences are still there, and there was pushback on both sides, but no animosity or ad hominem was experienced. Bravo, and great job.
My subjective experience is that Calvinists are a lot more ecumenical than the other side. Which makes sense when the other side demonizes Calvinists as literally unsaved heretics. I would say if you want more of this, then fix that problem.
You both did a fantastic job being respectful and not talking over one another. I wish more and more conversations like this would happen as I openly invite on our show as well. Being willing to work through these conversations and walk away even in disagreement with the grace you guys shared is the charitable love the world should see!
Leighton drives his understanding from emotion, not scripture! Scripture, concerning the nature of man ( Eph. 2:3; Psalm 51:5; 58:3) says otherwise. And that's the problem. On an issue like this, we tend to let emotion drive our theology. That's why God's total and complete sovereignty and providential council in working out all things according to His will, is vitally important. The moment you interject an autonomy (Leightons view of mans autonomous free will; actions and thoughts by man, independent of God) unknown and uncontrolled by God you'll always struggle with these issues. We cannot dumb down God into our ignorance. Ask Job! When we do that, you end up with, no disrespect meant, Provisionism. God bless
@mmttomb3 God may have chosen Job to go through what he did, but he did not choose for Job to make himself self righteous so he could rebuke Him later on. Certainly, God in his will has chosen certain things based on his foreknowledge of man's free will. But He is most able to do it because he lives in the future and is already where we will be 50yrs from now. He is the ultimate chess player that already knows and has already counteracted based on mans choices to bring about his ultimate sovereign plan.
Thank you for doing and posting this. So nice to see two godly men who disagree on theological issues respond to one another so kindly and graciously. More of this and less of the anger and name calling. A very Christ-like discussion. 🙏 ✝️
Great discussion and very thought-provoking. On the infant issue, this hits home to many of us, so in dealing with the issue, we need to tred lightly. Both men seem to do that. As a Calvinist i cannot jettison theology and doctrine based on emotion. Theologically the issue is what does the bible communicate to us about the reality of the nature of man and the results associated with that nature. Eph. 2:3 says that by nature, we are children of wrath. We have a nature, inherited from Adam, that foundational, naturally, leaves us in a state of condemnation. When we sin, it's because it's our natural inclination by nature. The manifestations of which naturally come to the surface as sin. The problem with this issue, emotions can sometimes reign supreme over our theology. And we end up creating emotional driven "It's not fair" or "I would never do..." theology. And I think, respectively, provisionist, do that. As a Calvinist I leave the issue up to God. He's sovereign and can save whomever He wants. Whether it be a baby or a former blasphemous now repentant atheist on his death bed, I leave that up to our sovereign to save whomsoever He wills. We just have to be content that He's God and does as He pleases. For me as a finite emotional being I lean on God’s mercy, though definitively scripture says, by nature, otherwise. Thats just my take. Tough very emotional issue for those of us who've lost a lil one. God bless
As a Calvinist i cannot jettison theology and doctrine based on emotion..........no need, to just base it on Jesus The Messiah, the word of God in flesh.......let the little children come to me......the Kingdom of God is like one of these....come as a child ......these basic paraphrases of verses are simple, easy and light , nothing like your christ and god of calvinism. You identify with such a disgusting deceptive spirit that maligns God The Most High. Ridiculous theologies are reformed/calvimism.
I appreciate leighton flowers. As an ex-Calvinist myself living with cognitive dissonance about the nature of God is nothing to play with thank God to be set free.
I commented on face book that this conversation would make me hyperventilate… this was the most humanizing video of wlc I have ever seen ! Good job brother.
Pastor Foskey, after watching this I went to the Spurgeon Center for Biblical Preaching and found his sermon called: Infant Salvation preached in 1861. A beautiful exposition why true Calvinists don’t believe God sends infants to hell. I lost a child also years ago and although I never thought she was in hell this gives so much hope and peace also revealing how many Calvinists have written on this subject. Hope you and others will go and read it🙏❤️✝️
You guys should do more shows together. Like once a month you should get together and discuss controversies and doctrine, this is so much more helpful to the body than tweets.
Infant death is painful and the Bible is not clear as to their destiny. We can only rest upon our merciful God and leave such things to him. For believers, we can take comfort in the fact that are children are made holy. We also attest that there is no salvation outside of Christ. We bow in humility and trust our God.
Let the children come to me, .......to enter God's kingdom one comes as a child........take off your warped distorted lens and and embrace the one of a loving word of God in the flesh, such reprehensible conclusions have calvinism/reformed theology. Disgusting!
The Bible is clear that God will not blame the sins of a father upon his children. Therefore, all children are innocent before the age of accountability. When a person is unaware of Gods moral law in their hearts and in nature, it's not counted against them.
Bro. Keith, I'm a 70 yr old man and been believing in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ since childhood. Please give me the opportunity to perfect your theology and end all the debates that the children of God argue, bicker and feud about. My theology harmonizes all the scriptures.
Keith, you did a super job with this interview. I would have struggled with being as gracious as you were with Leighton. Perhaps in the future you could do a few rebuttal videos to his most popular Soteriology 101 videos. That would be extremely helpful.
Leighton for 6-8 years of videos: "Fairness isn't the issue" 1 day at a calvinist conference where Leighton is present... "LEIGHTON MUST HAVE BEEN THE ONE ASKED ABOUT FAIRNESS!!!" 😂 /tongue in cheek obviously. Fortunately it was a decent conversation. 👍
I’m a new subscriber 😁 I was raised as a Calvinist in the Orthodox Presbyterian denomination. Eventually, my parents rejected Presbyterianism because they did not see infant baptism in the NT. Then, we attended primarily Calvinistic Baptist churches. Though my Father, now in his 90s, is still Calvinistic, I don’t really agree with Calvinism. That having been said, all my favorite preachers and theologians are Calvinistic: John MacArthur, John Piper, James White, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, Jonathan Edwards, and others in that same vein. So I came across Mr. Flowers videos a couple years ago and could not stand them. It seemed clear to me that he purposefully misrepresented Calvinist arguments and twisted scriptures unfairly in order to attack Calvinists. Imagine my surprise while watching this video. He seems reasonable, articulate, and knowledgeable. It makes me wonder why he doesn’t bring the same reasonableness and knowledge to his own videos. But I was pleasantly surprised by this interview. Both of you did a great job of discussing the issues fairly and reasonably. Thank you to both of you.
I wish there were more respectful discussions like this. I'm becoming more and more Provisionist but I still love and respect the Calvinist teachers that I have listened to over the years. MacArthur and Sproul are two great resources for Christians to go to but they are not the "Popes of Protestantism" (neither is Leighton for that matter) so we can take the good from each teacher but we need to use our own brains to test everyone's opinion.
I want to hear Flowers talk about Provisionism WITHOUT talking/referring/comparing to/about Calvinism. Because I have found NOTHING. His followers insist it is not a new theology, but I can't find it in my old books. Teach your thing, make it make sense, don't bring up Calvinism.
