Yep! I found this quote from Dr. Sproul that addresses that point. Dr. Sproul was asked to respond to the polemic accusation that salvation under Calvinism is no more than 'spiritualrape'. He responded that he did not appreciate the term... but he could not dispute the sentiment. He wrote; "I personally do not like the term “(g)rape” for the Reformed position concerning regeneration (i.e being born again) prior to belief. Yet with that said, I think I understand why non-Reformed folk invoke the term, for despite protestations, when one breaks down Reformed soteriology, one is left with the fact that regeneration occurs against the will of the unregenerate sinner-the sinner has NO CHOICE in the matter; as such, there is some truth to the claim that it is “a forced love”." SO... gRAPE... BECOMES... 'FORCED LOVE'🤔😎 Dr. Sproul agrees with it but like to say it 'nicer'.😎 Which is typical of Calvinists when confronted with their own doctrine in 'plain' terms'. "Forced Love" is NOT love. And our Heavenly Father, who is the very personification of 'Love', (a noun), would know the difference. Calvinists have God slipping man a 'mickey' to make him think and act 'as if' he loves God because he cannot risk the rejection of a man who might freely refuse him. This would not be satisfactory for it is no more than deception, which is diametrically opposed to God's nature. It is actually God who desires a man to 'freely' choose to love him. And in sending Jesus, God has already made the first move. And, as C. S. Lewis said ...Love is worth the risk.
DW: Remember - the foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) This represents a world in which every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain - comes to pass infallibly. And it is impossible for anything within creation to RESIST that which is infallible Thus every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain - comes to pass irresistibly This means - not only do "Good" impulses come to pass irresistibly - but also sinful/evil impulses come to pass irresistibly . The issue of both "Good" events and "Evil" events as consequence of Calvin's god is a huge problem for the Calvinist. He knows people are not going to embrace a doctrine which stipulates all sinful/evil impulses come to pass irresistibly within their brains The Calvinist will always emphasis "Good" events as predestined - while OBFUSCATING "Evil" events as predestined. This is why Calvinist have the phrase "Irresistible grace" and why they don't have the phrase "Irresistible Evil" If they tell people the TRUTH - that all evil is produced by their god - no one would want to accept their doctrine. Blessings!
@@hondotheology Actually only really broken people can get saved. If a person is "whole" according to their own worldly achievements and righteousness, they will never search OUTSIDE of themselves for a SAVIOR from this present wicked world. Also, according to scripture, you have it backward. It says that "the world BY WISDOM knows not God", therefore they have eaten so much worldly wisdom that they became too "smart" for their own good.
There is a difference between having "proof texts," and the texts proving your point. Calvinists have proof texts. But those same proof texts have a wiser interpretation based on context. And it doesn't look like Calvinism. Above all else, remember this: Sovereignty is not Determinism.
@@David76-23 DW: This statement serves as an excellent example of the point GhostBear is making. Calvinists really very heavily - on the process of asserting claims Claims are presented boldly - so as produce an *APPEARANCE* of legitimacy. But once one starts to analyze and dissect the claim under scrutiny it starts to collapse. At that point - the Calvinist will appeal to divine mysteries and inscrutabilities . Libertarian Choice can be defined as a state of affairs in which 1) ALTERNATIVES exist within creation 2) Humans are granted CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES 3) That CHOICE is *UP TO* the human to make . The above (1-3) of course do not exist within Calvinism - because an infallible decree does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE - and thus ALTERNATIVES do not exist - any more than air exists within a perfect vacuum. . The Calvinist therefore in order to be TRUE to his doctrine - must insist (1-3) above do not exist. The problem for this for the Calvinist - is that he NEEDS (1-3) above to exist - in order to retain a sense of human normalcy . Many years ago - Calvinist Jon Edwards showed - in determinism CONTRARY choice (choice between contrary options) does not exist for humans. This - as Edwards shows - would constitute an act which is "Contrary" to one's nature - which has been infallibly predetermined. Thus it would be an act that is CONTRARY to that which has been infallibly decreed - which is impossible. Consequently - the Calvinist does not have the function of CONTRARY choice (choice between contrary options) for 3 reasons: 1) The existence of any ALTERNATIVE or CONTRARY option within creation would falsify the doctrine of decrees 2) Thus ALTERNATIVES do not exist for the Calvinist brain to choose between 3) And even if ALTERNATIVES did exist (which is impossible) the Calvinist would still not have a CHOICE - because no ALTERNATIVE impulse would be granted existence within his brain. . Thus - the Calvinist brain is not granted the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE on any matter. Which makes it the case - that the Calvinist brain is not granted the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter The Calvinist - of course - cannot live coherently with the consequence of that doctrine - so what does he do? He lives *AS-IF* Libertarian Choice exists - while he tells himself it doesn't. . Blessings!
@@David76-23 It's not an opinion to point out that you're using a non-historical definition of the word sovereignty, then claiming it doesn't mean much if paired with libertarian free will.
One of the problems with Calvinism is that Calvinists desire to make very strong “matter of fact” statements which affirms deterministic Calvinism, but which under careful scrutiny and pointed cross examination, those same strong, confident and positive affirmations ultimately end up getting watered down under tension, mystery and transcendence. Here’s an example: 3:57 - 4:04: “And the fact of the matter, if God has not predestined everything and all that will come to pass, then God ceases to be God, and so the doctrine of God Himself is at stake.” 1. The first point that needs to be made is that the Bible never once makes such a claim, and is instead a completely extra-biblical, philosophical, logical deduction. Sometimes verses like Ephesians 1:11 are provided in support, but upon review of the context, you’ll find that it’s not talking about God determining all sin and wickedness but rather about God’s predestined spiritual blessings for the Church and the summing up of all things in Christ. Calvinists are notorious for picking pieces of verses in order to cobble together an argument for their presuppositional doctrines. 2. Secondly, dozens of times the Bible repeatedly quotes God denying doing certain things, and Calvinists are left telling us that those texts cannot be taken on face value, and that a “secret will” needs to be inferred. So, Calvinists are not standing on the Bible at all. 3. Thirdly, upon cross examination, Calvinists end up watering down their own claims. For instance, “When Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him three times that evening, does Jesus know this because God fixed, decreed and determined Peter’s denials?” This is where Calvinists begin to hedge their bets, and then tell us that we need to “appreciate the mystery of it all.” Then we’re told that “God’s ways are higher than our ways,” which we can all recognize, but how is it “higher” to say that God causes every evil thought and inclination of the heart, throughout the human and angel realms, spanning all eternity? Then comes more vacillations. Suddenly, the once confident, proud and positive affirmations devolve into a plea for tension, mystery and transcendence.
Any Card-carrying Calvinist who waffles on whether or not God ordained Peter to deny Christ has never read the Westminster Confession of Faith. It unambiguously states that everything that comes to pass is ordained by God. Either you're not talking to a real Calvinist, or you're not listening to them.
Yeah I'm not a Calvinist but I agree with them on many more things then any free willer ever will. Sin is yours to do all you want. God does for a fact predestine salvation for his chosen. God could have had the bible written clearly enough to not even have Calvinist belief. The very fact that it's not says a lot. God does as in Roman's 9 hate some and Damm them while saving those he chose to before the world was made. It's what Christ taught. The whole idea of free will teaching didn't come along until long after Christ died. If you try to do your free will doctrine you have to ignore so many scriptures it's absurd. Sovereign Grace, is the only TRUE doctrine. Anything else is just a false religion.
The problem is, you never learned the biblical definition of predestination it means bound to the horizon. Pre-ordained to be conformed to the image of Christ
If God predestined those in Gen 6 to die in the flood, why was He sorry He made them? In whom was God so angry He brought the flood? Wouldn't God have to be mad at the one that decreed such a mess?
@@duncanwashburn uh God didn't make me.. so I dont think you could say he made them. God made Adam and Eve from there on we are procreation of them. So no God didnt make the mess u want to claim, and you think your argument was just so rock solid. Your arrogance astounds me.
@duncanwashburn so he knew God actually put him together in the womb? Lol is that what your trying to say? That a nice little story but no we are procreation from Adam and Eve. Perhaps God goes through and does some tinkering but again that's up to God but unless you have the verse I just have to say God isn't creating everyone. Do you claim God creates the mentally handicapped?
Lol cute but no he really didn't. Asking Jesus to save you is technically a work. You were good enough smart enough or holy enough to realize you needed saved. Yet Jesus couldn't do it until you told him to get over here and save me. So good luck with that when Paul says our works are as filthy rags. When there are verses like you were predestined before the foundation of the world was laid. That's not your choice. You can squeal all you want. Lie to yourself all you want but salvation is God's choice like in Roman's 9 its not up to man.
While listening to this I was thinking about Dr. David Allen and where he was and what was happening with him. I love him to death! And then you mentioned him!! Can't wait for your upcoming segment with him. It is always the greatest privilege to sit as his student.
If exhaustive divine determinism is true, then sin is not really a problem. If man cannot do anything other than that God has determined him to do then every sin that happens is God's will. When Calvinists use the word "sovereignty" they mean "exhaustive Divine determinism". The rest of Christianity however, believe a biblical understanding of sovereignty as "Kingship, Lord over all, and the final say in decisions, such as in the Divine Council, and one who expects and desires true obedience"(My own words)
I'm sick of hearing Calvinists strawman us as though we believe God is not sovereign in salvation. We completely believe He is sovereign. How does me submitting to Him make me sovereign? How does me trusting Him make me sovereign? Calvinism is senseless and illogical.
1:32:06 Definitely not a tendency of this computer programmer and math geek 🤓 If anything, seeing that mechanistic input -> algorithm-> output determinism in computing moves me all the more to reject determinism in the realm of human consciousness and spiritual matters. We are created in the image of God. We are not automatons. Praise God ❤
Good day, Apart from Leighton Flowers what historical figures hold to a similar position to Dr. Flowers? I’ve listened to a few videos of him but would like to research others church fathers.
There was a dude named Balthasar Hubmaier. I wish he would have had more time to write about his theology, but the reformers burned him as a heretic when he argued against infant baptism.
