I almost became a Calvinist after watching that R.C Sproul series, and other videos, several months ago. Then I stumbled across Leighton. I thank God for you, brother
Thankyou for going through this. I remember watching Sproul in this video but there was no one in evangelicalism who tried to explain this in the way you have. This is an important ministry! Thank you!
Pastor Scott Ingram, I have watch that video too, and I admire Sproul for his intellectual explanation of the doctrine of 'Election and Predestination' Election for Salvation is indeed biblical, But is is not Uncondtional, because it is Condtional.., However, Dr. Leighton does not believe that there is 'Election for Salvation', because he believes that election is only for service.... What is your own view pastor Ingram?
@@josephdurraz8574 Where do you find scripture that says anyone was elected for salvation? Election and predestination are biblical, but what's not biblical is the calvinist interpretation of election and predestination. Elected and predestined in the Bible are only in relation to elected for service and what believers are predestined for. Never in relation to salvation. Salvation has to be inserted into the text to make a verse support the calvinist interpretation of predestination and election. Just curious where you find this. Thanks
I’m really starting to feel sorry for these pastors or teachers who hold to this belief system in their self imposed ideological prison. Double minded, confused, teaching anathema. Refusing the grace of God, killing the faith of weak believers. Justifying wickedness.
Coincidentally, "choice meat" is also - quite literally - dead in its sins and trespasses. "For by grace you are saved through faith - and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift - not from works so no man can boast." Eph 2:8-9
The two biggest convoluters and twisters of the Bible are: Roman Catholicism and Calvinism. Those two take the relatively simple message of salvation and grace and turn it into an unrecognizable mess of man-made words and definitions.
That is not true. It didn’t come forth until Augustine who taught other false doctrine. Calvinist’s just assume that Jesus and the apostles believed it too because the live and read the Bible with Calvinistic glasses on.
@@martyt62 One big elephant they miss is Augustine had no problem inserting pagan heresy into quarrels about the Bible, if it helped him win an argument. That's one thing (of many) I keep pointing out,,,that its more important for a Calvinist to win an argument than to be right. Praise God for sending servants like Dr Ken Wilson to do the heavy lifting of fully researching Augustine's materials to see when he supported or changed his views and WHY he changed. As a Calvinist you have to wonder why your foundation has pagan pillars supporting it??
@Falcon “that small thing” IS faith. God has given to each man a measure of faith. Even atheists have faith. They have the faith to believe there is no God. Every one has faith but it’s a matter of where you place your faith. We are told to believe and thereby be saved, not God gives your the faith (makes you believe) so as to be saved. Throughout scripture men are told to choose. If God had told all men everywhere to repent but didn’t give them the ability to do it, then He is like a man who holds a carrot in front of a horse to entice him but knowing he will never get that carrot.
@Falcon So your saying that no one seeks God? Hmmm, what about the BILLIONS of lost souls who do seek for God, but find the WRONG God. I seems to me that under Calvinism, GOD, who cursed the Earth and all of creation because of Adam’s sin, therefore cursed all men (who can’t resist God in any way) to hate Him. Therefore, in my view, calvinism makes God out to be the author of sin. For if God “wrote all history” before He Created anything, then He made Satan turn and man to fall. I simply cannot accept this flawed logic based upon the ENTIRE word of God. Not just a few verses that are taken out of context.
Dr. Leighton Flowers' review of Dr. R.C. Sproul's articulation of unconditional election is fraught with all sorts of errors. But here I'll address the main one and one other. According to Flowers, God's purpose in election is "His choice to fulfill His promise through Jacob and not Esau." R.C. explained his reading of Romans 9:10-13 as saying that God's purpose in election "rests solely on the gracious sovereign decision of God." Flowers' issue is that R.C. doesn't deal with this passage nationally. Flowers would have us believe that election "isn't about God choosing to save individuals but instead choosing through the nation of Israel any individually chosen servants to bring about His purposes and promises to Israel." This point is not mentioned at all in Roman's 9 and Flowers doesn't quote anything in the passage that proves his outside of this passage point. After all, the text itself is talking about two individuals, Jacob and Esau. Never mind the fact that Israel is still made up of individual people who each had the responsibility of obeying God's royal law. So while God could address the collective of the nation of Israel, individuals were personally responsible to do as God commanded. The Ten Commandments for one are geared to individuals obeying them first and foremost. Romans is addressed to Christian individuals in first century Rome. Added to this, the people Paul's letter is addressed to are Gentile Christians (Romans 11:13). Paul anticipates an objection from an individual person mind you "one of you will say to me..." (Romans 9:19). Flowers reads his own fanciful "ethnic" nationalist interpretation that is all about the nation of Israel into the text. None of this is the primary issue in Romans 9 mind you. Paul is dealing with election in a very narrow sense. We know this because Paul uses two actual