If I may (as a provisionist or traditionalist or what have you) may answer. The term "provisionism" is one taken on by flowers to define and systematize a common sense understanding of salvation...I say this not to be contentious or create division but to offer an answer...what i mean is that in Calvinism you will see adherents admit that God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is contradictory, and so they will say that its a "mystery" but both are true. Provisionism doesnt believe God intends his beloved creation to be in confusion about salvation, and solves the dilemma by recognizing that God holds man responsible because God has sovereignly made man able to respond.... you won't find theologians of past taking about it because it is a new title for an old and classic understanding of God's character and salvation... the reason that Flowers always teaches it in refutation of calvinism is because 1 that is more or less his focus in ministry and 2 the very purpose of the system and teaching is to understand salvation according to the Bible and that contrasts with the understanding of salvation according to Calvin, and so when the comparison needs to be used for understanding then the comparison is made... I think the subject creates much more tension and separation then it should. We have much more that unites us and that should be focused on primarily. Hope this helps. God bless.
@@themahrs I appreciate your response. But if you have the truth, stick with the truth and promote it that way, if you have the "old and classical understanding of God's character and salvation" prove it by focusing on your system with its new name, list the faithful dead who would agree with you, and teach it for what it is. Flowers has proven he does not understand Calvinism and does not understand the very scriptures about salvation he has made the cornerstone for this new system that won't last long if he doesn't focus on defining. Have you read "Willing to Believe" by Sproul? Excellent book he masterfully shows the ancient arguments (both sides) back to the 5th century.
@ryanaustin996 I understand, but there is obviously contention going both ways. Plenty of Calvinist teachers hurl accusations and attacks this way as well. I'm sure you would agree with me that regardless of how many theologians believed either side, or what the popular loud voice says today that ultimately scripture is the authoritative and deciding factor here. I think that calvinism needs to be taught by suck people like Sproul, macarthur, white, Durbin, ect because when people read the Bible they intuitively do not come to understand God the way that calvinist do....that idea and understanding of God that is untainted by human influence and theological speculation is the belief that has now been come to known as "provisionism"... there is alot more to Leighton Flowers then calvinism but this is where he has found an audience just like "yourcalvinist" has.
@ryanaustin996 also, I don't think it's fair to say that Flowers doesn't understand calvinism as he was one throughout his formal education. I know that to calvinists there is no such thing as a "former calvinist," but it is possible for someone to understand and reject this teaching on the basis of their understanding of scripture.
One of the things that most troubled me with this video is Leighton saying that he would "question the goodness of God", if infant damnation was true. I believe God elects all dying infants from the examples we have in the scriptures, but thinking you can judge the character of God is just something unaceptable that needs to be repented of.
It's why he has a problem with Romans 9 and says it's only about ethnic Israel when God through Paul, says in Romans 9 not all Israel is Israel. I do believe and affirm Inherited/Imputed Guilt because all of Humanity has had Adams Guilt Imputed on us individually and we also Are Imputed the Guilt of our Parents Sin. It's why we are all born spiritually dead slaves to sin and Guilty before a Holy, Righteous, and Just God who is Sovereign and doesn't need to save everyone because all Humanity and all of his creation accounts as NOTHING in the eyes of God.
Exactly. When I heard that he would would have a hard time continuing to worship God if He, in His infinite wisdom and holiness, actually does in fact damn children because they were not His elect, my thoughts were also "Leighton, it sounds like you would rather worship an idol of your own standards rather than the one true God". This sounds eerily close to those who say "Love is love" and "Wouldn't it be more loving if God accepted everyone just how they are?". Pure human speculation and very dangerous. I pray that he reconsiders.
What would someone have to say about God before you would question it, or would you be willing to worship any form or idea about God simply because it was attributed to Him?
@@Soteriology101 first, we need to understand who is God, and what are His atributes. Knowing that He exists, we know that He is the ultimate standard for goodness, which means God is good no matter what, even when we do not understand it. The reason allah, and other pagan idols are immoral is because they are not God, and so, as being idols made in the image of men, they are contrary to Gods nature, and align with mans morals outside of Gods grace. The truth is, infant damnation, is not an issue that we have the absolute certainty of. The problem with infant damnation being contrary to Gods will and holiness, is something to be discussed, not the quality of Gods goodness, in the very tiny probability that infant damnation is true. That is what is wrong.
Leighton seems to have so much of his emotions wrapped up into certain beliefs - he draws lines about what he is willing to believe about God instead of allowing God to draw those lines despite his offense. God is the ultimate “other” and if we aren’t finding ourselves offended once in a while, we are probably missing Him.
Leighton seems to appeal to emotion and human conceptions of fairness…primarily. When you listen to someone like John Piper, he’ll walk you through the Bible and explain the many and varied Bible passages describing election. My concern for Leighton is that he seems to be very committed to his own personal (or popular) ideals of what is fair and what is not fair…and he uses that as the litmus test as to whether or not he would serve God. Proverbs 3:5, “ Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.”
A very emotional response. ..and nothing but emotions. You could replace 'baby' with any other kind of human and find people going apoplectic, insisting God would never do that.
As a hard-core Calvinist, who would subscribe to all 10 points (should there be 10), it’s absolutely demonstrable and detestable that anyone could think that an infant or unborn baby goes to hell. Sincerely, your Christ, honoring Jesus, loving God-fearing brother and the sweet Lord (who also loves all babies and unborn infants, and has elect them to be his own prize possession).
Why would God love all children but not all adults? Does his eternal disposition for them change as they get older? Or perhaps election is based on something about the elected individual? Why is it horrible to contemplate that God would eternally decree a human soul to spend five minutes on this earth and then go to eternal fire, but be just and glorifying that he would extend the time frame on earth for a few more years or decades? Why must we conclude that God loves all infants and children who die young and elects them, but does not love all children who eventually become adults? Does he love someone while they're a child and then change his mind later? He ordains all those who become adults, and all the sin they end up committing, and passes over most of them. Can you really say that he loves all children when he decrees that most of them cease being children and become damnable reprobate adults?
I've learned as a Calvinist to hold more loosely to the tenets that originated from Augustine such as infants in hell, while becoming more Lutheran in soteriology.
@@joshuadonahue5871 Josh, get over your demonic deception. You'll require significant help, yet Jesus Thee Messiah will be there for you. May you reap what you have planted and be singed with reuse for your conclusions. Disgusting christ of calvin conclusions you serve Josh!
Wait a minute, what is happening here? People with different vet views on the video and in the comment section been all cordial and respectful. Am I on the Internet?🤣🤣🤣
He was only Nice because he was a Guest on Keith's Podcast but when Leighton Flowers is by himself or with his Flowerites he's very prideful and boastful about how better he is than Christians who don't affirm his heterodoxy.
The arguments atheists make against Christianity are the same arguments protestants make against the apostolic churches (Catholicism/Orthodoxy). How's that any better?
It simpily means his worldview and the way he thinks is very similar to an atheist. That's not good if you're a Christian. He's putting God on trial from a worldy standard@@ericfisher1360
When God said in the beginning "Be fruitful and multiply" before the fall, that not all babies are meant for Heaven or for life? This is my strongest evidence that babies, nor adults were chosen for either life or death. Intention, I know that God intended that all should live, rather than intending to destroy most while purposefully choosing only the few He desires to live.
Pastor Keith: Was The Apostle Paul talking about himself when he was under the law or when he was under Grace? “For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” Romans 7:15 ESV It is my understanding that Paul is giving his personal testimony of his life before his encounter with Jesus. Let me know your thoughts on this?
I am on the Provisionist side of this. But I will say that it is important to be able to understand the arguments of the other side. There are people on both sides that make no effort in understanding the other side. James White is very intelligent but has an issue with understanding the other side. Insteadof engagingin the argument, he will say, 'But the text says...' then he explains his interpretation of the text. I have heard some Provisionists do the same thing.
