Let God give you wisdom when it is time to leave, perhaps you have an open door to make a difference. Either way much false teaching and error is entering the church as the Day approaches
Piper’s philosophy greatly impairs his ability to reason through the scriptures. He’s used the same arguments for so many years he can’t help himself to do it again and again.
They wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. Second Peter 3:16-18. They do not believe John 6:47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that BELIEVETH on me HATH EVERLASTING LIFE. John 5:24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, HATH EVERLASTING LIFE, and shall not come unto judgement, but is passed from death unto life. Gods word. God cannot lie. First John 5:13. These things have I written unto you that BELEVE on the name of the Son of God, THAT YE MAY KNOW YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. John 6:47.
@@ProRege-1 But you don't believe others can believe them of their own free will and be saved. Why did God give us His word? So we could believe what it says. John 3:18. If you are a true Calvinist you believe God only gives faith to certain people and condemns the rest to hell. God does not give faith. HE gives eternal life to them that BELIEVE of their own free will. Acts 16:31. First Corinthians 1:21. John 5:24. John 6:40. John 6:29. First John 2:2. First Timothy 2:4, and Second Peter 3:9.
How do you know you are saved? Gods word. John 6:47. God cannot lie. Can anyone believe it and be saved? Yes. First John 2:2. John 3:18. Romans 1:16. Romans 11:6 First John 5:13. These things have I written unto you that BELIEVE on the name of the Son of God, that ye may KNOW YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. John 3:16. Jesus said it, we believe it, and that settles it.
@@jimkraft9445Faith is a gift (Ephesians 2:8-10) and it has been granted to us to believe (Philippians 1:29). See also 2nd Peter 1:1, though it's debatable. There's many texts that speak to man's inabilities to believe apart from God's efficacious grace (John 8:42-45). Provided we believe on Christ we have full assurance. Our faith is not in our faith; it's in Christ. The real debate is over regeneration, which is often conflated with eternal life. They're distinct.
This is my simplification of the Q&A as far as I can tell: Q: If I’m determined to die in a crash why do my choices even matter? A: How silly, you think you have choices.
BINGO! You hit the bullseye!!! In Calvinism - any perception of an ALTERNATIVE available for a Calvinist to choose - constitutes an infallibly decree FALSE perception - because ALTERNATIVES do not exist in a world in which everything is infallibly decreed.
Also wanted to say that we’re studying the OT in our group at church and at the beginning of the study I asked if we were operating under the assumptions that Israel freely rebelled and was freely able to repent of their sins when God called them to repentance. Some lady’s response to my question was, “oh sweetie I use to be a works based Arminian too.” 🤣 Repenting is still a work, rebellion is still Gods fault. And it still makes reading the Bible a mess.
I gave up on group studies at churches a long time ago because honestly I can get much better knowledge, wisdom and understanding of the biblical narrative in its intended context sitting on my couch using top tier free resources like Dr. Michael Heiser, Dr. Tim Mackie and the Bible Project, Dr. Carmen Joy Imes, AWKNG School of Theology etc... the typical church group is sit there for an hour n have generic content presented to u with very little if any discussion or engagement n take prayer requests n pray n go home n forget everything tht was presented n the church expects you to come back next week for the same kind of nothing burger. Whenever I came to a church I just wanted to be helped n to be fed spiritually n I never really got tht. I never left a church group feeling blessed, strengthened, encouraged, comforted or convicted. I always left just feeling disappointed n wondered why I even bothered showing up. The purpose of gathering is to share something of Christ with one another n to build each other up, not to just sit in a chair for an hour having generic content presented with no real focus or effort to address real struggles tht most ppl have n just end up getting nothing from it... Most ppl seem to be so stuck on their church traditions n filtering their Bible through theological systems that protect certain doctrines tht its nigh impossible to get ppl to have an open honest serious n exciting discussion about the biblical narrative in light of the supernatural ancient near eastern worldview that actually produced it. To quote my favorite Bible scholar Dr. Michael Heiser "I've had better theological discussions at UFO conferences than I've ever had in a church" n while I've never been to a ufo conference I can totally relate because I've had much better discussions about God with unbelievers that are searching for truth than I've ever had with ppl in a church.
This proves that Calvinist don’t think anyone who isn’t in their camp is saved as they see us a works based which is clearly unsaved… I think it’s time for us to start saying their camp is lost and when they fall like Lawson it proves they are unsaved! 🥴🥴🥴
That lady is clueless as to what Arminianism is. It’s so sad to see that the Calvinist’s academy for learning other positions come from their own teachers who butcher and misrepresent other camps. This is exactly the case with Ligonier Ministries (R.C. Sproul), as I myself came from that camp.
Thank you for sharing how to humble ourselves before we ever share with Calvinists, considering our own weaknesses and with a desire to understand them to help and not just to win an argument. It should always be that way. And for honestly sharing the heart of Jesus concerning Bro. Lawson. Leighton, thank you, brother, so much. We can all fall any time and to any extent. ☝️
I was told it’s because we don’t know who the elect are. And the great commission tells us to go and tell the world so the elect will hear. Still not logical to me because obviously someone will tell the elect so it doesn’t matter if it’s me.
DW: What you are noticing is - the foundational core of Calvinism - is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM. The world of Calvinism - is as you recognize - is a world in which everything is infallibly pre-determined. But that is not a world which NORMAL people live in For example - we humans go about our daily lives having literally hundreds of ALTERNATIVES before us which we choose between Will we drink coffee at 6PM or not? Will we purchase a certain item or not? Will we sin at TIME_T or not? But the Calvinist's world - does not have ALTERNATIVES A world which is 100% pre-determined is a world in which ALTERNATIVES cannot possibly exist The very existence of an ALTERNATIVE would falsify Calvin's doctrine of decrees Consequently ALTERNATIVES do not exist for the Calvinist to choose between. In Calvinism - Adam did not have a CHOICE between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT] was CONTRARY to the decree and therefore did not exist. And the impulse in Adam's brain to [NOT EAT] would also be CONTRARY to the decree - and thus not permitted. The Calvinist world is a *RADICALLY DIFFERENT* world than what we humans understand as NORMAL. So what they have is a *RADICAL* belief system - doing everything it can to make itself *APPEAR* NORMAL.
One thing that always baffled me was the idea that it's inconceivable that an all-powerful being would choose to limit himself in any way shape or form in relation to free will. I mean it's not like an all-powerful being would come down and make himself human (while still being divine), having to eat and drink and sleep and dying in order to then rise 3 days later, totally impossible for an all-powerful being to do that right? God bless
Good word as usual, brother. I loved the comment, "...God's yelling at himself for his shortcomings." That whole "theology" is just silly. Thanks, Bro Leighton. ☝️ Btw, my big brother would pin me down sitting on my chest and do the same thing to me! Made me so mad. Lol....but good memories. ✌️
@@rjc9537 no doubt. But no admonition against tempting the Lord? Against being irresponsible? Against having a one in six chance ( oh, but there is no chance ) of needlessly effacing the Imago Dei?
@@bobtaylor170 Yes he would. He also does not skydive from what I've listened to lol. God transcends His creation. He is able to instill primary and secondary levels of causation and accomplish what He has purposed through our wills. From our standpoint, on this plane of existence, there is risk. But there is no risk for God. Similar to how we experience expressions of God that seem to suggest He is surprised (Genesis 3) or having regret (Genesis 6) or traveling 'down' (Genesis 11), etc. But of course from His plane of existence, He is not surprised and is all wise and omnipresent. I don't believe Soteriology 101 grasps the self existence of God nor the Creator/Creation distinction so as to be able to see how God establishes our creaturely categories. Their objections are all based on pre-volitional counterfactuals which they cannot prove from the Bible. Anyone who believes that God has exhaustive foreknowledge must concede that there is only 1 logically possible outcome for any given bet, since God already knows what the results will be. Denying determinism does not "solve the problem". Does that make sense? Grace and Peace.
In Calvinism, Steve Lawson is an involuntarily recepient of God's immutable decree for him to fall into sin. There was no way of escape from God's immutable decree, which ultimately brings God the MOST glory. If Lawsom had not sinned, but obeyed, he would've robbed God of His glory. That is consistent Calvinism.
DW: Yes well said! Creaturely disobedience is logically impossible in Calvinism - because it would entail the ability to countervail an infallible decree. There is no such thing as disobedience in Calvinism. So when Calvinist accuse someone of disobedience they are denying their own doctrine of divine sovereignty. They become totally blind to how DOUBLE-MINDED they are. Poor things!
@@4jchan DW: I always get a kick out of Calvinists denying their own doctrine! AS-IF its logically possible for a fallible creature to disobey an infallible decree! What a hoot! :-]
@dw6528 --"Strawman." False accusation of a fallacy. Or better yet, the typical Red Herring repsonses from those too uncomfortable with the logical conclusions of their systematic. This is the very definition of cognitive dissonance, by which there is no cure. Instead of addressing the argument or issues, they are attempting to sidetrack the discussion by accusing the other party of a logical fallacy that isn't actually present. This tactic undermines productive dialogue.
The thumbnail is AMAZING for this! 😂 22:30 - 22:40 the only logical ends of Calvinism. Though not many will concede this. Except they'll say it in a roundabout, less hard hitting way. As I've seen with the things Mr White, and Mr Piper have said before
I think Leighton did a very good job near the end, of advising us about how to approach someone we think has not understood what the Book is teaching about God's love and intentions toward us humans, in love . . with a slight exception. I would advise one say rather; "I THINK I get where you're coming from", and see to it that we mean it. One is basically asking another to realize they are fallible, it seems to me, and it behooves us to practice what we preach . . cuz we are all surely in that boat (save One ; )
@@ProRege-1 DW: Actually that is not true Calvin's god decrees every impulse that will be granted existence within the human brain - by a decree which does not grant any ALTERNATIVE. Every impulse in the human brain - is FIRST CONCEIVED in Calvin's god's mind - and them *MADE* to come to pass infallibly - determined by antecedent factors totally outside of human control. So Calvin's god literally does *MAKE* humans do what they do Calvinist Paul Helms -quote Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but *EVERY TWIST AND TURN* of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of god (The Providence of God pg 22) Calvinist Louis Berkhof -quote God is *IMMEDIATELY OPERATIVE* in *EVERY* act of the creature. Everything that happens from moment to moment is determined by god - and in every instance the *IMPULSE TO ACTION* precedes from god (Systematic Theology)
@@ProRege-1 DW: Calvin's god does in fact *MAKE* people do what they do by a process 1) He firstly *MAKES* impulses come to pass infallibly within their brain - which the brain is granted NO SAY and NO CONTROL in the matter of 2) Those impulses then *MAKE* the person perform bodily actions infallibly - which the body is granted NO SAY and NO CONTROL in the matter of Calvinist Paul Helms -quote Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but *EVERY TWIST AND TURN* of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of god (The Providence of God pg 22) Calvinist Louis Berkhof -quote God is *IMMEDIATELY OPERATIVE* in every act of the creature. Everything that happens from moment to moment is determined by the will of god - and in every instance *THE IMPULSE TO ACTION* precedes from god (Systematic Theology)
@@dw6528sorry I missed this. In those quotes, the authors do not attest to man wanting to do A and God decreeing them to do B, contrary to their will. That is essentially what I meant by God not having someone do something against their will.
@@ProRege-1 ProRege: in those [CALVINIST] quotes the authors do not attest to man wanting to do A and god decreeing them to do B contrary to their will. DW: Welcome to HOTEL CALVI-FORNIA You can check out any time you like But you are granted NO SAY in the matter of what you will like. :-] You can't have an impulse in your brain that you can call your OWN. Thus - you don't have a will that you can call your OWN. You are functionally - nothing more than a radio controlled device.
Mormonism is poly-theist, denies the deity of Christ, believes the book of Mormon is prophesied in Scripture, etc. What parallels are you drawing given its vast differences with Calvinism?
@@ProRege-1 DW: If you look at what the doctrine stipulates - you will find a god who designs the vast majority of the total human population - specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure. John Calvin -quote by the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the reason does not appear, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. - (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121) That is a critical aspect of the doctrine Which makes it a critical part of the Calvinist conception of the "GOSPEL" Calvin's god has two provisions for mankind 1) His PRIMARY provision - is for the *MANY* creating them for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure 2) His SECONDARY provision - is to save a *FEW* from his PRIMARY provision. That is what the "Gospel" means in Calvinism.
@@dw6528 The proportion of people saved is not a requisite aspect of Calvinism, nor the logical conclusion thereof, as the system is not exclusive to any one eschatological position. I would also add that Calvinists are free to depart from Calvin on minutiae or particular phraseologies without contravening the system of thought that "Calvinism" is pregnant with.
@@ProRege-1 DW: Actually - Calvin reasoned that where the MANY follow the road of perdition - and the FEW will not - is by the design of a divine potter of Romans 9 Calvin was also consistent with that in his conception of CHAFF believers - who would also represent the MANY and the elect would represent the FEW within the total population of believers. Calvin enunciated proportion by the terms HUGE PILE of CHAFF vs "A FEW grains of wheat" for the elect. So it is consistent with the doctrine to say - Calvin's god designs the MANY (vast majority of the total human population) specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire - for his good pleasure - as his PRIMARY provision for mankind. And his SECONDARY provision is to save a FEW from his PRIMARY provision.
@@dw6528 Hey, that may be so. I would just add that no Calvinist believes that Calvin is to be followed wholesale by default. Many Calvinists have been post millenial in their eschatology and believe God has elected the majority for salvation.
Dear Leighton Flowers, I had sent to a couple books and letter to you that you could pass on to Idol Killer's and The Provisionist Perspective's kids but I had not heard back. I sent it through that address you mentioned. I was not overly concerned, but since someone else brought it up I figured that I would double check to make sure that address was sound or something had not happen my end and that needs checked out. Thanks and God Bless.
Surely within deterministic world there are no choices anyway. We have no free will so all that happens, happens. Our "choices" aren't our will but God's, for whatever outcome he chooses. I find determinism reduces us to robots and denies we are made in God's image. Why would he go through the process of saving us when ( if there is nothing unique about us - we're just avatars he inhabits ) he could just recreate us. I find the majesty and awe of God magnified by the fact we do have a (real) choice and yet he loves us so much that he sent his son to die for us. We do exist as unique persons, we do have real free agency within this creation and we do have the ability to turn to God or reject him.
"Why would he go through the process of saving us when ( if there is nothing unique about us - we're just avatars he inhabits ) he could just recreate us." ? I would (and did) ask total Predeterminism advocates; Why would such a Being create us at all, if He already knew exactly what He was going to have each of us do, and exactly who He was going to save? I've gotten no meaningful answer, and don't believe there is any meaningful answer to be given. (It's a mystery, apparently qualifies as a meaningful enough answer, to the worshippers of the God Calvin bowed down to ; )
DW: It is correct to recognize humans are not granted CHOICE in Calvinism - since ALTERNATIVES do not exist within creation for humans to choose between. However - Calvinism does have its own unique form of "Free-will" which works this way: 1) For any movement within creation which Calvin's god decrees come to pass - he must grant that movement "FREEDOM" to come to pass 2) If Calvin's god does not grant "FREEDOM" for what he decrees - he is a house divided against himself. 3) But creation is never granted "FREEDOM" to BE/DO OTHER than that which is decreed. So in Calvinism - your will is "FREE" to BE/DO only what Calvin's god decrees.