individuals Jacob and Esau to make his point and addresses complaints or objections that may be raised by individual Christians in his day. Paul is using two ancient individuals to illustrate God's purpose in election with respect to individuals from among both the Jews and Gentiles of his day. Second, Flowers thinks "unconditional" is equal to saying "no apparent reason" or "arbitrary" in a review of a video where R.C. actually gives a reason: "the gracious sovereign decision of God." R.C. explains what he means by unconditional but Flowers conveniently sidesteps that reason in order to have us think there's no apparent reason. Related to this is Flowers' definition of arbitrary. Flowers definition of "arbitrary" which he claims is Webster's definition is "without any outside influence," or "a person making a choice without any outside influence. " Weirdly, this meaning of arbitrary could be applied to Flowers view of "freewill". At least, this is what libertarian freedom is all about to some degree i.e. making choices without any outside influence. But alas, I digress. He says look up the definition of arbitrary. Well, I did. I found no such definition in Webster's. The definition of arbitrary is defined as "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will," or alternately as " based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something." It is disingenuous for Flowers to claim that Calvinists give no reason when the Calvinist he is reviewing gives an actual reason. He may not like that reason or even disagree with it, but he shouldn't ignore or obfuscate the fact that there's "no apparent reason" ever given. When you mischaracterize a view you disagree with, it is easy to make it seem arbitrary or unreasonable. It's like Flowers was watching R.C. but not really listening except for those things he wanted to use to prove his point about his version of corporate election. This video is filled with all this irresponsible handling of not only R.C. and more egregiously the Scriptures. There are other misinterpretations and misapplications of the Scriptural genres of proverbs, poetry, parables, epistolary admonitions, indicatives and narrative in mere proof-texting without proper explanation in context. What is amazing is that this myopic review is from a professor of theology. Truly disappointing.
SignPosts, Good explanation, But isn't it that most if not all of these professors of theology are doctorate in theology... But you cannot take away the fact that what ever group of people you studied your degree with, you will end up believing and defending their doctrine... =>>> So, your comment that says: ''What is amazing is that this myopic review is from a professor of theology. Truly disappointing.'', is not appropriate... I admire Sproul for his intellectual knowledge of Calvinism, but I can also say that: Being a doctorate of Theology, he is wrong, because there is no such a thing as Unconditional Election in the bible... Romans 9, is not enough to conclude that Election is Unconditional, because it is indeed Conditional....
@@josephdurraz8574 Thanks Joe for your thoughts. I agree with you to a certain extent that people almost always end up believing and defending the doctrines they studied under. But Flowers is an example of someone who "walked away" from "Calvinism." His analysis here is so narrow in perspective in zeroing in on how election is not unconditional and then proceeding to characterize the view he disagrees with as arbitrary without a concern for broader implications. In his scheme there are no individuals chosen by God. Just nations to which if individuals belong through "faith" then become chosen that way. This narrow focus on national election with a lack of concern for broader implications particularly to individuals is why I called his review myopic. Leighton's desire to "de-Calvinize" Scripture often blinds him from the many inconsistencies and mischaracterizations in his own approach to Scripture and the "Calvinists" he is assessing. I know that people have issues with "unconditional election" as they often do with the "I" and especially the "L" in TULIP. RC actually acknowledges the fact that unconditional election may be misleading. But the point isn't that it is unconditional in every sense. The point is that God's choosing of any person doesn't depend on anything in them or about them. On the other hand, the condition for God's election resides in God. Thanks again for your feedback.
@@signposts6189, Thank you for your reply brother... I did not know that Leighton studied under the wing of Calvinism... I am not a Calvinist but I believe in 'Election and Predestination' and it is for Salvation... In the 'TULIP' of the Calvinist, I only believe in the 'L" and the 'P'... I believe that Election for Salvation is Conditional.... Are you a Calvinist brother.... Your English show that you are highly educated.. I am not from English speaking country, but I studied English at school....
When we share the gospel to the unbelievers , we pray and ask the Holy Spirit to open the heart of the person and give them the faith so that they may believe and come to Christ to have eternal life. Why do we pray for God to open their heart? It's because mankind are sinners and dead in sins and hate God. The Bible says, " For by grace we are saved thru faith, it is the gift of God" and I believed that even the faith is a gift of God. It's the work of God 100% and none of any of our works that we can boast before God. I was saved not knowing all this theology. And I thanked God every day for saving me thru Christ my Savior. Let just share the gospel, the saving work of Christ, the only perfect atonement acceptable to the Father to our unbelieving friends and loved ones and pray that God will have mercy on them and Holy Spirit will open their hearts and give the unbelievers the understanding.