What a great interview! Love the host. I have had some serious issues with Calvinism from the day I leaned about it. I studied long and hard to see if I could make it line up with the Scriptures and became more and ore convinced that it can't. If God's will is always done that means no one else's will is ever done. That means that God is responsible for everything, including evil. This definition of sovereignty can't possibly align with what scripture says. God clearly hates evil. I'm sorry but Calvinism paints a picture of God that makes him appear to be a monster that created the world to entertain himself even to the point of wanting to suffer and die horribly to rescue some of his characters in his game. There can't be any other players if there are no other wills at work. If Calvinism is true we are all merely NPCs. Clearly the deterministic and compatible viewpoints rule out any possible way for humans to have a will. There is plenty of evil in the world to prove that God's will is not always done. Scripture is clear that God is more than able to accomplish his ultimate will which is to offer salvation to all who willingly choose to love him and come to him and to restore his creation so that he can live in perfect fellowship with his family of mankind forever.
Leighton seems to be under the impression that if he can’t conceive of why God would or wouldn’t do a certain thing then it makes Him unjust, perhaps he needs a gentle reminder that God is infinite and we are very finite.😊
I heard a young man tell me it would have been a blessing to be aborted. He was told we are all born holy and innocent and only become guilty when we reach an age of understanding right from wrong. I was told this as a child also, but then suddenly I became this sinner in need of a saviour although nothing had changed in my little world that I could tell as a 10 year old. I remember the threats of damnation, being told I HAVE to believe. Nobody could tell me HOW I could believe, just that I had to. I was so angry at my parents for not letting me die as a 3 year old from the mumps, not letting me go to Jesus but making me stay until I became a sinner and therefore facing eternal damnation. Nobody told me God's attributes. That's He's not 90 percent righteous and 10 percent merciful. He's perfectly 100 percent all that He is. Why can we not hold to original sin and also hold the knowledge that God is 100 percent Good and His ways are higher than ours and just trust Him that He knows better than we do about what He has going on in the grand scheme of things? If I was born with original sin, then it's His mercy that I was born in order that He may save me. Sure, the thought it's unfair then that He would create me in the first place if He's just going to damn me is there, but the fact I'm here right now as a born again believer tells me it's not true. So what's my point? I don't know, it's 6 o'clock in the morning. If you read this far, thanks. Just some things to mull over.
I want to answer your question you asked. The main reason we shouldn’t do that is because logic and rationality matter. It is how we avoid thinking nonsensical and incoherent things. If someone does evil things, they aren’t just magically good. When we say, “God is good”, it has to mean somethings to our minds and it only means something if he is recognizably good.
I saw a person say that they were disturbed by a Leighton Flowers saying that he would question the goodness of God if it turned out that He was willing to damn infants. To that sort of mindset, I have two responses. 1.People who believe in infant damnation do seem to be more logical than most christians. I am absolutely not saying that they are right, but they are more consistent than many christians. Because if a person believes that it is unreasonable and utterly unintuitive or irreconcilable with our sense of goodness to doom little babies to hell forever, what valid response do they have to someone like me, who would agree but extend the same reasoning to adults. It seems equally irreconcilable to my intuition of goodness to damn adults forever. It would be no more or less unintuitive to me compared to believing that He damns babies forever. [I do not infantilize adults nor pity us for our sinfulness, but it is no crueler or incomprehensible to damn babies forever than it is to damn adults forever.] 2.Our commitment to God is idolatrous if it is not based in anything other than Him being called God. If we are willing to worship God even if He turns out to be exactly like Moloch, that means that we are the equivalent of a Moloch worshiper, and that is not exactly pleasing to God. I started worshiping God the moment that I discovered that He was Christlike/worthy. I had previously desperately desired to worship Him but I just couldn't bring myself to. I suppose if I stopped believing that God was Christlike/worthy, I would be unable to keep worshiping him, even if my standards for gods were low enough for me to want to. To be fair, there is a place for putting our intuitions aside. I believe that God had killed many thousands of people in gruesome ways, led wars, and other things that are hard to reconcile with my finite understanding of love/goodness. So how is that different from unconditional/meaningless loyalty? The difference is that I still believe that God did those things in a way that is somehow loving/Christlike, even if I don't understand how. Basically, I believe that God is love[agape] and I am open-minded to love acting in ways that don't seem intuitive to me, ways that will counterintuitively benefit people. I know that love and the way that reality works transcends my finite understanding. If I could not question the simplistic[and understandable but incorrect] intuition that the deeds of God are sometimes unloving, then I would have a serious crisis of faith on my hands. If I came to believe that God is sometimes inconsistent with love, that would >>amount to
@@KlintonSilvey Ephesians clearly refutes synergistic heresy. Salvation is rather by the actions of God by His Sovereign grace alone, not by anything that we do. Every cult, including Islam, is all about what man does that saves himself. Faith is an ability imparted by the Holy Spirit. The Trinity has all three persons activeiy involved in Salvation. The Father thought it. The Son bought it. The Holy Spirit brought it. But the Devil fought it. Yet, Glory to God alone, I got it. Man has nothing to boast. God alone gets the Glory.
@@KlintonSilvey Others don't believe because they are slaves to their "free" wills, idols and false gods. They are dead to God and seek to glorify themselves.
“25 Far be it from you to do such a thing-to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Genesis 18:25
Flowers incorrectly uses the term ' inherited guilt ' , when what God has done with man since the Garden times is that He's put all men under a curse . Flowers acknowledged that should the child grow up, that child would indeed commit sin(s) . The question here is this : Does man sin against God because he's a sinner; or does man become a sinner because he's sinned against God ?? That answer is known to God for sure. It isn't man's feelings that will judge, nor man's feelings that will judge the ultimate destination of man -- whether heaven or hell .
As a non-Calvinist I have to say the Calvinist was very gracious for allowing Leighton to do most of the talking. That approach is not easy; especially when it’s his broadcast and could want to defend his position to his subs. Much respect to him, reminded me that judging a group by its more sassy adherents is not true for the whole.
Amen, I’m a Calvinist but we need to always remember that we’re brothers. We’re brothers and sisters who fight a lot maybe lol but brothers and sisters nonetheless. So we should have lots of love and compassion for one another even with differing views on stuff.
Totally agree. I’m a non-Calvinist and lean more towards Leighton’s position but this is one area I would love to see him grow in.
James 1:19
That's the reason I like watching Keith Foskey's channel, he just let you how you are.
Flowers probably doesn’t agree to show up unless he’s promised 3/4 of the speaking time lol
As a provisionist, I must say Keith Foskey is an amazing honorable gentleman. May God bless you richly Keith!
Watch his other videos. He's just like the rest - rag other denominations behind their backs but when you're face to face, oh all of a sudden he's kind and compassionate and patient and loving..
I'm not saying he's a bad man. I'm just saying he's different when he's around only Calvinists. Typical, though
@@matthewbrown9029. Thanks! I thought he was acting WAY TOO NICE FOR A CALVINITE!!!
We all have a lot to learn from how these two men dialogue. Thank you brethren. 😎 🙌🏻
That we should bear well with those who preach another God, Jesus, Spirit and Gospel as Paul in Corinthians rebukes?
Everything about this conversation was nice, up until the point Leighton Flowers considers a false preacher to be his brother in Christ.
You even said "brethren", implying that Calvinism, that perverts the very core fundamentals of Biblical Christianity, is part of Biblical Christianity.