@@dw6528 thanks for the clarification. It gets down to semantics at that level doesn't it! We do exist as real persons. Scripture confirms that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, loved so much that God gave Jesus to rescue us from the right and just judgement we are all under. How Calvin could reduce the wonder and majesty of God's love for real creatures (us) to nothing more than arbitrary performance is beyond me. The whole notion that he is glorified by people who have no independent choice, both in obeying him and in being punished for not, is not understandable to me.
@@rob-1337- I wonder if this is understandable to you?- IF- God decreed every single thing that is so, THEN- The person who holds any position of authority over the members of any church, was specifically chosen by God Himself to hold that position of authority over the members of that church. (And who are you, O man, or woman, to question God ; )
Piper should just come out and admit that, on his view, asking the question of whether our choices matter is like asking what the color green smells like. In his Calvinism, all of our "choices" are determined by God, so they really only feel like choices from our side. God has determined us to feel the illusion that we are making real choices when, in fact, whatever we choose has been determined, and in such a way that it couldn't have been otherwise. By most people's definition, that is not a choice in any real sense.
25:21 what is Piper referring to when he talks about making a difference? In a non-determined world, “difference” literally means a difference between what is and what could have been. However, in this deterministic ideology, there is no such thing as “difference” because there is no such thing as “what could have been”. Things are the way they are. They have been decreed to be that way, and there could have been nothing different.
DW: Calvinism has a completely different conception of "Fairness" In Calvinism "Fair" is simply whatever Calvin's god does and whatever Calvin's god says it is. For example - Calvin's god creates new-born babies specifically to be case alive in to the fire of Moloch And then to be cast into eternal torment in the lake of fire for his good pleasure. And for the Calvinist - that is classified as "Fair" and classified as "Just" and classified as "Good"
In DW's train of thought, God decreed a reality that was best as a whole, so that's why God does not intervene to save babies even though he could without violating libertarian free will ( think Sodom). He must let things play out as his middle knowledge stipulates. That's supposed to be fair to the infants. From a reformed perspective God purposed the worst sin ever, Jesus' murder, for the ultimate good. So we have hope his purposes for infanticide will prevail. Infants may all very well be elect see MacArthur "Safe in the arms of God"
@@ProRege-1 DW: This is another good example of the Calvinist trying to create a *FACADE* of something which does not exist in his belief system There is no such thing as Calvin's god "INTERVENING" in any event for the following reasons 1) Per the doctrine - the only way an event can exist within creation - is if that event is decreed. 2) That decree is infallible and immutable (UNCHANGEABLE) 3) Thus events are made infallibly unchangeable -- exactly as they were decreed 4) Every event is decreed to come to pass within infallible exactness which cannot be altered or intervened. 5) Thus - If Calvin's god were to INTERVENE in any event - he would be INTERVENING in his own decree - which is impossible. 6) The very idea that Calvin's god would have to INTERVENE presupposes his decree was NOT PERFECT and thus needed INTERVENTION.
I'm not presently convinced that God could not decree His own intervention in a series of events he purposed to come to pass, whereas in an indeterministic metaphysic God would seem to only be able to abide by what He foreknows to happen, a sort of being fated to His knowledge of what will come.
@@ProRege-1 DW: What you have there is a SIMULATION of intervention. Remember - in Calvinism every movement of every atomic particle is meticulously and infallibly predestined before creation. INTERVENTION entails a state of affairs in which something within creation is granted a degree of AUTONOMY. Any such AUTONOMY would falsify divine sovereignty. Where there is no AUTONOMY he would be INTERVENING in himself. However you can have a SIMULATION of INTERVENTION. A Shakespearean play in which one of the characters is going to kill the king - and a watchful guard INTERVENES and stops the killer. In the Shakespearean play - everything the characters do is decreed within the script - and the PERFORMERS are not acting on their own accord - but rather acting on behalf of the script. Likewise in Calvinism - humans cannot DO OTHERWISE than that which was decreed in the script. So if Calvin's god INTERVENES in what they do - he is INTERVENING in his script which is impossible because it is decreed to come to pass with infallible exactness. Calvinism is very much like the Shakespearean play in that humans are designed to function as PERFORMERS - who are not granted any AUTONOMY and thus not permitted to act on their own accord - and the script does not grant them any ALTERNATIVE. However - another way there can be INTERVENTION is prior to the decree Calvin's god INTERVENES in his own decisions concerning what he will decree come to pass.
Unfortunately, Christians adopt beliefs by what they have been taught, not by studying and reading scriptures. Then when challenged on the soundness of their belief will try to find scripture to support what he/she has been taught.
16:07 Nothing is impossible for God. From the provisionist perspective- Nothing is impossible, for God. From the Calvinist perspective- Nothing, is impossible for God. God can't do nothing.
1:04:26 Expose Calvinism for it's heresy. But i love your comment and statement on humiliation vs humility. The grace of our Lord Jesus and how we should respond to the current situation with Steve Lawson. Thank you Leighton.
It's amazing how many Calvinists never actually 'look behind the curtain'. A lot of those who do, close it as quickly as they can because it's too scary to consider. Ultimately, determinism demands man does not matter. But man cannot live 'as-if' he does not matter. It is unhealthy on every level. Scripture says God made man in his own image... and that, by definition, means all MEN DO MATTER. I think this is why Theistic Determinists so often speak casually as if men really have autonomous moral abilities... even though their doctrine specifically denies that to be the case. I believe it's a combination of their subconscious mind, their God-given conscious, and the Holy Spirit attempting to maintain some semblance of sanity from the fog of Cognitive Dissonance in which Calvinists 'choose' to exist. Since Determinism is their core value, it's so interesting to me how their casual, unguarded, speech so often contradicts it. I think it would be if someone like Billy Graham said they thought abortion was OK.... and then have to correct themselves for misspeaking. 🤔
DW: However - in Calvinism Calvin's god does cause sin - and John Calvin did not flinch to say so. John Calvin -quote When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of god is the supreme and primary CAUSE of all things….(Institutes 1, 16, 8)
I agree that we need to reach out with love. I don’t call people who teach and or follow Calvinism brothers anymore than I call Mormon’s brothers. I reach out to them as nonbelievers. The same as Paul does in acts 28.
Brother, I suggest that the term 'brother' (or 'sister') unto itself, can be appropriate in the general sense, as an expression of friendly intention, reaching out in love, earnestness, etc,, since we are all of "one blood". Adding something like "in Christ" is another matter, it seems to me. I don't add that until I'm convinced that I'm speaking to an actual fellow follower of the same Christ I try to follow. (The opposite is not true. If someone says they don't believe Christ is their Lord, I believe them, with only slight doubt. Because Jesus said "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven", which is something I dare not do, for what to me are obvious reasons. I suspect some don't think that distinction through carefully, and treat both declarations as trustworthy indications of a person's state of mind relative to Christ. Obviously, any atheist can say they believe Christ is their Lord, without fear that a God they don't believe exists will care about their lie.)
My problem ultimately with the idea of predestination is that you the individual never had a shot if you were predestined to go to hell.... The gospel is suppose to give you hope and joy. With predestination it makes some people i'd imagine anxious and constantly guessing at times. Kinda like good works being needed in addition to faith in Christ.... What are the fruits of these messages... Vs the fruit of the gospel itself. I think we need to as Jesus says be like children in regards to not trying to over analyze things. Trust in what God said, what Christ did for us. Just like a child unconditionally trust their parents. Took me a long time to shake off the fear of whether or not predestination is true. Matthew 18:3-4 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. God bless
Ok, I understand what you are trying to get across. And I agree with you. But what is your answer to this man's question? I would like to know. Because it is true that God is sovereign.
Leighton, when it comes to the original question that Piper responds to, that same question regarding risk can easily be raised in regards to regular old Arminianism and any other form of closed theism. If their choices of getting and riding motorcycles or not and their fatal crash is simply foreknown as absolutely certain to God even though He did not determine their choices and their fatal accident then do their choices really matter? If God foreknew as certain that they would get the motorcycles and die in a crash then can God freely choose to intervene and prevent from happening this accident He always knew would happen from happening? The problems of fatalism will not simply be solved by getting rid of determinism. We have to go beyond that and deal with the question of to what extent is God obligated to foreknow the future as absolutely certain and to what extent can He freely choose to leave at least some of the future open to different possible outcomes and therefore not foreknown as absolutely certain.
God's foreknowledge doesn't require him to intervene in the present or future situation of our lives. However in his Sovereignty, He is completely capable of doing so. He allows the decisions we make to play out with its purpose and consequence. Through it all, God works out ALL things for his intended purpose. This is not determinism. For example, He intervened in the apostle Paul's life, and met him on the road to Damascus. Paul had every bit of free will choice (Acts 26:19).
@@SheepDog1974 DW: BTW: There is no such thing as divine intervention in Calvinism for the following reasons 1) No event can happen unless it is decreed 2) The event decreed will happen infallibly 3) It is logically impossible to intervene in that which is infallible Additionally - the concept of intervention strongly infers a degree of AUTONOMY which does not exist for humans in Calvinism.
Would not a consistent Calvinist have to conclude that it was God's sovereign will for Steve Lawson to fall into sexual sin, thus betraying his wife and congregation and bringing disrepute to the name of Christ and that Steve Lawson was not free to make a different choice? In fact, if I am not mistaken, I believe one of the guys Leighton and Pritchett debated in Houston said that God causes people to commit adultery. How is such a system tenable?
DW: Yes you are totally correct! But we find Calvinists are highly concerned about the way OUTSIDERS will perceive Calvinism. Per the doctrine - Calvinists are actually *PERFORMING* sins on Calvin's god's behalf. Because he decreed each sin by an infallible decree which grants NO ALTERNATIVE. Calvinist leaders are concerned about the reputation that would produce. So they actually deny their own doctrine in order to maintain an appearance.
@@jsl8905 and @DW Yes, God had a purpose and established the contingencies through which Lawson sinned and decided that Lawson would sin. Lawson had the conditional freedom to not sin IF his heart was so inclined. We onlookers leave the outcomes to God and are called to heed His will of command via the same said contingencies. But don't worry, God planned the occurence of an even worse sin, the greatest sin of all time, the crucifixion of the Son of God, actions of which were so set that they happened in accordance with the details of Scripture. So, we can know that nothing short of that evil is purposeless. We know this did not infringe upon anyone's genuine freedom because Christ's freedom was not inhibited despite being the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world (i.e.. His end was sealed and occured through means). In Calvinism, it's nice to know that God has a plan and a purpose for everything for the praise of the glory of His grace and the everlasting enjoyment of His people, as opposed to crafting the gospel as some after thought to do damage control in mere response to true counterfactuals He had no control over and which force Him to do their brute, purposeless bidding. You see, in Molinism, the supposedly libertarian alternative that you have never actually occured in time. YOU never had an alternative because God has decreed everything that you do in this actual time, and the you that weighed alternatives and chose accordingly never actually existed to do so. It all happened in some abstract, eternal past, where the actual YOU did not even exist. When applied to Christ and the incarnation, Molinism utterly fails. It implies that God merely saw (did jot determine) an infinite number of ways Christ would respond and positioned Christ in the reality God chose. And here is the devastating implication: Christ is God! The decree of creation was a trinitarian one, and the truth of value of the counterfactuals God forsaw of His own Son, who is God and acting as God in flesh, were not determined by God. So God in molinism does not even ground the counterfactual truths of His own actions in Christ (God the Son incarnate). Picture God and His intertrinitarian, molinistic counsel, conceding that God the Son does not ground the truth value of His own foreknown incarnate actions (doing X in potential reality R). It completely fractures the biblical Trinity, wherein Father and Son are always united !!! @DW I hope you're rethinking molinism. We could use a strong mind like yours in Reformed Camps.
@@jsl8905 @jsl8905 and @DW Yes, God had a purpose and established the contingencies through which Lawson sinned and decided that Lawson would sin. Lawson had the conditional freedom to not sin IF his heart was so inclined. We onlookers leave the outcomes to God and are called to heed His will of command via the same said contingencies. But don't worry, God planned the occurence of an even worse sin, the greatest sin of all time, the crucifixion of the Son of God, actions of which were so set that they happened in accordance with the details of Scripture. So, we can know that nothing short of that evil is purposeless. We know this did not infringe upon anyone's genuine freedom because Christ's freedom was not inhibited despite being the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world (i.e.. His end was sealed and occured through means). In Calvinism, it's nice to know that God has a plan and a purpose for everything for the praise of the glory of His grace and the everlasting enjoyment of His people, as opposed to crafting the gospel as some after thought to do damage control in mere response to true counterfactuals He had no control over and which force Him to do their brute, purposeless bidding. You see, in Molinism, the supposedly libertarian alternative that you have never actually occured in time. YOU never had an alternative because God has decreed everything that you do in this actual time, and the you that weighed alternatives and chose accordingly never actually existed to do so. It all happened in some abstract, eternal past, where the actual YOU did not even exist. When applied to Christ and the incarnation, Molinism utterly fails. It implies that God merely saw (did not determine) an infinite number of ways Christ would respond and positioned Christ in the reality God chose. And here is the devastating implication: Christ is God! The decree of creation was a trinitarian one, and the truth value of the counterfactuals God forsaw of His own Son, who is God and acting as God in flesh, were not determined by God. So God in molinism does not even ground the counterfactual truths of His own actions in Christ (God the Son incarnate). Picture God and His intertrinitarian, molinistic counsel, conceding that God the Son does not ground the truth value of His own foreknown incarnate actions (doing X in potential reality R). It completely fractures the biblical Trinity, wherein Father and Son are always united !!! @DW I hope you're rethinking molinism. We could use a strong mind like yours in Reformed Camps
@jsl8905 and @DW Yes, God had a purpose and established the contingencies through which Lawson sinned and decided that Lawson would sin. Lawson had the conditional freedom to not sin IF his heart was so inclined. We onlookers leave the outcomes to God and are called to heed His will of command via the same said contingencies. But don't worry, God planned the occurence of an even worse sin, the greatest sin of all time, the crucifixion of the Son of God, actions of which were so set that they happened in accordance with the details of Scripture. So, we can know that nothing short of that evil is purposeless. We know this did not infringe upon anyone's genuine freedom because Christ's freedom was not inhibited despite being the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world (i.e.. His end was sealed and occured through means). In Calvinism, it's nice to know that God has a plan and a purpose for everything for the praise of the glory of His grace and the everlasting enjoyment of His people, as opposed to crafting the gospel as some after thought to do damage control in mere response to true counterfactuals He had no control over and which force Him to do their brute, purposeless bidding. You see, in Molinism, the supposedly libertarian alternative that you have never actually occured in time. YOU never had an alternative because God has decreed everything that you do in this actual time, and the you that weighed alternatives and chose accordingly never actually existed to do so. It all happened in some abstract, eternal past, where the actual YOU did not even exist. When applied to Christ and the incarnation, Molinism utterly fails. It implies that God merely saw (did not determine) an infinite number of ways Christ would respond and positioned Christ in the reality God chose. And here is the devastating implication: Christ is God! The decree of creation was a trinitarian one, and the truth value of the counterfactuals God forsaw of His own Son, who is God and acting as God in flesh, were not determined by God. So God in molinism does not even ground the counterfactual truths of His own actions in Christ (God the Son incarnate). Picture God and His intertrinitarian, molinistic counsel, conceding that God the Son does not ground the truth value of His own foreknown incarnate actions (doing X in potential reality R). It completely fractures the biblical Trinity, wherein Father and Son are always united !!! @DW I hope you're rethinking molinism. We could use a strong mind like yours in Reformed Camps.
