Calvinist Ask Questions: Live Q&A with Dr. Leighton Flowers
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 11. 2019
- Calvinist Ask Questions: Live Q&A with Dr. Leighton Flowers
This week on Remnant Radio, we are opening up the phone lines to take calls from Calvinist. Dr. Leigton Flowers is coming on the show to answer any questions Calvinist may have. So set your calendars for November 4th at 8:30PM CST and tune in to ask your best soteriological question of Dr. Flowers. Objections to provisionism will be answered first, so we encourage all of our Calvinist brothers to call in.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Help Support The Channel
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for having Dr. Flowers on your podcast. I think he is far more brilliant than he portrays himself. It baffles me that he is not more well-known and is discouraging to witness a lot of the backlash he gets. It’s also refreshing to see a show that has all my favorite scholars and theologians all on the same podcast. Including Brown, Keener, Winger, and Storms.
Thank you for all that you do and the topics you aren’t afraid to cover. We need more programs like this.
Micah Rydmark thanks Micah. We are really trying. God keeps opening doors to these interviews, we are so thankful to learn from these theologians. Idk why they keep saying “yes” lol.
I've listened to Dr. Flowers quite a bit and compared to some other quote unquote scholars he is muxh easier to gleen from because he doesn't have that arrogant condescending tone that many with his credentials display. I also happen to vehemently agree the points he makes, he assisted my exodus from Calvinist leanings
@@xwingvalet5267 100% agree!
He wastes so much time and energy defeating straw men. It’s sad, really.
@@PaDutchRunner do you have an example of this?
God has a sense of humor!! He names Leighton FLOWERS and then DIVINELY DETERMINED Leighton to DESTROY the tulip 😎
@@danielpia7711 they will answer to God for being so proud to exalt their own will
Lol!!! So true!
Brethren, I thought that this was an inhouse debate. I thought that this was an issue that we can debate,discuss and yet not divide over. You act as if the free willers are out of the pale of orthodoxy and not even regenerate.
@@edwardwicks304 We rightly pointed out that everyone will be accountable to God. Even a believer will answer to God, they just won’t receive wrath in the way a non believer will. Have you read any of the other comments calling Calvinism heresy and demonic? Maybe those are ppl that need to be addressed
@Sir Isaac Newton please read & study 2 Corinthians 5:10. I already made clear that this judgement is not God’s wrath, but to think you won’t answer to God for your continuous sinful actions is very arrogant.
I thank God for Dr. Flowers. I was a Calvinist for many years, but there was so many nagging questions. His humility and love in how he communicates is genuinely how I was able to listen to his teachings when I disagreed with him, and was able to work those questions.
Praise God, and God Bless, Brother.
Same here
We see that the church crystalizes doctrine in the face of error. There is no mention of "Calvinism" until the 1600's. Prior to it, the errors of Pelagius became dominant in the Roman Catholic system, which is the soil that Flowers is coming from. Flowers is a Semi-Pelagian in Protestant clothes. He is trying to say that human will did not get corrupted with the Fall. This view was condemned in the Council of Orange in 529 A.D. long after Augustian had died and 1000 years before Calvin.
The Remnant Radio: Brothers, thank you so much for having this kind of format, where we can hear different views on scripture other than our own. I so appreciate the both of you holding these podcasts even though you may even be on the other side of that doctrine. That takes a certain amount of maturity and grace. May the LORD bless you both and your ministry to the whole body of Christ.
Gary Scalf thank you Gary.
So, do you believe that everyone on earth had been evangelized and I had heard the true gospel before the flood? Do you think that everyone that was killed in the flood, had all been enabled two receive salvation and that God‘s grace was leading them to believe on the name of Jesus? Because I am quite positive that Noah and his three sons did not have the ability to evangelize every part of the earth mankind had reached out to. And if that is the case, the God that you and Flowers believe in and that you say would never do something like that, sovereignly chose to pass over many people.
@@treythompson4103 Jesus Christ descended into hades and preached to those people in that time.
"Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that he might bring us to God. He was put to death in the flesh but [made] alive in [the] spirit. Thus, he also descended and preached to the spirits in prison, to those who in the past had been disobedient, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, while the ark was being built. In this [ark], a few (that is eight souls) were saved through water. This is an antitype of baptism, which now saves us. Baptism is not the putting away of the impurity of the flesh but the appeal of a good conscience {in your relationship} toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3:18-21)
This southern Baptist preacher can preach the gospel. Love 💘 his ministry
I know most Baptist preachers preach OSAS.
Dr. Leighton Flowers, your long winded answers are a fresh breeze from glory. May God bless you three for such a wonderful discourse.
Interesting contrast, "long-winded answers" yet "a fresh breeze." The two are opposites.
So terribly long winded…
@@timcarr6401
It does seem to be an opposites - contradictory statement; it all depends how patient and hungry one is.
When it is a hot day, long cool breezes are delightful.
Paul would preach well into the night, so that a young fellow fell to the ground in sleep, Paul went to pray for him. He revived and the meeting continued to daybreak. Paul would have been called a long winded preacher. James on the other hand judging by his letter was very brief and pithy. Each was necessary. One wasn't better than the other.
@@pinknoise365 The term long-winded has always had the meaning denotatively and connotatively as a negative thing.
@@pinknoise365 better than the typical Calvinist response of “I just don’t have an answer for this one! We can’t understand everything about God. Next question?”
"First we may call this doctrine(Calvinism) a novelty, seeing that for the first four hundred years after christ there is no mention of it. The first foundations for it were in the writings of Augustine, who, in his warring against Pelagius, let fall some expressions which some have unhappily picked up to the establishment of this error."- Quaker Theologian Robert Barclay
We see that the church crystalizes doctrine in the face of error. There is no mention of "Calvinism" until the 1600's. Prior to it, the errors of Pelagius became dominant in the Roman Catholic system, which is the soil that Flowers is coming from. Flowers is a Semi-Pelagian in Protestant clothes. He is trying to say that human will did not get corrupted with the Fall. This view was condemned in the Council of Orange in 529 A.D. long after Augustian had died and 1000 years before Calvin.
This dude is awesome. Very clear
I LOVE these interviews with Dr. Flowers!
I love them too but seeing one guy wear a goose island beer shirt and see the x men comics behind him?! Unbelievable
A masterclass by Mr. Flowers. Praise be to God in Jesus Christ
I praise God for using Mr.Leighton to present and defend the truth .God bless you Sir🙏
We see that the church crystalizes doctrine in the face of error. There is no mention of "Calvinism" until the 1600's. Prior to it, the errors of Pelagius became dominant in the Roman Catholic system, which is the soil that Flowers is coming from. Flowers is a Semi-Pelagian in Protestant clothes. He is trying to say that human will did not get corrupted with the Fall. This view was condemned in the Council of Orange in 529 A.D. long after Augustian had died and 1000 years before Calvin.
I so appreciate Leighton Flowers as there is hardly any credible non-Calvinist teachers out there that can defend the non-Calvinist position.
Flowers does such a good job and also he’s actually evolving in bible knowledge to debate this doctrine.
It’s funny bc IMO found his channel by literally searching “why Calvinism is wrong”.
Most Christians just assume Calvinism is false because the picture of God it presents feels off (protectively guarding a strong sense of God's sovereignty and power at the expense of his goodness). However they don't necessarily feel the need to refute the specific Calvinist arguments as they don't come up that often in many sections of the church.
@@gareth2736 Well let me ask you something, have you considered any of Leighton Flowers arguments against Calvinism?
@@jayman1338 yes they seem pretty strong, but on the other hand I don"r think the average person reading the bible without guidance from.their pastor to give them a Calvinistic set of glasses to read the bible through would ever arrive at the system of Calvinism - God's goodness and man's free will to do wrong or go astray is too clear.
@@gareth2736 well brother I’ve been a Christian since 1994 and a student of the Bible the whole time and I’ve sat under Calvinist teachers many times and what I’ve found with the Calvinistic teaching is it’s just Calvinistic readings poured into the unclear texts that was never originally intended. What I’ve found so far is the Calvinist refuses to interpret the unclear texts by using the clear texts allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible.
So having said all that I just feel what you said in regards to a student of the Bible just needs the guidance from a Calvinistic pastor to give them a Calvinistic set of glasses to help them read Calvinism into the text or else they probably will never see it, well maybe think about that statement real carefully friend.
so good. thanks for inviting him on guys.
Thank you Dr. Flowers!
Leighton, how can you be a 'former Calvinist' having never actually understood Calvinism? AMAZING!!!
Craig: provide evidence to support your claim that Leighton does not know calvinism.
Calvinists problem is that their philosophy is unsupported by scripture.
i love the honor here between you guys
Excellent program 👍
Great job on this broadcast guys! Flowers is a general I greatly admire and respect regarding soteriological issues. Keep it up!