This actually does more harm than good, and you are giving false validation that someone is a Christian when they are not. Allowing wolves into the fold, and further enabling the damnable doctrines of Calvinism to spread.
Just as we can still hold cordial conversations with Mormons without calling them brethren, we can do the same with Calvinists.
It is Christians like yourself and Leighton Flowers that gives Calvinism the ability to continue infiltrating our churches, institutions and communities to beguile more victims into it.
@@eiontactics9056
Blessed is the man You choose and cause to approach You that he may dwell in Your courts. Psalm 65:4
@@gerrydean76962 Corinthians 11
King James Version
11 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.
2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
Question: According to Paul, are Christians supposed to bear well with those who preach another Jesus that didn't sacrifice Himself for the sin of the world, another Spirit and another Gospel?
Second question: Would you consider calling that false preacher your "brother in Christ", as bearing well with him?
Calvinists once dominated Baptist church life in America.
A survey done in 1793 early Baptist historian John Asplund estimated that there were 1,032 Baptist churches in America. Out of those, 956 of them were calvinist congregations.
Today, In North America, the Southern Baptist Convention has 47,198 churches and 13,223,122 members, and the National Baptist Convention, USA has 21,145 churches and 8,415,100 members.
A 2012 lifeway poll claims about 30% are calvinistic.
The Puritans were Calvinist. Presbyterians descend from Scottish Calvinists. Many early Baptists were Calvinist. But in the 19th century, Protestantism moved toward the non-Calvinist belief that humans must consent to their own salvation.
Arminianism was a response to the Reformation.
Do a search on Augustus Toplady and Laud's Letters. You may find this of interest.
@eiontactics9056
@@eiontactics9056 What a pretty idol youve made of your free will.
Also 1 & 2 Corinthians are some of the strongest texts for Calvinism 😂
I’m not a Calvinist, but I respect anyone willing to have a conversation like this. Doesn’t matter what side you’re on, you can have Christ-like kindness.
..you will be when you read the Bible more and more.
@@chrismachin2166 That’s more like it. A typical Calvinist response. I read the Bible daily and preach it weekly. Not getting any closer to Calvinism. Further if anything. Watch this video and learn something, instead of just posting a snarky reply.
@@chriscasillas A Body of Divinity ,Thomas Watson.
@@chrismachin2166 Ah…so NOT the Bible. Got it.
@@chriscasillas John 6:65 “No- one CAN come to me unless the Father has enabled them”. I can keep them coming if you want?
Great conversation! I really think Keith is a great guy. I greatly value his demeanor and kindness in this conversation and personally towards me.
Gotta say, I have seen Pastor Keith and Dr. Flowers interact before and i love the conversations between the two. They both strongly hold to their beliefs, but are very gracious and cordial in their discussions. These conversations are a breath of fresh air!
As should be, the internet really just brings out the worst in people
What a great conversation. No sarcasm, no mocking, no accusations. Just two Christian gentlemen having a friendly discussion on an important topic. 🥰
How is a false preacher of Calvinism a Christian by your standards? I'm curious?
It's proven that in order to believe in Calvinism you have to believe in perverted versions of God, Jesus and the Gospel.
Saying a Calvinist preacher is a Christian, is the same as calling someone who preaches Mormonism a Christian.
@@eiontactics9056You misspelled Provisionism
@@garyboulton2302lol
@@eiontactics9056 I am no Calvinist, but if your version of the "gospel" is one that excludes everyone who believes in Reformed theology, then ironically you are the one who has a preverted view of the gospel.
@eiontactics9056
Therefore, He has mercy on whom He wills, And whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me, 'Then why does he still find fault for who has resisted his will? But indeed o man, Who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' Does not the Potter have power over the clay? From the same lump to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor? Romans 9:18-21
James White must have been delighted that his biggest fan Leighton Flowers was there.
🤪🤪🤪
James white is not the sharpest knife in the drawer
@@albusai?
@@albusai White is incredibly intelligent. But he is so steadfast in his systematic that he rebukes criticism
I’m sure White enjoyed Leighton’s presence as he would a fine root canal!
I am a former provisionist that’s now reformed. I think all the online witch hunts of both sides need to just stop. Conversations like this face to face really change the demeanor of the conversation for brothers and sisters in Christ and the unity of these discussions despite the disagreements we have are in need so much especially in the culture we’re in today.
You mean face-to-face, unity discussions like this?
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Amen. People like to hide behind a screen and anonymity to yell heresy at anyone who disagrees with them even in the slightest way. It's rooted in legalism and hate. Of course, legalism by definition is taking God's loving character away from His law so it only makes sense such people lack love. Whether you're Calvinist, Lutheran, Provisionist, Catholic, or Baptist we should all be loving first and foremost above all. Otherwise we are guilty of breaking one of the greatest commandments. Besides, if the whole purpose of debate is to bring each other to the truth, how can that happen through insult and condemnation? Unless of course your reason for debating is purely selfish and a desire to be right. God bless.
@@aletheia8054 ad hom is helping no one here.
Side note for correction for your name is αλήθεια. Love you brother. God Bless.
@@ThetaMinistries Jesus was ad hom?
@@aletheia8054 no that’s not what I was saying. It sounded like you were using John 8 to call me a son of the devil? Maybe I misread it. My apologies.
Keith, you seem like a really genuinely cool dude. I always enjoy your interviews & discussions.
Anybody that takes a compliment from you as something to be grateful for, lacks discernment, and they should read 2 Cor 13:5.
You should debate him someday ... would be good watch . GOD bless
@MoStBlEsSeD LORD refused me once from debatting him. It's not Gods will or it would've happened.
Change only occurs from the power of God, not the words of man.
@ManassehJones my bad I was referring to Keith debating him .. I should've typed that lol .. debates are important though sometimes .. good to have discussions
@MoStBlEsSeD oh I'd definitely debate Keith on a range of topics. He strikes me as an honest and thoughtful person.
Nice to hear civil conversations about tough subjects. Praise to the Lord!
I wish these in person conversations were all more common, it’s very beneficial.
I enjoyed meeting Leighton Flowers. I’m glad he came to the conference. Keith get some rest.
Bless the two of you for this discussion. The maturity shown here was truly edifying. Praise God!
Love this type of conversation within the community of believers. Much love to you all.
I am a non-Calvinist, that doesn't mean Arminian :-) first time I've ran across Keith and I was very impressed. This is definitely a brother I could talk to and converse about the differences in our theologies. God bless you Keith and keep up the good work. by the way, I have to agree with your question to flowers about what mercy infants need if they have not sinned. Great question.
Two great ambassadors from both camps, right here. God bless you both.
Leighton Flowers one the man who convinced me to become a Calvinist. I'm grateful for his efforts.
Love it 😅 I listen to him as one of my friends likes him and I’m always persuaded he’s wrong.
I don't recognize the "Calvinism" of Leighton Flowers. I think his issue is within Southern Baptists. I don't listen to professional debaters, they paint with heavy strokes - not the reality.
@@timothykeith1367 he'd probably take a claim of his "calvinism" as an insult.
@@daviddonovan3282 It’s funny that you contradict Calvinism with your own comment. Did Leighton convince you to become a Calvinist or did God predetermine or decree for you to believe it? Is Leighton “sovereign” or God?