Dr. Flowers, I’d like to hear more about your views on eternal security. I’ve been struggling with that for years. I’d like you to tackle that subject to the same extent that you do Calvinism. I fail to understand God’s love, or this idea that you can’t lose your salvation in light of how the Bible describes humans, and the seemingly frequent references to conditional salvation, as well as the fact that conditional salvation was the predominant view for the first 1,500 years of Christianity. Why did it take so long to “get it right” if OSAS is true? It’s all quite maddening, and I do not enjoy my “faith”. I’d love to hear more from you about that subject. When are you starting your new channel? Thank you, sir. Hope you see this.
I think Romans Chp 8 is a good place to start. It begins with saying "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." The Chp ends I believe with Paul reminding us nothing can separate us from His love. This isn’t a full answer, but I hope it helps.
Nothing can separate you from the love of Christ. But if you choose to no longer be "in Christ" then your eternal security is at risk. John 15:5 reminds us to "abide" in Him.
@@SheepDog1974I don’t think that would apply to someone concerned about their eternal security. If someone were to “choose” to no longer be “in Christ” I doubt they would be concerned with their eternal security at all.
Who in their right mind buys this explanation from Piper? Its one thing to buy in to calvinism and be deceived by seemingly smart men but this explanation is just a big word salad.
Everything that happened is decreed by God except when it involves man's free will but still God allows it to happen, For nothing in this world can happen unless God allows it...
It's a house of cards and It has to be that way because it's built on the picked before being born to get salvation. Then they put this in to show how they have no chance to change because God controls all things that happened or will happen and forces you to do that and how it happened.
*THE CRITICAL ERROR IN CALVINIST THINKING* The critical error in Calvinist thinking appears here - both in the Calvinist's question to Piper - and also in Piper's answer to that question. In Calvinism - the following states of affairs do not exist 1) ALTERNATIVES within creation 2) The Calvinist is granted CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES 3) That CHOICE is *UP TO* the Calvinist All of the (3 above) do not exist within Calvinism - The very existence of any ALTERNATIVE within creation - would falsify the decree - which would falsify the doctrine of decrees - Consequently the ALTERNATIVES such as [RIDE MOTORCYCLE] vs [NOT RIDE MOTORCYCLE] do not exist - One of those options was determined to exist - and its existence is made infallible at the foundation of the world by a decree - The other ALTERNATIVE does not exist - because its existence was infallibly excluded by the decree Therefore the Calvinist does not have a CHOICE in the matter - simply because NO ALTERNATIVE exists for him to choose. The CHOICE was made at the foundation of the world by Calvin's god - who established his CHOICE by a decree - which grants only *ONE* option. The ALTERNATIVE is CONTRARY to the decree and therefore does not exist within creation. There is only *ONE SINGLE CHOICE MAKER* in Calvinism - Calvin's god. All CHOICES are made at the foundation of the world - with NO ALTERNATIVES granted existence. Calvinists do not have CHOICE in the matter of anything - simply because ALTERNATIVES do not exist for them to choose. And even if ALTERNATIVES did exist (which is impossible) the Calvinist would still not have CHOICE because every impulse in his brain is also fixed by infallible decree - and cannot be OTHER than what it was decreed to be.
Good points. It make me think of the movie The Princess Bride and the poisoned drink scene. I guess they are assuming that God gave me the thought ride without a helmet, then the thought no not a good idea I better wear one, then the thought… does it really matter if I wear one or not? Then the thought… God is determining I do wear one because it is better to wear one.. and on and on. lol.
@@Davepq100 DW: Good one!! Yes! What the Calvinist has - is called *AS-IF* thinking *AS-IF* thinking is a consequence of adopting a belief in Determinism. The Calvinist 1) Asserts the doctrine is TRUE 2) Treats the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE Here are some quotes which explain it Sean Carroll (Theoretical physicist - Atheist Determinist) -quote Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people *AS-IF* they make decisions. Dr. William Lane Craig -quote Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself. Every determinist recognizes he has to act *AS-IF* he has option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take….. (Determinism is unlivable) John Calvin -quote Each ought to so apply himself to his office, *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part. (Eternal Predestination pg171) Dr. Thomas Kapitan -quote To locate an inconsistency within the beliefs of a deliberating determinist now seems easy; for as a deliberator, he takes his future act to be yet undetermined, but as a determinist, he assumes the very opposite, that it is already determined…the ascription of an inconsistency to deliberating determinists is secured.
@@dw6528 Hello. Yours is one of the better critiques I've seen and worthy of serious consideration. Help me out here: It seems to me that as soon as a non Calvinist affirms too the exhaustive divine foreknowledge of God (encompassing all impulses), then there is only 1 logically possible outcome in any scenario. In a non Calvinist system God knows that I will do X instead of Y at a given moment, and God's foreknowledge has been true from eternity. Whatever God's foreknowledge was based on (the source from which all prevolitional counterfactuals 'flow') could not have been any other way lest it falsify His foreknowledge. How is the non-reformed view rescued from the same seemingly devastating critique of there being no logically possible alternatives (only the mere pretension thereof) lest we revert to [unbiblical] Open Theism? Cheers.
@@ProRege-1 Hello. There are couple of things concerning the topic of foreknowledge 1) Per the doctrine of decrees - Calvin's god cannot know what [X] will be until *AFTER* he decrees what [X] will be. So in Calvinism - there is a point (prior to the decree) where divine foreknowledge is lacking. John Calvin -quote He foresees future events *ONLY* in consequence of his decree (Institutes 3.23.6) Calvinist Tom Hicks - Founders Ministry -quote God cannot know what something will be until He has first decreed what it will be. 2) One alternative to Calvinism on foreknowledge - is MIDDLE knowledge (Molinism) which entails knowledge of what the creature WOULD DO in any circumstance - based upon comprehensive knowledge of the every internal component of the creature as created by the creator. When one considers the fact that every Calvinist lives *AS-IF* ALTERNATIVES exist and he has CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES - the it becomes clear - the Calvinist lives *AS-IF* Determinism is FALSE What this reveals - is that even though the Calvinist claims his belief system is TRUE - and LIBERTARIAN CHOICE does not exist - he lives *AS-IF* the opposite is the case in order to retain a sense of human normalcy.
@@dw6528 I concede your point and the quotes under numeral 1. They're con sistent with the Reformed confessions (E.g. the WMC and the LBC). I'm here leaning into how molinism rescues the principle of alternative possibilities by grounding them outside of God. Since (in Molinism) God 1) does not determine the creature's prevolitional outcomes and 2) the creature himself and the situations in which he is placed do not yet exist along with their subjunctive conditionals, what are the truth values of the counterfactuals based on? No molinist seems to know. I do not find it compelling to theorize about how alternative possibilities are theoretically possible when the grounding thereof is outside of God (thus untrustworthy). God is then qualified by not-God and He is no longer self contained. Every interpretation of fact is up for grabs and truth is subject to every thinking agent, God or not. In Calvinism there is no alternative from the stand point God's A-Se existence, but He creates us with a reasons-responsive nature from an intra-creation standpoint. The notion of "alternative" is a creaturely category given to us by God and it is meaningfully experienced as we participate in his plan for history. There is no natural necessity in Calvinism as in naturalism/materialism. We affirm the necessity of the consequence/outcome but not the consequents (choices). In so doing we're not denying what we affirm about God. We're affirming that God has given us requisite faculties of choice, one of which is NOT libertarian freedom.
Hello Dr. Flowers, In Hebrews 11 it says that without faith it is impossible to please God. What exactly does it mean to "please God" and how would you respond to a Calvinist who says that verse suggests that everything a non-believer does is sinful (even benevolent acts like giving to the poor) because they are not done in faith and therefore not pleasing to God? Would Cornelius from Acts 10 be a counter example? Although one could argue that the things he was doing were out of faith despite not being Christian yet. Any thoughts would be helpful. Thank you.
DW: Hello. I think I know Dr. Flowers enough to say the following 1) In Calvinism - nothing happens that is not decreed by Calvin's god 2) Everything he decrees - he decrees for his "Good Pleasure" 3) Consequently everything that happens within creation - including all sins and evils - is for his "Good Pleasure" and thus is pleasing to him. However - the Calvinist is in a constant state of internal conflict - over how the doctrine *APPEARS* to people. So for example Within the confines of a staunch Calvinist audience - a Calvinist preacher will want to declare every sin and every evil pleases Calvin's god But that same preacher will say the exact opposite to a MIXED audience - out of concern someone might reject the doctrine.
@@dw6528 thank you for taking the time to respond. I think I know the Calvinist position pretty well, but I was trying to ask what is the provisionist/noncalvinist response to that question.
@@ltlizott1 The provisionist/NON-Calvinist position on just about anything (such as your specific question) can be understood by first understanding the two critical components within Calvinism - which separate it from all of its alternatives. Those two critical components are: 1) DUALISM in which “Good” and “Evil” are Co-Equal, Co-Complimentary, and Co-Necessary 2) DETERMINISM which is found in Calvin’s doctrine of decrees. DUALISM in Calvinism is readily expressed by Calvinist assertions that EVIL events are brought into existence for the expression of divine glory. DETERMINISM is found within the doctrine of decrees - in which NOTHING is granted existence within creation - that is NOT decreed - or an ALTERNATIVE of that which is decreed. Therefore ALTERNATIVES do not exist within creation. That which does not exist within creation - is not available to humans. Therefore humans do not have CHOICE between ALTERNATIVE options - simply because ALTERNATIVE options do not exist within creation. The very existence of any ALTERNATIVE within creation would falsify the doctrine of decrees. So the most critical component for the Provisionist/NON-Calvinist is CHOICE between ALTERNATIVES In the Provisionist/NON-Calvinist position 1) ALTERNATIVES exist within creation 2) Humans are granted CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES 3) That CHOICE is UP TO the human to make All of those (1-3) above do not exist within Calvinism - because their very existence would falsify the doctrine of decrees. So you should be able to take (1-3) above and apply them to just about any question you have - in order to resolve the Provisionist/NON-Calvinist position. Pleasing God for example - for the Provisionist - would be based on any kind of CHOICE between any two ALTERNATIVES which you can imagine. In the Provisionist position - every person reaps what they sow - according to the CHOICES they make between ALTERNATIVE options. So Cornelius giving to the poor would be a CHOICE which God would reward. Whereas in Calvinism - the only way that impulse could exist within Cornelius’ brain is if it was decreed. And that decree would not grant any ALTERNATIVE So in Calvinism Cornelius would not be granted a CHOICE in the matter He would not be granted a CHOICE in the matter of anything. And whatever reward was ALLOTTED to him would be based on nothing other than the divine pleasure
If Determinism is true, we may as well throw up our hands and say, “Whatever happens, happens.” May as well just settle into defeated fatalistic apathy and give up on caring. It’s all determined, so why bother to care or do anything? To me, Determinism just sounds like a gateway drug to Nihilism.
If determinism were true, you don't really have a choice, do you. Maybe you are determined to care, huh? Saying like, "If determinism were true I would make this free will choice," is a contradiction, ain't it.
@@GhostBearCommander I also think you have a legitimate point if you rephrased it just a little. What we can argue, and I do think this is true and a very strong point, is that if free will were theoretically true, than believing in determinism would tempt you to be passive and feel you can make no difference. And historically there are many recorded cases of this being lived out.
@@Dizerner I guess that’s the real danger, isn’t it? Especially where preaching the Gospel is concerned. After all, if I believed that everyone was already pre-determined as to their eternal destiny, I likely wouldn’t bother trying to preach the Gospel. After all, I’d see no point in it. They’re either already bent for heaven or hell, no change in course possible. Might as well have a beer and forget evangelism, if Calvinism is true.
If Calvinists studied Augustine they would discover where determinism came from. To Augustine he believed all human suffering was evil, e.g., disease, natural disasters..... Believing these things happened by a benevolent God's will, caused Augustine grief. How could a good God cause or allow such, "evil?" So he invented an explanation. He was wrong on what is evil, and why it exists. But his logical conclusion on the character of God, made God pretty horrible. What then? We are to accept that God determining rape, is for the glory of God. Augustine boxed himself into a corner, because his premise on what is evil was wrong.
DW: I think the Calvinist is all to often sweet talked into embracing Calvinism because it claims to be a superior belief system - and by embracing it - the Calvinist can internally perceive himself as superior over other Christians. This is what is known as INVESTORS BIAS. And when that happens - you can show a Calvinist 1001 undeniable facts - and he will simply refuse to acknowledge them because they interfere with the human ego.
"Augustine is so wholly within me that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings" (John Calvin). Yes, Calvin was an idolater.
God decreed the crucifixion of the Son of God (Acts 2 and 4). If you don't believe that God decrees evil for his purposes, then you must read the New Testament. With respect.
Easy answer hard to understand... God is eternal, always existing before creation.. and is present in our timeline.. "think about it".. dont get it?? Its ok many won't..
Didn’t Cain’s theology cause him to bring an unacceptable offering? Seems to me like your theology will have some affect on your behavior. But I do understand not using that idea in order to answer why somebody has had a falling away. However many of our justifications of sin seem to have a root in our understanding or misunderstanding of the grace of God. Example being if I believe God has chosen me and I will be saved regardless of anything I do then I may find that sinning is less convicting because in that way of thinking it is part of God’s plan to bring me where he has determined I will go anyways. I welcome any kind of input to balance my ideas. God bless
Thanks Josh. Hands down theology affects behavior. As a calvinist, I would say that God transforms the heart that he saves so as to not use grace as a license to sin. Blessings.