Tito Santiago thanks Tito.
That chess analogy is perfect. God is so incredible He can accomplish His divine purposes AND extend libertarian free will to man at the same time.
jEW AND GREEK- LOL Then you deny proverbs 16:1 "The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord."
16:4 "The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."
16:9 "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps."
Salvation is 100% of God. Man play his part because...GOD!
@@teemu1381 no I don't deny any Scripture. I just don't look at it through a calvinist lens.
Jew and Greek-No, you look through it with your man-centered lense while denying the Sovereignty of God and God's sovereign choice. It has nothing to do with the label of Calvinism
@@teemu1381 "Sovereign" doesn't mean "puppet master" or "robot programmer". It means "the ultimate authority". All Christians believe that God is the ultimate authority, but not all Christians pretend that they have any monopoly on the subject. Just Calvinists. The difference in our views is not on whether or not God is the ultimate authority, but the implications of His sovereignty. Does that translate into meticulous control, or does it mean that He rules over His creation to whom He was extended free will? I think the Bible clearly teaches the latter.
Jew and Greek- I didn't say were are robots....But God changes the will of his elect to believe the gospel and truth. You think you came to Christ of your own doing and decision LOL, when Jesus clearly says NO MAN CAN come except the father DRAWS him and further on NO MAN CAN come says unless it is GIVEN. Your Will, as an unregenerated man, is not free as it is in bondage to sin and does NOT seek God (Romans 3:10-12). Dead men cannot come to Christ or do anything apart from God. This is what you will worshippers can't seem to grasp.
This was awesome!
Such a good conversation! Great responses from 💐
Watched quite a few of Leighton's videos and I think that was his best so far. Well done, boys, on drawing him out and moderating well. Subscribed to Remnant as a result.
Thank you Matt
@@TheRemnantRadio just wondering, do you guys have any vids that are v moderate who can help someone ('a friend') who is theoretically unopposed to the gifts but is also v skeptical of so much of the nonsense, the false claims and exaggerated emotion. The Christian life, worship, evangelism and worship, in Christ, is already very full and the question remains that it doesn't actually seem that when all is stripped down, they'd be missing much.
God has given Flowers the freedom to reject divine determinism, but not the freedom to receive the truth. This is granted by God.
James White should’ve called in and made it the “who can stump Dr White show”.
Came here because of Leighton, and I really enjoyed the programme. Subscribed, as you have all my favourite people coming on soon. Thanks
thank you for this program- from philippines!
I thank Dr. Flowers because of his allegory, calvinist storeology makes more sense.
Great Talk!
Dr. Leighton Flowers is a sent preacher i am convinced of it, God bless him!
Romans 12:3
Gifts of Grace
[3] For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, 👉each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
Calvinist start with the wrong premises, because they start collecting premises in NT, ignoring the contradictions that those premises have with OT.
Thank you for having Dr. Flowers on your podcast
Like what?
you realize the majority of Gods attributes are set forth in psalms. thats in the old testament btw
Not only are His attributes described in Psalms, but we can then watch in the OT as history places His attributes on display. God is fully sovereign, and the way that works together with human choice is a deep mystery that we’ll never understand. It is God’s power that make it all possible.
@@PaDutchRunner
"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so."
A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, chapter 22 “The Sovereignty of God”
Properly defining Sovereign is key as it doesn't mean divine meticulous determinism. God can foreknow absolutely everything that will ultimately come to pass without it 'necessitating' God being the CAUSE of predetermining everything God foreknew. Isaiah 46:10. God knows the end to the beginning and isn't affected by the constructs of time like us.
There's also many scriptures Calvinists ignore from the NT, especially the warnings Jesus gave constantly, including the way is narrow that leads to salvation and broad is the path to damnation and many will follow it. Choice! Freewill!
Thank you
woa this was really good.
If calvinism view on determination is true, the old and new testament contradict each other. And God is schizophrenic? God grieved over but ordained their rebellion. Jesus cried over Israel riding into the city but only choses a predestined few? So that's why I shun calvinisms predetermined outcome theory.
Rico,
If God were the proximate cause of all that he has ordained, there might be some conflict between His ordination of all things and His revealed desires that flow from his holy character. It is not that God is schizophrenic at all but that he chooses according to his highest inclination. For those who deny God's decree, His highest inclination is toward the preservation of human free will. He would rather that billions of sinners perish than to intervene and grant them a heart-felt desire to love and please him. Biblically, His highest inclination is to manifest His own glory. There is no conflict between God's sovereign decree and the free decisions of sinners.
Predestination is not fatalism.
Very important concept to understand…
chosen/elected ≠ saved
chosen/elected = purposed
Hi Brother in Christ Just wanted to ask if you can provide clarity to your statement? Any biblical verses to support it?
@@johncyreltabora4939
Ephesians 1:4 (HCSB)
For He chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight.
Before the foundation of the world, God chose those who would be found in Him for a purpose: to be holy and blameless in His sight.
The verse does not say:
For He chose us TO BE in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight.
@@theidolbabblerthedailydose33
The beauty of reading a verse in context not chopped up haha
Awesome job Leighton! And guys at Remnant Radio! I’m going to have to watch this another few times and take notes to keep with me when addressing Calvinistic Soteriology!
If you ever want to a non-prominent sister in Christ to discuss the Word of Faith I’d volunteer to be a guest! 🙋♀️
The problem is that too many people who speak against it were either never in it OR address the older teachings. But Word of Faith has morphed and been softened to be able to persist to this day.
I was saved in 2002 in a Word of Faith church and remained there(off and on) until 2018. I experienced the transformation from “little gods” and “speaking things into existence” teachings to newer teachings of simply “watching your self-talk” and “abundance to be able to give and spread the gospel”.
I can thoroughly explain why even the softened version is in error and is leading believers into temptation, and debunk all these modern Word of Faith teachings with scripture.
I enjoyed this so much, thank you
This was good.
Romans 12:3
Gifts of Grace
[3] For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, 👉each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
Thank you for this Remnant Radio!! Calvinism almost ruined me so I appreciate this so much. Just clicked subscribe.
Same here, same here!!! 🙋🏻♀️My family was ready to have me institutionalized, and I'm not exaggerating! Praise God for his goodness, right?
Praise God Kristine! He is truly SO merciful. Man-made philosophy puts you in a box full of dissonance but the true, unfiltered Gospel will set you free! God IS love!!
Pat: You are probably trolling me but, on the small chance you aren't, Calvinism teaches Devine, meticulous determinism which logically leads to God electing some while damning a larger number to hell BEFORE they were even born. This deterministic view wasn't taught by ANY Christian until Augustine, in his later years as he conflated his former Manichean Gnosticism philosophy with Christianity so as to win an argument with his contemporary, Pelagius. This also logically leads to God being the author of all sin. Calvinist try to mask this by teaching philosophical compatibilism but, that's just kicking the can down the road a little further. When I understood what Reformed Theologians were actually teaching, I wanted nothing to do with this God. I almost just walked away like many have done. Again, if by chance your question isn't rhetorical, study even just the U in "TULIP" for a specific teaching, then study The Gospel. The cognitive dissonance caused by these two diametrically opposed teachings is enough to ruin any honest, open minded, logical thinker.
My "paranoia" comes from years of experience of dealing with Calvinist who "be hatin". I don't know you but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and, had you responded politely, I would've responded as many times as necessary to make sure you understood where I'm coming from. I do troll trolls but, again, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Glad your first response was sincere.
Now you're getting honest! Thanks for proving me correct. You don't have to agree with me but don't pretend you don't realize why I would have "animosity" toward the PHILOSOPY(it is not a doctrine) of a puppet master God arbitrarily damning his creatures for his glory. I noticed you changed the word I used, "determination" to "providence". NOT the same thing. Troll. Then you included "foreordination", a word you, no doubt, do not properly understand. "What about your hatred" you say. You went all ad hominem instead of attempting to refute what I stated. Canned, troll responses.. Like the left today, you will accuse me of a hate crime next I guess...Typical. I knew I was right about you. I will not read your comments after this. Go troll someone who has the time and no brain...
The gospel itself is a sufficient work of grace. It seems like Calvinism tries to add another “hidden” work of grace on top of the gospel that actually causes the gospel itself to loose it’s power. Sounds like something nearing anti-gospel in some ways.
Thank you having this conversation.
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Who is all?
@@ShepherdMinistry
Who is All ? Unbelievable
@@RR-ue4im If all is every single person then what about the people who never heard of Christ? Why weren’t they drawn by the gospel?
@@ShepherdMinistrybecause we are more concerned about teaching our doctrines in churches and fighting about them online, rather than telling our neighbors about Jesus.
Almost Calvinist here!!!
