Every aspiring Christian should listen carefully to this message. It is the most Biblical and reasonable theology of the Christian faith expounded in the world. It explains so much teaching that has led to error and corruption among serious followers of Christ.
Tremendous teaching! Praise the Lord for his life and all that he was able to accomplish by the grace of God! “And there were giants in the land”; giants for God. Truly one of the greatest teachers of church history has gone to his reward and shall be sorely missed. Prayers and petitions for comfort need to be offered for his family at this time.
Dont know if you guys cares but if you guys are bored like me during the covid times you can stream all the latest movies and series on instaflixxer. Been watching with my girlfriend for the last days =)
Agree strongly with the Lord JESUS CHRIST'S SERVANT, DAVID PAWSON, that Biblically "grace is unmerited favor" and it refers supremely to the Divine Person of the Only Begotten SON of God the Father, the Almighty Lord God JESUS CHRIST. The LIVING WORD OF GOD, the LOGOS, is FULL OF GRACE and TRUTH, John 1:1-3,10,14-16,18, and it is JESUS CHRIST who Biblically administers grace to us according to the measure of HIS GIFT, Ephesians 4:7.
You sound like a follower of the cult leader, Gino Jennings who teaches that Jesus Christ is the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all at the same time.
David, you might want to investigate Reform theology a bit more before you preach against it again. I'm sorry to say, but you have seriously misrepresented it here. For example, no Reformer believes that some "irresistible force" called "Grace" chooses anything; we teach that God, by his grace, chooses (or elects--same word in Grk: ἐκλέγομαι [eklegomai]) who he wants to be saved--and that isn't every human that ever lived. That notwithstanding, I still love your teaching. I think you're one of the wisest "underliners" out there. Oh, I also liked how you've updated your "drowning man" analogy from years ago--at least this time you've correctly stated that the Calvinist believes that the man in the water is dead spiritually (Eph 2:1; 1 Cor 2:14)!
+Mark Phillips If you're referring to the Servetus affair, I suggest you do some independent research to see if the historical record squares with the clairvoyant interpretations of Jacob Prasch. In any case, what do Calvin's (supposed) moral shortcomings have to do with a theology that even David in this video (and Prasch in his, too) says has more to do with Beza? And, to answer your question, no, I think it is important to have accurate knowledge of a theology and its adherents before criticising it and them. In Pawson's case (and Prasch's and yours), he is obligated by Christ to deal honestly with the biblical apologetic of Reformed theology/theologians before teaching others that it is unbiblical. Furthermore, I gave an example of where David Pawson misrepresented Reformed theology. This should have given you pause as to his accuracy with regards to "Calvinism" (as should the facts of the Servetus affair if you care to know the truth and do your homework), but you ignored it, why?
+Mark Phillips You've got to be kidding. Is that what you thought I meant by "research"? Mark, I'm talking about actually looking at bona fide Church history books written by acknowledged, academically accredited historians. Just how objective do you think an author is when he uses the word "demonic" seriously in a sentence? How intellectually honest do you think Verduin is being grinding all those axes? You might as well have cited Dave Hunt's "What Love is This." Do yourself a favour and try to find actual history text books written by historians who are theologically balanced. How fair a picture do you think you're getting, brother, if all you read are people who hate Reformers and Reformed theology?