I’m curious as to how Leighton (maybe you’ll answer yourself) views passages that seem to deal specifically with God’s calling. Acts 2:30 and 1 Corinthians 1:26-29. There are other passages that speak to those being called not answering or being chosen but I feel like this deserves a real interpretational answer from a provisionist because it sure seems to indicate a limited atonement while it seems we can fully reject limited atonement. I like to think the Calvinist is as fully wrong and misguided as is displayed, but if passages like this aren’t dealt with well we should probably either admit there’s legitimately more mystery and just be unified in that God hasn’t given us the ability to fully understand…I say that because I wrote a book where I probably made some wrong conclusions but my point was that at the end of Romans 11 Paul’s conclusion (after going through all of the ins and outs of the election discussion, and o really like how Leighton sheds amazing light on it), he concludes that God’s ways are past finding out. I feel like if we’re saying His ways in this regard are not past finding out, or that they’re easily found out, we would be putting ourselves above Paul and by logical extension the Holy Spirit he’s writing under inspiration of. God bless y’all
Rather than try to answer these questions piece-meal, I think it would be rewarding for you to look into the heresy of Nestorianism. Calvinists are Nestorian in their Christology. Therefore they wind up in the insanity of Limited Atonement (and the rest of TULIP tbh). Also, dialecticism. Calvinism is dialectical by it's very nature. This is why it causes so much confusion. These two things, once you understand them, you'll never be bewildered by Calvinism again. Once you see it for what it is, you'll never be able to unsee it
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi Thank you for that, I will look into both of those, I’ve only heard the words never looked into them. There is a sense though, in which I’ve never wanted to get lost in those historical contentions because I feel like it characatures (probably not a word) people into a traditional group rather than just trying to understand what the scriptures are teaching. We begin to take all of the philosophical opinions of those men and treat it all as if it’s the same as the scripture itself. That’s just always been my thought, but again I’ll definitely take your assistance and glean what I can, thank you.
God determined Eve to be deceived. God determined Adam to sin. God determined JW to rename deterministic to decreedal in the same manner that "she's not my wife...but my sister" slight of hand to confuse those that don't know.... God decreed false prophets to speak falsely. God decreed the Israelites to be rebellious. God decreed those He also desired to not perish TO perish...due to a lack of knowledge that God decreed to keep from them.... How is this NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION? How is this not the one that seeks to steal, kill, and destroy? How is this not the one that masquerades as an angel of light that desires the glory that is due God to be given in due to slight of hand that God decreed him to have? When Peter was revealed by God who Jesus was....did He say in response "Welcome to Calvinism my elect!" My wife claims that my efforts in trying to wash her in the word and show the falseness of this system she fights for (although she doesn't claim determinism) ....she feels that my rod of correction and desire to stay a good shepherd and to not be in it for selfish matters....she tires of my (in her opinion) inability to see my falling into universalism.... I don't want to wash my hands of this issue and to just assume that some human theological persuasive argument to elevate fallen humans above others (individual election) for no other purpose than to show His glory to pick randomly....while we are told to not "show favor" She is withholding intimacy with me....cuz I'm promoting the God that allows choice to return his love that He gives us....vs the kind that is forced....I liken the term religious rape. A forced hostile take over of a person against their will.... My attempts to rescue are seemingly all in vain.... I cannot reconcile Augustinian Calvinism Predetermined Puppeteering Controlling Tyrant model of God to be synonymous with the God that isn't afraid of His love being rejected and needs to have bodyguards to make sure His desires aren't hurt by those He created to be hellbound by His decree???? Calvinism falls apart...but there are those that SO fight for this system like it is grieving the Holy Spirit and falling from grace....so they percevere in the faith that was given them by the one that didn't truly love the world....but them....while others are to be discarded... Ugh! I only get told I don't understand Calvinism. How do "effectively" win her and not the argument without also grieving the Holy Spirit and negating my responsibility as a believer and husband and wife? She feels I am unteachable yet....I claim that the Holy Spirit guides us in all truth...and that Jesus longs to teach us many things...but we aren't willing. Spiritual war is real....satan attacks family first and then the churches. These folks that are deceived want to be embraced as brothers and sisters while still calling those that aren't in the elect camp heretics or depraved.... God's Only Son Permits Eternal Life! 😇💪🙏
Do you affirm that God revealed to us that the 144k were eternally saved prior to being born into this world? Revelation 14:4-5 NKJV [4] These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb. [5] And in their mouth was found no deceit, for they are without fault before the throne of God.
Would God causally determine a rape to glorify Himself? Reformed people (like James White) say yes. But how does that glorify God? If "decreetalism" is true, then: 1) The rape wouldn't have happened if God hadn't determined it to happen, so it isn't as if God is punishing an evil act. He is causing evil to happen and then punishing the person He caused to act in accordance with His own plan. (ie, setting the fire and then putting it out to claim He's a great firefighter) 2) How can a good and righteous judge supernaturally decree a man to go out and murder, and then throw him in prison for it? Would anyone say, "Wow, what a great judge! He sure punished that murderer he sent out to commit that murder!" Even if the man "wanted" to commit the murder, the judge also made him want to do it by decree. The man didn't "want" to do anything, the judge just flipped the "I want to kill" switch in his head. 3) The idea that God needs the most vile and wicked and sickening and disturbing acts to take place to be glorified is, of itself, wicked and vile. God doesn't need any evil action to happen to be glorified, unless you believe there is some sort of limitation on God? Could a righteous God not fully glorify Himself apart from rape, torture, murder, paedophilia, etc etc? Are you saying that if no paedophiles existed, God would be in danger of not being glorified? Are you claiming that if mothers didn't drown their own children in bathtubs, or men didn't kidnap and rape young women in torture basements God wouldn't be fully glorified? Is God somehow "trapped" by some arbitrary glory requirement and thus begrudgingly plots out horrific atrocity after horrific atrocity in order to get people to go "Wow! You punished all those wicked people you decreed to want to carry out those wicked things, God. How glorious!" Are you actually reading the bible? You really really really think that a perfect and righteous being who is literally love (God is love), has a mind that works this way? A mind that thought up every single sexual sin and every variation of it and then said, "That's the plan, I'll make them do that!" That sounds like a very human and sinful mind. Although, a rational human would never enact this plan. If the only options were create a world and decree (force) everyone in it rape, murder, torture, and molest to show off how good someone was, or just not make the world, they would just not make the world. If the option was to create an eternal family in a world of free humans who might someday choose to rape, murder, torture, and molest, but even so, that there would be redemption offered for those who repented as well as patience, but absolutely just punishment for those who rejected that repentance and grace, I think you've got something far more glorious. Wow, I chose to spit on Christ, to hit him with my fists, and nail Him to a cross, He didn't force me to do those things... and He still loved me, and forgave me. What a glorious God we serve.
DW: Calvinism - via Augustine - contains two components which are totally unique to Calvinism 1) DUALISM in which many things appear in the form of "Good-Evil" pairs. In this DUALISM - "Good" and "Evil" are Co-Equal, Co-Complimentary, and Co-Necessary. DUALISM is a component of Gnosticism. 2) DETERMINISM - which Augustine embraced from NeoPlatonism (doctrines of Plotinus) whom Augustine adored. The component of 'Good-Evil" DUALISM is what you are seeing - with James White saying the rape of a little girl glorifies Calvin's god. Calvin's god creates the vast majority of the total human population - specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire - for his "Good" pleasure. So Calvinism is a doctrine of "Good-Evil"
God decreed the crucifixion of the Son of God, the worst sin ever. From your perspective, why does God allow the atrocities you mention above? Why not intervene and stop them? Cheers
@@ProRege-1 is God wise enough to accomplish His goals without rape and murder? Could He have accomplished everything He wanted without abortion and pedophiles? What do you think? Or was He limited in some way and forced to plot murders and rapes?
At some point you'll need to answer my question without another question. But to answer yours: God is not subject to anyone's preconceived notion about what a good/wise God would do. He has revealed that Jesus is the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, which means he planned sin from before the foundation of the world. He is good and He is wise and we better recon with that.
Gnosticism teaches that a good god and a demi god coexisted always. That's not Calvinism. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, which entails that sin was planned. If in Christ we're chosen and in Christ we have redemption, then he chose us as sinners. Your objection to God planning evil is with the Bible. Your worldview entails that there was no inherent purpose to the gospel. It's just God making lemonade out of lemons. You continue to make the percentage of those elect a requisite part of calvinism as you fail to see that calvinism transcends calvin and you fail to demonstrate awareness of varying eschatologies in reformed camps.
LF, you hold to OSAS, how is your stance on salvation really any different. Under OSAS there is no consequence for sin. Not that it's determined but that you're free to do evil without consequence. OSAS is just as guilty of irresponsibility as the Calvinist claiming God did it all along, except it's worse. It's saying I did it, and God does not hold me accountable. How many adulterer's are even in your own Church? as defined by Luke 16:18? how many have been told they are going to Judgement? Heb 13:4
That’s quite an assumption. OSAS points to the fact God set us free from the consequences of sin, sealed us with the Spirit, and nothing can separate us from him. I in no way, shape or form believe that that means I can freely sin, that would make me a hypocrite. OSAS is the assurance of salvation in my understanding. Sorry though if I didn’t word that as well as I should.
@@BenjaminButler-zs1cm you're not free from the consequences of sin as Heb 10 clearly states if you continue in it, there remains no sacrifice for sin. Also, Should be sin so that grace may abound, No, because in reality you're a slave to the master you obey. So if you continue in that sin, for example adultery or marriage to a divorced woman, then you are delivered to the one you obey. James tells us, if we reprove a brother who turns away, and he repents, we've saved that brother from the evil one. OSAS is a lie. As is, the idea of an allowance to continue in adultery as most Baptists preach.
@@michaelnewswanger2409 Luke 16:18 is pretty clear cut, it was the Satanists of owners of Playboy who intruded the acceptance of no fault divorce into the church. That's a historical fact. So it's adherents just adopted it into the Church.
Second Peter 3:16-18. The unlearned and unstable twist/wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. John 12:32. God calls all men to believe the gospel, (First Corinthians 15:1-4) to be saved. Calvinism on the one hand calls God a Liar. John 6:47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that BELEVETH on me HATH EVERLASTING LIFE. John 3:18. Frist Timothy 2:4. Second Peter 3:9. John 6:40, and John 6:29. They twist Ephesians 2:8-9. For by GRACE ye are saved, through FAITH, and that not of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God, NOT OF WORKS, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST. Romans 3:26-28. They say the GIFT is faith. It says eternal life is the GIFT. The GIFT is not faith. The GIFT is eternal life. Second Corinthians 5:21. For He hath made Him, Jesus, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that we might be made the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God IN HIM. Second Corinthians 9:15. Thanks be to God for His UNSPEAKABLE GIFT, ETERNAL LIFE. The bible says we are without excuse. Calvinism says man does have an excuse because God did not give them the FAITH. The bible says, faith comes from hearing, hearing by the word of God. Romans 6;23. For the penalty for sin is death, physical death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. The GIFT of God is eternal life, not faith and not a reward for good behavior, but a free gift. First John 5:13. These things have I written unto you that BELIEVE on the name of the Son of God, THAT YE MAY KNOW YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. Gods word. God cannot lie. John 3:18. Believers are no longer condemned, but UNBELIEVERS are condemned already because they have not believed on the name of the Son of God. Our guarantee of eternal life. Ephesians 1:13-14. In whom ye also trusted, (of your own free will) after ye heard the word of TRUTH, the gospel of your salvation, (First Corinthians 15:1-4) in whom also AFTER, (not before) ye were sealed by that Holy Spirit of promise. Ephesians 4;30. And grieve not the Holy Spirit in whom ye are SEALED UNTO THE DAY OF REDEMPTION. The rapture of the church. Romans 8:9. Without the Spirt there is no salvation. With the Spirit we have eternal life. John 6:47. Acts 16:31. Period. Romans 11:6. Romans 4:5. Faith alone apart from any works. Galatians 2:21. Once we become a child of God through the new birth, we are a child of God forever. John 1:12. Romans 5:19-21. Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds. Colossians 2:13. He has forgiven us ALL trespasses.
It’s my will free from God? If my will is free from God then how then God can control of my destiny? Can anyone answer me? I wish God take care of my destiny..because He soo good. Isn’t He?
Can Christians who are NOT a member of Steve Lawson's church STOP talking about him and his sin. Not anyone's business except the members of Lawsons church. Discussing Lawson is just an excuse to gossip or to virtue signal. Stay in our rightful lane.
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi No, an online presence is NOT a personal pastor-church member relationship.....no different than any person presenting a subject online to an anonymous audience.
I’m dealing more and more with Calvinism/preterism at my church and it’s soul destroying. Thank you for all you do to equip the Saints of God.
Time for you to leave that church ASAP! 💪
Let God give you wisdom when it is time to leave, perhaps you have an open door to make a difference. Either way much false teaching and error is entering the church as the Day approaches
Those are two very very different topics
Or did you mean White's pretelism (preterism has nothing to do with Calvinism)
@@rjc9537but that’s not easy! Most if not all Cal churches don’t admit it in their state of beliefs. And now many SBC are going Cal too.
Man Leighton, your commentary on the situation with Lawson was so beautiful and needs to be heard by many. Thank you for speaking from the heart.
Piper’s philosophy greatly impairs his ability to reason through the scriptures. He’s used the same arguments for so many years he can’t help himself to do it again and again.
They wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. Second Peter 3:16-18. They do not believe John 6:47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that BELIEVETH on me HATH EVERLASTING LIFE. John 5:24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, HATH EVERLASTING LIFE, and shall not come unto judgement, but is passed from death unto life. Gods word. God cannot lie. First John 5:13. These things have I written unto you that BELEVE on the name of the Son of God, THAT YE MAY KNOW YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. John 6:47.
@@jimkraft9445Hey there. I'm a Calvinist and I affirm those Scriptures.
@@ProRege-1 But you don't believe others can believe them of their own free will and be saved. Why did God give us His word? So we could believe what it says. John 3:18. If you are a true Calvinist you believe God only gives faith to certain people and condemns the rest to hell. God does not give faith. HE gives eternal life to them that BELIEVE of their own free will. Acts 16:31. First Corinthians 1:21. John 5:24. John 6:40. John 6:29. First John 2:2. First Timothy 2:4, and Second Peter 3:9.
How do you know you are saved? Gods word. John 6:47. God cannot lie. Can anyone believe it and be saved? Yes. First John 2:2. John 3:18. Romans 1:16. Romans 11:6 First John 5:13. These things have I written unto you that BELIEVE on the name of the Son of God, that ye may KNOW YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. John 3:16. Jesus said it, we believe it, and that settles it.
@@jimkraft9445Faith is a gift (Ephesians 2:8-10) and it has been granted to us to believe (Philippians 1:29). See also 2nd Peter 1:1, though it's debatable. There's many texts that speak to man's inabilities to believe apart from God's efficacious grace (John 8:42-45). Provided we believe on Christ we have full assurance. Our faith is not in our faith; it's in Christ.
The real debate is over regeneration, which is often conflated with eternal life. They're distinct.
This is my simplification of the Q&A as far as I can tell:
Q: If I’m determined to die in a crash why do my choices even matter?
A: How silly, you think you have choices.
BINGO! You hit the bullseye!!! In Calvinism - any perception of an ALTERNATIVE available for a Calvinist to choose - constitutes an infallibly decree FALSE perception - because ALTERNATIVES do not exist in a world in which everything is infallibly decreed.