Bummer that I missed the chance to ask leighton questions, but if there are any provision it’s here in the comments I’d like to throw out a question. Proverbs 16:33 says that the lot is cast in the lap but it’s every decision is from the Lord. Are we to believe that God determines the casting of a lot and a rolling of the dice and yet does not determine much more important events in history? Also I wanted leighton ti clarify more on the psalm 139. david says that all of his days were ordained before even one of them came to pass. Would a provisionist just say it’s hyperbolic? Would they say that yes he ordained all of David’s days? If so how could he ordain David’s days without also orchestrating the lives of the people he encountered?
"And from the wicked their light is withholden." (Job 38:15)
it is their light, which means they have it...
@@roystutzer4609 they had it and it is deminished/removed so that they may know what the darkness is and be provoked to envy/repentance that they may seek to do good.
We go by the whole Bible not parts of it
Great job! ☝️
Awesome
Advice to all that only JESUS can saves us.
GODBLESS all
YES!!!! HALLELUJAH!!!
I love Leighton's eisegesis. very entertaining.
Watched this again the second time two years later. it was better than the first time. Lol.
How’d you do that? It’s a year old. 🤣😂
@@pinknoise365 originally streamed in 2019.😉
@@gialovesjesus8350 November 4th, 2019. 😜
@@pinknoise365 I guess I’m getting too old to do the math. 😂
God can foreknow absolutely everything that will ultimately come to pass without 'necessitating' God being the 'cause' of predetermining everything He foreknows. God can foreknow Adam and Eve would choose to disobey Him without necessitating God being the CAUSE of their disobedience. James 1:13-15
If a man cannot chose God, and His ways, then why did God make an appeal to Cain to do what was right. In Gen. 4:6 The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 IF YOU DO WELL, will you not be accepted? And if YOU DO NOT WELL, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.” GOD did not think that Cain could not in his spiritually dead condition - CHOOSE to do well. TOTAL DEPRAVITY does not mean TOTAL INABILITY. Evidently according to this verse God did not hold the doctrine of INABILITY of the Calvinist.
God appeals to everyone. That doesn’t equate to God chooses everyone. Not trying to argue...just giving a plausible answer to your question. 🙂
So Cain could have done other than what he did? You don’t see how this contradicts the whole point? Cain was predestined to do exactly what he did and predestined for his inevitable judgement. Otherwise God would’ve intervened. Since God allowed the actions of Cain, he determined it, becomes he is the Creator and knew what was going to come to pass. You can’t escape this. Free will doesn’t exist. Get over it.
@@jtslev read the text: Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 IF YOU DO WELL, shalt thou not be accepted? and IF YOU DO NOT WELL, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
@@garyscalf2225 Look, we all choose based on the condition of our heart. We don’t know our heart any more than we know the future. Our hearts act of their own accord; by their own nature, which is corrupt, and our conscience, plus God’s Word tells us to obey God’s law and turn from our fallen desires to appeal to the flesh. On top of all this, God has created the universe with a specific purpose in mind. Thus, it must logically follow that God has determined everything for it’s purpose. That purpose is to glorify Himself through His creation, and put on display His attributes and character. Throughout this work that God is doing, we who believe have the unfathomable blessing to be determined to be recipients of God’s eternal love, mercy, and grace. We recognize this and understand that we owe everything to God because without His designing every aspect of our being, we would have no power to do anything or be anything. We are wholly reliant on God for our body mind and soul, which includes our thoughts and choices. Therefore, autonomous free will is a myth, and nothing more than a figment of your fallen imagination. If your will is in line with God, you have no freedom. Freedom implies deviation from God’s will, which is sin. You boast in having free will? You’re really boasting in your ability to reject God’s will, but even that was ordained. This is logically inescapable. You must first abandon logic because you cannot explain where an autonomous free will comes from if not created by God, and if God created your will, you aren’t “free” in the grand scheme of things. That’s ok though, because God is allowed to create however He pleases, and His justice is still valid because He’s only giving those who reject Him what they ultimately want; independence at the price of punishment. No one goes to hell who didn’t agree to make that sacrifice.
@@jtslev Therefore, autonomous free will is a myth, and nothing more than a figment of your fallen imagination. Brother, you may think it is a myth. The greatest attribute that God has is the ability to choose. Cod gave both angels and men the ability to choose. Michael and Gabriel who kept their first estate have to this day the ability to choose God whereas Lucifer and his angels departed from the faith. God gave Adam and Eve a choice of what tree to eat and not to eat from. Men and Angels were given the ability to choose or not to choose and it's our ability to be able to choose God that actually glorifies God. I see the ability to choose as a good thing given by God and you see it as a negative thing. Thank you for your comment. blessings
Great interview!
after reading 50 comments i have come to a conclusion...it is of the HIGHEST calling to teach God's Word! few have the skill and how anyone can sit under a man under 40 much less 50 is beyond me. all men i see under 40 that teach with confidence embrace their system...they do not own what they say regarding difficult matters as discussed here. There is tremendous psychological empowerment in this for men. If you stay within your system you can rise up...which is why so few men are willing to think outside their system. the more i dig the more complex Christianity becomes. NT Wright believe this, MacArthur believes that, Piper believe this, etc...pick your leader. ONE Bible...many systematic views. So what does God expect from us? This is the internet age...most of life has been people living in small villages with one church. They sat under a pastor and were trying to be obedient. It seems God's grace then must be in working in lives despite a pastor's incomplete knowledge of God's Word. Otherwise, what hope does anyone really have? Now I am referring to Christian churches not per se a Moron church. Get what I am saying here? We need to search the scriptures, but if the most learned cannot agree, what does Joe in church do? What does God expect from us sitting under a pastor?
Hi brother, that is why we do not separate on this issues. Here is a good video: czcams.com/video/nZVliPjDV6Q/video.html
I sat in many different churches hearing different notions of interpretation, buying hundreds of books.
What helped me most was praying and reading the bible over and over, looking up each word nearly in every verse of Scripture.
My favorite bible (KJV) is published by AMG, the Complete Word Study NT and OT, edited by Spiros Zodhiates, and his dictionaries for each edition. It takes diligence and study, and the LORD is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him, and receive 'the love of the Truth', so never give up!
John Calvin .... and every one else who has passed, now knows.
I think Christians on both sides of this debate have spent so much time arguing over the things we ultimately can’t answer that we’ve forgotten there’s a real enemy out there who hates God, hates the gospel, and hates Christians. Many folks on these forums are still so consumed with this to the point of an unhealthy walk. Can y’all admit that there are questions you can’t answer and unify in Christ?
These questions can be answered! The Calvinist side is telling people God hasn’t provided salvation for all but the other is saying He has! I think it’s a worthy topic of discussion! And I by no means think it means we’ve forgotten the enemy!
@@lauren8407 matthew is correct in his opinion. a quick look through large libraries of content creators will show the amount of material that is used to evaluate and debate difference of Christian doctrine. there are even channels who only share content on tearing apart other views. there is a large amount of content creators who do everything except preach the gospel.
1 Corinthians 3.
THANK YOU for this!! It is SSOOO helpful! I never really learned what calvinism is or meant before. I grew up all Pentecostal and in the last ten years ran around Word of Faith. Both are very free-will/Armenian, although neither talked about it nor explained it. The problem is, Word of Faith adds "jurisdiction" to "free-will." (In other words, God's is waiting for man to 'take authority' and enact His plans (heaven to earth), which extremely denegrades the Sovereignty of God. Many other errors in Word of Faith, but this is a foundational one and points back to the extremes of Armenianism that can lead to error; while I think there are extreme errors of Calvinism also, I think moderate stances on both are fully within orthodoxy.) Having been delivered from WoF, there is a lot of pressure to go Calvinist, but I just couldn't support their understanding of predestination. I might still study more, but this is such an excellent and studied platform to go from and helps me know what/when/where to look at. Thanks so much.
If you need more read The Potter's Promise by Leighton. It's pretty good.
@@huntsman528 thanks. I got it and read it (or most of it) some time after the original comment
Just go back to the apostles doctrine, which was the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
In Jesus Christ is the fulness of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
It is neither Calvin nor Arminius we should be seeking, nor yet Luther, nor Augustine, nor yet any other mere man or their words.
Jesus said - Follow Me. Period.
Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism can help us. Both guys are dead. Their writings are not Scripture nor even close to Scripture.
It is the Word of God we must be feasting on. Daily. Weekly. Yearly.
There the Holy Spirit will teach us of Jesus. There we will see the power of God evidenced in the lives of individuals and nations.
Hebrews 4:12 says the Word of God is ALIVE, VIBRANT, ACTIVE, it can renew our minds, change our behaviour to become conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.
Jesus was neither Calvinist or Arminianist. We do not need to use those men, nor should we, as demarcation lines in our experience.
Praise God for any good thing they did, but much mischief has resulted from their efforts.
Jesus said, those who hunger and thirst after righteousness (as specified by God) shall be filled.