@JohnK557 oooh, you caught me. i had been listening to Leighton Flowers and others, like him, (William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Greg Koukl, Steve Anderson, and others) for about 6 months as a young Christian. His near continual attacks on Calvinism, along with a you-tuber named Kevin Thompson, I think (he is on Beyond the Fundamentals YT channel), caused me to begin to test and attempt to validate what they were saying. I was new to theological studies and had never heard of this stuff before. It was that research and Scriptural study that led me to embrace Calvinism and, in turn, Reformed Theology, as I found time again their arguments weak and man-centered.
This conversation is the type of thing that still gives me faith that we can go through all this complex stuff and still have a Christ like spirit towards one another. Thanks for the great conversation from both, hope we get to see you two interact more and be a model to both calvinists and non calvinists out there.
I'm not a Calvinist, but huge respect to Keith for letting Leighton speak most of the time. A humble and honest conversation from both of them, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
My journey to Calvinist soteriology started with a lot of tears and grief over the state of humanity. I started to realize us humans didn’t truly have free will. While we could do what we wanted, we couldn’t choose what we wanted. Our every decision is based on genetics and environment; events outside our control. And God had seemingly tasked us with the immense job of finding the truth.
There’s so much I could say about this journey, but in the end I found peace with accepting Calvinism, because accepting Calvinism means you accept that God is in control, and He knows best. This applies to everything from our salvation to events in the world.
So to me, when I hear some brothers and sisters talking about how the “Calvinist god” is immoral, it doesn’t make sense. We all have to make sense of the fact that God allows suffering. But does He allow suffering because He respects our free will? Or because He has a greater purpose behind every terrible event? Calvinism chooses the latter.
*Also I know I’m not only talking about soteriology here, but also the problem of evil. I see both as very much connected by the rejection of libertarian free will in favor of compatibilism.
Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
6 So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?
you should check out Consistent Calvinism podcast, he is awesome
Hopefully you'll come out of your deception if you're willing to do the work. Sola de your choice.
@@truthseeker5698 hopefully your realize man isn't sovereign, God is
I honestly didn't think I would like this conversation because I disagree with so much of what Leighton Flowers believes. But, I was pleasantly surprised at how much I sincerely enjoyed it! My thanks to you both! But OH! SO many things I wanted to say, and so many questions!
I was the same. I’m having a very friendly debate with a friend in my church, I’m doctrines of grace and he’s a fan of Leighton Flowers.
@@danielwarton5343If you are “doctrines of grace” then what do you have to disagree with your friend at church and Leighton? They believe in Gods grace also, for all people though not just you and your camp…….
@@JohnK557they don’t mean grace to you..just for the Elect
@@carlospadron488 I know. They are purposefully deceiving people by calling theistic determinism “doctrines of grace.” There is no Grace in Calvinism, Reformed Theology, or any other version of determinism….. Nothing more than “grace for me but not for thee.”
Become a friend of Jesus The Messiah and not a slave to the christ of calvinism/reformed theology.
Thank you so much for having LF on your podcast. He is a gracious person of faith.
While I would disagree with Leighton on most things, I did enjoy meeting him and spending some time chatting with him. He was very friendly and personable.
Like what things🤔?
@@Tigerex966like the entirety of his soteriology
@@dusty_roads_bbq you mean john 3:16
Biblical salvation not based on Augustine gnostic derived determinism or John Calvin 1500 proclamations or the non biblical tulip systematic ti follow mire recently?
Salvation available to all men.
That all men can accept or reject.
God not dooming infants to eternal damnation in the womb even befits creation, or being a respecter of persons, by picking some for automatic salvation, passing by others for no apparent reason known to us or explained to use for automatic destruction eternally.?.
@@Tigerex966 I love John 3:16. Do you know what it says? Have you read all of John 3? Have you read all of John?
@@dusty_roads_bbq I think even non Believers know what it says and many came to christ with that gospel text which is the power unto salvation fir not done but all whosoever not a respected person of God.
Buy all who believe.
God has made provision for salvation even for the tax collector thief on the cross murderers liars rapist born booze drug sex addicted and homosexuals whores, the world even your and I.
He stands at the door and knocks if any man hears his voice and opens the door christ awaits.
Theology is fine and all but its comes down to the heart level and true belief as many unbelievers are the scribes and pharisees of today.
Overburdened with books and books seminaries systematic languages christian colleges manmade doctrines and systematic multiple definitions semantics.
These are helpful but can also be a stumbling block for many.
When bible passages are twisted to a line with the systematic instead of the other way around.
When the unlimited atonement is very simple.
What must I do to be saved.
The bible tells you.
And not hope you were predestined as predestination did not die on the cross and cannot save your.
For without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.
Election oredestination dud not bleed for your.
Jesus did.
Instead put your faith in the only one that can 100 per cent save you by grace through faith as your faith does not save you and faith cones by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Jesus saves those who believe and he gets all the credit not a manmade tulip systematic or predestination election.
Let me start by saying I’m not a Calvinist. However, the cordial attitude displayed by both Leighton and the host are refreshing. I’m grateful that an actual conversation can be held by people with opposing theological views and still walk away friends. It doesn’t have to end any other way. The differences are still there, and there was pushback on both sides, but no animosity or ad hominem was experienced. Bravo, and great job.
My subjective experience is that Calvinists are a lot more ecumenical than the other side. Which makes sense when the other side demonizes Calvinists as literally unsaved heretics. I would say if you want more of this, then fix that problem.
We disagree on the issue of Calvinism, but I really appreciate your kindness and humor!
The world knows who we are by our love one for another! 🤝
After listening for two minutes...I really like the tone of these two guys...great example.
You both did a fantastic job being respectful and not talking over one another. I wish more and more conversations like this would happen as I openly invite on our show as well. Being willing to work through these conversations and walk away even in disagreement with the grace you guys shared is the charitable love the world should see!
Dang Leighton was on top of it! Explained everything so beautifully!
Leighton drives his understanding from emotion, not scripture! Scripture, concerning the nature of man ( Eph. 2:3; Psalm 51:5; 58:3) says otherwise. And that's the problem. On an issue like this, we tend to let emotion drive our theology. That's why God's total and complete sovereignty and providential council in working out all things according to His will, is vitally important. The moment you interject an autonomy (Leightons view of mans autonomous free will; actions and thoughts by man, independent of God) unknown and uncontrolled by God you'll always struggle with these issues. We cannot dumb down God into our ignorance. Ask Job! When we do that, you end up with, no disrespect meant, Provisionism. God bless
@mmttomb3 God may have chosen Job to go through what he did, but he did not choose for Job to make himself self righteous so he could rebuke Him later on. Certainly, God in his will has chosen certain things based on his foreknowledge of man's free will. But He is most able to do it because he lives in the future and is already where we will be 50yrs from now. He is the ultimate chess player that already knows and has already counteracted based on mans choices to bring about his ultimate sovereign plan.
Even though I strongly disagree with your Calvinism, your my favorite internet Calvinist. Thanks for taking the time to have this conversation.
Well said.
Yw
I only wish this interview could have been longer. Great discussion, brothers!❤
lovely - thoughtful, a model of how brothers should talk of the things of the Lord - thank you
Thank you for doing and posting this. So nice to see two godly men who disagree on theological issues respond to one another so kindly and graciously. More of this and less of the anger and name calling. A very Christ-like discussion. 🙏 ✝️
Great conversation between two gentlemen.
I would love to see further conversations between you and Leighton. Super edifying and fascinating discussions.
I love this!
Great discussion and very thought-provoking. On the infant issue, this hits home to many of us, so in dealing with the issue, we need to tred lightly. Both men seem to do that.
As a Calvinist i cannot jettison theology and doctrine based on emotion.