Also wanted to say that we’re studying the OT in our group at church and at the beginning of the study I asked if we were operating under the assumptions that Israel freely rebelled and was freely able to repent of their sins when God called them to repentance.
Some lady’s response to my question was, “oh sweetie I use to be a works based Arminian too.” 🤣
Repenting is still a work, rebellion is still Gods fault. And it still makes reading the Bible a mess.
That's sad. The old lady doesn't even know what she is saying.
I gave up on group studies at churches a long time ago because honestly I can get much better knowledge, wisdom and understanding of the biblical narrative in its intended context sitting on my couch using top tier free resources like Dr. Michael Heiser, Dr. Tim Mackie and the Bible Project, Dr. Carmen Joy Imes, AWKNG School of Theology etc... the typical church group is sit there for an hour n have generic content presented to u with very little if any discussion or engagement n take prayer requests n pray n go home n forget everything tht was presented n the church expects you to come back next week for the same kind of nothing burger. Whenever I came to a church I just wanted to be helped n to be fed spiritually n I never really got tht. I never left a church group feeling blessed, strengthened, encouraged, comforted or convicted. I always left just feeling disappointed n wondered why I even bothered showing up. The purpose of gathering is to share something of Christ with one another n to build each other up, not to just sit in a chair for an hour having generic content presented with no real focus or effort to address real struggles tht most ppl have n just end up getting nothing from it... Most ppl seem to be so stuck on their church traditions n filtering their Bible through theological systems that protect certain doctrines tht its nigh impossible to get ppl to have an open honest serious n exciting discussion about the biblical narrative in light of the supernatural ancient near eastern worldview that actually produced it. To quote my favorite Bible scholar Dr. Michael Heiser "I've had better theological discussions at UFO conferences than I've ever had in a church" n while I've never been to a ufo conference I can totally relate because I've had much better discussions about God with unbelievers that are searching for truth than I've ever had with ppl in a church.
This proves that Calvinist don’t think anyone who isn’t in their camp is saved as they see us a works based which is clearly unsaved… I think it’s time for us to start saying their camp is lost and when they fall like Lawson it proves they are unsaved! 🥴🥴🥴
@@graybillythekidI could not have said this any better 👏🏾👏🏾
That lady is clueless as to what Arminianism is. It’s so sad to see that the Calvinist’s academy for learning other positions come from their own teachers who butcher and misrepresent other camps. This is exactly the case with Ligonier Ministries (R.C. Sproul), as I myself came from that camp.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for the last 10 minutes of this video! I wish I could put many more thumbs up!
Thank you Leighton for all your work. God bless you and your ministry 🙏
Honored to catch this live. Going to spend some time in prayer on all of these things now.
Thank you for sharing how to humble ourselves before we ever share with Calvinists, considering our own weaknesses and with a desire to understand them to help and not just to win an argument. It should always be that way. And for honestly sharing the heart of Jesus concerning Bro. Lawson. Leighton, thank you, brother, so much. We can all fall any time and to any extent. ☝️
The heart of Jesus concerning Mr. Lawson:
John 5:14, 8:11 & 8:34-36 and Matthew 7:17-27
Well said
Whenever I hear Piper speak like this, I am predetermined to be speechless in what is coming out of his mouth 😮
This fatalism infected me from an early age. If God wanted me to achieve something, why didn't He make me an achiever?
What I don’t get is WHY would a Calvinist share the gospel? What’s the POINT if their fate is unchangeably determined?
I was told it’s because we don’t know who the elect are. And the great commission tells us to go and tell the world so the elect will hear. Still not logical to me because obviously someone will tell the elect so it doesn’t matter if it’s me.
God is accomplishing His ends through the means of history. Grace and peace.
DW: What you are noticing is - the foundational core of Calvinism - is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM.
The world of Calvinism - is as you recognize - is a world in which everything is infallibly pre-determined.
But that is not a world which NORMAL people live in
For example - we humans go about our daily lives having literally hundreds of ALTERNATIVES before us which we choose between
Will we drink coffee at 6PM or not?
Will we purchase a certain item or not?
Will we sin at TIME_T or not?
But the Calvinist's world - does not have ALTERNATIVES
A world which is 100% pre-determined is a world in which ALTERNATIVES cannot possibly exist
The very existence of an ALTERNATIVE would falsify Calvin's doctrine of decrees
Consequently ALTERNATIVES do not exist for the Calvinist to choose between.
In Calvinism - Adam did not have a CHOICE between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT] was CONTRARY to the decree and therefore did not exist. And the impulse in Adam's brain to [NOT EAT] would also be CONTRARY to the decree - and thus not permitted.
The Calvinist world is a *RADICALLY DIFFERENT* world than what we humans understand as NORMAL.
So what they have is a *RADICAL* belief system - doing everything it can to make itself *APPEAR* NORMAL.
@@susanaa791 it's the stupidest reason. Makes no sense
One thing that always baffled me was the idea that it's inconceivable that an all-powerful being would choose to limit himself in any way shape or form in relation to free will. I mean it's not like an all-powerful being would come down and make himself human (while still being divine), having to eat and drink and sleep and dying in order to then rise 3 days later, totally impossible for an all-powerful being to do that right?
God bless
Good word as usual, brother. I loved the comment, "...God's yelling at himself for his shortcomings." That whole "theology" is just silly. Thanks, Bro Leighton. ☝️ Btw, my big brother would pin me down sitting on my chest and do the same thing to me! Made me so mad. Lol....but good memories. ✌️
Would Piper object to a Christian's playing Russian roulette? If so, why?
That's a great point.
Piper would say if you play it and die then God gets the glory. If you play it and live HE still gets the glory… 🥴🥴🥴
@@robertlee8519 thank you. Really, to me, that's tough for Calvinists.
@@rjc9537 no doubt. But no admonition against tempting the Lord? Against being irresponsible? Against having a one in six chance ( oh, but there is no chance ) of needlessly effacing the Imago Dei?
@@bobtaylor170 Yes he would. He also does not skydive from what I've listened to lol.
God transcends His creation. He is able to instill primary and secondary levels of causation and accomplish what He has purposed through our wills. From our standpoint, on this plane of existence, there is risk. But there is no risk for God. Similar to how we experience expressions of God that seem to suggest He is surprised (Genesis 3) or having regret (Genesis 6) or traveling 'down' (Genesis 11), etc. But of course from His plane of existence, He is not surprised and is all wise and omnipresent.
I don't believe Soteriology 101 grasps the self existence of God nor the Creator/Creation distinction so as to be able to see how God establishes our creaturely categories. Their objections are all based on pre-volitional counterfactuals which they cannot prove from the Bible.
Anyone who believes that God has exhaustive foreknowledge must concede that there is only 1 logically possible outcome for any given bet, since God already knows what the results will be. Denying determinism does not "solve the problem".
Does that make sense?
Grace and Peace.
Im happy to hear thay you've left calvinism
In Calvinism, Steve Lawson is an involuntarily recepient of God's immutable decree for him to fall into sin. There was no way of escape from God's immutable decree, which ultimately brings God the MOST glory.
If Lawsom had not sinned, but obeyed, he would've robbed God of His glory.
That is consistent Calvinism.
Strawman😊
DW: Yes well said! Creaturely disobedience is logically impossible in Calvinism - because it would entail the ability to countervail an infallible decree. There is no such thing as disobedience in Calvinism. So when Calvinist accuse someone of disobedience they are denying their own doctrine of divine sovereignty. They become totally blind to how DOUBLE-MINDED they are. Poor things!
@@dw6528 strawman😀
@@4jchan DW: I always get a kick out of Calvinists denying their own doctrine!
AS-IF its logically possible for a fallible creature to disobey an infallible decree!
What a hoot! :-]
@dw6528 --"Strawman." False accusation of a fallacy.
Or better yet, the typical Red Herring repsonses from those too uncomfortable with the logical conclusions of their systematic.
This is the very definition of cognitive dissonance, by which there is no cure.
Instead of addressing the argument or issues, they are attempting to sidetrack the discussion by accusing the other party of a logical fallacy that isn't actually present. This tactic undermines productive dialogue.
The thumbnail is AMAZING for this! 😂
22:30 - 22:40 the only logical ends of Calvinism. Though not many will concede this. Except they'll say it in a roundabout, less hard hitting way. As I've seen with the things Mr White, and Mr Piper have said before
I think Leighton did a very good job near the end, of advising us about how to approach someone we think has not understood what the Book is teaching about God's love and intentions toward us humans, in love . . with a slight exception.
I would advise one say rather; "I THINK I get where you're coming from", and see to it that we mean it. One is basically asking another to realize they are fallible, it seems to me, and it behooves us to practice what we preach . . cuz we are all surely in that boat (save One ; )
Piper also has to say that God caused Steve Lawson to be unfaithful to his wife.
Hey there 🙂 In Calvinism, God does not make anyone do anything against their will nor does He first hand perform evil actions.
Grace and Peace
@@ProRege-1 DW: Actually that is not true
Calvin's god decrees every impulse that will be granted existence within the human brain - by a decree which does not grant any ALTERNATIVE.
Every impulse in the human brain - is FIRST CONCEIVED in Calvin's god's mind - and them *MADE* to come to pass infallibly - determined by antecedent factors totally outside of human control.
So Calvin's god literally does *MAKE* humans do what they do
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but *EVERY TWIST AND TURN* of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
Calvinist Louis Berkhof
-quote
God is *IMMEDIATELY OPERATIVE* in *EVERY* act of the creature. Everything that happens from moment to moment is determined by god - and in every instance the *IMPULSE TO ACTION* precedes from god (Systematic Theology)
@@ProRege-1 DW: Calvin's god does in fact *MAKE* people do what they do by a process
1) He firstly *MAKES* impulses come to pass infallibly within their brain - which the brain is granted NO SAY and NO CONTROL in the matter of
2) Those impulses then *MAKE* the person perform bodily actions infallibly - which the body is granted NO SAY and NO CONTROL in the matter of
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but *EVERY TWIST AND TURN* of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
Calvinist Louis Berkhof
-quote
God is *IMMEDIATELY OPERATIVE* in every act of the creature. Everything that happens from moment to moment is determined by the will of god - and in every instance *THE IMPULSE TO ACTION* precedes from god (Systematic Theology)
@@dw6528sorry I missed this. In those quotes, the authors do not attest to man wanting to do A and God decreeing them to do B, contrary to their will. That is essentially what I meant by God not having someone do something against their will.
@@ProRege-1 ProRege: in those [CALVINIST] quotes the authors do not attest to man wanting to do A and god decreeing them to do B contrary to their will.
DW: Welcome to HOTEL CALVI-FORNIA
You can check out any time you like
But you are granted NO SAY in the matter of what you will like. :-]
You can't have an impulse in your brain that you can call your OWN.
Thus - you don't have a will that you can call your OWN.
You are functionally - nothing more than a radio controlled device.
Thank you so much for what you are doing, I am so grateful that when I was approached with calvanism that I also came across your channel.
Yes! Preaching true grace!
Calvinism is a different Gospel and false teaching. No different than Mormons or other cults. Its a different god
Mormonism is poly-theist, denies the deity of Christ, believes the book of Mormon is prophesied in Scripture, etc.
What parallels are you drawing given its vast differences with Calvinism?
@@ProRege-1 DW: If you look at what the doctrine stipulates - you will find a god who designs the vast majority of the total human population - specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure.
John Calvin
-quote
by the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the reason does not appear, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. - (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
That is a critical aspect of the doctrine
Which makes it a critical part of the Calvinist conception of the "GOSPEL"
Calvin's god has two provisions for mankind
1) His PRIMARY provision - is for the *MANY* creating them for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure
2) His SECONDARY provision - is to save a *FEW* from his PRIMARY provision.
That is what the "Gospel" means in Calvinism.
@@dw6528 The proportion of people saved is not a requisite aspect of Calvinism, nor the logical conclusion thereof, as the system is not exclusive to any one eschatological position.
I would also add that Calvinists are free to depart from Calvin on minutiae or particular phraseologies without contravening the system of thought that "Calvinism" is pregnant with.
@@ProRege-1 DW: Actually - Calvin reasoned that where the MANY follow the road of perdition - and the FEW will not - is by the design of a divine potter of Romans 9
Calvin was also consistent with that in his conception of CHAFF believers - who would also represent the MANY and the elect would represent the FEW within the total population of believers.
Calvin enunciated proportion by the terms HUGE PILE of CHAFF vs "A FEW grains of wheat" for the elect.
So it is consistent with the doctrine to say - Calvin's god designs the MANY (vast majority of the total human population) specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire - for his good pleasure - as his PRIMARY provision for mankind.
And his SECONDARY provision is to save a FEW from his PRIMARY provision.
@@dw6528 Hey, that may be so. I would just add that no Calvinist believes that Calvin is to be followed wholesale by default. Many Calvinists have been post millenial in their eschatology and believe God has elected the majority for salvation.
Calvinism takes a Gracious Merciful, Loving Father and makes Him appear to be selfish as they claim He does everything for His own Glory.
But for the Grace of God ❤
Dear Leighton Flowers, I had sent to a couple books and letter to you that you could pass on to Idol Killer's and The Provisionist Perspective's kids but I had not heard back. I sent it through that address you mentioned. I was not overly concerned, but since someone else brought it up I figured that I would double check to make sure that address was sound or something had not happen my end and that needs checked out. Thanks and God Bless.
Can you possibly post this question on the SOT101 blog? Someone there will pick up the post and forward it directly to Dr. Flowers.
@@dw6528 Thank I will
Surely within deterministic world there are no choices anyway. We have no free will so all that happens, happens. Our "choices" aren't our will but God's, for whatever outcome he chooses.
I find determinism reduces us to robots and denies we are made in God's image. Why would he go through the process of saving us when ( if there is nothing unique about us - we're just avatars he inhabits ) he could just recreate us.
I find the majesty and awe of God magnified by the fact we do have a (real) choice and yet he loves us so much that he sent his son to die for us.
We do exist as unique persons, we do have real free agency within this creation and we do have the ability to turn to God or reject him.
"Why would he go through the process of saving us when ( if there is nothing unique about us - we're just avatars he inhabits ) he could just recreate us." ?
I would (and did) ask total Predeterminism advocates; Why would such a Being create us at all, if He already knew exactly what He was going to have each of us do, and exactly who He was going to save?
I've gotten no meaningful answer, and don't believe there is any meaningful answer to be given. (It's a mystery, apparently qualifies as a meaningful enough answer, to the worshippers of the God Calvin bowed down to ; )
DW: It is correct to recognize humans are not granted CHOICE in Calvinism - since ALTERNATIVES do not exist within creation for humans to choose between. However - Calvinism does have its own unique form of "Free-will" which works this way:
1) For any movement within creation which Calvin's god decrees come to pass - he must grant that movement "FREEDOM" to come to pass
2) If Calvin's god does not grant "FREEDOM" for what he decrees - he is a house divided against himself.