Let us seek the fulness of the blessing of Christ. Let us go on to perfection. Let us build up ourselves in our most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost - Jude.
My response to "it is impossible for someone to come to Christ unless the Father draws him" John 12:32 - And I [Jesus], when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
You’re confusing the Father with Jesus here
@@ShepherdMinistry John 12:30-32 NIV - Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
Am I misunderstanding what your saying? Because it seems to me that Jesus said it. You may be referring to something else that I am unaware of though.
@@popoffs5273 If Jesus draws all men to himself, do you believe that means every single person in the world?
We have to keep in mind Jesus said God draws them yo Him and He will raise them up on the last day. Meaning those that come to Jesus by God are saved.
John 6:44
[44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Ohh boy... Dr. Flowers sees a second exodus in the first century. I love it.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
John 15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you
John 17: 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Romans 9 :15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Abraham was a sinner. Yet when God spoke to him, he believed God. And it was counted to him for righteousness. He heard the word of faith and believed and acted on what he heard. He was not saved first then believed, he believed first after hearing directly from God THEN it was counted to him for righteousness. Faith came before the Law was introduced. Faith comes from hearing God's Word and acting on it. Righteousness comes through faith, not through the Law.
Everyone who believes is considered as children of faithful Abraham.
Paul explains this in Galatians and Romans, the sameone whom wrote some of those verses you make mention of. Abraham saw Jesus (before the days of His flesh) and rejoiced, leapt for joy.
Abram WAS called of God. Abram heard and took heed to the voice of God. Abram began his walk of faith LONG before the Law ever came into existence.
Jesus spoke much about Abraham.
He is counted as the father of all those who believe in Jesus Christ.
Jesus Himself said - You must be born again.... unless you are.... you will not see or enter into the Kingdom of God.
How are we born again? By the Holy Spirit's work.
We are born again by the Holy Spirit after we believe. Whoever believes (1) on the Son shall (2) have Life.
To as many as received Him, to them (those who received Jesus) gave He authority to be called the sons (children) of God.
We are begotten, Peter says, not by corruptible seed, but by the Word of God which is alive and remains forever.
When the 3000 unsaved souls heard Peter preaching in the house above them, they were stabbed in the heart. The Holy Spirit convicted them of sin, righteousness and judgment. In fear for their unsaved souls, they cried out - What MUST WE DO. Peter says - Repent, and be baptized, everyone of you for the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
They had to turn completely away from their sinful ways, to God, submit to water baptism which was a commitment to discipleship to Jesus (see Exodus 14, where Israel was baptized unto Moses, which day God saved them from the hand of Pharaoh; see 1 Cor 10:1-4), just as Israel was discipled (disciplined) by Moses.
Cornelius wasn't saved but he prayed and fasted for 3 days into a fourth day. An angel appeared and told him to send for Peter who will tell you WHAT YOU MUST DO.
Peter came and preached in that house, they heard and believed and were instantly filled with the Holy Ghost. Then Peter commanded them to be baptised, immersed in the name of the Lord.
Peter tells the saints in Jerusalem that God granted repentance also to the Gentiles and the Holy Spirit sealed them.
Believing comes after hearing. Being born again - saved comes as a result of believing.
Yes God calls.... the call goes out to all mankind. Jesus gave a few parables to explain this.
Faith comes by HEARING. Hearing comes by the Word of God.
Paul says whoever shall CALL upon the name of the Lord shall (as a result) be saved.
But he reasons: how can they call on Him they have not believed?
So calling upon follows believing.
How shall they believe in Him they have not heard about?
Believing follows the hearing.
And how shall they hear unless one is sent?
Hearing is a result of God sending someone, like Moses to the Israelites in Egypt; likeJesus to earth: like Peter to Cornelius.
heard about?
Some believe and they are chosen, because God was in the process.
It is all contingent on God.
It is God's work, but he will not violate the independent volition of man, who was made in the image and likeness of God.
Some chose not to believe because they love their sin too much. They hate the Light and refuse to come to the Light lest their deeds are exposed.
God is our Salvation.
Jesus is our Salvation.
The Lord is my Light and my Salvation, whom then shall I fear?
When Calvinists use John 6:44 as a prooftext for T.U.and I of T.U.L.I.P. .... Let's look at John 12:32 and Matthew 22:1-14. When we examine the passage in John 12 it clearly doesn't align with the Calvinist interpretation of John 6:44 or the wedding banquet in Matthew 22:1-14 so the John 6:44 prooftext is shown to not be proper exegesis.
John 12:32
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Matthew 22:1-14
1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
@@jasonfrost6595 Matthew 5:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (the house of Spiritual Israel) the gentile woman's God given faith proved she was one of His children, one of the Spiritual Israel of God.
Romans 9:6
It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
7
Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."
8
In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
John 6:44 was addressed. If the word "draws" means what you say it mean then the Dr. Very thoroughly answered it. The Bible also says in John that the exact SAME word "draw" is used to state He draws everyone. That should completely resolve the first verse, do you agree
@@donstevensii7293 He will draw "all" His people, His sheep. He said that He came to save His people from their sins. He doesn't save the goats, the chaff, the children of the devil. He tells them He never knew them. He called the Pharisees children of the devil.
Spurgeon said ..." the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts --some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ... (C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption)
Deuteronomy 30. I give you a choice of life or death. Please choose life. God didn't say you will choose life because I choose you. Book of Jeremiah is almost all God asking Israel to repent or be judged and they CHOSE to say no for years. It never once said God ordained them to rebel against their will. God grieved over the evil heart of man. Why would he if he preordained them to be that way? He wouldnt. Thanks for the program guys!
Rico Bonifacio,
It is not necessary that every passage that presents a sinner's responsibility to repent and choose life should explain how those who apart from divine grace have, by sinful nature, no inclination to do so, ever come to repentance. One must take the Scriptures as a whole to find such answers.
You asked, " Why would he if he preordained them to be that way? He wouldnt." Your assumption seems to be that God is the proximate cause of all that he has ordained. God's electing decree causes no one's condemnation. God grieves over human sinfulness because His nature is Holy. He cannot but desire the sinner's repentance because of his nature. Unless you believe God's knowledge of future events was, contingent on human decision, and therefore uncertain and incomplete, you must acknowledge that he determined by the very act of bringing the universe into existence that all He knew for certain was to occur was certain to occur. It is God's decision that what he knew perfectly would occur would be certain to occur for His eternal glory and for the eternal and spiritual good of His people. He determined that all that would not suit that end was to be excluded from His universe. He has not determined what will occur because he foresaw it, but knows it ahead of time but because he has determined beforehand that it will occur for the accomplishment of his eternal purpose.
Amen. Yes sir. The gospel is an eternal gospel for all ages. Past, present, and future. And Christ is the fulfilment of the gospel.
Revelation 14:6
Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth-to every nation, tribe, language and people.
The Gospel is THE POWER OF GOD unto salvation ... Rom 1:16
The Word of God is ALIVE AND POWERFUL... Heb 4:12
The GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD ... Acts 20:24
You are right Leighton. The gosple is more than the fact that Jesus Christ , died was buried and rose again. That is the climax, the fulfillment.
I like to hear "both sides of the coin." My ex-husband took my son to a Presbyterian Church for awhile, and I was never sure of what they believed.
I have some wonderful Pressy friends who genuinely love Jesus Christ.
The real issue is do we place the Word of God above all other words, even "chatacisms"? Do we read the Word of God through denominational glasses, or do we read it as a man dying of thirst drinks a glass of cool refreshing water?
Do we seek Jesus in the pages of the Bible, or are we seeking to defend a denominational position.
I’d love to hear you explain Romans 12:3 about faith. Who distributes it?
Read that in context. It's speaking of spiritual gifts. Another verse which speaks of something similar is 1st Corinthians 12:8-10 which says "For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues"
This shows a similar idea of different measures of faith among believers. That is different from a saving faith in Christ.
@@timothyschreiber8338 you’re complicating it too much because it doesn’t fit your reason. You’re gonna have to trust what scripture clearly points out. Faith comes from God alone. Ephesians 2 also explains this.
@@villarrealmarta6103 Ephesians 2 says salvation is the gift of God, since it's not from works.
@@Mike65809 amen 🙏 good answer
Having attended Willow Creek for several years, and growing up in western Michigan, I think Hybels is Calvinist, except having adopted believer baptism for practical reasons.
Ooooh, this is gonna be epic... 😁😁😁😊😊😊 #GoDrFlowers
i want to thank Dr. Flowers for assuring me that the calvinist position is the most biblical one...I guess even one note banjos have a purpose in the kingdom..
lol
Nice! 👍
Or maybe you lack the full Knowledge of the Bible
Where do I listen to this show live?