Theologically the issue is what does the bible communicate to us about the reality of the nature of man and the results associated with that nature.
Eph. 2:3 says that by nature, we are children of wrath.
We have a nature, inherited from Adam, that foundational, naturally, leaves us in a state of condemnation. When we sin, it's because it's our natural inclination by nature. The manifestations of which naturally come to the surface as sin.
The problem with this issue, emotions can sometimes reign supreme over our theology. And we end up creating emotional driven "It's not fair" or "I would never do..." theology. And I think, respectively, provisionist, do that.
As a Calvinist I leave the issue up to God. He's sovereign and can save whomever He wants. Whether it be a baby or a former blasphemous now repentant atheist on his death bed, I leave that up to our sovereign to save whomsoever He wills. We just have to be content that He's God and does as He pleases. For me as a finite emotional being I lean on God’s mercy, though definitively scripture says, by nature, otherwise. Thats just my take. Tough very emotional issue for those of us who've lost a lil one. God bless
As a Calvinist i cannot jettison theology and doctrine based on emotion..........no need, to just base it on Jesus The Messiah, the word of God in flesh.......let the little children come to me......the Kingdom of God is like one of these....come as a child ......these basic paraphrases of verses are simple, easy and light , nothing like your christ and god of calvinism. You identify with such a disgusting deceptive spirit that maligns God The Most High. Ridiculous theologies are reformed/calvimism.
I appreciate leighton flowers. As an ex-Calvinist myself living with cognitive dissonance about the nature of God is nothing to play with thank God to be set free.
I commented on face book that this conversation would make me hyperventilate… this was the most humanizing video of wlc I have ever seen ! Good job brother.
Pastor Foskey, after watching this I went to the Spurgeon Center for Biblical Preaching and found his sermon called: Infant Salvation preached in 1861. A beautiful exposition why true Calvinists don’t believe God sends infants to hell. I lost a child also years ago and although I never thought she was in hell this gives so much hope and peace also revealing how many Calvinists have written on this subject. Hope you and others will go and read it🙏❤️✝️
This is an intramural debate and thank you for treating it as such.
You guys should do more shows together. Like once a month you should get together and discuss controversies and doctrine, this is so much more helpful to the body than tweets.
I love these conversations. You are a wonderful interviewer. I hope that you have Leighton on more
The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether
Which is how you know he'd never punish an innocent child for the sins of others.
Love conversation like this. Blessings to both of you.
Never thought I’d be tempted to subscribe to a channel with such a name, but brother, you are a delight to listen to.
Enjoyed the talk and conversation!
I called Dr. Flowers number………. Seriously awesome getting to see you guys chat. Also thumbnail is 💯
Amazing that the number of comments is greater than thumbs up button. Good conversation.
I was one of the one who hit that like button.
Infant death is painful and the Bible is not clear as to their destiny. We can only rest upon our merciful God and leave such things to him. For believers, we can take comfort in the fact that are children are made holy. We also attest that there is no salvation outside of Christ. We bow in humility and trust our God.
Totally agree. God has not made us privy to all mysteries but we can trust His character.
Anyone that even hints that infants can go to hell is a moron in my book.
Let the children come to me, .......to enter God's kingdom one comes as a child........take off your warped distorted lens and and embrace the one of a loving word of God in the flesh, such reprehensible conclusions have calvinism/reformed theology. Disgusting!
The Bible is clear that God will not blame the sins of a father upon his children. Therefore, all children are innocent before the age of accountability. When a person is unaware of Gods moral law in their hearts and in nature, it's not counted against them.
14 followers of the satan spirit so far giving thumbs.
Good convo!!
Bro. Keith, I'm a 70 yr old man and been believing in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ since childhood. Please give me the opportunity to perfect your theology and end all the debates that the children of God argue, bicker and feud about. My theology harmonizes all the scriptures.
Keith, you did a super job with this interview. I would have struggled with being as gracious as you were with Leighton. Perhaps in the future you could do a few rebuttal videos to his most popular Soteriology 101 videos. That would be extremely helpful.
I love how respectful this dialogue was
This was a beautiful discussion.
Flowers is the king of analogies
His chessboard analogy is quite clever
Leighton for 6-8 years of videos:
"Fairness isn't the issue"
1 day at a calvinist conference where Leighton is present...
"LEIGHTON MUST HAVE BEEN THE ONE ASKED ABOUT FAIRNESS!!!" 😂
/tongue in cheek obviously.
Fortunately it was a decent conversation. 👍
I’m a new subscriber 😁 I was raised as a Calvinist in the Orthodox Presbyterian denomination. Eventually, my parents rejected Presbyterianism because they did not see infant baptism in the NT. Then, we attended primarily Calvinistic Baptist churches. Though my Father, now in his 90s, is still Calvinistic, I don’t really agree with Calvinism. That having been said, all my favorite preachers and theologians are Calvinistic: John MacArthur, John Piper, James White, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, Jonathan Edwards, and others in that same vein. So I came across Mr. Flowers videos a couple years ago and could not stand them. It seemed clear to me that he purposefully misrepresented Calvinist arguments and twisted scriptures unfairly in order to attack Calvinists. Imagine my surprise while watching this video. He seems reasonable, articulate, and knowledgeable. It makes me wonder why he doesn’t bring the same reasonableness and knowledge to his own videos. But I was pleasantly surprised by this interview. Both of you did a great job of discussing the issues fairly and reasonably. Thank you to both of you.
Amen brother Leighton. Thank you brother.
Really good conversation. Thank you for your graciousness with each other, brothers. Breath of fresh air.
You guys should do some super long videos really getting into the weeds on these things.
I wish there were more respectful discussions like this. I'm becoming more and more Provisionist but I still love and respect the Calvinist teachers that I have listened to over the years. MacArthur and Sproul are two great resources for Christians to go to but they are not the "Popes of Protestantism" (neither is Leighton for that matter) so we can take the good from each teacher but we need to use our own brains to test everyone's opinion.
Wish we'll see more discussions like that among Christian brothers who disagree. Good job, Keith & Leighton. ❤😊
Watching Keith make Leighton dance over the statement about Calvinists' view of their children..... was enjoyable
🙄🙄🙄
That didn't happen here.
Mind pointing me to tha discussion?
I want to hear Flowers talk about Provisionism WITHOUT talking/referring/comparing to/about Calvinism. Because I have found NOTHING. His followers insist it is not a new theology, but I can't find it in my old books. Teach your thing, make it make sense, don't bring up Calvinism.
If I may (as a provisionist or traditionalist or what have you) may answer. The term "provisionism" is one taken on by flowers to define and systematize a common sense understanding of salvation...I say this not to be contentious or create division but to offer an answer...what i mean is that in Calvinism you will see adherents admit that God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is contradictory, and so they will say that its a "mystery" but both are true. Provisionism doesnt believe God intends his beloved creation to be in confusion about salvation, and solves the dilemma by recognizing that God holds man responsible because God has sovereignly made man able to respond.... you won't find theologians of past taking about it because it is a new title for an old and classic understanding of God's character and salvation... the reason that Flowers always teaches it in refutation of calvinism is because 1 that is more or less his focus in ministry and 2 the very purpose of the system and teaching is to understand salvation according to the Bible and that contrasts with the understanding of salvation according to Calvin, and so when the comparison needs to be used for understanding then the comparison is made... I think the subject creates much more tension and separation then it should. We have much more that unites us and that should be focused on primarily. Hope this helps. God bless.
