Calvinist Ask Questions: Live Q&A with Dr. Leighton Flowers 

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?

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)

@@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.

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.

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

Yes, a big help!

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...

@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

Their free will to believe or not. It’s not that deep really. You make choices everyday. Everyone makes different choices. I choose to make a change when circumstances come my way, some don’t.

I think that may be an unanswerable question for us, in the same way why some angels chose to rebel and some didn't- or why the first humans did- there has to be free will in order for us to be able to sin. I do believe, like Leighton, that we would never seek God, if He did not first reach out to us, and open our eyes/soften our hearts to the truth.

@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.

Nah bro.

Pauline Dispensationalism is doctrine of demons bro. It literally claims that Paul preaches a different gospel from Jesus. Paul said people who preach a different gospel are accursed.

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.

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.

I know most Baptist preachers preach OSAS.

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)

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.

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.

I think you’re just misinterpreting calvinists. Calvinists still believe that humans have a will and make choices, but their choices are limited by God’s sovereign decree of what He allows them to do. People still make the choice to sin if God allows them to. If i want to steal an orange then I might plan to steal the orange. If God allows me to steal the orange then I steal the orange. If God doesn’t allow me to steal the orange then i don’t steal the orange. God often intervenes and doesn’t allow people to do certain things. Just like how Pharaoh seemingly wouldve repented and let the Jews go after the first few plagues, God further hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he would not let the Jews go. Why? To display His power to the whole world. To display His grace, mercy and blessing to His people while displaying His vengeance against the wicked. You have no problem with God intervening in this scenario even though He is seemingly causing Pharaoh to not let the Jews go. What about God’s sovereign election of Israel? He chose Israel to receive the prophets, the promises, the covenants and the oracles while not choosing any other nation. You have no problem with this even though it likely means that the majority of gentiles (before Christ’s atonement) probably died in their sin. Why? What about God’s election of Noah and his family? What about God’s election of Jacob? What about God’s election of Abraham?

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.

based

That was my attitude for 20 years! I was neutral on this topic until I found good Biblical arguments for Provisionism in the Calvinistic proof texts. Why do I think it's important? Because logically, Calvinism makes no sense, and makes God look like someone who hates most people and the author of evil! I have concluded the Bible doesn't teach these things!

I love them too but seeing one guy wear a goose island beer shirt and see the x men comics behind him?! Unbelievable

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.

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?”

YES!!!! HALLELUJAH!!!

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.

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.

"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??

Tito Santiago thanks Tito.

Hi brother, that is why we do not separate on this issues. Here is a good video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nZVliPjDV6Q.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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

lol

Nice! 👍

Or maybe you lack the full Knowledge of the Bible

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.