Soteriology 101
God draws all men by the preaching of the gospel. If you can hear the preaching, you have to make a decision about it, you have to choose rather to put your faith in Jesus Christ and the worldview purposed by scripture, or put your faith in something else, another worldview. Romans 10:14 "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Good stuff gentlemen! God bless!
lol nonsense! John 1:13 "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" verse 12 before 13- and to "them" he gives the power to believe on his name are those born of God....You cannot believe unless you are born (again) of God.
Response on pharaoh so far is the number one in arguments
God has an elect remnant with both Jew and Gentile. It’s called the Church.
To add to the question of Pharoa...remember Isaiah 46:10 says God can tell the end from the beginning, so God told Moses the end of Pharoa before it began as God knew he would harden his heart and then God will give him over as God knows the future. God did not begin the hardening, Pharoa's pride did, God merely said (OWN VERY LOOSE TRANSLATION)...If you don't want My will to be done, have your will be done.
Andries Lerm Amen God only hardened Pharaoh’s heart AFTER he freely rejected God FIRST in Exodus 5:2.
Never understood it this way. Thanks for sharing
Actually, if you read the whole Bible, you'll note 2 things:
1. No prophet or apostle ever says "God hardened AFTER Pharaoh hardened". They always/only say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and they leave it there.
2. They probably did not skip Ps 105:25
[+]And the LORD made his people very fruitful and made them stronger than their foes. He turned their hearts to hate his people, to deal craftily with his servants. (Ps 105:24-25)
In other words, God moved first to harden all of Egypt so they would abuse the Israelites.
BTW, if you count every time Pharaoh's hart is mentioned in Exod 1-14, you'll see a very peculiar pattern. The condition of Pharaoh's heart is mentioned exactly 20 times:
10x God hardened
5x Unstated who hardened his heart
3x Pharaoh hardened
2x Pharaoh softened (repented)
Bear in mind that God is not required to harden someone's heart just because they spite Him. He didn't harden S/Paul's heart: He sent him a vision and got him saved. He could have done the same for Pharaoh. And Sodom and Gomorrah (See Matt 11:20-25)
God deliberately chose to harden Pharaoh's heart so that he would not let His people go so that God could strike him down. That's what the Bible repeats. We should repeat it too.
Our takeway needs to be the same as the prophets and apostles: "God hardened Pharaoh's heart".
And leave it there. Just like they did.
@@apilkey
Before Moses ever encounters Pharaoh, The LORD tells him in advance, '...but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go!' (Ex.4:21)
Why don't you read the entire bible a few times, so you don't keep thinking you are correct! You must have meant Ex.5:2, not Gen.5:2... hmmm
Michael Stanley Yes I meant Exodus 5:2 thanks for the correction.
And thanks for the advice on reading the Bible a few times.
I have and I will continue to do so I hope you take your advice as well.
Now let’s breakdown and expose your assumptions surrounding pharaoh:
Let’s take a look at God’s FIRST MENTION of Pharaoh.
God had FOREKNOWLEDGE that Pharoah wouldn’t let them go unless He stretched forth His hand.
He didn’t meticulously hard determine that he wouldn’t before the foundation of the world.
This passage says nothing of the sort.
God knew he wouldn’t because he was not ALREADY following after the Lord.
FREEWILL FIRST THEN GOD’S MIGHTY HAND.
Sequence of events was NOT God predestining Pharoah’s heart to be hardened FIRST.
We need to look at the sequence of events:
EXODUS 3:19
19 AND I AM SURE THAT THE KING OF EGYPT WILL NOT LET YOU GO, NO, NOT BY A MIGHTY HAND.
20 And I will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and AFTER THAT HE WILL LET YOU GO.
EXODUS 4:21
21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: BUT I WILL HARDEN HIS HEART, that he shall not let the people go.
This passage is simply God saying what He will do and makes no mention of anything being predetermined.
God knew Pharaoh would freely reject Him and He knew He would then AFTERWARDS harden Pharaoh’s heart.
Hey Remnant. This is 3 years later, but it would be nice if you had timestamps especially on call-in shows, like Mike Winger has. Thanks!
Yes, a big help!
Thank u for your work just want to add a simple solution in my mind ..Romans says they are without excuse..that tells me everyone has a chance but they are simply not willing but scripture is clear God is willing..
Just curious why Leighton lets his admins on Soteriology " 101 " remove Born Again believers including myself , that do not find " Reformers " as Spiritually born again Believers , as they do fully deny :( John 3:16 , and most of all other foundational Biblical text regarding God as non partial and a God of Love ? Again , if these " Rome Reformers " are as you straight out imply > are indeed your " brothers in Christ " , then why spend all your waking hours , mainly challenging their obviously " man added theological non prophet nonsense " ?
Basically, "Calvinism" requires God to DIRECTLY empower a Man through an infusion of a DESIRE for Him, BEFORE the Man can actually have faith in God. In other words, a Man can be in the darkest fringes of the Earth and if God, by His Sovereign will, "empowers" the Man then he will SEEK and FIND God, and WILL come to Salvation, "no holds barred".
The Bible, however, paints a very different picture. The Bible affirms that a Man CANNOT go to Jesus, and ultimately to God, unless God draws him through His Word. The method used by God to "draw" Men is not by a DIRECT infusion of faith, rather it is by REVELATION of Himself through His Word, through PREACHING of the Word, i.e. the Gospel Message.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
If He does not REVEAL Himself to Man, through a Gospel REVELATION, then Man CANNOT know Him, so Man is dependent on God REVEALING Himself to Man for him to come to Salvation. Man MUST be given LIGHT, i.e. God MUST reveal Himself, for Man to be ENABLED to either "receive" the Light or "refuse" the Light. No-one can either choose or reject that which has not been offered.
John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
John 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
John 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
The "Calvinists" have gotten themselves into the old "cart before the horse" conundrum. In essence, "Calvinists" have CHOSEN the "egg" first before the "chicken" and have asserted that God "nursed" the "chick" to full fruition into a "chicken". It SOUNDS Nice and Sovereignty, God being entirely in control, but it is basically CONTRARY to how the Scriptures portray God's Sovereignty. From the beginning God REVEALED Himself by His Word to Man and Man was made responsible for the decisions he made BASED on what God had VERBALLY REVEALED about Himself. There is and has ALWAYS been ONLY one way of Salvation and that has been:
Rom 10:17 So then FAITH COMES by HEARING, and HEARING by the WORD of God.
Men CANNOT be "drawn" to God nor to Jesus UNLESS someone, a Preacher, preaches the Gospel for THEM to "hear" and believe or "hear" and NOT believe.
John 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that HEARETH my WORD, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
This ain't "rocket science".
Calvinism is legitimate heresy.
@@justchilling704 - Basically, "Calvinism" is just "Augustinianism" which is just plain'o Pagan Greco Roman Catholicism which denies the "saving" power of the "Gospel of Christ" and the "hearing of faith" which leads to Salvation "in Christ".
On point, and that's called two way relationship between men and God🙏
Many are called but few are chosen because few responded
@@paulnavarro3822 It’s unfortunate how mainstream such thinking has become among western Christians.
Subscribed after I saw how beautiful this exchange with Dr. Flowers was
Keith Sturgill,
I would like to respond to your comments but for some reason I cannot see your entire responses. This comment section has become so convoluted that I can't even find the area in which we were discussing. Sorry. Perhaps we can pick this up at another time.
I like have Flowers threw in the accusation of "philosophical assertions,'" yet constantly was referring to free will, which is more of a philosophical concept than a biblical one. But I don't expect Leighton to understand that, since it's impossible for him to understand his own inconcistencies.
"free will = the ability to choose from available options"
Deuteronomy 30:19 NIV
[19] This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now *CHOOSE* life, so that you and your children may live
Here's a verse Calvinists sure love to quote don't they??
Foreknowledge and foreknew are two completely different. Wish Leighton realized the difference.
What’s the difference?
What's the difference?
@@danielletracyann foreknowledge is a noun and foreknew is an active verb
The meaning remains the same awareness of something before it happens. They are not completely different
@@danielletracyann For knowing something is not foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is passively having knowledge of future events. But in Romans 8 when it says those He foreknew it means knowing someone. The golden chain of redemption found in Romans 8 speaks of active verbs such as foreknew, predestine, call, justify and glorify. God undertakes these actions. Foreknew is an acting verb always referring to persons never actions in history. That’s the difference.
Thanks to all the great Bible scholars in the comments section who think their opinion on the issue is the right one.
Proverbs 5:21 answers the “what does God know about our choices”
Ten years seems to be the limit. That’s what it took me to understand the heresy. It’s insidious.
I never did fall for this demonic heresy, the moment I found out what it taught I immediately noticed it as heretical and evil.
@@justchilling704 what’s demonic and evil about the “heresy” that you were so wise to avoid?
@@andrewoverholser491 Determinism.
@@justchilling704 well, since predestination is not fatalism the question remains.