3) But creation is never granted "FREEDOM" to BE/DO OTHER than that which is decreed.
So in Calvinism - your will is "FREE" to BE/DO only what Calvin's god decrees.
@@dw6528 thanks for the clarification. It gets down to semantics at that level doesn't it!
We do exist as real persons. Scripture confirms that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, loved so much that God gave Jesus to rescue us from the right and just judgement we are all under.
How Calvin could reduce the wonder and majesty of God's love for real creatures (us) to nothing more than arbitrary performance is beyond me. The whole notion that he is glorified by people who have no independent choice, both in obeying him and in being punished for not, is not understandable to me.
@@rob-1337- I wonder if this is understandable to you?-
IF- God decreed every single thing that is so,
THEN- The person who holds any position of authority over the members of any church, was specifically chosen by God Himself to hold that position of authority over the members of that church.
(And who are you, O man, or woman, to question God ; )
You're so right about the casting of lots! If God decided the outcome of every act, lots or straws would be the ideal way to discover God's will.
Piper should just come out and admit that, on his view, asking the question of whether our choices matter is like asking what the color green smells like. In his Calvinism, all of our "choices" are determined by God, so they really only feel like choices from our side. God has determined us to feel the illusion that we are making real choices when, in fact, whatever we choose has been determined, and in such a way that it couldn't have been otherwise. By most people's definition, that is not a choice in any real sense.
25:21 what is Piper referring to when he talks about making a difference?
In a non-determined world, “difference” literally means a difference between what is and what could have been.
However, in this deterministic ideology, there is no such thing as “difference” because there is no such thing as “what could have been”. Things are the way they are. They have been decreed to be that way, and there could have been nothing different.
Piper always talks in circles - always
Well if determinism is true then our suffering for consequences of our actions isn't fair
DW: Calvinism has a completely different conception of "Fairness"
In Calvinism "Fair" is simply whatever Calvin's god does and whatever Calvin's god says it is.
For example - Calvin's god creates new-born babies specifically to be case alive in to the fire of Moloch
And then to be cast into eternal torment in the lake of fire for his good pleasure.
And for the Calvinist - that is classified as "Fair" and classified as "Just" and classified as "Good"
In DW's train of thought, God decreed a reality that was best as a whole, so that's why God does not intervene to save babies even though he could without violating libertarian free will ( think Sodom). He must let things play out as his middle knowledge stipulates. That's supposed to be fair to the infants.
From a reformed perspective God purposed the worst sin ever, Jesus' murder, for the ultimate good. So we have hope his purposes for infanticide will prevail.
Infants may all very well be elect see MacArthur "Safe in the arms of God"
@@ProRege-1 DW: This is another good example of the Calvinist trying to create a *FACADE* of something which does not exist in his belief system
There is no such thing as Calvin's god "INTERVENING" in any event for the following reasons
1) Per the doctrine - the only way an event can exist within creation - is if that event is decreed.
2) That decree is infallible and immutable (UNCHANGEABLE)
3) Thus events are made infallibly unchangeable -- exactly as they were decreed
4) Every event is decreed to come to pass within infallible exactness which cannot be altered or intervened.
5) Thus - If Calvin's god were to INTERVENE in any event - he would be INTERVENING in his own decree - which is impossible.
6) The very idea that Calvin's god would have to INTERVENE presupposes his decree was NOT PERFECT and thus needed INTERVENTION.
I'm not presently convinced that God could not decree His own intervention in a series of events he purposed to come to pass, whereas in an indeterministic metaphysic God would seem to only be able to abide by what He foreknows to happen, a sort of being fated to His knowledge of what will come.
@@ProRege-1 DW: What you have there is a SIMULATION of intervention.
Remember - in Calvinism every movement of every atomic particle is meticulously and infallibly predestined before creation.
INTERVENTION entails a state of affairs in which something within creation is granted a degree of AUTONOMY.
Any such AUTONOMY would falsify divine sovereignty. Where there is no AUTONOMY he would be INTERVENING in himself.
However you can have a SIMULATION of INTERVENTION.
A Shakespearean play in which one of the characters is going to kill the king - and a watchful guard INTERVENES and stops the killer.
In the Shakespearean play - everything the characters do is decreed within the script - and the PERFORMERS are not acting on their own accord - but rather acting on behalf of the script.
Likewise in Calvinism - humans cannot DO OTHERWISE than that which was decreed in the script.
So if Calvin's god INTERVENES in what they do - he is INTERVENING in his script which is impossible because it is decreed to come to pass with infallible exactness.
Calvinism is very much like the Shakespearean play in that humans are designed to function as PERFORMERS - who are not granted any AUTONOMY and thus not permitted to act on their own accord - and the script does not grant them any ALTERNATIVE.
However - another way there can be INTERVENTION is prior to the decree Calvin's god INTERVENES in his own decisions concerning what he will decree come to pass.
Best thumbnail in years.
Your debate broke me of this thought line when You were on "SMARTCHRISTIANS" program.
When someone falls I think it could be me next if I'm not careful.
Unfortunately, Christians adopt beliefs by what they have been taught, not by studying and reading scriptures.
Then when challenged on the soundness of their belief will try to find scripture to support what he/she has been taught.
16:07 Nothing is impossible for God. From the provisionist perspective- Nothing is impossible, for God. From the Calvinist perspective- Nothing, is impossible for God. God can't do nothing.
1:04:26 Expose Calvinism for it's heresy. But i love your comment and statement on humiliation vs humility. The grace of our Lord Jesus and how we should respond to the current situation with Steve Lawson. Thank you Leighton.
So God is the one who caused his son Abraham to leave the faith and become an atheist. Huh.
It's amazing how many Calvinists never actually 'look behind the curtain'. A lot of those who do, close it as quickly as they can because it's too scary to consider. Ultimately, determinism demands man does not matter. But man cannot live 'as-if' he does not matter. It is unhealthy on every level. Scripture says God made man in his own image... and that, by definition, means all MEN DO MATTER.
I think this is why Theistic Determinists so often speak casually as if men really have autonomous moral abilities... even though their doctrine specifically denies that to be the case. I believe it's a combination of their subconscious mind, their God-given conscious, and the Holy Spirit attempting to maintain some semblance of sanity from the fog of Cognitive Dissonance in which Calvinists 'choose' to exist.
Since Determinism is their core value, it's so interesting to me how their casual, unguarded, speech so often contradicts it. I think it would be if someone like Billy Graham said they thought abortion was OK.... and then have to correct themselves for misspeaking. 🤔
God does bring about good from sin, but as the BIBLE says God does not cause sin
DW: However - in Calvinism Calvin's god does cause sin - and John Calvin did not flinch to say so.
John Calvin
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of god is the supreme and primary CAUSE of all things….(Institutes 1, 16, 8)
@@dw6528
Agree. That is partly why I’m not a Calvinist anymore. I was one for 32 yrs
@@CoffeeCoffeeCoffee86 DW: The Lord is so wonderful!!! :-]
I agree that we need to reach out with love. I don’t call people who teach and or follow Calvinism brothers anymore than I call Mormon’s brothers. I reach out to them as nonbelievers. The same as Paul does in acts 28.
Brother, I suggest that the term 'brother' (or 'sister') unto itself, can be appropriate in the general sense, as an expression of friendly intention, reaching out in love, earnestness, etc,, since we are all of "one blood". Adding something like "in Christ" is another matter, it seems to me. I don't add that until I'm convinced that I'm speaking to an actual fellow follower of the same Christ I try to follow.
(The opposite is not true. If someone says they don't believe Christ is their Lord, I believe them, with only slight doubt. Because Jesus said "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven", which is something I dare not do, for what to me are obvious reasons. I suspect some don't think that distinction through carefully, and treat both declarations as trustworthy indications of a person's state of mind relative to Christ. Obviously, any atheist can say they believe Christ is their Lord, without fear that a God they don't believe exists will care about their lie.)
My problem ultimately with the idea of predestination is that you the individual never had a shot if you were predestined to go to hell.... The gospel is suppose to give you hope and joy. With predestination it makes some people i'd imagine anxious and constantly guessing at times. Kinda like good works being needed in addition to faith in Christ.... What are the fruits of these messages... Vs the fruit of the gospel itself. I think we need to as Jesus says be like children in regards to not trying to over analyze things. Trust in what God said, what Christ did for us. Just like a child unconditionally trust their parents. Took me a long time to shake off the fear of whether or not predestination is true.
Matthew 18:3-4
3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
God bless
Piper is deflecting the waffle. It is he that is waffling.
And yet no one addressed the point that a supposed Christian man living with his "girlfriend".
Random question to you and anyone who knows: where can I find credible sources for the Koine Greek supporting non-Calvinist soteriology?
Ok, I understand what you are trying to get across. And I agree with you. But what is your answer to this man's question? I would like to know. Because it is true that God is sovereign.
So Piper is calling her out for actually living out what he taught her. 🥴🥴🥴
Theistic determinism 😵💫😵💫 makes me so dizzy.
I’m starting to see that Ephesians 1 and Roman’s 8 are teaching similar theology and making a near identical point.
Leighton, when it comes to the original question that Piper responds to, that same question regarding risk can easily be raised in regards to regular old Arminianism and any other form of closed theism. If their choices of getting and riding motorcycles or not and their fatal crash is simply foreknown as absolutely certain to God even though He did not determine their choices and their fatal accident then do their choices really matter? If God foreknew as certain that they would get the motorcycles and die in a crash then can God freely choose to intervene and prevent from happening this accident He always knew would happen from happening? The problems of fatalism will not simply be solved by getting rid of determinism. We have to go beyond that and deal with the question of to what extent is God obligated to foreknow the future as absolutely certain and to what extent can He freely choose to leave at least some of the future open to different possible outcomes and therefore not foreknown as absolutely certain.
Definitely!!!
God's foreknowledge doesn't require him to intervene in the present or future situation of our lives. However in his Sovereignty, He is completely capable of doing so. He allows the decisions we make to play out with its purpose and consequence. Through it all, God works out ALL things for his intended purpose. This is not determinism.
For example, He intervened in the apostle Paul's life, and met him on the road to Damascus. Paul had every bit of free will choice (Acts 26:19).
@@SheepDog1974 DW: BTW: There is no such thing as divine intervention in Calvinism for the following reasons
1) No event can happen unless it is decreed
2) The event decreed will happen infallibly
3) It is logically impossible to intervene in that which is infallible
Additionally - the concept of intervention strongly infers a degree of AUTONOMY which does not exist for humans in Calvinism.
@@dw6528 I agree. I'm responding to the original post
Would not a consistent Calvinist have to conclude that it was God's sovereign will for Steve Lawson to fall into sexual sin, thus betraying his wife and congregation and bringing disrepute to the name of Christ and that Steve Lawson was not free to make a different choice? In fact, if I am not mistaken, I believe one of the guys Leighton and Pritchett debated in Houston said that God causes people to commit adultery. How is such a system tenable?
Crazy Calvinist.
DW: Yes you are totally correct! But we find Calvinists are highly concerned about the way OUTSIDERS will perceive Calvinism. Per the doctrine - Calvinists are actually *PERFORMING* sins on Calvin's god's behalf. Because he decreed each sin by an infallible decree which grants NO ALTERNATIVE. Calvinist leaders are concerned about the reputation that would produce. So they actually deny their own doctrine in order to maintain an appearance.
@@jsl8905 and @DW Yes, God had a purpose and established the contingencies through which Lawson sinned and decided that Lawson would sin. Lawson had the conditional freedom to not sin IF his heart was so inclined. We onlookers leave the outcomes to God and are called to heed His will of command via the same said contingencies.
But don't worry, God planned the occurence of an even worse sin, the greatest sin of all time, the crucifixion of the Son of God, actions of which were so set that they happened in accordance with the details of Scripture. So, we can know that nothing short of that evil is purposeless. We know this did not infringe upon anyone's genuine freedom because Christ's freedom was not inhibited despite being the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world (i.e.. His end was sealed and occured through means).
In Calvinism, it's nice to know that God has a plan and a purpose for everything for the praise of the glory of His grace and the everlasting enjoyment of His people, as opposed to crafting the gospel as some after thought to do damage control in mere response to true counterfactuals He had no control over and which force Him to do their brute, purposeless bidding.
You see, in Molinism, the supposedly libertarian alternative that you have never actually occured in time. YOU never had an alternative because God has decreed everything that you do in this actual time, and the you that weighed alternatives and chose accordingly never actually existed to do so. It all happened in some abstract, eternal past, where the actual YOU did not even exist.
When applied to Christ and the incarnation, Molinism utterly fails. It implies that God merely saw (did jot determine) an infinite number of ways Christ would respond and positioned Christ in the reality God chose. And here is the devastating implication: Christ is God! The decree of creation was a trinitarian one, and the truth of value of the counterfactuals God forsaw of His own Son, who is God and acting as God in flesh, were not determined by God. So God in molinism does not even ground the counterfactual truths of His own actions in Christ (God the Son incarnate). Picture God and His intertrinitarian, molinistic counsel, conceding that God the Son does not ground the truth value of His own foreknown incarnate actions (doing X in potential reality R). It completely fractures the biblical Trinity, wherein Father and Son are always united !!!
@DW I hope you're rethinking molinism. We could use a strong mind like yours in Reformed Camps.
@@jsl8905 @jsl8905 and @DW Yes, God had a purpose and established the contingencies through which Lawson sinned and decided that Lawson would sin. Lawson had the conditional freedom to not sin IF his heart was so inclined. We onlookers leave the outcomes to God and are called to heed His will of command via the same said contingencies.
But don't worry, God planned the occurence of an even worse sin, the greatest sin of all time, the crucifixion of the Son of God, actions of which were so set that they happened in accordance with the details of Scripture. So, we can know that nothing short of that evil is purposeless. We know this did not infringe upon anyone's genuine freedom because Christ's freedom was not inhibited despite being the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world (i.e.. His end was sealed and occured through means).
In Calvinism, it's nice to know that God has a plan and a purpose for everything for the praise of the glory of His grace and the everlasting enjoyment of His people, as opposed to crafting the gospel as some after thought to do damage control in mere response to true counterfactuals He had no control over and which force Him to do their brute, purposeless bidding.
You see, in Molinism, the supposedly libertarian alternative that you have never actually occured in time. YOU never had an alternative because God has decreed everything that you do in this actual time, and the you that weighed alternatives and chose accordingly never actually existed to do so. It all happened in some abstract, eternal past, where the actual YOU did not even exist.
When applied to Christ and the incarnation, Molinism utterly fails. It implies that God merely saw (did not determine) an infinite number of ways Christ would respond and positioned Christ in the reality God chose. And here is the devastating implication: Christ is God! The decree of creation was a trinitarian one, and the truth value of the counterfactuals God forsaw of His own Son, who is God and acting as God in flesh, were not determined by God. So God in molinism does not even ground the counterfactual truths of His own actions in Christ (God the Son incarnate). Picture God and His intertrinitarian, molinistic counsel, conceding that God the Son does not ground the truth value of His own foreknown incarnate actions (doing X in potential reality R). It completely fractures the biblical Trinity, wherein Father and Son are always united !!!