Adoption is about son placement. Privilege, rights, inheritance. The believer is born again into the family of God. Regenerated into the new creation. Adoption is about becoming of full age with the rights to an inheritance. The Romans had a public forum called the adoption in which sons were publicly recognised as heirs. This is biblical adoption which will be fully realised in new bodies.
@LeirbagFR by context do you mean quoting passages that are several chapters or several books away and talking about somthing else? Thats not context thats gymnastics. There's a reason when the Bible was set free during the reformation that almost everyone saw it supporting Calvinism. When the Bible is allowed to speak free from Roman catholic and humanistic assumptions about free will then it supports Calvinism.
@@iangoodman4633 wait so you’re saying you’re not allowed to use the Bible to provide context and support for other passages in the Bible? What a joke.
@@iangoodman4633 You don't know the scriptures. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Providing an explanation for one’s interpretation is not gymnastics. If you are a Calvinist, this may be unfamiliar to you since a Calvinist typically ends his exposition with: “…so you just need to decide if you believe the Word of God or not…”
Virtually all of Calvinist's arguments against the non-Calvinist understanding of all their prooftexts is rooted in their false assumption of the inherent inability of man to respond positively to God. When this presupposition is imposed upon the reading of scripture ... too many passages must be re-imagined, redefined, and explained away for it to have any merit. And Calvinists do this without any passages of scripture which ever establishes Augustinian Total Depravity/Inability to be the 'inherent' condition of all, or any, men when examined in proper context. It is very sad so many believers become convinced of Calvinist theology which eventually undermines any confidence they once had in God's love for them...personally.
Those three Calvinist guys at the start were talking as if we can change ourselves and just believe the Scriptures and stop being so tied to our old selves. But aren't they the determinists?? We can't do anything like that! God, according to them, has to do it all. They speak deterministic words, but then they act like free willers. It's the most massive contradiction in Calvinists that I can see.
I believe that 3rd category exists. I believe we have free will both before and after we are saved. I don't think we can lose our salvation, but I do think we can willingly give it up. We are always free to accept or reject God. I also agree with you that the way we approach all three categories is the same.
It would be good to look up other verses that talk about the book of life for more understanding. Eg exodus 32:32-33 "who ever has sinned against me i will blot him out of my book" Psalms 6:23 david is asking god to blot out names of his enemys. Rev 13:8 is talking about unfaithful people who are of this world whos names are not in the book due to having no faith. 1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. John 12:25 those who love their life in this world will lose it, those who care nothing for their life in this world will keep it for eternity. Also rev 17:8 im not too sure what LH would say, but its reasonable to say in Gods forknowledge that he knows who will be in the book and who wont (who has faith who wont) how ever having forknowledge of somthing doesnt equal predetermination. That verse doesnt say God chose them to be reprobate and they couldnt chose other wise. The beginning of verse 17 talks about how the people of the world joined in with with the "great prostitute" and drank from her and became immoral because of it. That was a choice they made. So while they are headed to eternal destruction, God determined faithless sinners would be destroyed. But that doesnt mean he chose each person individually to be apart of the non elect group. Or that they were completely unable to have placed their faith in God and be in the book of life. Forknowledge doesnt mean preordained/predetermined. But God made a plan for the wicked to be destroyed and the faithful to receive eternal salvation. Not sure if that will help, hopefully its does help you though lol.
“HE THAT OVERCOMETH, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and *I will not blot out his name out of the book of life* but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” {Revelation 3:5} Everyone who has ever been born name was in the book of life. It is only blotted out in judgment. “And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth [investigate] the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you *according to your works* {Revelation 2:23} If they are not written in the book of life it is because their names are blotted out, because they did not overcome the world placing their belief and trust in Jesus Christ. Foreknowledge does not equal causation.
You only addressed conditional security from the perspective of approaching the apostate. But conditional security makes much better sense of all the warning passages to believers. It is a critical doctrine of discipleship to encourage believers to keep the faith and encourage one another to keep the faith.
Free will is very simple: is Men Sovereignty to choose, to do and ultimate to allow God to do whatever He wants as long as my free will allow him or give him permission to do.
The key to resolving this false teaching of (Regeneration preceding faith is) Proving that the exposure to the love and character of God in Christ produce the faith we then place in Him! We can not place faith in Christ as savior until we have a reason to believe in Him. This is why we preach the gospel! We are then regenerated by the Spirit which God freely gives to those who CHOOSE to place gheir faith in Christ. It took me almost a year of Bible study and prayer before i finally Broke and placed my faith in Jesus. Amen brother the teaching of the Father through the word caused me to have faith! Not some magic wand that God zaps us with at random!! The problem with the Calvinist is they can not give an explanation of how God regenerates? They miss the greatest thing here, the character of God which includes His Love demands our faith. Which must be given by OUR choice.
I'm one of those people who is currently going to Trinity for my bachelor's and masters at the same time. I plan on graduating around Feb of 2025 and then heading over to Calvary to get my doctorate. It's legitimate
I might be an exception but I'm a computer programmer and very much analytically minded. I've never found Calvinism acceptable. I also never found Arminianism acceptable either. Provisionism is the first belief I've found that mostly mirrors my own.
What about “by nature children of wrath”. This is a bigger challenge than the “dead” reference in Eph. 2. Flowers didn’t respond to this part of the verse.
When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. God does not ask us to do the impossible. The man must do the turning. God will not do it for us.
You know I've really been searching guys and it's going to come to get into eschatology but how would you lighten and Braxton as more a provisionalist or let's say traditional Southern Baptist translate Matthew 24:24 now look I have my own thoughts on how that goes and I do see why a lot of Calvinists are turning to a post-millennial eschatology. But I was really wondering how you would translate that verse. Thank you guys really enjoy your podcast it's been a real blessing May God bless each of your time your lives and your ministries
“If God does not predestine all things that come to pass than God ceases to be God” It’s wild to see someone who likely appeals to presupp arguments with atheists, just smuggle in such a radical and unjustified assumption without demonstrating it by scripture or by reason. To say God has to deterministically bring to pass the rape of children or the torture of the innocent in order to be God is just a wild way to think about God.
Who originated the view of foreknowledge meaning “formerly known”? Who has formally developed this, done the word search background, etc, at a scholarly level?
"If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1: 6-9) Though we are not sinless, we walk in the light and are purified. Obedience and sincerity are part of "working out your salvation with fear and trembling"...but we are not living this out on our own. We have God's Spirit working in us (Philippians 2:12-13). "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. ... As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." (James 2:24,26) Continuing to choose to follow Jesus is NOT falling back on the law. But if we abandon Jesus, become faithless, and forsake His ways, how will we be saved? We have One path to salvation and we should never abandon the Way.
On the issue of free will in salvation: can both camps be right? The example I always think about when wondering that God might work in different modes for different people is the calling of the disciples and the great crowds following Jesus. One group Jesus called out specifically to partner with (disciples) and the others came because they heard the good news. Is there room to say, from examples like this, that God will employ both? That there are those who he calls out, elects, specifically AND those who choose out of their free will. I’m thinking that may be the case.
Can you find one place in the Bible that talks about the will of a man being free? Wouldn’t you think that something so critical to a religion would actually be discussed in the Bible?
@ Genesis 2:19 “So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.” Seems to be man was free to decide the names.
@@themeltingdesert that seems to be? That’s just your opinion Free will is vital doctrine to people that believe in it . Without it, they don’t have a religion. Wouldn’t you think that something so important to your religion would be actually be talked about specifically in the Bible?
@@aletheia8054 even the sciences aren’t settled on whether humans psychologically are rooted in free will or if it is determinism….to pick out any faith traditions as unique to the discussion of free will isn’t necessary. Further, to point to the issue not being settled as a justification to throw it all out would mean throwing out some of the sciences too because they too are conflicted on free will vs determinism. My point in my initial post is that, in the Bible, what’s present is both sides of the discussion.
I think we need to be careful with this, but you seem to be on the right track. I don't see any particular evidence in Scripture that says "some are determined, some aren't," so we'd be reading that into the story a bit. That being said, we can look at the punishment of King Nebuchadnezzar and see that God can remove human will from a person, if He chooses to do so. So, while not normative, God does sometimes remove/override human will. I think free will is the normative experience and reality for humanity. It may be the universal experience, but I'm willing to accept that God could determine/raise up some people in a determinative way for specific reason or purpose. I'll leave the door open for this possibility, but I don't think it's something that can be determined rationally. And if we speak purely on Scriptural grounds, I think there'd scant evidence for it.
Once again upon hearing all of these proof texts used in Calvinism, it reminds me of Jehovah's Witnesses. What strikes me over and over again, in spite of the mantra of Calvinism regarding their superior hermeneutics, that they fail to actually do good hermeneutics. There's no regard for "who" is being addressed and no regard for the broader context. Even with the "sheep" in John 10, they stop at verse 15 without considering verse 16, "“And I have OTHER SHEEP, WHICH ARE NOT OF THIS FOLD; I must bring them also, and THEY SHALL HEAR MY VOICE; and they shall become ONE FLOCK with one shepherd." There are other sheep other than the ones that Jesus was specifically referencing in the previous verses. First sheep are Jews. Other sheep are Gentiles. In Calvinism the Jews, it seems, are never addressed as the ones being spoken to and that somehow whatever is for application to the Jews specifically becomes application to them and any negative verses regarding the Jews are viewed as universal for all mankind.
I feel like being sympathetic or open to conditional security DOES change your application. It makes me want to build my faith and guard both my faith and my heart from sin all the more because I don't want to betray my savior. Whether I really can or not we don't know, but I would rather safeguard my faith than rest on eternal security even if I have it 👍
I think its a little nieve to kind of brush off the argument of eternal security vs temporary life. The argument against calvinistic soteriology doesn't just include the front end of salvation, the back end is just as important, "conditional salvation" sounds alot like lordship salvation. "ETERNAL LIFE" there's no text that adds a "but" or "only if".
I'm sure the verse..."happy wife/happy life" is the kissing cousin to...."you just don't understand Calvinism".... Cuz they are romantically involved with the King of all kings and it is just a mystery....