Regarding Jacob and Esau.... We must always go back to the OT passage being quoted to understand what the NT writer is trying to convey. Malachi 1 is one of the many prophecies of Gentiles or "nations" being saved in the NC. It's never a blatant, clear prophecy which is why Paul calls it a "mystery" not made known in ages past. If we non calvinists say that Paul speaks of nations and not individuals, we end up with a problem. But I think it's only because we are not seeing which nations are pertaining. Paul is not trying to convey the idea that Israel was chosen over Edom to bring forth the Messiah. That is already evident and it would be a total non sequitur in Paul's discourse. His treatise in Romans 9-11 is not to show Israel as being chosen, but rather how Israel had been hardened to facilitate the plan of salvation for the nations; in Paul's words.... "through their fall, salvation has come to the Gentiles". That's the context. And if the message by Paul is that Israel was blinded, and stumbled over the stumbling stone, then it's entirely possible that Esau is ironically being used by Paul to represent Israel. Think of how and why Paul uses Pharaoh as an illustration of Israel. Pharaoh was "hardened" to bring about the first, typological exodus while Israel is now being said to have been hardened to bring about the greater, and antitypical exodus from sin. Think of how Paul, in Galatians, speaks of Ishmael allegorically representing the son of the bondwoman; Hagar being Mt. Sinai. Both are instructed to be cast out; never to inherit the promises. In Rom 9, Paul speaks of Isaac as the son of promise. Isaac is the younger son of Abraham but Ismael was the "firstborn". The "firstborn" is also used of Israel as God's firstborn son. (ex 22 29) Therefore God must have a "second born". But this "second born" seed has nothing to do with DNA. It's a spiritual seed. "those who are the children of the flesh, these are NOT the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed" Rom 9:8 The firstborn in Israel was supposed to possess the promise of Messiah and have the "seed" pass through him. But we see that the blessing always ended up going to the second born. There were two nations in Rebekah's womb. Each man represents a "nation". One "nation" takes precedence over the other. In context, Paul is teaching that the "nation" of Israel "despised their birthright" as did Esau. Esau and Israel are the "firstborn" who both give up their birthright. Therefore Esau in Romans 9 is Israel. Jacob, is the second born son who is given a "new name". Jacob represents the new covenant body of believers who are a royal priesthood and a holy "nation". (1 pet 2 9) And the GENTILES shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a NEW NAME , which the mouth of the LORD shall name. Isa 62:2 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a NEW NAME written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. Rev 2:17 He that OVERCOMES will get a NEW NAME. "Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have OVERCOME." Gen 32:28 Knowing what Paul knows about the OT, going back to Malachi 1 where three times it is said that God's name would be feared "among the nations", and following Paul's contextual argument....the two "nations" in Rebekah's womb were Jew and Gentile. Of course "nations" is inclusive of ethnic Israelites who have faith in Christ. But the point in Romans is to show a reversal of sorts. The last shall be first and the first last. The prodigal son is the second born son. The elder is angry and jealous at the salvation of the younger. This is the foretelling by Jesus of the prophecy in Deuteronomy that speaks of Israel becoming jealous. "I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will move you to anger by a foolish NATION" Deut 32 21 In the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin, the running theme is the rejoicing of the finding. Then, the older son (Israel) is shown to be angry and jealous of the younger son (Gentiles) instead of rejoicing. In Acts 13, the prophecy literally comes to pass as Paul preaches at Antioch and Gentiles get saved while the unbelieving Jews become angry and jealous. Paul quotes Deut 32 in Rom 10 as part of his treatise. The Steward who loses his stewardship is Israel and the parable of lazarus and the "rich" man also shows the reversal. In the words of Mary we read.... "He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away" Luk 1:53. Thus the parable of Lazarus and the "rich" man is about Jew and Gentile reversal. Romans is about Jew and Gentile; how Jews did not attain righteousness because they sought it as if it were by faith while Gentiles received righteousness by faith. "Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated" has nothing to do with love/hate. It's a reversal. It's a prophecy of the new covenant.
I'm perfectly fine with your conclusion and exegesis but it sure is comforting to have the Bible misleadingly use *"hate"* so freely, isn't it? Malachi, Paul, Jesus, probably others -- particularly in the OT.
On second thought, Sproul reminds me of one of those guys on TV in a 30 minute paid ad. He tells you how this new contraption will make your dinner preparations go more smoothly. He recounts his past frustrations with using merely traditional cookware. He even demonstrated an example of someone making a mess of their food and kitchen by using the traditional cookware. Then he shows you how much better everything works together when using his new gadgetry. It's an advertisement meant to convince you, through any means, to adopt his system. Sproul has become wealthy and famous and powerful by advertising the Reformed Doctrines - just like any marketing genius.