+tolar9 I adore Mr Pawson, though the issue of God's sovereignty and election is one (minor) point where I respectfully disagree with him. I firmly believe God saves those He _chooses_ to save. Now let me say straight away, I am not a Calvinist. Reform theology is a Satanic collection of heretical doctrines which deny the call to repent, deny the will of man, deny salvation by works, and redefine faith to mean "holding opinions about Jesus". The Calvinistic redefinition of faith has prevented so many men from ever coming to true faith and entering the Kingdom, and I utterly denounce Reform teaching. *THE ERROR OF ARMINIANISM* However, Calvinists are right about one thing: The doctrine of God's election. The Bible makes it very clear that it is God who ultimately determines who will be saved by faith and who will not be saved. I think Romans 9:13-22 makes this undeniably clear. Mr Pawson points to the Scripture which says "God wills _all_ men to be saved". That is true, but that Scripture doesn't mean _every single man_. If we read the _whole passage_ (1 Timothy 2:1-7) it becomes really clear that Paul is speaking here about the God and Savior of Israel _also_ being God and Savior for _all nations_, and Christ dying for _all peoples_, which is why Paul says he was appointed to preach to the Gentile nations. That whole passage is telling us that the Gospel is going out to save _all men from all nations_, but that does not mean every single individual person. The expression "all men" is consistently used throughout the New Testament to mean all _tribes and tongues_. With respect, Mr Pawson really should know that. *MR PAWSON'S 3 OPTIONS* Mr Pawson presents his audience with three basic options: Calvinism, Armenianism and the "middle ground" of Semi-Pelagianism which he subscribes to. The suggestion given is that these three are the _only_ three possible views. However, with tremendous respect, I would say that Mr Pawson has omitted a forth option, which I would say is the _true Biblical view_. I have often heard Mr Pawson illustrate the three different views using an analogy of a man drowning in water, and another man on the shore who saves him. The Calvinist believes that God dives in and saves the man. The Arminianist believes that the man has to swim to the shore himself. And Mr Pawson believes that God and the man cooperate by throwing a rope and pulling together. But all three of these scenarios are totally wrong because the _analogy itself_ is wrong. All three bring the Father down to the same level of men, putting the Father on the shore, making the will of God _equal_ to the will of the drowning man. And that is simply not the case! God the Father is _higher_ than man, and God's will is _higher_ than man's will. *THE TRUE PICTURE OF SALVATION* So now I would like to (respectfully) modify Mr Pawson's "drowning analogy" to describe the true picture of salvation: There is still a man drowning in the sea. But the man on the shore is Jesus Christ-another human being, equal in will to the drowning man. This picture does not bring God down and put him at the same level as man. God the Father is up in Heaven, completely sovereign over the entire situation. Now, whether the man drowns or not, that is entirely dependent on the will of God. If the Father in Heaven has determined that the man will be saved from drowning, then… - The Father will grant for Jesus to throw out the rope to him - The Father will grant for the man to notice the rope - The Father will grant for the man to understand he can be saved by it - The Father will grant the man to be given instructions leading to safety - The Father will grant the man the strength and determination to pull himself all the way to the shore - The Father will grant that the waves will keep back from overcoming him - The Father will grant that no sharks attack him on the way - The Father will grant that the man is given everything he needs to make it safely all the way to shore. Simply because that is the will of the Father, whose will transcends things on earth, and the minds of men. We see from this correct illustration that the man _can never_ be saved unless he acts in faith and continues in faith all the way till the shore. _Man is saved through works_. Man has a responsibility to ensure his own salvation. He must flee from sin, obey Christ, run the race, and keep the faith till the end. Salvation is not "automatic" as Calvinists say. The man in the water must save himself from drowning, though if the Lord had not first chosen to save Him, the man would never have even realized he was drowning in the first place and learned how to be saved! Without the Holy Spirit convicting a man of his sin, there is no way he will ever be saved, and so a man's salvation is entirely dependent upon the Father's will and grace. It is God's election which determines who the true Sheep are: who is saved and who is not. John 10:27-28 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." *WHY DOES GOD CHOOSE SOME AND NOT OTHERS?* Now Mr Pawson says that those who believe in Election cannot provide an answer to the question: "Why does God choose some and not others?" But I can provide an answer... God chooses some and not others for the same reason He chose Abraham and not other men; for the same reason He chose the Jews and not other nations. For the same reason a husband chooses one woman and not others. It's why a husband enters a covenant with that one woman, giving his life for her, and no other: It is called _love_. Certainly, love is deeply mysterious, but that does not mean it is not true. I believe that God chose me because He loves me, not based on any merit of my own, but based on love. Just as I chose my wife, not based on her merits, but based on _love_. I have not chosen to love other women, and God has not chosen to love other sinners: only the Elect have received that tremendous privilege of receiving a pardon for their evil ways, and being allowed to live. *IS SALVATION A "LOTTERY"?