I respect Leighton but his answer are not convincing I still agree with reformed theology
@Sir Isaac Newton I disagree with Leighton on his objection towards reformed theology, I believe God is sovereign over everything and we can not choose God on your own accord. I believe Jesus himself and the apostle spoke about this, there is a mystery about God being sovereign and humans being fully responsible it might sound like im contradicting but our minds can grasp what God does he's perfect
@Sir Isaac Newton preaching the gospel is simple in that God loves you and he Sent his son to die for your sins. The ones that end up saved will hear the message and they will have eternal life. We don't know who the elect are so we preach to everyone
@Sir Isaac Newton I know of many that go to homeless shelters. I'm far from many that do it but I volunteer and give my time, that's what Christians suppose to do
@Sir Isaac Newton I know I agree
@Sir Isaac Newton jesus never said I'm God worship me but we do because he said it in different ways, he is God. The holy spirit that guided the apostle wrote these things
How is it possible to be able to tell why people help others and then attribute it to works? How is that possible to know?
Recommend the book "Catholic Controversy" by Francis of Sales.
19:55
The problem with Flowers analogies is they limit God every time, which is part of his soteriological stance.
God isn’t just a “chess player” He is the one who created the game itself and the opponent that He ultimately defeats.
I disagree that his soteriology limits God. If anything, it provides more options in fulfilling his will beyond a cosmic "debug mode".
@@NW-sm8xq his analogies seem to be the only thing upholding his soteriology vs the Calvinistic presentation. If we are having a discussion as to which one is more biblical, the guy using the analogies to frame his exegesis is not being faithful to the word of God.
Well yeah you can always make analogies seem silly if you try to stretch them to cover more than they mean. Does Jesus teaching in parables limit God? Obviously not. Juat listen to they analogies for what they are and stop trying to find ways to strawman flowers. He does as much exegesis as any Calvinist, hes just much better at describing them to the lay person.
He acknowledged that God created the chess board. We're there any specific biblical points you disagreed with him on?
@@carstontoedter1333 Mark 4:11-12 (CSB) 11 He answered them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those outside, everything comes in parables 12 “so that they may indeed look, and yet not perceive; they may indeed listen, and yet not understand; otherwise, they might turn back and be forgiven.”
Jesus clearly intended parables to confuse the uninitiated and has a specific purpose for them.
This guy and his analogies are trying to bring light to something that God has already clearly revealed in scripture. Whether it’s Gods autonomy or mans pure FREE will, we can be assured if it’s not established in scripture then why would this mans analogy add light when that was never the intention of the parables for the uninformed. He always resorts to analogies that limit God because the analogies are not based in scripture but rather his perfected soteriology.
Dr Flowers is the answer to the prayers of those who couldn't find Calvinism in the Bible or Arminianism. PROVISIONISM is the only biblical view that makes sense according to the Bible alone. Popularity or marketing by Calvinism does not make it correct or sound doctrine. The more I know Calvinists the more I see the dangers of such terrible misrepresentation of God to the point many now are trying to convert people to Calvinism instead of Messiah Himself. That's extremely dangerous and I see the anger and bitterness in them when you reject their theology. That's very telling.
Only took 2,000 years for the only correct view. 😂 give me a break. To your point about conversion though, no one should convert anyone to Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Provisionism, etc. Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.
Everything God WILLS, God DESIRES.....but all
God desires, He does not will.
Will is an action, desire is a want, a feeling.
Clalvinist view will and desire as the same.
I didn't realize how big Dr. Flower is! I saw him sitting next to Dr. Brown in a video, it's either Dr. Brown is the size of David, or Dr. Flower is the size of Goliath.
Calvinists seem to have power to define and even undermine the very mind of God.
How?
"No one can come unto me unless the Father DRAW him... But it also says in Joh. 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will DRAW all men unto me. The DRAWING ministry of all men that come to Jesus, is the the DRAWING ministry of the HOLY SPIRIT in the world. Jesus said in Jn 16:8 And when he {Holy Spirit) comes, he will CONVICT the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to CONVINCE the WORLD concerning the truth.
Define 'ALL'....All kinds of men? then yes! John 6:37 says "ALL" that the father gave to Jesus will come. So, he draws "ALL" those that the father gave to him. Again, confirmed in John 17:2 You can't say 'ALL' means everyone because it makes no sense when comparing other scriptures.
@@teemu1381 Jesus says He (Holy Spirit) will convict the WORLD of Sin, Righteousness, and Judgment. When you state " Define 'ALL'....All kinds of men? then yes! my answer is NO!!! I'm not saying "All KINDS of Men". My brother, that is a Calvinistic interpretation and insertion of "ALL" "kinds of men"; the scripture does not say "I will convict only "KINDS OF MEN:" or only the Elect; Jesus says "THE WORLD", the WORLD means the WORLD in this text;. As I see it, this Convincing Ministry of the Holy Spirit is the first act of grace and not regeneration. Regeneration follows the one who is Convinced or Convicted ( either word could be translated from the Greek) and the Individual responds to this conviction with Repentance (thats why it is a gift).
Now Concerning the "All that the Father gave to Me" these are the ones who say "YES" to the Kings (FATHER) invitation in (Matt. 22) THEY are the Kings gift to the SON at the end of the Age. I understand that many Reformed brothers like to say "ALL doesn't mean All"; that is true in some scriptures but in other scriptures "ALL" does mean ALL. Just one simple example of this would be found in Rom.3:23 " All Have sinned", you wouldn't say "All does not mean All" or only "certain KINDS of men have sinned". When we say that "All' doesn't mean "All" and point to those certain scriptures where it is used in a Restrictive sense like in (Matt.3:5) and then try to insert it into other passages like (1 Tim.2:4) and then say to people I hope you know that in the scriptures "All doesn't mean All". My Brother teemu this does not sit well with many of us in the body of Christ. Well i hope i clarified what i meant in my above comment. Thank you for your response and Blessings
Gary Scalf- Revelation 5:9 "and hast redeemed "US" to God by thy blood "OUT OF" every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;.....this does not mean everyone!!!
Jesus made it CLEAR in John 6:37-40 that All that the father gave to Jesus will come and that HE loses NONE! John 6:44 and 65 NO MAN CAN come except the father draws you and unless it's given to you. While John 6:28-29 says BELIEVING IS THE WORK of God!
He makes CLEAR in John 10:11-15 that he lays his life down for THE SHEEP (not the goats) and in John 10:25-29 that the reason they do not hear him BECAUSE they are NOT of his sheep and that only the sheep hear his voice. While John 17:2 (confirms John 6:37) "As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." While John 17:9 Jesus does not pray for the world, but FOR THOSE GOD HAS GIVEN HIM,
You free will worshippers just don't get it!!
@@teemu1381 Thank you for your kindness toward us my brother
Gary Scalf amen brother “ALL” only means “ALL” when they want it to and it suits their system.
Dr Flowers didn't address Ephesians 2 in his final answer. I would love to hear it. Thank you all.
All people generally know what is moral. If people are moral then how does that make them completely incapable of responding? God gave people the ability to think. Scripture is loaded with commands.
Hey Calvinists-he uses illustrations to make a point where robotic logic and theological jargon is hard to understand for a lot of people.
Only if someone in the Bible used stories to illustrate theological ideas...oh wait
Pat Eunuchity I’m responding to the critiques of his use of illustrations. How is that an attack?
Pat Eunuchity I am addressing the Calvinists in the comments that are critiquing his use of illustrations.
No one minds that illustrations or analogies are used, but how he uses them. Dr. Flowers begins with an overarching theological view (by his own words, traditionalism) where he first attacks the reformed view, then takes his objections of the reformed view based on his overarching view and misinterprets a text. Then he uses an illustration or analogy of his misinterpretation to "prove" his view is correct. I've seen him do this with Ephesians 1:4, where he makes the prepositional phrase "in him" (speaking of Christ) a separate act of the sinner believing to get "in Christ" in order for the "chosen from the foundation" of the world by God is actually like guys choosing which football team to be on, but once they're on the team the coaches of the team choose their roles on the team. That is not what the text says in context and grammatically, but Dr. Flowers misinterprets it based on his overarching view and then uses the analogy to "show" it is right.
Eric Smith we all begin with an “overarching view”. That is the nature of theology. The Calvinist also does this as well as as the non-Calvinist. “Teaditionalism” or “provisionalism” are terms he uses instead of Arminianism because Arminianism holds beliefs he (and I) don’t believe. Corporate election in Christ has been promoted by a wide range of Christians. Ephesians 1:4 was understood by Calvin himself as Jesus being the Elect One and the Elector. Barth too. We believe that Jesus is the way in which election works. The analogy is useful. You just don’t agree with the interpretation...welcome to theology!