@DW I hope you're rethinking molinism. We could use a strong mind like yours in Reformed Camps
@jsl8905 and @DW Yes, God had a purpose and established the contingencies through which Lawson sinned and decided that Lawson would sin. Lawson had the conditional freedom to not sin IF his heart was so inclined. We onlookers leave the outcomes to God and are called to heed His will of command via the same said contingencies.
But don't worry, God planned the occurence of an even worse sin, the greatest sin of all time, the crucifixion of the Son of God, actions of which were so set that they happened in accordance with the details of Scripture. So, we can know that nothing short of that evil is purposeless. We know this did not infringe upon anyone's genuine freedom because Christ's freedom was not inhibited despite being the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world (i.e.. His end was sealed and occured through means).
In Calvinism, it's nice to know that God has a plan and a purpose for everything for the praise of the glory of His grace and the everlasting enjoyment of His people, as opposed to crafting the gospel as some after thought to do damage control in mere response to true counterfactuals He had no control over and which force Him to do their brute, purposeless bidding.
You see, in Molinism, the supposedly libertarian alternative that you have never actually occured in time. YOU never had an alternative because God has decreed everything that you do in this actual time, and the you that weighed alternatives and chose accordingly never actually existed to do so. It all happened in some abstract, eternal past, where the actual YOU did not even exist.
When applied to Christ and the incarnation, Molinism utterly fails. It implies that God merely saw (did not determine) an infinite number of ways Christ would respond and positioned Christ in the reality God chose. And here is the devastating implication: Christ is God! The decree of creation was a trinitarian one, and the truth value of the counterfactuals God forsaw of His own Son, who is God and acting as God in flesh, were not determined by God. So God in molinism does not even ground the counterfactual truths of His own actions in Christ (God the Son incarnate). Picture God and His intertrinitarian, molinistic counsel, conceding that God the Son does not ground the truth value of His own foreknown incarnate actions (doing X in potential reality R). It completely fractures the biblical Trinity, wherein Father and Son are always united !!!
@DW I hope you're rethinking molinism. We could use a strong mind like yours in Reformed Camps.
Dr. Flowers, I’d like to hear more about your views on eternal security. I’ve been struggling with that for years. I’d like you to tackle that subject to the same extent that you do Calvinism.
I fail to understand God’s love, or this idea that you can’t lose your salvation in light of how the Bible describes humans, and the seemingly frequent references to conditional salvation, as well as the fact that conditional salvation was the predominant view for the first 1,500 years of Christianity. Why did it take so long to “get it right” if OSAS is true?
It’s all quite maddening, and I do not enjoy my “faith”. I’d love to hear more from you about that subject. When are you starting your new channel? Thank you, sir. Hope you see this.
I think Romans Chp 8 is a good place to start. It begins with saying "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." The Chp ends I believe with Paul reminding us nothing can separate us from His love.
This isn’t a full answer, but I hope it helps.
Nothing can separate you from the love of Christ. But if you choose to no longer be "in Christ" then your eternal security is at risk.
John 15:5 reminds us to "abide" in Him.
@@SheepDog1974I don’t think that would apply to someone concerned about their eternal security.
If someone were to “choose” to no longer be “in Christ” I doubt they would be concerned with their eternal security at all.
@@scwienert correct. But I'm not the judge.
Who in their right mind buys this explanation from Piper? Its one thing to buy in to calvinism and be deceived by seemingly smart men but this explanation is just a big word salad.
Everything that happened is decreed by God except when it involves man's free will but still God allows it to happen, For nothing in this world can happen unless God allows it...
It's a house of cards and It has to be that way because it's built on the picked before being born to get salvation. Then they put this in to show how they have no chance to change because God controls all things that happened or will happen and forces you to do that and how it happened.
*THE CRITICAL ERROR IN CALVINIST THINKING*
The critical error in Calvinist thinking appears here - both in the Calvinist's question to Piper - and also in Piper's answer to that question.
In Calvinism - the following states of affairs do not exist
1) ALTERNATIVES within creation
2) The Calvinist is granted CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES
3) That CHOICE is *UP TO* the Calvinist
All of the (3 above) do not exist within Calvinism
- The very existence of any ALTERNATIVE within creation - would falsify the decree - which would falsify the doctrine of decrees
- Consequently the ALTERNATIVES such as [RIDE MOTORCYCLE] vs [NOT RIDE MOTORCYCLE] do not exist
- One of those options was determined to exist - and its existence is made infallible at the foundation of the world by a decree
- The other ALTERNATIVE does not exist - because its existence was infallibly excluded by the decree
Therefore the Calvinist does not have a CHOICE in the matter - simply because NO ALTERNATIVE exists for him to choose.
The CHOICE was made at the foundation of the world by Calvin's god - who established his CHOICE by a decree - which grants only *ONE* option.
The ALTERNATIVE is CONTRARY to the decree and therefore does not exist within creation.
There is only *ONE SINGLE CHOICE MAKER* in Calvinism - Calvin's god.
All CHOICES are made at the foundation of the world - with NO ALTERNATIVES granted existence.
Calvinists do not have CHOICE in the matter of anything - simply because ALTERNATIVES do not exist for them to choose.
And even if ALTERNATIVES did exist (which is impossible) the Calvinist would still not have CHOICE because every impulse in his brain is also fixed by infallible decree - and cannot be OTHER than what it was decreed to be.
Good points.
It make me think of the movie The Princess Bride and the poisoned drink scene.
I guess they are assuming that God gave me the thought ride without a helmet, then the thought no not a good idea I better wear one, then the thought… does it really matter if I wear one or not? Then the thought… God is determining I do wear one because it is better to wear one.. and on and on. lol.
@@Davepq100 DW: Good one!! Yes! What the Calvinist has - is called *AS-IF* thinking
*AS-IF* thinking is a consequence of adopting a belief in Determinism.
The Calvinist
1) Asserts the doctrine is TRUE
2) Treats the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE
Here are some quotes which explain it
Sean Carroll (Theoretical physicist - Atheist Determinist)
-quote
Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people *AS-IF* they make decisions.
Dr. William Lane Craig
-quote
Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself.
Every determinist recognizes he has to act *AS-IF* he has option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take….. (Determinism is unlivable)
John Calvin
-quote
Each ought to so apply himself to his office, *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part. (Eternal Predestination pg171)
Dr. Thomas Kapitan
-quote
To locate an inconsistency within the beliefs of a deliberating determinist now seems easy; for as a deliberator, he takes his future act to be yet undetermined, but as a determinist, he assumes the very opposite, that it is already determined…the ascription of an inconsistency to deliberating determinists is secured.
@@dw6528 Hello. Yours is one of the better critiques I've seen and worthy of serious consideration.
Help me out here:
It seems to me that as soon as a non Calvinist affirms too the exhaustive divine foreknowledge of God (encompassing all impulses), then there is only 1 logically possible outcome in any scenario. In a non Calvinist system God knows that I will do X instead of Y at a given moment, and God's foreknowledge has been true from eternity. Whatever God's foreknowledge was based on (the source from which all prevolitional counterfactuals 'flow') could not have been any other way lest it falsify His foreknowledge.
How is the non-reformed view rescued from the same seemingly devastating critique of there being no logically possible alternatives (only the mere pretension thereof) lest we revert to [unbiblical] Open Theism?
Cheers.
@@ProRege-1 Hello. There are couple of things concerning the topic of foreknowledge
1) Per the doctrine of decrees - Calvin's god cannot know what [X] will be until *AFTER* he decrees what [X] will be.
So in Calvinism - there is a point (prior to the decree) where divine foreknowledge is lacking.
John Calvin
-quote
He foresees future events *ONLY* in consequence of his decree (Institutes 3.23.6)
Calvinist Tom Hicks - Founders Ministry
-quote
God cannot know what something will be until He has first decreed what it will be.
2) One alternative to Calvinism on foreknowledge - is MIDDLE knowledge (Molinism) which entails knowledge of what the creature WOULD DO in any circumstance - based upon comprehensive knowledge of the every internal component of the creature as created by the creator.
When one considers the fact that every Calvinist lives *AS-IF* ALTERNATIVES exist and he has CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES - the it becomes clear - the Calvinist lives *AS-IF* Determinism is FALSE
What this reveals - is that even though the Calvinist claims his belief system is TRUE - and LIBERTARIAN CHOICE does not exist - he lives *AS-IF* the opposite is the case in order to retain a sense of human normalcy.
@@dw6528 I concede your point and the quotes under numeral 1. They're con sistent with the Reformed confessions (E.g. the WMC and the LBC).
I'm here leaning into how molinism rescues the principle of alternative possibilities by grounding them outside of God.
Since (in Molinism) God
1) does not determine the creature's prevolitional outcomes and 2) the creature himself and the situations in which he is placed do not yet exist along with their subjunctive conditionals,
what are the truth values of the counterfactuals based on? No molinist seems to know.
I do not find it compelling to theorize about how alternative possibilities are theoretically possible when the grounding thereof is outside of God (thus untrustworthy). God is then qualified by not-God and He is no longer self contained. Every interpretation of fact is up for grabs and truth is subject to every thinking agent, God or not.
In Calvinism there is no alternative from the stand point God's A-Se existence, but He creates us with a reasons-responsive nature from an intra-creation standpoint. The notion of "alternative" is a creaturely category given to us by God and it is meaningfully experienced as we participate in his plan for history. There is no natural necessity in Calvinism as in naturalism/materialism. We affirm the necessity of the consequence/outcome but not the consequents (choices). In so doing we're not denying what we affirm about God. We're affirming that God has given us requisite faculties of choice, one of which is NOT libertarian freedom.
Hello Dr. Flowers,
In Hebrews 11 it says that without faith it is impossible to please God. What exactly does it mean to "please God" and how would you respond to a Calvinist who says that verse suggests that everything a non-believer does is sinful (even benevolent acts like giving to the poor) because they are not done in faith and therefore not pleasing to God?
Would Cornelius from Acts 10 be a counter example? Although one could argue that the things he was doing were out of faith despite not being Christian yet.
Any thoughts would be helpful. Thank you.
DW: Hello. I think I know Dr. Flowers enough to say the following
1) In Calvinism - nothing happens that is not decreed by Calvin's god
2) Everything he decrees - he decrees for his "Good Pleasure"
3) Consequently everything that happens within creation - including all sins and evils - is for his "Good Pleasure" and thus is pleasing to him.
However - the Calvinist is in a constant state of internal conflict - over how the doctrine *APPEARS* to people.
So for example
Within the confines of a staunch Calvinist audience - a Calvinist preacher will want to declare every sin and every evil pleases Calvin's god
But that same preacher will say the exact opposite to a MIXED audience - out of concern someone might reject the doctrine.
@@dw6528 thank you for taking the time to respond. I think I know the Calvinist position pretty well, but I was trying to ask what is the provisionist/noncalvinist response to that question.
@@ltlizott1 The provisionist/NON-Calvinist position on just about anything (such as your specific question) can be understood by first understanding the two critical components within Calvinism - which separate it from all of its alternatives.
Those two critical components are:
1) DUALISM in which “Good” and “Evil” are Co-Equal, Co-Complimentary, and Co-Necessary
2) DETERMINISM which is found in Calvin’s doctrine of decrees.
DUALISM in Calvinism is readily expressed by Calvinist assertions that EVIL events are brought into existence for the expression of divine glory.
DETERMINISM is found within the doctrine of decrees - in which NOTHING is granted existence within creation - that is NOT decreed - or an ALTERNATIVE of that which is decreed.
Therefore ALTERNATIVES do not exist within creation.
That which does not exist within creation - is not available to humans.
Therefore humans do not have CHOICE between ALTERNATIVE options - simply because ALTERNATIVE options do not exist within creation.
The very existence of any ALTERNATIVE within creation would falsify the doctrine of decrees.
So the most critical component for the Provisionist/NON-Calvinist is CHOICE between ALTERNATIVES
In the Provisionist/NON-Calvinist position
1) ALTERNATIVES exist within creation
2) Humans are granted CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES
3) That CHOICE is UP TO the human to make
All of those (1-3) above do not exist within Calvinism - because their very existence would falsify the doctrine of decrees.
So you should be able to take (1-3) above and apply them to just about any question you have - in order to resolve the Provisionist/NON-Calvinist position.
Pleasing God for example - for the Provisionist - would be based on any kind of CHOICE between any two ALTERNATIVES which you can imagine.
In the Provisionist position - every person reaps what they sow - according to the CHOICES they make between ALTERNATIVE options.
So Cornelius giving to the poor would be a CHOICE which God would reward.
Whereas in Calvinism - the only way that impulse could exist within Cornelius’ brain is if it was decreed.
And that decree would not grant any ALTERNATIVE
So in Calvinism Cornelius would not be granted a CHOICE in the matter
He would not be granted a CHOICE in the matter of anything.
And whatever reward was ALLOTTED to him would be based on nothing other than the divine pleasure
@@dw6528 thank you. That was helpful.
What does the Calvinist say when he breaks his leg? “Boy, I’m glad that’s over with.”
If Determinism is true, we may as well throw up our hands and say, “Whatever happens, happens.”
May as well just settle into defeated fatalistic apathy and give up on caring. It’s all determined, so why bother to care or do anything?
To me, Determinism just sounds like a gateway drug to Nihilism.
If determinism were true, you don't really have a choice, do you. Maybe you are determined to care, huh?
Saying like, "If determinism were true I would make this free will choice," is a contradiction, ain't it.
Que sera or inshallah.
@@Dizerner Fair point.
@@GhostBearCommander I also think you have a legitimate point if you rephrased it just a little.
What we can argue, and I do think this is true and a very strong point, is that if free will were theoretically true, than believing in determinism would tempt you to be passive and feel you can make no difference. And historically there are many recorded cases of this being lived out.
@@Dizerner I guess that’s the real danger, isn’t it?
Especially where preaching the Gospel is concerned.
After all, if I believed that everyone was already pre-determined as to their eternal destiny, I likely wouldn’t bother trying to preach the Gospel.
After all, I’d see no point in it. They’re either already bent for heaven or hell, no change in course possible. Might as well have a beer and forget evangelism, if Calvinism is true.
If Calvinists studied Augustine they would discover where determinism came from.
To Augustine he believed all human suffering was evil, e.g., disease, natural disasters.....
Believing these things happened by a benevolent God's will, caused Augustine grief. How could a good God cause or allow such, "evil?"
So he invented an explanation.
He was wrong on what is evil, and why it exists.
But his logical conclusion on the character of God, made God pretty horrible.
What then?
We are to accept that God determining rape, is for the glory of God.
Augustine boxed himself into a corner, because his premise on what is evil was wrong.