The Calvinist problem is this: most of them have only read commentaries on Calvin or break it down strictly into terms in TULIP which itself is a summation from someone else’s description of what Calvin says. Few of them actually pick up Institutes and dive into his whole system let alone acknowledge that he did five editions of institutes updating and changing as he grew and learned himself. The Calvinism of first edition of Institutes is different from the Calvinism of the fifth edition. They don’t deal with that at all, my experience is they stick to the TULIP summation of Calvin which doesn’t even exist within his work. So, a lot of the “Calvinists” we argue and debate with are actually pretty lazy Calvinists in my opinion. As bad as communists who never read Das Capital or Manifesto of the Communist Party.
I would say no. Those of them who know Church history are fully aware of how the early fathers spoke. So was Calvin. The issue is that Calvin accused them of defining free will by pagan philosophers (Like Cicero) and not by Scripture (specifically Paul). That's what bugs be about Non-Calvinists who used the "pagan philosophy" accusation. You can accuse Calvinism of using pagan philosophy, but that accusation cuts both ways.
The Romans 8:1-8 the interpretation regarding the flesh is hostile to God and cannot submit to God, this is more about the mindset of the flesh than the human nature without the Spirit…It’s not even about the sinful nature, but more the mindset of the flesh or to be sinfully minded…Wordly…If we choose to walk in the mindset of the flesh we cannot please God, as that mindset is hostile towards God. If any of us give ourselves over to the sinful mindset of the flesh then we won’t be able to submit to God as we cannot love two masters least we will hate the one, and whatever you give your mind over to, you will be a slave to that one…. Also remember Romans 12 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Ecc 3:14 KJV I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
Saying that the eternal debate security doesn’t matter because we don’t know their heart and we will approach them the same way, is like saying the Unconditional election debate doesn’t matter because we don’t know who the elect are and we approach them the same way.
Well said pastor i have the same problem at my church 3 pastors believe in Calvinism i told them same as you have told many there look at me that l dont understand the bible and think bad of me i believe in JESUS not a John Calvin thoery is misleading many away from Christ and salvation JESUS COME TO SAVE SOULS not predestined souls before you are born to hell or heaven mislead one soul from JESUS remember GOD WONT BE MOCKED
Trie John Scott and Douglas moo and Thomas Schreiner But I bet they’re not exactly like what Flowers says You can find a theologian to say all kinds of crazy stuff
With reference to Rom 8:29 & 33, the phrases "whom he foreknew" and "God's elect" refers to the nation of Israel, the Jews. The context leading up to this is Jewish, and these phrases both reflect OT reference to Israel. And as I think many here would agree with, Paul's argument here is about the Jews and justification. The reference to the "elect" will be further refined in chapter 11 where it, with a slightly different word, refers to believing Jews.
No I don't think many would agree with that interpretation. Can you point to anyone in church history who held that Romans 8 is only speaking about Jews? There's so many ways that interpretation shreds Romans 8 to bits but I'll just say in Romans 9 which is an expansion on what was said in 8:29-33, Paul says "even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles"
Thanks for the handy list of scriptures that support Calvinist theology. I’ve been working to compile such list and you graciously simplified the task. I think the host nailed it when he responded to Flowers’ explanation of Romans 3:9-12. Presuppositions and shifting perspectives certainly influence the way one interprets scriptures. Those presuppositions and perspectives were certainly on full display in the video. The analogy of the President’s phone call made me laugh. One could hardly ask for a better illustration of divine election! Every time I watch Flowers, I am more convinced of Calvinism. Weird.
Sorry, brother. This just comes off as a weird chest-thumpy way of saying “Nuh, uh,” or “I know you are but what am I.” I think we can do better, can’t we?
@@BraxtonHunter Let me be a little less chest-thumpy. There is an elephant in the room - the lengthy list of "proof texts" covered in the video. This wasn't a handful of fringe verses. Nor do they present great difficulties of interpretation. The clear meaning is right there for anyone to see, unless of course one has a presupposition that requires a shift in perspective. For example, anti-Calvinists like to explain Romans 3:9-20 by referring to the OT context. Normally I would give a hearty amen to that! However, there are two serious considerations that you and Flowers fail to address: (1) Paul is not quoting just one lengthy passage from a book of the OT. Instead, the apostle is creating a unit of thought from numerous texts. You and your guest extracted a verse or two and asserted that he could not be saying what is abundantly clear to the reader. It is not surprising then that you would also (2) disregard how Paul is using the passages to make the case that both Gentiles and Jews are equally fallen and in need of a Savior. Anti-Calvinists often seem unaware that Romans has a definite train of thought. Same with Ephesians. In fact, the notion that God is always choosing His people just seems to evade your notice. (I especially found it amusing that Flowers mentioned Cornelius as an example of a man seeking God. Were there no other God-fearers? Or did Luke just forget to tell us that God sent Peter to all of them? The obvious point of the event is not to show that Cornelius was worthy but that the gospel was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.)
Perseverance of Saints CANNOT be correct among a large number of passages that imply or teach the inverse stands the following passage that must be considered: “ 20+ For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21+ For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22+ But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” (2 Pet. 2:20-22) Also to say we are not active in our salvation is INCORRECT as well. Heb. 5:8-9 is a good starting place to learn this. Also to accept the doctrine of no involvement or at least action on our part one must believe that making a decision or using one’s mind is not doing anything. Our salvation starts with understanding the truth and making a decision about it with submissive and obedient attitude. 1Pet. 1:13. Ps. 23:7; 2 Pet. 1:5-10. This last passage delineates how one retains his salvation(I.e. how to “never fall”) while warning that not implementing these 7 things puts one in jeopardy of loosing his soul.
Actually i am at a church that dies believe there is a limit to how muchnsin you can do. Even to the point that if yiu are not active in church that yiu may have lost your salvation. That if you dint confess and turn frim every sin you know you may not be saved. IE if you backslide you have lost your salvation. So there is a definition issue here. This view is very common in Pentecostal denominations. Assemblies of God is ine if them. So in baptist circles i think most adhere to Conditional security as described. I have no real issue with conditional security as Dr Flowers has put it. But for me i see it like this. That because there is a choice to accept there is a possibility of a choice to latter reject. But is there. If we are regenerated and sealed would that be reversed if we reject or denounce Jesus? That would not make sense. So if one has been regenerated then I would say it would be impossible for that person to be rejected by God. IE God know the heart and knows if we are genuine. So if one does walk away from God it would be more likely they haven't tasted God. Maybe enotions, may group experience etc but not God. I say this because if Hebrews 6. Because if one could just loose ones salvation i dont believe you could get it back because if once did believe and then rejected it later if you cane back to repentance it would be like crucifying Christ again. I speak from personal experience. I never lost sight of who God was or what He did for me but i did choose the things of this world over what God was telling me to do. Through that time although God was not as close a knew He was always there waiting for me to come back to fellowship. I am certain looking back that in that time I would of still been reciieved as a Child if God. BTW. Love this. ❤
Having been exposed to the doctrines of grace up to a 4pt level and later accepting all 5 pts over 25 years ago, I found the reason most rejected it, wasn't because they didn't see it in the scriptures when shown, but it was because they couldn't accept what the scripture was saying. With all of that said, I consider myself a middle of the road more neutral person on all of this now for the last several years, because on the one hand no one has ever exegeted away what seems to be clear on God's sovereignty, there is also no one on the Calvinistic side who can truly tell you how man's responsibility is appealed to very clearly in scripture. I believe somehow, in a way we can't explain, kind of like the Trinity, God's Providence over all things and man's responsibility (will) are not exclusive nor contradictory, I see them both in scripture and sometimes in the same verse without apology. I think we spend a lot of time debating which one is right, when the answer is, both.
Since man is not the same as God, it follows that man's "sovereign" is not the same as God's "sovereign". To think otherwise would be like assigning an IQ to man, and thinking God has an IQ too. He doesnt have an IQ (He's omniscient. Omniscient beings don't have an IQ. I guess you could try and understand it as " maximal IQ", but that has an unintended effect of subtly implying that God is part of the created order). So it is with God's sovereignty. If you deny Him any part of any control over the created order, then you unintentionally make Him part of the created order. And that would be a foul.
Thank God, he predetermined Leighton Flowers to preach something other that the truth. Everything Mr Flowers says glorifies God and pleases him even though none of it is true. That is because God ordained him to say everything he say's for His glory. God wants him to spread a lie and mislead people. Why? For His glory of course. That's not confusing...right?
No, that’s not confusing at all. Jesus said, let the tears be among the wheat. God determines liars so that his sons will know how glorious the grace of truth given them is.
The "live like the devil" argument is so faulty, first of all i agree no genuine Christian would come to Christ with that attitude, but to say a reborn Christian can't eventually live an unholy life after regeneration is an absolute laughable statement. There's countless examples of such thing throughout the scriptures.
Simple question in the common sheep/shepherd metaphor... Do sheep decide where to go and what to do? Do sheep determine to find their way back home when lost? Do sheep determine who their shepherd is? Of course not. We know the shepherd is in charge of everything .
Ha! Bible believers haven’t heard that one before! When I watch Calvinists microscopically examine one of their proof texts, coming to an interpretation that confuses the whole of scripture, the professed value of Calvinistic “exegesis” is cheapened significantly. It’s eisegesis dressed in the fine linen of exegesis.
@@David76-23 Ha! No, I mean all of it doesn’t make sense through a Calvinist lens. One reoccurring example is that God becomes a performer of emotion. Acting angry, regretful, etc. “Adam, why did you do the thing that I preordained you to do? I’m so upset by that. I’m going to curse you for the thing that I made you do.” Or “I regret creating mankind…🤫spsst, not really. All of this is part of my script.🤭” ironically, the entirety of Romans makes zero sense with Calvinism. It’s exhausting.