@@themahrs I appreciate your response. But if you have the truth, stick with the truth and promote it that way, if you have the "old and classical understanding of God's character and salvation" prove it by focusing on your system with its new name, list the faithful dead who would agree with you, and teach it for what it is. Flowers has proven he does not understand Calvinism and does not understand the very scriptures about salvation he has made the cornerstone for this new system that won't last long if he doesn't focus on defining. Have you read "Willing to Believe" by Sproul? Excellent book he masterfully shows the ancient arguments (both sides) back to the 5th century.
@ryanaustin996 I understand, but there is obviously contention going both ways. Plenty of Calvinist teachers hurl accusations and attacks this way as well. I'm sure you would agree with me that regardless of how many theologians believed either side, or what the popular loud voice says today that ultimately scripture is the authoritative and deciding factor here. I think that calvinism needs to be taught by suck people like Sproul, macarthur, white, Durbin, ect because when people read the Bible they intuitively do not come to understand God the way that calvinist do....that idea and understanding of God that is untainted by human influence and theological speculation is the belief that has now been come to known as "provisionism"... there is alot more to Leighton Flowers then calvinism but this is where he has found an audience just like "yourcalvinist" has.
Sorry for the spelling mistakes....I was replying in a hurry....I meant "such people as Sproul..."
@ryanaustin996 also, I don't think it's fair to say that Flowers doesn't understand calvinism as he was one throughout his formal education. I know that to calvinists there is no such thing as a "former calvinist," but it is possible for someone to understand and reject this teaching on the basis of their understanding of scripture.
One of the things that most troubled me with this video is Leighton saying that he would "question the goodness of God", if infant damnation was true. I believe God elects all dying infants from the examples we have in the scriptures, but thinking you can judge the character of God is just something unaceptable that needs to be repented of.
It's why he has a problem with Romans 9 and says it's only about ethnic Israel when God through Paul, says in Romans 9 not all Israel is Israel. I do believe and affirm Inherited/Imputed Guilt because all of Humanity has had Adams Guilt Imputed on us individually and we also Are Imputed the Guilt of our Parents Sin. It's why we are all born spiritually dead slaves to sin and Guilty before a Holy, Righteous, and Just God who is Sovereign and doesn't need to save everyone because all Humanity and all of his creation accounts as NOTHING in the eyes of God.
Exactly. When I heard that he would would have a hard time continuing to worship God if He, in His infinite wisdom and holiness, actually does in fact damn children because they were not His elect, my thoughts were also "Leighton, it sounds like you would rather worship an idol of your own standards rather than the one true God". This sounds eerily close to those who say "Love is love" and "Wouldn't it be more loving if God accepted everyone just how they are?". Pure human speculation and very dangerous. I pray that he reconsiders.
What would someone have to say about God before you would question it, or would you be willing to worship any form or idea about God simply because it was attributed to Him?
This is pretty inconsistent with a Calvinistic viewpoint.
@@Soteriology101 first, we need to understand who is God, and what are His atributes. Knowing that He exists, we know that He is the ultimate standard for goodness, which means God is good no matter what, even when we do not understand it. The reason allah, and other pagan idols are immoral is because they are not God, and so, as being idols made in the image of men, they are contrary to Gods nature, and align with mans morals outside of Gods grace. The truth is, infant damnation, is not an issue that we have the absolute certainty of. The problem with infant damnation being contrary to Gods will and holiness, is something to be discussed, not the quality of Gods goodness, in the very tiny probability that infant damnation is true. That is what is wrong.
Leighton’s point about eating cake is still a choice that’s made within having the ability to be able to chose.
Leighton seems to have so much of his emotions wrapped up into certain beliefs - he draws lines about what he is willing to believe about God instead of allowing God to draw those lines despite his offense. God is the ultimate “other” and if we aren’t finding ourselves offended once in a while, we are probably missing Him.
You know, I broke my femur once. I guess I stole all the glory from the surgeon by telling him I wanted my leg fixed. I really saved myself there.
Leighton seems to appeal to emotion and human conceptions of fairness…primarily. When you listen to someone like John Piper, he’ll walk you through the Bible and explain the many and varied Bible passages describing election. My concern for Leighton is that he seems to be very committed to his own personal (or popular) ideals of what is fair and what is not fair…and he uses that as the litmus test as to whether or not he would serve God. Proverbs 3:5, “ Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.”
A very emotional response. ..and nothing but emotions.
You could replace 'baby' with any other kind of human and find people going apoplectic, insisting God would never do that.
Excellent point! Like to ask Leighton was it "unfair" for God to allow Satan to take Job's his family, possessions, and shake his integrity?
Brother flowers has a sentimental hermeneutic when it comes to salvation
Or to horrific calvinistic caricature of God, who condemns babies to hell.
@@Yaas_ok123 compared to the vast and incomprehensible nature of god are we not all infants?
Good people can still talk
You got me with the motorcycle
This is what uniting the church looks like...
The comments are gold lol…all the provisionist/non-Calvinist love Kieth because he lets Flowers do most the talking.
As a hard-core Calvinist, who would subscribe to all 10 points (should there be 10), it’s absolutely demonstrable and detestable that anyone could think that an infant or unborn baby goes to hell. Sincerely, your Christ, honoring Jesus, loving God-fearing brother and the sweet Lord (who also loves all babies and unborn infants, and has elect them to be his own prize possession).
Why would God love all children but not all adults? Does his eternal disposition for them change as they get older? Or perhaps election is based on something about the elected individual?
Why is it horrible to contemplate that God would eternally decree a human soul to spend five minutes on this earth and then go to eternal fire, but be just and glorifying that he would extend the time frame on earth for a few more years or decades?
Why must we conclude that God loves all infants and children who die young and elects them, but does not love all children who eventually become adults? Does he love someone while they're a child and then change his mind later? He ordains all those who become adults, and all the sin they end up committing, and passes over most of them. Can you really say that he loves all children when he decrees that most of them cease being children and become damnable reprobate adults?
I've learned as a Calvinist to hold more loosely to the tenets that originated from Augustine such as infants in hell, while becoming more Lutheran in soteriology.
@@joshuadonahue5871 Josh, get over your demonic deception. You'll require significant help, yet Jesus Thee Messiah will be there for you. May you reap what you have planted and be singed with reuse for your conclusions. Disgusting christ of calvin conclusions you serve Josh!
singed with rebuke
The entrance of thy words giveth light; *it giveth understanding unto the simple*
{Psalm 119:130}
Great conversation and truths
24:19 Oof big misunderstanding of molinism. Great response Leighton!!
Wait a minute, what is happening here? People with different vet views on the video and in the comment section been all cordial and respectful. Am I on the Internet?🤣🤣🤣
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me *through* their word;”
{John 17:20}
Real life Leighton is WAAAY different than Twitter Leighton
That's true with most people isn't it?
He was only Nice because he was a Guest on Keith's Podcast but when Leighton Flowers is by himself or with his Flowerites he's very prideful and boastful about how better he is than Christians who don't affirm his heterodoxy.
Where will the videos from the conference be posted
The arguments Atheists make against God are the same arguments Leighton makes against Calvinism
That says nothing about the content of the argument.
If an athiest argues the world is a globe would you reject that as well?
Ok. Are they wrong or no?
The arguments atheists make against Christianity are the same arguments protestants make against the apostolic churches (Catholicism/Orthodoxy).
How's that any better?