@@ironlion805 Yes, but an overarching view has to come from the scriptures, not from your objections of another theological view. Regardless if its traditionalism, provisionalism, etc., the terms must come from the whole counsel of God found in His Word, always starting first with scripture.
As for Ephesians 1:4, it is irrelevant what Calvin thought about it; if it doesn't line up with the truth of scripture, it doesn't matter if Calvin or anyone else said something. It has to do with what the Bible says in content, context, and grammar. I think the mistakes non-reformed folks engage in is quoting Calvin as if Calvin is the author of scripture; he is not, God is according to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Ephesians 1:4 clearly says "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world..." The first "he" is God the Father; He is the subject. "Hath chosen" is a verb phrase, indicating the action the subject is taking. "Us" is a pronoun speaking of believers and the object of the action. "In him" is the prepositional phrase, indicating what the verb phrase towards the object has been chose in (and that "him" is the pronoun for Christ). "Before the foundation of the world" is another prepositional phrase indicating when God the Father did the choosing, it was before the foundation of what? "of the world" tells us when it was before, being another prepositional phrase. Following the rules of grammar, the self-existent God chose believers in Christ before the foundation of the world (which is Genesis 1:1) which means God's choice was never dependent upon anyone since He was the only One in existence as the self-existent, triune God before He created the world. Notice it says God the Father chose "us," not Christ; the "us" pertains to believers.
And finally, I don't mind if anyone disagrees with an interpretation, but the disagreement must be based on a careful study of the scriptures, not an objection that would deny the attributes of God or the sinfulness of man. Dr. Flowers has many times reinterpreted or redefined God's attributes to fit his view, literally making it less than what the Word of God says. And on a personal note, I find it disheartening that when discussing a theological view on comment sections, Christians type up things they would never say to another Christian face to face. If we were having this discussion in church would you literally say to me, "Welcome to theology" with the sarcastic tone that seems clear in your response? In fact, your original comment had the same sarcastic tone. As a believer in Jesus Christ, is that necessary or just easy to do because social interaction on comment sections lack face to face interaction? Something to think about.
Poor guy. Pray for him.
The very expression “the Grace of God” implies and denotes that the sinner’s condition is desperate to the last degree, and that God may justly leave him to perish; yea, it is a wonder of wonders that he is not already in hell.
Grace is a divine provision for those who are so depraved they cannot change their own nature, so averse from God they will not turn to Him, so blind they can neither see their malady nor the remedy, so dead spiritually that God must bring them out of their graves on to resurrection ground if ever they are to walk in newness of life.
Grace is the sinner’s last and only hope; if he is not saved by grace, he will never be saved at all. Grace levels all distinctions, and regards the most zealous religionist on the same plane as the most profligate, the chaste virgin as the foul prostitute. Therefore God is perfectly free to save the chiefest of sinners and bestow His mercy on the vilest of the vile.
“I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed!” [Mal. 3:6]
A W Pink
Love the chess example, God working His great plan in spite of our counter moves!
Just goes to show you can have 32 degrees and still be freezing cold…Lol
Lol! When he said, exegeticaly explaining scripture, I almost spit out my drink... No offense but, Dr Flowers has given more analogies for the scriptures than anything else I've heard from him.
I have yet to see him walk through more than a few verses at a time and never without interpreting the clear passages without mixing in the parables... 🤷🏻♂️ Maybe one day.
@Pk Amponn No. I simply don't equate choice meats, and police stakeouts with the word of God.
Particularly when it's completely unnecessary and ends up only confusing the plain message of the text.
Same hermeneutics for all the text is the best approach.
@Pk Amponn Flowers analogies, besides being erroneous, are not the word of God. So making an analogy out of a clear text isn't just unnecessary, it's clouding the meaning.
@Pk Amponn and no... Those texts are not teaching what you are using them to teach.
Hello Shane and everone... What does using elegory to explain scripture have anything to do with he's point point being right or wrong. I believe he has used it to explain scripture like the parables of Jesus. He who has an ear to hear let him hear, what the Spirit says to the Church. Dr Flowers just exposed the FALSE PHILOSOPHY of Calvinism, it's that easy. God bless.
@@opindras.bangerh129 again, it matters because #1 The clear teaching through the texts that support the Calvinist position are those that we can walk through the text, follow the argument/point being made and come to a conclusion based on those texts, without any need to create some pious sounding analogy that ends up perverting the meaning of the text.
And #2 failing to use the same hermeneutics simply because doing so would support the Calvinist position is deceitful.
5:00 regardless of the definition of "helkó," the implication is that whomever is lead of the Father to the Son will be raised up. John 6:37 is more of a go-to for Calvinists anyway.
7:58 your answer is found in Ephesians 2:1-10
9:38 election as it is described in Mark 13:20, implies that all the true followers of Christ are the elect. So by default, if the sheep are His followers, they would refer to the elect.
10:04 of course not, we know that the Lord takes no delight in the death of the wicked, so He can't be enthusiastic to see how the unregenerate respond to Him. This shows His universal love for creation and His humanity in His sorrow.
10:17 nobody argues that God chooses individuals for no apparent reason. Romans 9:22-23 explains that it's to show His wrath, make known His power, and make known the riches of his glory.
11:11 good point, but it's still a strawman because the definition doesn't alter the implication of the statement because it could also be taken figuratively.
11:30 it's not a far reach to infer that. This argument holds water because we translate "pas" as "all kinds" multiple times in the New testament.
11:58 I agree. That's why I said that you should've included John 6:37 as well.
16:15 unfortunately, that was not the question that was asked. The actual question was asking why some believe the Gospel and others don't if regeneration isn't a necessary work of the Holy Spirit. Leighton wouldn't have been able to answer this question because there is no biblical answer to this question because it assumes that the Holy Spirit does not regenerate believers. This was a major letdown for me watching.
19:20 "yes. both." is a contradictory answer in this context. I like the answer because I get where you're headed, but the question was asking if God set these events into motion or if they happened outside of His decree. Nothing can happen outside of God's decree and man makes decisions within himself, but ultimately, man's will is subjugated to the decree of God.
22:00 this illustrates the need for understanding the differences in God's moral will and His will of decree.
5:00 regardless of the definition of "helkó," the implication is that whomever is lead of the Father to the Son will be raised up. John 6:37 is more of a go-to for Calvinists anyway.
Not necessarily. As pointed out by many, the greek doesn't necessitate that ALL that are drawn are ALL raised up. Which is why Leighton further asserted that later in John 6, Jesus changes the word to "enabled". Also, the broader context of John chapters 5-12 is specifically of the Jewish people who believe they are Abraham's children through lineage don't actually know the Father, so therefore, they don't know the Son and are not drawn for that reason. This is a contextual drawing of a specific people.
7:58 your answer is found in Ephesians 2:1-10
Only if you ignore the bibical definition Scripture gives of "dead in trespasses" and reinterpret it through a Calvinistic framework. Given the biblical definition, it would mean separated from fellowship with God. Scripture must interpret Scripture.
9:38 election as it is described in Mark 13:20, implies that all the true followers of Christ are the elect. So by default, if the sheep are His followers, they would refer to the elect.
Non-Calvinists believe in election, we just don't believe its arbitrary. God elects those who respond to the gospel of Christ.
10:04 of course not, we know that the Lord takes no delight in the death of the wicked, so He can't be enthusiastic to see how the unregenerate respond to Him. This shows His universal love for creation and His humanity in His sorrow.
But in Calvinism, everything follows from God's decree. So according to Calvinism, God from eternity past did not want the non-elect so therefore never enabled them to come to Him. This is impossible to square with love as defined in Scripture, especially 1 Corinthians 13.
10:17 nobody argues that God chooses individuals for no apparent reason. Romans 9:22-23 explains that it's to show His wrath, make known His power, and make known the riches of his glory.
That's not what Leighton said. He's referring to "which" individuals God picks to elect and which ones He picks to reprobate individually, not the reason for electing and reprobating.
11:11 good point, but it's still a strawman because the definition doesn't alter the implication of the statement because it could also be taken figuratively.
What exactly is to be taken figuratively?
11:30 it's not a far reach to infer that. This argument holds water because we translate "pas" as "all kinds" multiple times in the New testament.
But you pick and choose when to refer it to "all kinds" and when to refer it to "all individuals" inconsistently. In John 6, you would take "no man" and apply it universally even though the context in John chapters 5-12 is specifically the Jewish people, and yet you apply universal language contextually when it refers to the atonement such as, "every man", "each man", "all". Its an inconsistent hermaneutic.
11:58 I agree. That's why I said that you should've included John 6:37 as well.
Already covered, another example of picking and choosing.
16:15 unfortunately, that was not the question that was asked. The actual question was asking why some believe the Gospel and others don't if regeneration isn't a necessary work of the Holy Spirit. Leighton wouldn't have been able to answer this question because there is no biblical answer to this question because it assumes that the Holy Spirit does not regenerate believers. This was a major letdown for me watching.