@@000MrJwright none of that stuff works in refuting Calvinism. On some level even if you take the lowest view of God possible (open theism) there are things about God you are not going to understand. Meaning God (who is relational) is going to communicate in such a way that we can at least derive meaning from what he’s saying. Even if we don’t perfectly understand. So even if you take the lowest view of God possible (again open theism) God doesn’t have to ask where Adam is when he sinned. Even open theists say that God knows all things currently happening. So why ask if he knows? He has reasons for the interaction that we aren’t going to know and the more you try to say “it doesn’t make sense for God to X if he ordained Y or knew Y so that can’t be right” then you’re going to continue to degrade God until you’re at functional atheism
I cannot stand that if everything 83 destin God ceases to be God no he doesn't My God is greater than that My God is still God even if he did predestin everything my God is still God even if he did I don't like that that is such a red herring I wish sorry guys
We ARE predisposed to be against the biblical doctrine of Sovereign Election. No, neither Calvinists, nor the bible teach that it is "God's Fault." "God made men upright but men have gone after many schemes" (Ecc 7:29) What the bible DOES teach is that FALLEN man, in his ADAMIC/Sinful nature, IS predisposed to hate EVERYTHING about God. This is what 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Romans 8 specifically teach (yes I am aware of Flowers' mistranslations of both verses) And yes, most Christians DO have a somewhat worldly mindset which thinks the exact same way. It's the old "That's not fair" argument that Paul said those who heard the biblical doctrine of Predestination would say (Romans 9) Paul did not attempt to argue back in Romans 9 and say "NO wait, you just don't understand. God isn't blaming you because after all, that wouldn't be fair!' No! Paul says "WHO ARE YOU Oh man to talk back to God?" Scriptures make extremely clear that "God is in heaven and does WHATEVER HE PLEASES" with the earth, the things in the earth and the people of t he earth (Psalm 115:3, Psalm 24:1, Daniel 4:35 Goodnes gracious what if God said directly to Flowers: "All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; *He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth* No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, “What have You done?” But that's exactly what Flowers does. He says to God "You can't do that! Therefore, even though your bible says you did, it can't mean what it says!" *Here's a question for Flowers and other regarding How God ACTUALLY works His sovereign will in men* Who brought trouble on Job, Satan or God? (Job 42:11) Who incited David to sin, Satan or God? (2 Samuel 24:1) Whose Idea was it to go into Judah and "Trample them down like mud in the street," The king of Assyria or God? The King is likened to an 'Club' and an 'Ax' *BUT WHO SWINGS THE CLUB AND THE AX?* This is where Flowers and other demonstrate their lack of understanding: Who's "FAULT" was it in these three scenarios, Satan's and the King's fault or God's fault? If you use fallen, natural reasoning, like we are discussing here, or, as Paul calls them in Colossians 2 "Fine sounding arguments" and "deceptive human philosophy," then naturally, you will come to the conclusion that: Satan attacking Job was God's fault. Satan inciting David was God's fault. The king attacking Judah was God's fault! But according to scripture, at one and the same time Satan and Evil men do what they WILL to do by their own evil desires AND Accomplish God's sovereign purpose! THEY remain sinful and accountable for their evil and GOD remains Holy and faultless! This is what it means when Joseph tells his brothers "YOU meant it for evil, but GOD meant it for good." Same actions, different motives! Men are evil, God is Good and faultless! So although Flowers and others may see God's sovereign purposes being fulfilled as "God's fault," the bible allows for no such thing!
Poor answer for Romans 3. The clearest expression of those verses is that they are not intended and they never were intended to be absolute. When Psalm 14 was written, for example, there actually were righteous people who sought after God. Neither is Paul attempting to make an absolute argument. He is demonstrating to Jewish disciples that Israel has repeatedly been charged by her own history and Scripture to have been unfaithful to God. The bottom line is that Israel isn't any better than Gentiles. Neither in Psalm 14 or Romans 3 is there any teaching that establishes absolutely for everyone, any level of righteousness or lack thereof.
Flowers crushed White. Every single poll had Flowers winning by a large margin. Even on calvinist platforms, this was the case. If you want to keep your head buried in the sand, thats fine, but to say or imply that White won is wild.
Thank you for posting this. This is an excellent resource for those seeking to see how individuals interpret the Bible through the lens of the Platonic and Stoic philosophy (Epictetus) of "free will," which was first introduced into Christian thinking by Tertullian and Irenaeus, that was developed by Clement, and finally perfected by Origen. This video is a master class demonstration of how the traditions of men work their way into the theology and Biblical interpretation of men who have no idea they are actually following the traditions of men.
I think you would find this very interesting (early church fathers’ quotes about free will as they were countering the Greeks and their beliefs about fate = determinism). th-cam.com/video/cXbXadet10k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g-B9rszEzKF9IauA
@@ashleyb216 Awesome, I'll check it out. In return, I would highly recommend the following two books on the subject: "A Free Will; Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought," by Michael Frede "The Theory of Will in Classical Antiquity," by Albrecht Dihle Frede is considered to be the leading scholar on the subject of free will in antiquity. Frede observed that "freedom and free will cannot be found in either the Septuagint or the New Testament and must have come to the Christians mainly from Stoicism" (Michael Frede, A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought. Sather Classical Lectures 68. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford: University of California Press, 2011. xiv, 206). Frede wrote that he could not find either the language of free will nor even any assumption of it in the New Testament or the Greek Old Testament (Michael Frede, A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought, chapter 7). According to Frede, the early Church fathers most certainly developed their doctrine of free will from the pagans. Another Oxford scholar, Dr. Alister McGrath, concurs entirely with Frede, “The term ‘free will’ is not biblical, but derives from Stoicism. It was introduced into Western Christianity by the second-century theologian Tertullian” (Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, 351). Pauline expert, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, unequivocally insists that, “Paul firmly believed in divine determination as an intrinsic part of his whole conception of God” (Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020).
@@ashleyb216 I'm just now getting into the video you posted. Yeah, I agree that "early" Christians believed in "free will." Of course, that all depends upon how you define "early." But what the best scholarship tells us is that Christians got their idea of free will not from the Bible, but from Stoicism and Platonism.
@@lawrencestanley8989 Thanks for the book recommendations :) I just found it interesting that the video he referenced the quotes were from early Christian’s combatting the Greeks (I may have the wrong people group, it’s been a while since I listened to it) beliefs of fate in that the gods had determined everything including whether you were “good” or “bad.” They were expressing the difference of Christianity with the popular belief system of their time, that God had given us a free will because we’re made on His image, and Scripture instructs us as if we have the ability to obey or disobey His commands, to turn to Him or reject Him.
@@ashleyb216 Well, we have to remember though that Greek theology and philosophy was not monolithic. Sometimes we (Im guilty of this) get in the habit of saying something like "that's Greek philosophy," well, OK, which one? For instance, Leighton Flowers will often label Christian determinism as "gnostic," and yet the gnostics described determinism at least partly in naturalistic categories. He apparently hasn't delved deep enough into the subject to know that the one has nothing to do with the other. So we have to be careful.
Thirty scriptures explained away. Thousands more to go, boys. How sad that your ministry is dedicated to explaining away the Word of God. We have atheists to do that.
"Explained away"? Who has blinded and deafened you to truth? Leighton is showing how scripture does not support the TULIP doctrinal system. Listen to his words and understand how he loves the Bible and has such a high view for it! Listen to how he loves God and wants to honor him. He is not "explaining away the scripture" -you are in flat error.
Regeneration comes before faith !! Flowers just will not address the text ; but will instead present convoluted and distractions from real interpretation.
@ Next time read chapters 3-10 with this in mind and then you will see exactly why so many Christians believe that Jesus is confirming what we call Calvinism now .
I think Calvinists believe that we "receive" Him like a sucker punch rather than in response to learning that He gave Himself for our sins.
Yep! I found this quote from Dr. Sproul that addresses that point. Dr. Sproul was asked to respond to the polemic accusation that salvation under Calvinism is no more than 'spiritualrape'. He responded that he did not appreciate the term... but he could not dispute the sentiment. He wrote;
"I personally do not like the term “(g)rape” for the Reformed position concerning regeneration (i.e being born again) prior to belief. Yet with that said, I think I understand why non-Reformed folk invoke the term, for despite protestations, when one breaks down Reformed soteriology, one is left with the fact that regeneration occurs against the will of the unregenerate sinner-the sinner has NO CHOICE in the matter; as such, there is some truth to the claim that it is “a forced love”." SO... gRAPE... BECOMES... 'FORCED LOVE'🤔😎
Dr. Sproul agrees with it but like to say it 'nicer'.😎 Which is typical of Calvinists when confronted with their own doctrine in 'plain' terms'.
"Forced Love" is NOT love. And our Heavenly Father, who is the very personification of 'Love', (a noun), would know the difference. Calvinists have God slipping man a 'mickey' to make him think and act 'as if' he loves God because he cannot risk the rejection of a man who might freely refuse him. This would not be satisfactory for it is no more than deception, which is diametrically opposed to God's nature.
It is actually God who desires a man to 'freely' choose to love him. And in sending Jesus, God has already made the first move.
And, as C. S. Lewis said ...Love is worth the risk.
only really smart people can get saved!
DW: Remember - the foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD)
This represents a world in which every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain - comes to pass infallibly.
And it is impossible for anything within creation to RESIST that which is infallible
Thus every impulse that comes to pass within the human brain - comes to pass irresistibly
This means - not only do "Good" impulses come to pass irresistibly - but also sinful/evil impulses come to pass irresistibly
.
The issue of both "Good" events and "Evil" events as consequence of Calvin's god is a huge problem for the Calvinist.
He knows people are not going to embrace a doctrine which stipulates all sinful/evil impulses come to pass irresistibly within their brains
The Calvinist will always emphasis "Good" events as predestined - while OBFUSCATING "Evil" events as predestined.
This is why Calvinist have the phrase "Irresistible grace" and why they don't have the phrase "Irresistible Evil"
If they tell people the TRUTH - that all evil is produced by their god - no one would want to accept their doctrine.
Blessings!
Crazy stuff @@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT
@@hondotheology Actually only really broken people can get saved.