* Mr Pawson criticises the doctrine of election saying that it makes salvation "a lottery". Well I would agree with that: in one sense, it is indeed a lottery. If you happened to live on the earth 3,000 years ago then salvation was absolutely a lottery! If you happened to be a Jew, you had a good chance of salvation. But if you weren't a Jew, you were utterly doomed to die. So "lottery" is a fair description, yes. Calling salvation a "lottery" is true if you are looking at the human race from an outside point of view, since most will not be fortunate enough to be saved. However, from our human point of view, salvation is not a "lottery", it is entirely our own choice. Winning that "lottery" is very simple for us. If we wish to be saved, we can be. Anyone who wants to be saved from sin can be saved. The Lord does not turn anyone away. Anyone can be saved if they trust Jesus. So from an outsider's point of view, salvation is a lottery. But from a personal point of view, it is not a "lottery". It depends on which perspective you look at it from. *THE BIGGEST LIE OF CALVINISM* Now finally while I'm here, I want to tell you about the biggest lie of Calvinism... The biggest lie of Calvinism is _that it can be summed up in the 5 points of TULIP_. But that is most certainly not the case! All five points of TULIP are true. The problem is that Calvinism is _not_ just TULIP, Calvinism is a whole system of heretical theology lurking behind TULIP. Calvinism teaches half a dozen dangerous heresies that have nothing to do with TULIP. Here are some of the heresies... - Calvinists say that men don't have free will. Yes we do! - Calvinists say that salvation is _passive_. No, it's _active. - Calvinists say that being born again is something which happens _before_ a person comes to faith. No it doesn't, it comes as the _result_ of faith. - Calvinists say you can't lose your salvation. Yes, you can! - Calvinists say "either God saves men or they save themselves, it can't be both". But it is both! - Calvinists say "You're saved simply by holding the right opinions about Jesus". But Jesus says REPENT, and FOLLOW ME, and STRIVE TO ENTER! So beware of Calvinism, it is rotten! It originated from men like Luther and Calvin who believed in Replacement Theology and openly denied the inerrancy of Scripture - rejecting whole books of God's Word. Their teaching has led to the widespread evil heresy of "Once Saved Always Saved" which destroys so many souls by making Christians feel they don't need to be faithful in order to be saved. I am glad Mr Pawson rejects Calvinism, though it is a shame he has adopted Armenianist views. Having said this, the matter of election is one of the very few points on which Mr Pawson and I disagree. I love Mr Pawson and wholeheartedly endorse him as a teacher and recommend him to anyone. I think he's wrong about the issue of God's sovereignty, but this issue does not pertain to salvation. You don't need to understand God's will to be saved; you just need to repent, trust and obey Jesus Christ.
+Lee Bee: You have too high a regard for your own opinion. You are in serious need of a broader theological education. Ascribing Calvinism to Satan is simply ignorant and ill-informed. And anyone who writes more than two-hundred words in a TH-cam comment really needs to adjust his perspective. I suggest a course or two at a non-denominational Bible college....
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you and Jesus Christ my Lord for the opportunity to hear this man's teachings.
When I see David Pawson I immediately hit thumbs up before he even opens his mouth♡
David Pawson is a truly wonderful human being. Much love
As a Catholic, not Vatican 2 religion, David has deepened my faith
Every aspiring Christian should listen carefully to this message. It is the most Biblical and reasonable theology of the Christian faith expounded in the world. It explains so much teaching that has led to error and corruption among serious followers of Christ.
Tremendous teaching! Praise the Lord for his life and all that he was able to accomplish by the grace of God! “And there were giants in the land”; giants for God. Truly one of the greatest teachers of church history has gone to his reward and shall be sorely missed. Prayers and petitions for comfort need to be offered for his family at this time.
Everything is made more clear and any confusion that was before is fading away.
The Lord is great he is the God of all grace
utterly brilliant
Dont know if you guys cares but if you guys are bored like me during the covid times you can stream all the latest movies and series on instaflixxer. Been watching with my girlfriend for the last days =)
@Richard Duke Yup, been using InstaFlixxer for months myself :D
Agree strongly with the Lord JESUS CHRIST'S SERVANT, DAVID PAWSON, that Biblically "grace is unmerited favor" and it refers supremely to the Divine Person of the Only Begotten SON of God the Father, the Almighty Lord God JESUS CHRIST. The LIVING WORD OF GOD, the LOGOS, is FULL OF GRACE and TRUTH, John 1:1-3,10,14-16,18, and it is JESUS CHRIST who Biblically administers grace to us according to the measure of HIS GIFT, Ephesians 4:7.
You sound like a follower of the cult leader, Gino Jennings who teaches that Jesus Christ is the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit all at the same time.
Preach it brother.
wow
David, you might want to investigate Reform theology a bit more before you preach against it again. I'm sorry to say, but you have seriously misrepresented it here. For example, no Reformer believes that some "irresistible force" called "Grace" chooses anything; we teach that God, by his grace, chooses (or elects--same word in Grk: ἐκλέγομαι [eklegomai]) who he wants to be saved--and that isn't every human that ever lived.
That notwithstanding, I still love your teaching. I think you're one of the wisest "underliners" out there.
Oh, I also liked how you've updated your "drowning man" analogy from years ago--at least this time you've correctly stated that the Calvinist believes that the man in the water is dead spiritually (Eph 2:1; 1 Cor 2:14)!
+Mark Phillips If you're referring to the Servetus affair, I suggest you do some independent research to see if the historical record squares with the clairvoyant interpretations of Jacob Prasch. In any case, what do Calvin's (supposed) moral shortcomings have to do with a theology that even David in this video (and Prasch in his, too) says has more to do with Beza?