DW: I think the Calvinist is all to often sweet talked into embracing Calvinism because it claims to be a superior belief system - and by embracing it - the Calvinist can internally perceive himself as superior over other Christians. This is what is known as INVESTORS BIAS. And when that happens - you can show a Calvinist 1001 undeniable facts - and he will simply refuse to acknowledge them because they interfere with the human ego.
"Augustine is so wholly within me that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings" (John Calvin).
Yes, Calvin was an idolater.
How wrong you are. People speak in such figurative ways all the time.
Claiming to have divine insight into a man's heart again, eh?
God decreed the crucifixion of the Son of God (Acts 2 and 4). If you don't believe that God decrees evil for his purposes, then you must read the New Testament. With respect.
Calvinism is a church killer because it shows God as unjust, vindictive, capricious and cruel. That is not my God.
Leighton i think you should have used the word "Determinism" instead of "sovereignty" because we all believe God is sovereign. Right??😇
So insane. Rational reasoning is gone. Why do people keep insisting on this being how God works?
He takes apart the question just like the Bible parts he uses (icoajesus) instead of exoajesus and using context of verse and people of the time.
285 Leon Divide
Easy answer hard to understand... God is eternal, always existing before creation.. and is present in our timeline.. "think about it".. dont get it?? Its ok many won't..
Didn’t Cain’s theology cause him to bring an unacceptable offering? Seems to me like your theology will have some affect on your behavior. But I do understand not using that idea in order to answer why somebody has had a falling away. However many of our justifications of sin seem to have a root in our understanding or misunderstanding of the grace of God.
Example being if I believe God has chosen me and I will be saved regardless of anything I do then I may find that sinning is less convicting because in that way of thinking it is part of God’s plan to bring me where he has determined I will go anyways. I welcome any kind of input to balance my ideas. God bless
Thanks Josh. Hands down theology affects behavior.
As a calvinist, I would say that God transforms the heart that he saves so as to not use grace as a license to sin.
Blessings.
I’m curious as to how Leighton (maybe you’ll answer yourself) views passages that seem to deal specifically with God’s calling. Acts 2:30 and 1 Corinthians 1:26-29. There are other passages that speak to those being called not answering or being chosen but I feel like this deserves a real interpretational answer from a provisionist because it sure seems to indicate a limited atonement while it seems we can fully reject limited atonement.
I like to think the Calvinist is as fully wrong and misguided as is displayed, but if passages like this aren’t dealt with well we should probably either admit there’s legitimately more mystery and just be unified in that God hasn’t given us the ability to fully understand…I say that because I wrote a book where I probably made some wrong conclusions but my point was that at the end of Romans 11 Paul’s conclusion (after going through all of the ins and outs of the election discussion, and o really like how Leighton sheds amazing light on it), he concludes that God’s ways are past finding out. I feel like if we’re saying His ways in this regard are not past finding out, or that they’re easily found out, we would be putting ourselves above Paul and by logical extension the Holy Spirit he’s writing under inspiration of.
God bless y’all
Rather than try to answer these questions piece-meal, I think it would be rewarding for you to look into the heresy of Nestorianism.
Calvinists are Nestorian in their Christology. Therefore they wind up in the insanity of Limited Atonement (and the rest of TULIP tbh).
Also, dialecticism.
Calvinism is dialectical by it's very nature.
This is why it causes so much confusion.
These two things, once you understand them, you'll never be bewildered by Calvinism again.
Once you see it for what it is, you'll never be able to unsee it
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi Thank you for that, I will look into both of those, I’ve only heard the words never looked into them.
There is a sense though, in which I’ve never wanted to get lost in those historical contentions because I feel like it characatures (probably not a word) people into a traditional group rather than just trying to understand what the scriptures are teaching. We begin to take all of the philosophical opinions of those men and treat it all as if it’s the same as the scripture itself.
That’s just always been my thought, but again I’ll definitely take your assistance and glean what I can, thank you.
God determined Eve to be deceived. God determined Adam to sin.
God determined JW to rename deterministic to decreedal in the same manner that "she's not my wife...but my sister" slight of hand to confuse those that don't know....
God decreed false prophets to speak falsely.
God decreed the Israelites to be rebellious.
God decreed those He also desired to not perish TO perish...due to a lack of knowledge that God decreed to keep from them....
How is this NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION?
How is this not the one that seeks to steal, kill, and destroy?
How is this not the one that masquerades as an angel of light that desires the glory that is due God to be given in due to slight of hand that God decreed him to have?
When Peter was revealed by God who Jesus was....did He say in response "Welcome to Calvinism my elect!"
My wife claims that my efforts in trying to wash her in the word and show the falseness of this system she fights for (although she doesn't claim determinism) ....she feels that my rod of correction and desire to stay a good shepherd and to not be in it for selfish matters....she tires of my (in her opinion) inability to see my falling into universalism....
I don't want to wash my hands of this issue and to just assume that some human theological persuasive argument to elevate fallen humans above others (individual election) for no other purpose than to show His glory to pick randomly....while we are told to not "show favor"
She is withholding intimacy with me....cuz I'm promoting the God that allows choice to return his love that He gives us....vs the kind that is forced....I liken the term religious rape. A forced hostile take over of a person against their will....
My attempts to rescue are seemingly all in vain....
I cannot reconcile Augustinian Calvinism Predetermined Puppeteering Controlling Tyrant model of God to be synonymous with the God that isn't afraid of His love being rejected and needs to have bodyguards to make sure His desires aren't hurt by those He created to be hellbound by His decree????
Calvinism falls apart...but there are those that SO fight for this system like it is grieving the Holy Spirit and falling from grace....so they percevere in the faith that was given them by the one that didn't truly love the world....but them....while others are to be discarded...
Ugh!
I only get told I don't understand Calvinism.
How do "effectively" win her and not the argument without also grieving the Holy Spirit and negating my responsibility as a believer and husband and wife?
She feels I am unteachable yet....I claim that the Holy Spirit guides us in all truth...and that Jesus longs to teach us many things...but we aren't willing.
Spiritual war is real....satan attacks family first and then the churches.
These folks that are deceived want to be embraced as brothers and sisters while still calling those that aren't in the elect camp heretics or depraved....
God's Only Son Permits Eternal Life!
😇💪🙏
Do you affirm that God revealed to us that the 144k were eternally saved prior to being born into this world?
Revelation 14:4-5 NKJV
[4] These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb. [5] And in their mouth was found no deceit, for they are without fault before the throne of God.
Would God causally determine a rape to glorify Himself? Reformed people (like James White) say yes. But how does that glorify God? If "decreetalism" is true, then: 1) The rape wouldn't have happened if God hadn't determined it to happen, so it isn't as if God is punishing an evil act. He is causing evil to happen and then punishing the person He caused to act in accordance with His own plan. (ie, setting the fire and then putting it out to claim He's a great firefighter) 2) How can a good and righteous judge supernaturally decree a man to go out and murder, and then throw him in prison for it? Would anyone say, "Wow, what a great judge! He sure punished that murderer he sent out to commit that murder!" Even if the man "wanted" to commit the murder, the judge also made him want to do it by decree. The man didn't "want" to do anything, the judge just flipped the "I want to kill" switch in his head. 3) The idea that God needs the most vile and wicked and sickening and disturbing acts to take place to be glorified is, of itself, wicked and vile. God doesn't need any evil action to happen to be glorified, unless you believe there is some sort of limitation on God? Could a righteous God not fully glorify Himself apart from rape, torture, murder, paedophilia, etc etc? Are you saying that if no paedophiles existed, God would be in danger of not being glorified? Are you claiming that if mothers didn't drown their own children in bathtubs, or men didn't kidnap and rape young women in torture basements God wouldn't be fully glorified? Is God somehow "trapped" by some arbitrary glory requirement and thus begrudgingly plots out horrific atrocity after horrific atrocity in order to get people to go "Wow! You punished all those wicked people you decreed to want to carry out those wicked things, God. How glorious!" Are you actually reading the bible? You really really really think that a perfect and righteous being who is literally love (God is love), has a mind that works this way? A mind that thought up every single sexual sin and every variation of it and then said, "That's the plan, I'll make them do that!" That sounds like a very human and sinful mind. Although, a rational human would never enact this plan. If the only options were create a world and decree (force) everyone in it rape, murder, torture, and molest to show off how good someone was, or just not make the world, they would just not make the world. If the option was to create an eternal family in a world of free humans who might someday choose to rape, murder, torture, and molest, but even so, that there would be redemption offered for those who repented as well as patience, but absolutely just punishment for those who rejected that repentance and grace, I think you've got something far more glorious. Wow, I chose to spit on Christ, to hit him with my fists, and nail Him to a cross, He didn't force me to do those things... and He still loved me, and forgave me. What a glorious God we serve.
DW: Calvinism - via Augustine - contains two components which are totally unique to Calvinism
1) DUALISM in which many things appear in the form of "Good-Evil" pairs.
In this DUALISM - "Good" and "Evil" are Co-Equal, Co-Complimentary, and Co-Necessary.
DUALISM is a component of Gnosticism.
2) DETERMINISM - which Augustine embraced from NeoPlatonism (doctrines of Plotinus) whom Augustine adored.
The component of 'Good-Evil" DUALISM is what you are seeing - with James White saying the rape of a little girl glorifies Calvin's god.
Calvin's god creates the vast majority of the total human population - specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire - for his "Good" pleasure.
So Calvinism is a doctrine of "Good-Evil"
God decreed the crucifixion of the Son of God, the worst sin ever.
From your perspective, why does God allow the atrocities you mention above? Why not intervene and stop them?
Cheers
@@ProRege-1 is God wise enough to accomplish His goals without rape and murder? Could He have accomplished everything He wanted without abortion and pedophiles? What do you think? Or was He limited in some way and forced to plot murders and rapes?
At some point you'll need to answer my question without another question.
But to answer yours: God is not subject to anyone's preconceived notion about what a good/wise God would do. He has revealed that Jesus is the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, which means he planned sin from before the foundation of the world. He is good and He is wise and we better recon with that.
Gnosticism teaches that a good god and a demi god coexisted always. That's not Calvinism.
The Bible teaches that Jesus is the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, which entails that sin was planned. If in Christ we're chosen and in Christ we have redemption, then he chose us as sinners. Your objection to God planning evil is with the Bible.
Your worldview entails that there was no inherent purpose to the gospel. It's just God making lemonade out of lemons.
You continue to make the percentage of those elect a requisite part of calvinism as you fail to see that calvinism transcends calvin and you fail to demonstrate awareness of varying eschatologies in reformed camps.
Poor John Piper needs saved. I'm sure the devil is well pleased with his teachings.
LF, you hold to OSAS, how is your stance on salvation really any different. Under OSAS there is no consequence for sin. Not that it's determined but that you're free to do evil without consequence. OSAS is just as guilty of irresponsibility as the Calvinist claiming God did it all along, except it's worse. It's saying I did it, and God does not hold me accountable. How many adulterer's are even in your own Church? as defined by Luke 16:18? how many have been told they are going to Judgement? Heb 13:4
Your point would be better made if you focused on OSAS. When you split off into Luke 16 you're inviting an argument that I doubt you're ready for.
That’s quite an assumption. OSAS points to the fact God set us free from the consequences of sin, sealed us with the Spirit, and nothing can separate us from him. I in no way, shape or form believe that that means I can freely sin, that would make me a hypocrite. OSAS is the assurance of salvation in my understanding. Sorry though if I didn’t word that as well as I should.
@@michaelnewswanger2409 no I'm ready for both.
@@BenjaminButler-zs1cm you're not free from the consequences of sin as Heb 10 clearly states if you continue in it, there remains no sacrifice for sin. Also, Should be sin so that grace may abound, No, because in reality you're a slave to the master you obey. So if you continue in that sin, for example adultery or marriage to a divorced woman, then you are delivered to the one you obey. James tells us, if we reprove a brother who turns away, and he repents, we've saved that brother from the evil one. OSAS is a lie. As is, the idea of an allowance to continue in adultery as most Baptists preach.
@@michaelnewswanger2409 Luke 16:18 is pretty clear cut, it was the Satanists of owners of Playboy who intruded the acceptance of no fault divorce into the church. That's a historical fact. So it's adherents just adopted it into the Church.
Second Peter 3:16-18. The unlearned and unstable twist/wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.
John 12:32. God calls all men to believe the gospel, (First Corinthians 15:1-4) to be saved. Calvinism on the one hand calls God a Liar. John 6:47. Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that BELEVETH on me HATH EVERLASTING LIFE. John 3:18. Frist Timothy 2:4. Second Peter 3:9. John 6:40, and John 6:29.
They twist Ephesians 2:8-9. For by GRACE ye are saved, through FAITH, and that not of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God, NOT OF WORKS, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST. Romans 3:26-28.
They say the GIFT is faith. It says eternal life is the GIFT. The GIFT is not faith. The GIFT is eternal life.
Second Corinthians 5:21. For He hath made Him, Jesus, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that we might be made the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God IN HIM. Second Corinthians 9:15. Thanks be to God for His UNSPEAKABLE GIFT, ETERNAL LIFE.
The bible says we are without excuse. Calvinism says man does have an excuse because God did not give them the FAITH. The bible says, faith comes from hearing, hearing by the word of God.
Romans 6;23. For the penalty for sin is death, physical death, but the GIFT of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. The GIFT of God is eternal life, not faith and not a reward for good behavior, but a free gift.
First John 5:13. These things have I written unto you that BELIEVE on the name of the Son of God, THAT YE MAY KNOW YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. Gods word. God cannot lie. John 3:18. Believers are no longer condemned, but UNBELIEVERS are condemned already because they have not believed on the name of the Son of God.
Our guarantee of eternal life. Ephesians 1:13-14. In whom ye also trusted, (of your own free will) after ye heard the word of TRUTH, the gospel of your salvation, (First Corinthians 15:1-4) in whom also AFTER, (not before) ye were sealed by that Holy Spirit of promise. Ephesians 4;30. And grieve not the Holy Spirit in whom ye are SEALED UNTO THE DAY OF REDEMPTION. The rapture of the church.
Romans 8:9. Without the Spirt there is no salvation. With the Spirit we have eternal life. John 6:47. Acts 16:31. Period. Romans 11:6. Romans 4:5. Faith alone apart from any works. Galatians 2:21.
Once we become a child of God through the new birth, we are a child of God forever. John 1:12. Romans 5:19-21. Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds. Colossians 2:13. He has forgiven us ALL trespasses.
It’s my will free from God?
If my will is free from God then how then God can control of my destiny? Can anyone answer me?
I wish God take care of my destiny..because He soo good. Isn’t He?
Can Christians who are NOT a member of Steve Lawson's church STOP talking about him and his sin.
Not anyone's business except the members of Lawsons church.
Discussing Lawson is just an excuse to gossip or to virtue signal.
Stay in our rightful lane.
Sadly, his poor choices obliterated the philosophy of Calvinism
The man had on online presence, effecting many more people than that.
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi
No, an online presence is NOT a personal pastor-church member relationship.....no different than any person presenting a subject online to an anonymous audience.