If a person is "whole" according to their own worldly achievements and righteousness, they will never search OUTSIDE of themselves for a SAVIOR from this present wicked world.
Also, according to scripture, you have it backward. It says that "the world BY WISDOM knows not God", therefore they have eaten so much worldly wisdom that they became too "smart" for their own good.
Leighton has been so helpful to me and my ability to explain biblical truth. Grateful for all the amazing analogies and careful exegesis of each text.
This is so helpful to me. Thank you both!!
This was an excellent video!!!
There is a difference between having "proof texts," and the texts proving your point.
Calvinists have proof texts. But those same proof texts have a wiser interpretation based on context. And it doesn't look like Calvinism.
Above all else, remember this: Sovereignty is not Determinism.
Sovereignty still has to mean something. When committed to a libertarian version of free will sovereignty doesn’t mean much.
@@David76-23 DW: This statement serves as an excellent example of the point GhostBear is making.
Calvinists really very heavily - on the process of asserting claims
Claims are presented boldly - so as produce an *APPEARANCE* of legitimacy.
But once one starts to analyze and dissect the claim under scrutiny it starts to collapse.
At that point - the Calvinist will appeal to divine mysteries and inscrutabilities
.
Libertarian Choice can be defined as a state of affairs in which
1) ALTERNATIVES exist within creation
2) Humans are granted CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES
3) That CHOICE is *UP TO* the human to make
.
The above (1-3) of course do not exist within Calvinism - because an infallible decree does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE - and thus ALTERNATIVES do not exist - any more than air exists within a perfect vacuum.
.
The Calvinist therefore in order to be TRUE to his doctrine - must insist (1-3) above do not exist.
The problem for this for the Calvinist - is that he NEEDS (1-3) above to exist - in order to retain a sense of human normalcy
.
Many years ago - Calvinist Jon Edwards showed - in determinism CONTRARY choice (choice between contrary options) does not exist for humans. This - as Edwards shows - would constitute an act which is "Contrary" to one's nature - which has been infallibly predetermined. Thus it would be an act that is CONTRARY to that which has been infallibly decreed - which is impossible.
Consequently - the Calvinist does not have the function of CONTRARY choice (choice between contrary options) for 3 reasons:
1) The existence of any ALTERNATIVE or CONTRARY option within creation would falsify the doctrine of decrees
2) Thus ALTERNATIVES do not exist for the Calvinist brain to choose between
3) And even if ALTERNATIVES did exist (which is impossible) the Calvinist would still not have a CHOICE - because no ALTERNATIVE impulse would be granted existence within his brain.
.
Thus - the Calvinist brain is not granted the ability to choose between TRUE and FALSE on any matter.
Which makes it the case - that the Calvinist brain is not granted the ability to discern TRUE from FALSE on any matter
The Calvinist - of course - cannot live coherently with the consequence of that doctrine - so what does he do?
He lives *AS-IF* Libertarian Choice exists - while he tells himself it doesn't.
.
Blessings!
@@David76-23Saying it doesn't mean much with libertarian free will is just an opinion. An opinion you have to make a positive case for.
@ your OP was just an opinion.
@@David76-23 It's not an opinion to point out that you're using a non-historical definition of the word sovereignty, then claiming it doesn't mean much if paired with libertarian free will.
One of the problems with Calvinism is that Calvinists desire to make very strong “matter of fact” statements which affirms deterministic Calvinism, but which under careful scrutiny and pointed cross examination, those same strong, confident and positive affirmations ultimately end up getting watered down under tension, mystery and transcendence. Here’s an example:
3:57 - 4:04: “And the fact of the matter, if God has not predestined everything and all that will come to pass, then God ceases to be God, and so the doctrine of God Himself is at stake.”
1. The first point that needs to be made is that the Bible never once makes such a claim, and is instead a completely extra-biblical, philosophical, logical deduction. Sometimes verses like Ephesians 1:11 are provided in support, but upon review of the context, you’ll find that it’s not talking about God determining all sin and wickedness but rather about God’s predestined spiritual blessings for the Church and the summing up of all things in Christ. Calvinists are notorious for picking pieces of verses in order to cobble together an argument for their presuppositional doctrines.
2. Secondly, dozens of times the Bible repeatedly quotes God denying doing certain things, and Calvinists are left telling us that those texts cannot be taken on face value, and that a “secret will” needs to be inferred. So, Calvinists are not standing on the Bible at all.
3. Thirdly, upon cross examination, Calvinists end up watering down their own claims. For instance, “When Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him three times that evening, does Jesus know this because God fixed, decreed and determined Peter’s denials?” This is where Calvinists begin to hedge their bets, and then tell us that we need to “appreciate the mystery of it all.” Then we’re told that “God’s ways are higher than our ways,” which we can all recognize, but how is it “higher” to say that God causes every evil thought and inclination of the heart, throughout the human and angel realms, spanning all eternity? Then comes more vacillations. Suddenly, the once confident, proud and positive affirmations devolve into a plea for tension, mystery and transcendence.
Any Card-carrying Calvinist who waffles on whether or not God ordained Peter to deny Christ has never read the Westminster Confession of Faith. It unambiguously states that everything that comes to pass is ordained by God.
Either you're not talking to a real Calvinist, or you're not listening to them.
Yeah I'm not a Calvinist but I agree with them on many more things then any free willer ever will. Sin is yours to do all you want. God does for a fact predestine salvation for his chosen. God could have had the bible written clearly enough to not even have Calvinist belief. The very fact that it's not says a lot. God does as in Roman's 9 hate some and Damm them while saving those he chose to before the world was made. It's what Christ taught. The whole idea of free will teaching didn't come along until long after Christ died. If you try to do your free will doctrine you have to ignore so many scriptures it's absurd. Sovereign Grace, is the only TRUE doctrine. Anything else is just a false religion.
@@vikingskuld "Yeah I'm not a Calvinist" then goes on to spew Calvinist sewage.
@richardcoords1610 I would say u may not want to refer to the True gospel like that. You are the one spewing sewage.
The problem is, you never learned the biblical definition of predestination it means bound to the horizon. Pre-ordained to be conformed to the image of Christ
This is an excellent😊❤ format and very well done.. Thanks.
Thank you! Great concise list of proof texts & responses!
If God predestined those in Gen 6 to die in the flood, why was He sorry He made them? In whom was God so angry He brought the flood? Wouldn't God have to be mad at the one that decreed such a mess?
@@duncanwashburn uh God didn't make me.. so I dont think you could say he made them. God made Adam and Eve from there on we are procreation of them. So no God didnt make the mess u want to claim, and you think your argument was just so rock solid. Your arrogance astounds me.
@@vikingskuld wasn't it Jeremiah that said God knit him together in his mother's womb?
@duncanwashburn so he knew God actually put him together in the womb? Lol is that what your trying to say? That a nice little story but no we are procreation from Adam and Eve. Perhaps God goes through and does some tinkering but again that's up to God but unless you have the verse I just have to say God isn't creating everyone. Do you claim God creates the mentally handicapped?
Thank you! Excellent teaching of God's Word. Glory to God!
Some things become true by sheer repetation. Every truth is like a road with a ditch on each side: neglect and excess.
Great resource to refer back to as needed. Thank you.
This video makes me subscribe
@@floriancariazo1754 welcome aboard!
@ I learned a lot in just one video.Thank you very much! From a Filipino living in Japan, who happens to have a calvinists Church mate.
excellent work! You were predestined to refute Calvinism. Therefore everyone is happy including Calvinists :-)
Lol cute but no he really didn't. Asking Jesus to save you is technically a work. You were good enough smart enough or holy enough to realize you needed saved. Yet Jesus couldn't do it until you told him to get over here and save me. So good luck with that when Paul says our works are as filthy rags. When there are verses like you were predestined before the foundation of the world was laid. That's not your choice. You can squeal all you want. Lie to yourself all you want but salvation is God's choice like in Roman's 9 its not up to man.
@@vikingskuld Lol, cute!
@@faithmatterspodcast thanks
Appreciate you guys. Wish we had a local discipleship group, I’d love to sharpen up with you dudes over some lunch. Praying for you guys🤙🏻🤙🏻
While listening to this I was thinking about Dr. David Allen and where he was and what was happening with him. I love him to death! And then you mentioned him!! Can't wait for your upcoming segment with him. It is always the greatest privilege to sit as his student.
Actually, you two did a great job of proving the accuracy of calvinism in interpreting scripture. Thank you!
?
If exhaustive divine determinism is true, then sin is not really a problem. If man cannot do anything other than that God has determined him to do then every sin that happens is God's will.
When Calvinists use the word "sovereignty" they mean "exhaustive Divine determinism".
The rest of Christianity however, believe a biblical understanding of sovereignty as "Kingship, Lord over all, and the final say in decisions, such as in the Divine Council, and one who expects and desires true obedience"(My own words)
A wonderful resource. Would you consider adding bookmarks to this video for quicker navigation?
@@joshzimmermanmusic1581 bookmarking this morning.
Breaks my heart every time Leighton uses John 2 as
"false believers".
I'm sick of hearing Calvinists strawman us as though we believe God is not sovereign in salvation.
We completely believe He is sovereign. How does me submitting to Him make me sovereign? How does me trusting Him make me sovereign?
Calvinism is senseless and illogical.
1:32:06 Definitely not a tendency of this computer programmer and math geek 🤓 If anything, seeing that mechanistic input -> algorithm-> output determinism in computing moves me all the more to reject determinism in the realm of human consciousness and spiritual matters. We are created in the image of God. We are not automatons.
Praise God ❤
Where do I order the book?
Amazon, I think.
Good day,
Apart from Leighton Flowers what historical figures hold to a similar position to Dr. Flowers? I’ve listened to a few videos of him but would like to research others church fathers.
There was a dude named Balthasar Hubmaier. I wish he would have had more time to write about his theology, but the reformers burned him as a heretic when he argued against infant baptism.
great work!! thank you guys
"Let me show you why these verses don't mean what they seem to say."
They seem to contradict Jesus words.