And, to answer your question, no, I think it is important to have accurate knowledge of a theology and its adherents before criticising it and them. In Pawson's case (and Prasch's and yours), he is obligated by Christ to deal honestly with the biblical apologetic of Reformed theology/theologians before teaching others that it is unbiblical.
Furthermore, I gave an example of where David Pawson misrepresented Reformed theology. This should have given you pause as to his accuracy with regards to "Calvinism" (as should the facts of the Servetus affair if you care to know the truth and do your homework), but you ignored it, why?
+Mark Phillips You've got to be kidding. Is that what you thought I meant by "research"? Mark, I'm talking about actually looking at bona fide Church history books written by acknowledged, academically accredited historians. Just how objective do you think an author is when he uses the word "demonic" seriously in a sentence? How intellectually honest do you think Verduin is being grinding all those axes? You might as well have cited Dave Hunt's "What Love is This." Do yourself a favour and try to find actual history text books written by historians who are theologically balanced. How fair a picture do you think you're getting, brother, if all you read are people who hate Reformers and Reformed theology?
+Mark Phillips Τεκνίον, φυλάξας σεαυτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων.
+tolar9 I adore Mr Pawson, though the issue of God's sovereignty and election is one (minor) point where I respectfully disagree with him. I firmly believe God saves those He _chooses_ to save.
Now let me say straight away, I am not a Calvinist. Reform theology is a Satanic collection of heretical doctrines which deny the call to repent, deny the will of man, deny salvation by works, and redefine faith to mean "holding opinions about Jesus". The Calvinistic redefinition of faith has prevented so many men from ever coming to true faith and entering the Kingdom, and I utterly denounce Reform teaching.
*THE ERROR OF ARMINIANISM*
However, Calvinists are right about one thing: The doctrine of God's election. The Bible makes it very clear that it is God who ultimately determines who will be saved by faith and who will not be saved. I think Romans 9:13-22 makes this undeniably clear.
Mr Pawson points to the Scripture which says "God wills _all_ men to be saved". That is true, but that Scripture doesn't mean _every single man_. If we read the _whole passage_ (1 Timothy 2:1-7) it becomes really clear that Paul is speaking here about the God and Savior of Israel _also_ being God and Savior for _all nations_, and Christ dying for _all peoples_, which is why Paul says he was appointed to preach to the Gentile nations.
That whole passage is telling us that the Gospel is going out to save _all men from all nations_, but that does not mean every single individual person. The expression "all men" is consistently used throughout the New Testament to mean all _tribes and tongues_. With respect, Mr Pawson really should know that.
*MR PAWSON'S 3 OPTIONS*
Mr Pawson presents his audience with three basic options: Calvinism, Armenianism and the "middle ground" of Semi-Pelagianism which he subscribes to. The suggestion given is that these three are the _only_ three possible views. However, with tremendous respect, I would say that Mr Pawson has omitted a forth option, which I would say is the _true Biblical view_.
I have often heard Mr Pawson illustrate the three different views using an analogy of a man drowning in water, and another man on the shore who saves him. The Calvinist believes that God dives in and saves the man. The Arminianist believes that the man has to swim to the shore himself. And Mr Pawson believes that God and the man cooperate by throwing a rope and pulling together.
But all three of these scenarios are totally wrong because the _analogy itself_ is wrong. All three bring the Father down to the same level of men, putting the Father on the shore, making the will of God _equal_ to the will of the drowning man. And that is simply not the case! God the Father is _higher_ than man, and God's will is _higher_ than man's will.
*THE TRUE PICTURE OF SALVATION*
So now I would like to (respectfully) modify Mr Pawson's "drowning analogy" to describe the true picture of salvation:
There is still a man drowning in the sea. But the man on the shore is Jesus Christ-another human being, equal in will to the drowning man. This picture does not bring God down and put him at the same level as man. God the Father is up in Heaven, completely sovereign over the entire situation. Now, whether the man drowns or not, that is entirely dependent on the will of God.
If the Father in Heaven has determined that the man will be saved from drowning, then…
- The Father will grant for Jesus to throw out the rope to him
- The Father will grant for the man to notice the rope
- The Father will grant for the man to understand he can be saved by it
- The Father will grant the man to be given instructions leading to safety
- The Father will grant the man the strength and determination to pull himself all the way to the shore
- The Father will grant that the waves will keep back from overcoming him
- The Father will grant that no sharks attack him on the way
- The Father will grant that the man is given everything he needs to make it safely all the way to shore.
Simply because that is the will of the Father, whose will transcends things on earth, and the minds of men.