It simpily means his worldview and the way he thinks is very similar to an atheist. That's not good if you're a Christian. He's putting God on trial from a worldy standard@@ericfisher1360
When God said in the beginning "Be fruitful and multiply" before the fall, that not all babies are meant for Heaven or for life?
This is my strongest evidence that babies, nor adults were chosen for either life or death.
Intention, I know that God intended that all should live, rather than intending to destroy most while purposefully choosing only the few He desires to live.
Pastor Keith:
Was The Apostle Paul talking about himself when he was under the law or when he was under Grace?
“For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.”
Romans 7:15 ESV
It is my understanding that Paul is giving his personal testimony of his life before his encounter with Jesus.
Let me know your thoughts on this?
I just want to know why there is what appears to be a minibike, or a scooter in the background?
I am on the Provisionist side of this. But I will say that it is important to be able to understand the arguments of the other side. There are people on both sides that make no effort in understanding the other side. James White is very intelligent but has an issue with understanding the other side. Insteadof engagingin the argument, he will say, 'But the text says...' then he explains his interpretation of the text. I have heard some Provisionists do the same thing.
What a great interview! Love the host.
I have had some serious issues with Calvinism from the day I leaned about it. I studied long and hard to see if I could make it line up with the Scriptures and became more and ore convinced that it can't. If God's will is always done that means no one else's will is ever done. That means that God is responsible for everything, including evil. This definition of sovereignty can't possibly align with what scripture says. God clearly hates evil.
I'm sorry but Calvinism paints a picture of God that makes him appear to be a monster that created the world to entertain himself even to the point of wanting to suffer and die horribly to rescue some of his characters in his game. There can't be any other players if there are no other wills at work. If Calvinism is true we are all merely NPCs. Clearly the deterministic and compatible viewpoints rule out any possible way for humans to have a will.
There is plenty of evil in the world to prove that God's will is not always done. Scripture is clear that God is more than able to accomplish his ultimate will which is to offer salvation to all who willingly choose to love him and come to him and to restore his creation so that he can live in perfect fellowship with his family of mankind forever.
Leighton seems to be under the impression that if he can’t conceive of why God would or wouldn’t do a certain thing then it makes Him unjust, perhaps he needs a gentle reminder that God is infinite and we are very finite.😊
I heard a young man tell me it would have been a blessing to be aborted. He was told we are all born holy and innocent and only become guilty when we reach an age of understanding right from wrong. I was told this as a child also, but then suddenly I became this sinner in need of a saviour although nothing had changed in my little world that I could tell as a 10 year old. I remember the threats of damnation, being told I HAVE to believe. Nobody could tell me HOW I could believe, just that I had to. I was so angry at my parents for not letting me die as a 3 year old from the mumps, not letting me go to Jesus but making me stay until I became a sinner and therefore facing eternal damnation. Nobody told me God's attributes. That's He's not 90 percent righteous and 10 percent merciful. He's perfectly 100 percent all that He is. Why can we not hold to original sin and also hold the knowledge that God is 100 percent Good and His ways are higher than ours and just trust Him that He knows better than we do about what He has going on in the grand scheme of things? If I was born with original sin, then it's His mercy that I was born in order that He may save me. Sure, the thought it's unfair then that He would create me in the first place if He's just going to damn me is there, but the fact I'm here right now as a born again believer tells me it's not true. So what's my point? I don't know, it's 6 o'clock in the morning. If you read this far, thanks. Just some things to mull over.
I want to answer your question you asked. The main reason we shouldn’t do that is because logic and rationality matter. It is how we avoid thinking nonsensical and incoherent things. If someone does evil things, they aren’t just magically good. When we say, “God is good”, it has to mean somethings to our minds and it only means something if he is recognizably good.
@@jordandthornburg I see your point.
Good discussion sirs, does anyone have the Q&A link?
How could a man with last name of flowers not hold to tulip theology😂😂😂
I saw a person say that they were disturbed by a Leighton Flowers saying that he would question the goodness of God if it turned out that He was willing to damn infants.
To that sort of mindset, I have two responses.
1.People who believe in infant damnation do seem to be more logical than most christians. I am absolutely not saying that they are right, but they are more consistent than many christians. Because if a person believes that it is unreasonable and utterly unintuitive or irreconcilable with our sense of goodness to doom little babies to hell forever, what valid response do they have to someone like me, who would agree but extend the same reasoning to adults. It seems equally irreconcilable to my intuition of goodness to damn adults forever. It would be no more or less unintuitive to me compared to believing that He damns babies forever. [I do not infantilize adults nor pity us for our sinfulness, but it is no crueler or incomprehensible to damn babies forever than it is to damn adults forever.]
2.Our commitment to God is idolatrous if it is not based in anything other than Him being called God. If we are willing to worship God even if He turns out to be exactly like Moloch, that means that we are the equivalent of a Moloch worshiper, and that is not exactly pleasing to God.
I started worshiping God the moment that I discovered that He was Christlike/worthy. I had previously desperately desired to worship Him but I just couldn't bring myself to. I suppose if I stopped believing that God was Christlike/worthy, I would be unable to keep worshiping him, even if my standards for gods were low enough for me to want to.
To be fair, there is a place for putting our intuitions aside. I believe that God had killed many thousands of people in gruesome ways, led wars, and other things that are hard to reconcile with my finite understanding of love/goodness. So how is that different from unconditional/meaningless loyalty? The difference is that I still believe that God did those things in a way that is somehow loving/Christlike, even if I don't understand how. Basically, I believe that God is love[agape] and I am open-minded to love acting in ways that don't seem intuitive to me, ways that will counterintuitively benefit people. I know that love and the way that reality works transcends my finite understanding.
If I could not question the simplistic[and understandable but incorrect] intuition that the deeds of God are sometimes unloving, then I would have a serious crisis of faith on my hands. If I came to believe that God is sometimes inconsistent with love, that would >>amount to
Synergism is a works-based gospel. The heart of it is the idol of free will.
What "makes" you say that?
@@KlintonSilvey Scriptures completely refute pagan, man-glorifing synergism.
@@logosnomos3794 Even if that were true, how is it you know that or believe that and others don't?
@@KlintonSilvey Ephesians clearly refutes synergistic heresy. Salvation is rather by the actions of God by His Sovereign grace alone, not by anything that we do. Every cult, including Islam, is all about what man does that saves himself. Faith is an ability imparted by the Holy Spirit. The Trinity has all three persons activeiy involved in Salvation. The Father thought it. The Son bought it. The Holy Spirit brought it. But the Devil fought it. Yet, Glory to God alone, I got it. Man has nothing to boast. God alone gets the Glory.
@@KlintonSilvey Others don't believe because they are slaves to their "free" wills, idols and false gods. They are dead to God and seek to glorify themselves.
I would like to hear brother flowers speak on the doctrine of concurrence
Concurrency on what?
Original view, before Augustine, was that God initiates and man respond to that. Talks is available in his channel.
“25 Far be it from you to do such a thing-to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Genesis 18:25
Flowers incorrectly uses the term ' inherited guilt ' , when what God has done with man since the Garden times is that He's put all men under a curse . Flowers acknowledged that should the child grow up, that child would indeed commit sin(s) . The question here is this : Does man sin against God because he's a sinner; or does man become a sinner because he's sinned against God ?? That answer is known to God for sure. It isn't man's feelings that will judge, nor man's feelings that will judge the ultimate destination of man -- whether heaven or hell .
I like the choice meat analogy better than the cake one.