Adoption is about son placement. Privilege, rights, inheritance. The believer is born again into the family of God. Regenerated into the new creation. Adoption is about becoming of full age with the rights to an inheritance. The Romans had a public forum called the adoption in which sons were publicly recognised as heirs. This is biblical adoption which will be fully realised in new bodies.
Thats some pretty fancy gymnasts.
lol where? I saw nothing but context. L
@LeirbagFR by context do you mean quoting passages that are several chapters or several books away and talking about somthing else? Thats not context thats gymnastics. There's a reason when the Bible was set free during the reformation that almost everyone saw it supporting Calvinism. When the Bible is allowed to speak free from Roman catholic and humanistic assumptions about free will then it supports Calvinism.
@@iangoodman4633 wait so you’re saying you’re not allowed to use the Bible to provide context and support for other passages in the Bible? What a joke.
@@iangoodman4633
You don't know the scriptures.
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Providing an explanation for one’s interpretation is not gymnastics. If you are a Calvinist, this may be unfamiliar to you since a Calvinist typically ends his exposition with: “…so you just need to decide if you believe the Word of God or not…”
“But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” (John 10:26, KJV)
Virtually all of Calvinist's arguments against the non-Calvinist understanding of all their prooftexts is rooted in their false assumption of the inherent inability of man to respond positively to God. When this presupposition is imposed upon the reading of scripture ... too many passages must be re-imagined, redefined, and explained away for it to have any merit. And Calvinists do this without any passages of scripture which ever establishes Augustinian Total Depravity/Inability to be the 'inherent' condition of all, or any, men when examined in proper context.
It is very sad so many believers become convinced of Calvinist theology which eventually undermines any confidence they once had in God's love for them...personally.
Those three Calvinist guys at the start were talking as if we can change ourselves and just believe the Scriptures and stop being so tied to our old selves. But aren't they the determinists?? We can't do anything like that! God, according to them, has to do it all. They speak deterministic words, but then they act like free willers. It's the most massive contradiction in Calvinists that I can see.
I believe that 3rd category exists. I believe we have free will both before and after we are saved. I don't think we can lose our salvation, but I do think we can willingly give it up. We are always free to accept or reject God. I also agree with you that the way we approach all three categories is the same.
I would love if you could give an explanation for Revelation 13:8 and 17:8. How does it fit with provisionism?
It would be good to look up other verses that talk about the book of life for more understanding.
Eg exodus 32:32-33 "who ever has sinned against me i will blot him out of my book"
Psalms 6:23 david is asking god to blot out names of his enemys.
Rev 13:8 is talking about unfaithful people who are of this world whos names are not in the book due to having no faith.
1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.
John 12:25 those who love their life in this world will lose it, those who care nothing for their life in this world will keep it for eternity.
Also rev 17:8 im not too sure what LH would say, but its reasonable to say in Gods forknowledge that he knows who will be in the book and who wont (who has faith who wont) how ever having forknowledge of somthing doesnt equal predetermination.
That verse doesnt say God chose them to be reprobate and they couldnt chose other wise.
The beginning of verse 17 talks about how the people of the world joined in with with the "great prostitute" and drank from her and became immoral because of it. That was a choice they made.
So while they are headed to eternal destruction, God determined faithless sinners would be destroyed. But that doesnt mean he chose each person individually to be apart of the non elect group. Or that they were completely unable to have placed their faith in God and be in the book of life.
Forknowledge doesnt mean preordained/predetermined.
But God made a plan for the wicked to be destroyed and the faithful to receive eternal salvation.
Not sure if that will help, hopefully its does help you though lol.
“HE THAT OVERCOMETH, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and *I will not blot out his name out of the book of life* but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.”
{Revelation 3:5}
Everyone who has ever been born name was in the book of life. It is only blotted out in judgment.
“And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth [investigate] the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you *according to your works*
{Revelation 2:23}
If they are not written in the book of life it is because their names are blotted out, because they did not overcome the world placing their belief and trust in Jesus Christ.
Foreknowledge does not equal causation.
Let's talk about the Calvinist-favoured verses: first video: Calvinists talking: and not a single verse on display.
You only addressed conditional security from the perspective of approaching the apostate. But conditional security makes much better sense of all the warning passages to believers. It is a critical doctrine of discipleship to encourage believers to keep the faith and encourage one another to keep the faith.
Great resource! Thank you gentlemen!
Free will is very simple: is Men Sovereignty to choose, to do and ultimate to allow God to do whatever He wants as long as my free will allow him or give him permission to do.
The key to resolving this false teaching of
(Regeneration preceding faith is)
Proving that the exposure to the love and character of God in Christ produce the faith we then place in Him! We can not place faith in Christ as savior until we have a reason to believe in Him. This is why we preach the gospel! We are then regenerated by the Spirit which God freely gives to those who CHOOSE to place gheir faith in Christ. It took me almost a year of Bible study and prayer before i finally Broke and placed my faith in Jesus. Amen brother the teaching of the Father through the word caused me to have faith! Not some magic wand that God zaps us with at random!!
The problem with the Calvinist is they can not give an explanation of how God regenerates?
They miss the greatest thing here, the character of God which includes His Love demands our faith. Which must be given by OUR choice.
I'm one of those people who is currently going to Trinity for my bachelor's and masters at the same time. I plan on graduating around Feb of 2025 and then heading over to Calvary to get my doctorate. It's legitimate
I might be an exception but I'm a computer programmer and very much analytically minded. I've never found Calvinism acceptable. I also never found Arminianism acceptable either. Provisionism is the first belief I've found that mostly mirrors my own.
What about “by nature children of wrath”. This is a bigger challenge than the “dead” reference in Eph. 2. Flowers didn’t respond to this part of the verse.
When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.
Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
God does not ask us to do the impossible. The man must do the turning. God will not do it for us.
You know I've really been searching guys and it's going to come to get into eschatology but how would you lighten and Braxton as more a provisionalist or let's say traditional Southern Baptist translate Matthew 24:24 now look I have my own thoughts on how that goes and I do see why a lot of Calvinists are turning to a post-millennial eschatology. But I was really wondering how you would translate that verse. Thank you guys really enjoy your podcast it's been a real blessing May God bless each of your time your lives and your ministries
Very interesting video
“If God does not predestine all things that come to pass than God ceases to be God”
It’s wild to see someone who likely appeals to presupp arguments with atheists, just smuggle in such a radical and unjustified assumption without demonstrating it by scripture or by reason. To say God has to deterministically bring to pass the rape of children or the torture of the innocent in order to be God is just a wild way to think about God.
Who originated the view of foreknowledge meaning “formerly known”? Who has formally developed this, done the word search background, etc, at a scholarly level?
If you believe you can lose your salvation, how do you not fall back on the law?
"If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."
(1 John 1: 6-9)
Though we are not sinless, we walk in the light and are purified. Obedience and sincerity are part of "working out your salvation with fear and trembling"...but we are not living this out on our own. We have God's Spirit working in us (Philippians 2:12-13).
"You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. ...
As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." (James 2:24,26)
Continuing to choose to follow Jesus is NOT falling back on the law. But if we abandon Jesus, become faithless, and forsake His ways, how will we be saved? We have One path to salvation and we should never abandon the Way.
On the issue of free will in salvation: can both camps be right? The example I always think about when wondering that God might work in different modes for different people is the calling of the disciples and the great crowds following Jesus. One group Jesus called out specifically to partner with (disciples) and the others came because they heard the good news.
Is there room to say, from examples like this, that God will employ both? That there are those who he calls out, elects, specifically AND those who choose out of their free will.
I’m thinking that may be the case.
Can you find one place in the Bible that talks about the will of a man being free?
Wouldn’t you think that something so critical to a religion would actually be discussed in the Bible?
@ Genesis 2:19 “So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.”
Seems to be man was free to decide the names.
@@themeltingdesert that seems to be?
That’s just your opinion
Free will is vital doctrine to people that believe in it . Without it, they don’t have a religion. Wouldn’t you think that something so important to your religion would be actually be talked about specifically in the Bible?
@@aletheia8054 even the sciences aren’t settled on whether humans psychologically are rooted in free will or if it is determinism….to pick out any faith traditions as unique to the discussion of free will isn’t necessary. Further, to point to the issue not being settled as a justification to throw it all out would mean throwing out some of the sciences too because they too are conflicted on free will vs determinism.
My point in my initial post is that, in the Bible, what’s present is both sides of the discussion.
I think we need to be careful with this, but you seem to be on the right track. I don't see any particular evidence in Scripture that says "some are determined, some aren't," so we'd be reading that into the story a bit. That being said, we can look at the punishment of King Nebuchadnezzar and see that God can remove human will from a person, if He chooses to do so. So, while not normative, God does sometimes remove/override human will. I think free will is the normative experience and reality for humanity. It may be the universal experience, but I'm willing to accept that God could determine/raise up some people in a determinative way for specific reason or purpose.
I'll leave the door open for this possibility, but I don't think it's something that can be determined rationally. And if we speak purely on Scriptural grounds, I think there'd scant evidence for it.
Leighton’s explanation of John 6:65 makes no sense to me at all.
Once again upon hearing all of these proof texts used in Calvinism, it reminds me of Jehovah's Witnesses. What strikes me over and over again, in spite of the mantra of Calvinism regarding their superior hermeneutics, that they fail to actually do good hermeneutics. There's no regard for "who" is being addressed and no regard for the broader context. Even with the "sheep" in John 10, they stop at verse 15 without considering verse 16, "“And I have OTHER SHEEP, WHICH ARE NOT OF THIS FOLD; I must bring them also, and THEY SHALL HEAR MY VOICE; and they shall become ONE FLOCK with one shepherd." There are other sheep other than the ones that Jesus was specifically referencing in the previous verses. First sheep are Jews. Other sheep are Gentiles. In Calvinism the Jews, it seems, are never addressed as the ones being spoken to and that somehow whatever is for application to the Jews specifically becomes application to them and any negative verses regarding the Jews are viewed as universal for all mankind.