Regeneration in Scripture is only spoken of in making a sinner born again. It says ZERO about being necessary for one to respond to the gospel itself. The reason why some do and some don't is because some do and some don't - All through out Scripture starting with the garden, Cain and Abel, the Law given to the children of Israel all are given a choice in which God says in Deuteronomy and reiterated in Romans 10 that its not too hard to respond to the commandment because we're able. Scripture once again reconfirms we're enabled to respond to God.
19:20 "yes. both." is a contradictory answer in this context. I like the answer because I get where you're headed, but the question was asking if God set these events into motion or if they happened outside of His decree. Nothing can happen outside of God's decree and man makes decisions within himself, but ultimately, man's will is subjugated to the decree of God.
Nothing contradictory since God can both actively cause and passively cause by permission and foreknowledge. If God can only know all things because He decreed it and cannot know anything He doesn't Himself decree, then Calvinism is no different than Open Theism in that regards.
22:00 this illustrates the need for understanding the differences in God's moral will and His will of decree.
But then you end up in a big mess of saying God commands man not commit adultery but decrees man commits adultery and thus taking away all culpability because man could not have done other than what God commanded him to do.
@@kitthorton9860 I appreciate your feedback, brother. I, of course, disagree. I'm sure that you could have guessed that though. Can you reiterate a little bit of what you meant By "the reason some believe and some don't is because some believe and some don't?" I feel as though that's very circular and doesn't take the question seriously. The way I see it, is that we can't answer it without regeneration because it leads us to the conclusion that the people who choose God do it because they are inherently better than those who don't. Whereas the calvinist view would be that they choose Him as a result of being born again and becoming spiritually minded by God's grace. Could you clear up your position on that for me? Also, please note that I'm being civil and respectful as a brother. I don't want this to turn into an argument, rather than a helpful discussion. I'm only saying this because I know it's very easy to infer a certain tone when somebody is writing behind a keyboard and it's not my intention to stir up division or strife among my brothers.
@@Stanzi18 Whether man choosing God makes them inherently better than those who don't is a separate issue than whether or not man has the ability to accept or reject the gospel through God's enabling. By starting with harmonizing all of Scripture, I cannot get around that God has enabled all who hear the gospel to accept or reject it. John 1 says that the Word (Jesus Christ) giveth light to every man that comes into the world. So the ability to accept or reject God's offer of salvation (enabled by the preaching of the Word and conviction of the Spirit) is the main issue. What you're presenting isn't really a biblical objection but a philosophical one. I would say that if God enables all men to respond to His offer, then one could say the believer was wise and the sinner was foolish. But isn't that what believers are rewarded for and sinners are judged for? Rather than saying the sinner could not respond to the gospel because he was foolish, we assert the sinner was foolish for rejecting the gospel *because God enabled him to believe but he refused to do so. So its not that believers have something inherently better (except on Calvinism) because in my view all are on equal ground with the ability to believe. Libertarian freewill solves the issue.
@@kitthorton9860 so, it's my understanding that Christ coming to give the light to every man doesn't lead to the conclusion that everyone has the same capacity to accept it. In the Old Testament, we see that God commands Moses to prophesy to pharaoh even after God had hardened his heart. Sometimes, God ordains that we proclaim the truth to those who won't believe because it glorifies Him (Romans 3:3-10).
What's dangerous about your argument is that you did conclude that we're inherently wiser because we choose God and particularly you said that people are guilty because they're not believing in Christ. People don't go to hell for not believing in Christ. People go to hell because they are fallen sinners as were you and as was I. Something had to change about us and I know that we both agree that it was Jesus, but we just disagree on the particular details of that process.
Ultimately, the biggest thing that I can hope you remember from this comment is this claim that I'm about to make. Paul claims that man is incapable of responding in obedience to God in His fallen nature. My ESV translates it as he "cannot" (Romans 8:7). We, in our fallen flesh nature, cannot submit to God. We needed to be born again like Jesus speaks about in John 3:3. In verse 6, Jesus explains that we're all born of flesh, but we must be born again of the Spirit. In verse 8, He says that this process is as mysterious as the wind. We cannot track down and measure this supernatural act, but we see the effects of it like we do with the wind.
I won't lie and say I don't care if you don't agree because I really hope you do, bro. But I care for and love you as my brother in Christ regardless if you disagree with me on the details of the process of our rebirth. I'm just glad to know that you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior. Only thing I'd strongly encourage you to do is give Him the glory, bro. He did save you and I all by Himself and it could have only taken Him to make us, wretched sinners, holy and acceptable in the sight of God.
God bless you, bro.
@@Stanzi18 //@Kitt Horton so, it's my understanding that Christ coming to give the light to every man doesn't lead to the conclusion that everyone has the same capacity to accept it. In the Old Testament, we see that God commands Moses to prophesy to pharaoh even after God had hardened his heart. Sometimes, God ordains that we proclaim the truth to those who won't believe because it glorifies Him (Romans 3:3-10).//
I don't deny God uses wicked people for His purposes. I deny that Pharaoh was born incapable of ever responding to the light. However, once a sinner rejects the revelation of God, God can do whatever He wants with that person.
//What's dangerous about your argument is that you did conclude that we're inherently wiser because we choose God and particularly you said that people are guilty because they're not believing in Christ. People don't go to hell for not believing in Christ. People go to hell because they are fallen sinners as were you and as was I. Something had to change about us and I know that we both agree that it was Jesus, but we just disagree on the particular details of that process.//
What I was alluding to were a few passages. 1) Thessalonians says Christ is coming in flaming fire and vengence to those who disobeyed the gospel, 2) The parable of the wise and foolish virgins, 3) Jesus says those who heed His sayings are like a wise man and those who reject it are like a foolish man. That we are wise to believe and foolish to reject Christ aren't my words, they are Christ's. However, I did not conclude that we're "inherently" wiser, I said we are equally capable. On Calvinism, however, it does make the elect inherently wiser because he is infused with capabilities that the non-elect are not, thus nullifying any culpability of the non-elect rejecting the gospel.
//Ultimately, the biggest thing that I can hope you remember from this comment is this claim that I'm about to make. Paul claims that man is incapable of responding in obedience to God in His fallen nature. My ESV translates it as he "cannot" (Romans 8:7). We, in our fallen flesh nature, cannot submit to God. We needed to be born again like Jesus speaks about in John 3:3. In verse 6, Jesus explains that we're all born of flesh, but we must be born again of the Spirit. In verse 8, He says that this process is as mysterious as the wind. We cannot track down and measure this supernatural act, but we see the effects of it like we do with the wind.//
Romans 8 contextually is about obtaining righteousness by keeping the whole law, and that we can't do it. If you interpret it the way you are, you're equivocating the Law of works with the gospel of Jesus Christ which are not the same thing. In essense, you're claiming if a person believes on Christ, he's actually kept the whole law which was only done by one man, Jesus. So essentially you've created the same pelagian predictament many Calvinists claim other frameworks create.
//I won't lie and say I don't care if you don't agree because I really hope you do, bro. But I care for and love you as my brother in Christ regardless if you disagree with me on the details of the process of our rebirth. I'm just glad to know that you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior. Only thing I'd strongly encourage you to do is give Him the glory, bro. He did save you and I all by Himself and it could have only taken Him to make us, wretched sinners, holy and acceptable in the sight of God.//
Hey, I appreciate it! So thankful we can have these discussions cordially and with civility. God is awesome and we can agree on essentials while disagreeing on non-essentials and leave the real work to exposig atheism and cults. Only thing I would offer back is when you say, "Only thing I'd strongly encourage you to do is give Him the glory", I think you completely misunderstand my position. I give God ALL the glory for salvation. I don't think I had any part of it. I didn't make the Holy Spirit convict me, I didn't apply the atoning blood, I didn't trade my heart of stone for a heart of flesh that loves God, I didn't circumcise my own heart to now love the things God loves and hate the things God hates. God did all of that. Just a humble encouragement back at you, when you accuse other Christians of not giving God glory for their salvation, it reminds me of the pharissee that thanked God he wasn't like the tax collectors. Its a pious self-righteous claim many Calvinists make thinking they're being holy, when really they're just being pious.
I would like Dr. Flowers or someone to do a video on all the tricks and common quotes that Calvinst use; and how to expose them for their trickery rather than just appealing to scripture. For example, "What can a dead man do."
Steve Gregg did such a video series. I believe it’s called “God’s sovereignty and man’s ability”. It’s on YT.
@@evanu6579 Thanks I check it out.
Dead is a metaphor.
Where this debate comes down to how you define Grace. Both sides say we are saved by grace but grace means different things.
Remnant needs to interview John Barclay on his book Paul and the power of grace. Many theologians say his earlier book "Paul and the gift" is the most significant theological work in the last 50 years.