We see from this correct illustration that the man _can never_ be saved unless he acts in faith and continues in faith all the way till the shore. _Man is saved through works_. Man has a responsibility to ensure his own salvation. He must flee from sin, obey Christ, run the race, and keep the faith till the end. Salvation is not "automatic" as Calvinists say.
The man in the water must save himself from drowning, though if the Lord had not first chosen to save Him, the man would never have even realized he was drowning in the first place and learned how to be saved!
Without the Holy Spirit convicting a man of his sin, there is no way he will ever be saved, and so a man's salvation is entirely dependent upon the Father's will and grace. It is God's election which determines who the true Sheep are: who is saved and who is not.
John 10:27-28
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
*WHY DOES GOD CHOOSE SOME AND NOT OTHERS?*
Now Mr Pawson says that those who believe in Election cannot provide an answer to the question: "Why does God choose some and not others?" But I can provide an answer...
God chooses some and not others for the same reason He chose Abraham and not other men; for the same reason He chose the Jews and not other nations. For the same reason a husband chooses one woman and not others. It's why a husband enters a covenant with that one woman, giving his life for her, and no other:
It is called _love_.
Certainly, love is deeply mysterious, but that does not mean it is not true. I believe that God chose me because He loves me, not based on any merit of my own, but based on love. Just as I chose my wife, not based on her merits, but based on _love_. I have not chosen to love other women, and God has not chosen to love other sinners: only the Elect have received that tremendous privilege of receiving a pardon for their evil ways, and being allowed to live.
*IS SALVATION A "LOTTERY"?*
Mr Pawson criticises the doctrine of election saying that it makes salvation "a lottery". Well I would agree with that: in one sense, it is indeed a lottery. If you happened to live on the earth 3,000 years ago then salvation was absolutely a lottery! If you happened to be a Jew, you had a good chance of salvation. But if you weren't a Jew, you were utterly doomed to die. So "lottery" is a fair description, yes.
Calling salvation a "lottery" is true if you are looking at the human race from an outside point of view, since most will not be fortunate enough to be saved.
However, from our human point of view, salvation is not a "lottery", it is entirely our own choice. Winning that "lottery" is very simple for us. If we wish to be saved, we can be. Anyone who wants to be saved from sin can be saved. The Lord does not turn anyone away. Anyone can be saved if they trust Jesus.
So from an outsider's point of view, salvation is a lottery. But from a personal point of view, it is not a "lottery". It depends on which perspective you look at it from.
*THE BIGGEST LIE OF CALVINISM*
Now finally while I'm here, I want to tell you about the biggest lie of Calvinism...
The biggest lie of Calvinism is _that it can be summed up in the 5 points of TULIP_. But that is most certainly not the case!
All five points of TULIP are true. The problem is that Calvinism is _not_ just TULIP, Calvinism is a whole system of heretical theology lurking behind TULIP. Calvinism teaches half a dozen dangerous heresies that have nothing to do with TULIP. Here are some of the heresies...
- Calvinists say that men don't have free will. Yes we do!
- Calvinists say that salvation is _passive_. No, it's _active.
- Calvinists say that being born again is something which happens _before_ a person comes to faith. No it doesn't, it comes as the _result_ of faith.
- Calvinists say you can't lose your salvation. Yes, you can!
- Calvinists say "either God saves men or they save themselves, it can't be both". But it is both!
- Calvinists say "You're saved simply by holding the right opinions about Jesus". But Jesus says REPENT, and FOLLOW ME, and STRIVE TO ENTER!
So beware of Calvinism, it is rotten! It originated from men like Luther and Calvin who believed in Replacement Theology and openly denied the inerrancy of Scripture - rejecting whole books of God's Word. Their teaching has led to the widespread evil heresy of "Once Saved Always Saved" which destroys so many souls by making Christians feel they don't need to be faithful in order to be saved.
I am glad Mr Pawson rejects Calvinism, though it is a shame he has adopted Armenianist views.
Having said this, the matter of election is one of the very few points on which Mr Pawson and I disagree. I love Mr Pawson and wholeheartedly endorse him as a teacher and recommend him to anyone. I think he's wrong about the issue of God's sovereignty, but this issue does not pertain to salvation. You don't need to understand God's will to be saved; you just need to repent, trust and obey Jesus Christ.
+Lee Bee: You have too high a regard for your own opinion. You are in serious need of a broader theological education. Ascribing Calvinism to Satan is simply ignorant and ill-informed. And anyone who writes more than two-hundred words in a TH-cam comment really needs to adjust his perspective. I suggest a course or two at a non-denominational Bible college....