I feel like being sympathetic or open to conditional security DOES change your application. It makes me want to build my faith and guard both my faith and my heart from sin all the more because I don't want to betray my savior. Whether I really can or not we don't know, but I would rather safeguard my faith than rest on eternal security even if I have it 👍
1:43:23 it’s convenient to hold everything that isn’t Calvinism with an open hand. You can just throw darts while never letting anyone critique you.
I think its a little nieve to kind of brush off the argument of eternal security vs temporary life. The argument against calvinistic soteriology doesn't just include the front end of salvation, the back end is just as important, "conditional salvation" sounds alot like lordship salvation. "ETERNAL LIFE" there's no text that adds a "but" or "only if".
I'm sure the verse..."happy wife/happy life" is the kissing cousin to...."you just don't understand Calvinism".... Cuz they are romantically involved with the King of all kings and it is just a mystery....
Do you think the Calvinist problem is ignorance on how the first century spoke? Like how hyperbole was common place for memorization?
The Calvinist problem is this: most of them have only read commentaries on Calvin or break it down strictly into terms in TULIP which itself is a summation from someone else’s description of what Calvin says. Few of them actually pick up Institutes and dive into his whole system let alone acknowledge that he did five editions of institutes updating and changing as he grew and learned himself. The Calvinism of first edition of Institutes is different from the Calvinism of the fifth edition. They don’t deal with that at all, my experience is they stick to the TULIP summation of Calvin which doesn’t even exist within his work.
So, a lot of the “Calvinists” we argue and debate with are actually pretty lazy Calvinists in my opinion. As bad as communists who never read Das Capital or Manifesto of the Communist Party.
I would say no. Those of them who know Church history are fully aware of how the early fathers spoke. So was Calvin. The issue is that Calvin accused them of defining free will by pagan philosophers (Like Cicero) and not by Scripture (specifically Paul). That's what bugs be about Non-Calvinists who used the "pagan philosophy" accusation. You can accuse Calvinism of using pagan philosophy, but that accusation cuts both ways.
The Romans 8:1-8 the interpretation regarding the flesh is hostile to God and cannot submit to God, this is more about the mindset of the flesh than the human nature without the Spirit…It’s not even about the sinful nature, but more the mindset of the flesh or to be sinfully minded…Wordly…If we choose to walk in the mindset of the flesh we cannot please God, as that mindset is hostile towards God. If any of us give ourselves over to the sinful mindset of the flesh then we won’t be able to submit to God as we cannot love two masters least we will hate the one, and whatever you give your mind over to, you will be a slave to that one….
Also remember Romans 12
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Ecc 3:14 KJV I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
Saying that the eternal debate security doesn’t matter because we don’t know their heart and we will approach them the same way, is like saying the Unconditional election debate doesn’t matter because we don’t know who the elect are and we approach them the same way.
They don’t care about consistency.
Well said pastor i have the same problem at my church 3 pastors believe in Calvinism i told them same as you have told many there look at me that l dont understand the bible and think bad of me i believe in JESUS not a John Calvin thoery is misleading many away from Christ and salvation JESUS COME TO SAVE SOULS not predestined souls before you are born to hell or heaven mislead one soul from JESUS remember GOD WONT BE MOCKED
Can anyone point to some commentaries that explain Romans 8:29-30 the way Leighton does?
Trie John Scott and Douglas moo and Thomas Schreiner
But I bet they’re not exactly like what Flowers says
You can find a theologian to say all kinds of crazy stuff
Adam Harwood, John Lennox
What is your take on the five points of Arminianism? Ex Arminian Calvinist.
With reference to Rom 8:29 & 33, the phrases "whom he foreknew" and "God's elect" refers to the nation of Israel, the Jews. The context leading up to this is Jewish, and these phrases both reflect OT reference to Israel. And as I think many here would agree with, Paul's argument here is about the Jews and justification. The reference to the "elect" will be further refined in chapter 11 where it, with a slightly different word, refers to believing Jews.
No I don't think many would agree with that interpretation. Can you point to anyone in church history who held that Romans 8 is only speaking about Jews?
There's so many ways that interpretation shreds Romans 8 to bits but I'll just say in Romans 9 which is an expansion on what was said in 8:29-33, Paul says "even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles"
That sounds like a last ditch effort to prevent God from looking 'arbitrary'
Thanks for the handy list of scriptures that support Calvinist theology. I’ve been working to compile such list and you graciously simplified the task.
I think the host nailed it when he responded to Flowers’ explanation of Romans 3:9-12. Presuppositions and shifting perspectives certainly influence the way one interprets scriptures. Those presuppositions and perspectives were certainly on full display in the video.
The analogy of the President’s phone call made me laugh. One could hardly ask for a better illustration of divine election!
Every time I watch Flowers, I am more convinced of Calvinism. Weird.
Sorry, brother. This just comes off as a weird chest-thumpy way of saying “Nuh, uh,” or “I know you are but what am I.” I think we can do better, can’t we?
@@BraxtonHunter Let me be a little less chest-thumpy. There is an elephant in the room - the lengthy list of "proof texts" covered in the video. This wasn't a handful of fringe verses. Nor do they present great difficulties of interpretation. The clear meaning is right there for anyone to see, unless of course one has a presupposition that requires a shift in perspective.
For example, anti-Calvinists like to explain Romans 3:9-20 by referring to the OT context. Normally I would give a hearty amen to that! However, there are two serious considerations that you and Flowers fail to address: (1) Paul is not quoting just one lengthy passage from a book of the OT. Instead, the apostle is creating a unit of thought from numerous texts. You and your guest extracted a verse or two and asserted that he could not be saying what is abundantly clear to the reader. It is not surprising then that you would also (2) disregard how Paul is using the passages to make the case that both Gentiles and Jews are equally fallen and in need of a Savior. Anti-Calvinists often seem unaware that Romans has a definite train of thought. Same with Ephesians. In fact, the notion that God is always choosing His people just seems to evade your notice. (I especially found it amusing that Flowers mentioned Cornelius as an example of a man seeking God. Were there no other God-fearers? Or did Luke just forget to tell us that God sent Peter to all of them? The obvious point of the event is not to show that Cornelius was worthy but that the gospel was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.)
Perseverance of Saints CANNOT be correct among a large number of passages that imply or teach the inverse stands the following passage that must be considered:
“
20+ For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21+ For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22+ But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” (2 Pet. 2:20-22)
Also to say we are not active in our salvation is INCORRECT as well. Heb. 5:8-9 is a good starting place to learn this. Also to accept the doctrine of no involvement or at least action on our part one must believe that making a decision or using one’s mind is not doing anything. Our salvation starts with understanding the truth and making a decision about it with submissive and obedient attitude. 1Pet. 1:13. Ps. 23:7; 2 Pet. 1:5-10.
This last passage delineates how one retains his salvation(I.e. how to “never fall”) while warning that not implementing these 7 things puts one in jeopardy of loosing his soul.
I've never heard someone use Genesis in this way. That's weird to me
Actually i am at a church that dies believe there is a limit to how muchnsin you can do.
Even to the point that if yiu are not active in church that yiu may have lost your salvation.
That if you dint confess and turn frim every sin you know you may not be saved.
IE if you backslide you have lost your salvation.
So there is a definition issue here.
This view is very common in Pentecostal denominations. Assemblies of God is ine if them.
So in baptist circles i think most adhere to Conditional security as described.
I have no real issue with conditional security as Dr Flowers has put it.
But for me i see it like this.
That because there is a choice to accept there is a possibility of a choice to latter reject.
But is there.
If we are regenerated and sealed would that be reversed if we reject or denounce Jesus?
That would not make sense.
So if one has been regenerated then I would say it would be impossible for that person to be rejected by God.
IE God know the heart and knows if we are genuine.
So if one does walk away from God it would be more likely they haven't tasted God.
Maybe enotions, may group experience etc but not God.
I say this because if Hebrews 6.
Because if one could just loose ones salvation i dont believe you could get it back because if once did believe and then rejected it later if you cane back to repentance it would be like crucifying Christ again.
I speak from personal experience.
I never lost sight of who God was or what He did for me but i did choose the things of this world over what God was telling me to do.
Through that time although God was not as close a knew He was always there waiting for me to come back to fellowship.
I am certain looking back that in that time I would of still been reciieved as a Child if God.
BTW. Love this. ❤
Having been exposed to the doctrines of grace up to a 4pt level and later accepting all 5 pts over 25 years ago, I found the reason most rejected it, wasn't because they didn't see it in the scriptures when shown, but it was because they couldn't accept what the scripture was saying.
With all of that said, I consider myself a middle of the road more neutral person on all of this now for the last several years, because on the one hand no one has ever exegeted away what seems to be clear on God's sovereignty, there is also no one on the Calvinistic side who can truly tell you how man's responsibility is appealed to very clearly in scripture.
I believe somehow, in a way we can't explain, kind of like the Trinity, God's Providence over all things and man's responsibility (will) are not exclusive nor contradictory, I see them both in scripture and sometimes in the same verse without apology. I think we spend a lot of time debating which one is right, when the answer is, both.
Since man is not the same as God, it follows that man's "sovereign" is not the same as God's "sovereign".
To think otherwise would be like assigning an IQ to man, and thinking God has an IQ too. He doesnt have an IQ (He's omniscient. Omniscient beings don't have an IQ. I guess you could try and understand it as " maximal IQ", but that has an unintended effect of subtly implying that God is part of the created order).
So it is with God's sovereignty. If you deny Him any part of any control over the created order, then you unintentionally make Him part of the created order.
And that would be a foul.
Thank God, he predetermined Leighton Flowers to preach something other that the truth. Everything Mr Flowers says glorifies God and pleases him even though none of it is true. That is because God ordained him to say everything he say's for His glory. God wants him to spread a lie and mislead people. Why? For His glory of course.
That's not confusing...right?
No, that’s not confusing at all. Jesus said, let the tears be among the wheat. God determines liars so that his sons will know how glorious the grace of truth given them is.
@@aletheia8054🤦♂️
@@paulmann9154 like I said, if you don’t understand it, I do. It’s not difficult for me to understand.
Then you have a distorted view of Scripture.
Calvinist?
@@paulmann9154 I understand you think it’s distorted. You fully admit it doesn’t make sense to you.
No, I’m not a Calvinist
The "live like the devil" argument is so faulty, first of all i agree no genuine Christian would come to Christ with that attitude, but to say a reborn Christian can't eventually live an unholy life after regeneration is an absolute laughable statement. There's countless examples of such thing throughout the scriptures.
Simple question in the common sheep/shepherd metaphor... Do sheep decide where to go and what to do? Do sheep determine to find their way back home when lost? Do sheep determine who their shepherd is? Of course not. We know the shepherd is in charge of everything .
Lol... pretending to bring up Ephesians 1:1-6 likes it's not a big deal.
Flowers is not an exegete
Ha! Bible believers haven’t heard that one before! When I watch Calvinists microscopically examine one of their proof texts, coming to an interpretation that confuses the whole of scripture, the professed value of Calvinistic “exegesis” is cheapened significantly. It’s eisegesis dressed in the fine linen of exegesis.
Right 😂
@@000MrJwrightand by the “whole of scripture” you mean “my interpretation of John 3:16”
@@David76-23 Ha! No, I mean all of it doesn’t make sense through a Calvinist lens. One reoccurring example is that God becomes a performer of emotion. Acting angry, regretful, etc. “Adam, why did you do the thing that I preordained you to do? I’m so upset by that. I’m going to curse you for the thing that I made you do.” Or “I regret creating mankind…🤫spsst, not really. All of this is part of my script.🤭” ironically, the entirety of Romans makes zero sense with Calvinism. It’s exhausting.
@@000MrJwright none of that stuff works in refuting Calvinism. On some level even if you take the lowest view of God possible (open theism) there are things about God you are not going to understand. Meaning God (who is relational) is going to communicate in such a way that we can at least derive meaning from what he’s saying. Even if we don’t perfectly understand. So even if you take the lowest view of God possible (again open theism) God doesn’t have to ask where Adam is when he sinned. Even open theists say that God knows all things currently happening. So why ask if he knows? He has reasons for the interaction that we aren’t going to know and the more you try to say “it doesn’t make sense for God to X if he ordained Y or knew Y so that can’t be right” then you’re going to continue to degrade God until you’re at functional atheism
I cannot stand that if everything 83 destin God ceases to be God no he doesn't My God is greater than that My God is still God even if he did predestin everything my God is still God even if he did I don't like that that is such a red herring I wish sorry guys
We ARE predisposed to be against the biblical doctrine of Sovereign Election.
No, neither Calvinists, nor the bible teach that it is "God's Fault."
"God made men upright but men have gone after many schemes" (Ecc 7:29)
What the bible DOES teach is that FALLEN man, in his ADAMIC/Sinful nature, IS predisposed to hate EVERYTHING about God.
This is what 1 Corinthians 2:14 and Romans 8 specifically teach (yes I am aware of Flowers' mistranslations of both verses)
And yes, most Christians DO have a somewhat worldly mindset which thinks the exact same way.
It's the old "That's not fair" argument that Paul said those who heard the biblical doctrine of Predestination would say (Romans 9)
Paul did not attempt to argue back in Romans 9 and say
"NO wait, you just don't understand. God isn't blaming you because after all, that wouldn't be fair!'
No! Paul says "WHO ARE YOU Oh man to talk back to God?"
Scriptures make extremely clear that "God is in heaven and does WHATEVER HE PLEASES" with the earth, the things in the earth and the people of t he earth (Psalm 115:3, Psalm 24:1, Daniel 4:35
Goodnes gracious what if God said directly to Flowers:
"All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing;
*He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth*
No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, “What have You done?”
But that's exactly what Flowers does. He says to God "You can't do that! Therefore, even though your bible says you did, it can't mean what it says!"
*Here's a question for Flowers and other regarding How God ACTUALLY works His sovereign will in men*
Who brought trouble on Job, Satan or God? (Job 42:11)
Who incited David to sin, Satan or God? (2 Samuel 24:1)
Whose Idea was it to go into Judah and "Trample them down like mud in the street," The king of Assyria or God?
The King is likened to an 'Club' and an 'Ax'
*BUT WHO SWINGS THE CLUB AND THE AX?*
This is where Flowers and other demonstrate their lack of understanding:
Who's "FAULT" was it in these three scenarios, Satan's and the King's fault or God's fault?
If you use fallen, natural reasoning, like we are discussing here, or, as Paul calls them in Colossians 2 "Fine sounding arguments" and "deceptive human philosophy," then naturally, you will come to the conclusion that:
Satan attacking Job was God's fault.
Satan inciting David was God's fault.
The king attacking Judah was God's fault!
But according to scripture, at one and the same time
Satan and Evil men do what they WILL to do by their own evil desires
AND
Accomplish God's sovereign purpose!
THEY remain sinful and accountable for their evil and GOD remains Holy and faultless!
This is what it means when Joseph tells his brothers "YOU meant it for evil, but GOD meant it for good."
Same actions, different motives! Men are evil, God is Good and faultless!
So although Flowers and others may see God's sovereign purposes being fulfilled as "God's fault," the bible allows for no such thing!
Poor answer for Romans 3. The clearest expression of those verses is that they are not intended and they never were intended to be absolute.
When Psalm 14 was written, for example, there actually were righteous people who sought after God. Neither is Paul attempting to make an absolute argument. He is demonstrating to Jewish disciples that Israel has repeatedly been charged by her own history and Scripture to have been unfaithful to God.
The bottom line is that Israel isn't any better than Gentiles.
Neither in Psalm 14 or Romans 3 is there any teaching that establishes absolutely for everyone, any level of righteousness or lack thereof.
Leighton Flowers is probably the worst person to defend against Calvinism. Just watch his debates against James White.
LF never knew what hit him 😂
Wasn’t the general consensus that Flowers won that debate?
The general consensus among non-exegetes
Flowers crushed White. Every single poll had Flowers winning by a large margin. Even on calvinist platforms, this was the case. If you want to keep your head buried in the sand, thats fine, but to say or imply that White won is wild.
Thank you for posting this. This is an excellent resource for those seeking to see how individuals interpret the Bible through the lens of the Platonic and Stoic philosophy (Epictetus) of "free will," which was first introduced into Christian thinking by Tertullian and Irenaeus, that was developed by Clement, and finally perfected by Origen. This video is a master class demonstration of how the traditions of men work their way into the theology and Biblical interpretation of men who have no idea they are actually following the traditions of men.
I think you would find this very interesting (early church fathers’ quotes about free will as they were countering the Greeks and their beliefs about fate = determinism). th-cam.com/video/cXbXadet10k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=g-B9rszEzKF9IauA
@@ashleyb216
Awesome, I'll check it out. In return, I would highly recommend the following two books on the subject:
"A Free Will; Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought," by Michael Frede
"The Theory of Will in Classical Antiquity," by Albrecht Dihle
Frede is considered to be the leading scholar on the subject of free will in antiquity. Frede observed that "freedom and free will cannot be found in either the Septuagint or the New Testament and must have come to the Christians mainly from Stoicism" (Michael Frede, A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought. Sather Classical Lectures 68. Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford: University of California Press, 2011. xiv, 206).
Frede wrote that he could not find either the language of free will nor even any assumption of it in the New Testament or the Greek Old Testament (Michael Frede, A Free Will: Origins of the Notion in Ancient Thought, chapter 7). According to Frede, the early Church fathers most certainly developed their doctrine of free will from the pagans.
Another Oxford scholar, Dr. Alister McGrath, concurs entirely with Frede, “The term ‘free will’ is not biblical, but derives from Stoicism. It was introduced into Western Christianity by the second-century theologian Tertullian” (Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, 351).
Pauline expert, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, unequivocally insists that, “Paul firmly believed in divine determination as an intrinsic part of his whole conception of God” (Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Fate, Providence and Free Will: Philosophy and Religion in Dialogue in the Early Imperial Age (2020).
@@ashleyb216 I'm just now getting into the video you posted. Yeah, I agree that "early" Christians believed in "free will." Of course, that all depends upon how you define "early." But what the best scholarship tells us is that Christians got their idea of free will not from the Bible, but from Stoicism and Platonism.
@@lawrencestanley8989 Thanks for the book recommendations :) I just found it interesting that the video he referenced the quotes were from early Christian’s combatting the Greeks (I may have the wrong people group, it’s been a while since I listened to it) beliefs of fate in that the gods had determined everything including whether you were “good” or “bad.” They were expressing the difference of Christianity with the popular belief system of their time, that God had given us a free will because we’re made on His image, and Scripture instructs us as if we have the ability to obey or disobey His commands, to turn to Him or reject Him.
@@ashleyb216
Well, we have to remember though that Greek theology and philosophy was not monolithic. Sometimes we (Im guilty of this) get in the habit of saying something like "that's Greek philosophy," well, OK, which one? For instance, Leighton Flowers will often label Christian determinism as "gnostic," and yet the gnostics described determinism at least partly in naturalistic categories. He apparently hasn't delved deep enough into the subject to know that the one has nothing to do with the other. So we have to be careful.
Yawn...
Thirty scriptures explained away. Thousands more to go, boys. How sad that your ministry is dedicated to explaining away the Word of God. We have atheists to do that.
"Explained away"? Who has blinded and deafened you to truth?
Leighton is showing how scripture does not support the TULIP doctrinal system. Listen to his words and understand how he loves the Bible and has such a high view for it! Listen to how he loves God and wants to honor him.
He is not "explaining away the scripture" -you are in flat error.
Did anybody else hear the video where Flowers sounded drunk?
Regeneration comes before faith !!
Flowers just will not address the text ; but will instead present convoluted and distractions from real interpretation.
No it doesn't. The plain reading is we receive through or by faith. Always.
@ but faith ( the ability to believe) is a gift itself
@@michealferrell1677 That's a different proposition, related but different. First, show me where regeneration comes before faith.
@
John 3:3
[3] Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
For starters
@
Next time read chapters 3-10 with this in mind and then you will see exactly why so many Christians believe that Jesus is confirming what we call Calvinism now .