That is so true and very well described!! Sproul and other Calvinist always take you through some long side story, to get to you thrown off and then weaves his garbage back in, at the right time to buy into his system. Then smiles and says, its the "mature doctrines of grace". LOL
@@albusai Ive always had this same thought he is a snake oil salesman, I ran into him when I went to a church who were half postmillennial, I at first thought its just a dif view of some scriptures in regard to eschatology, But then I found its much more, really bad stuff, anyway in my research, I found a lot of RC stuff, in fact he even said he became a partial preterist to beat bertrand Russel in a debate, The I leaned RC also believed, that he can do nothing to help on be saved, he could not make a good argument if one is predestined he would be saved if not he would not be saved and nothing RC could do to effect this, Then I thought why does he spent so much time and energy debating atheist's and snake ol smile and I realized its Pride its all about pride
Excellent point about humbling ourselves, it is a precursor for repentance. It appears that in Calvinism there is no need to humble yourself as God is the one who does it for you. There is no need for you to repent as God is the one that makes you repentant. when all throughout the bible it has always been our responsibility to humble ourselves.
Repentance means to change your mind, repentance for your sins means to change your mind about your sinful ways. If you don't change your mind about sinning, and ask for forgiveness for being a sinner who was born a sinner, with belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and that his shed blood washes away our sins the Holy Spirit won't enter into us. God doesn't talk to us except by the Holy Spirit. That's my understanding, so where am i wrong on the repentance part? I've looked for answers because i thought the Holy Spirit would enter us if we just believed in the bible, but that was wrong. Any correction would be appreciated, God bless!
In minute 20:00 Dr. Flowers cites the Old Testament prophet Daniel in Daniel 9:13 "13 Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come on us; yet we have not [a]sought the favor of the Lord our God by turning from our wrongdoing and [b]giving attention to Your truth." Dr. Flowers forgets that the people being spoken of are "Believers" and "Believers" are suppose to turn to God in prayer. Such behavior is not expected of "Non-Believers" but only of "Believers'. And "Believers" need to exercise their will in order to make prayer happen. Calvinism makes the distinction in "Unconditional Election" that it is God the Father who chose the "elect"/"believers" in "Him"/"Jesus" before the foundation of the world. As it says in Ephesians 1:4 "4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before [a]Him. In love." The only way one can admit they're dirty to be washed clean is if God the Father had already chosen them to be in Jesus before the foundation of the world. And if that's not the case then that individual is a "Non-Believing" atheist who will be condemned. The credit of Salvation is 100% of the Triune God the Father who gives the sheep to Jesus who offers Himself as a living sacrifice for His sheep who are enabled by the Holy Spirit in the sanctification process. Hence, salvation is 100% of God! In Isaiah 66:2 2 “These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word." The reason those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at God's word are like that is because God the Father chose them to be in Him/Jesus before the foundation of the world as it says in Ephesians 1:4. This understanding is applicable to all of the Biblical verses cited by Dr. Leighton Flowers.
@1:05:18 Dr. Flowers - That is the most spun up I have even witnessed of you. That's ok, that's me debating people 80% of the time as I have a difficulty controlling my passions. That is why you are blessed with this ministry and I am not. keep up the good work!
I've noticed, on several occasions, that RC uses the term unfair when we are talking about Calvinists belief that certain individuals are elected unconditionally for salvation . I think he used this term to demean or portray our view as childish when what we mean isn't unfair but unjust and unjust by GOD'S own standards .
John piper has already answered that question using his own sons as the subject. He said he loves his sons, but if God doesn't and chose not to make them the elect, then who was he, as mere clay, to argue with the potter. God was still sovereign and he thanked God for making him one of the elect. How sad! Calvinist are pitiful.
@@KingjamesAV1611 "Who are you, oh man...?" There is nothing "sad" or "pitiful" about the absolute sovereignty of God to use the clay for His glory alone! We cannot earn/deserve his favor.
@@zackvanhoose .... Sure, the only problem is, thats not what God is saying in Romans 9. Your understanding of the clay and how God uses/molds is misapplied. Im sorry but You have Calvinist goggles on if you believe that. Let me make this clear, i dont attack or come against people who have been indoctrinated with Calvinism. My problem is with the teachers and preachers that know better. Paul was speaking about Israel and pulling from old testament scripture when he wrote about clay for "honor and dishonor". God indeed is sovereign but Paul is not saying, men are clay and God has predestined some to salvation or hell. Thats a proof text taken out of context. Paul is addressing Israel's condition and showing in Romans 9 that they sought salvation the wrong way, by works of the law and not by Faith. So then, where does that leave Israel when contrasted to new testament believers by Faith?? Were they not Gods ELECT?? Sure they are! But God has now focused His attention on the body of Christ and will finish His purpose with Israel at a later time. This is what the clay verses are about. Jews would have understood exactly what Paul was referencing, he was not original with this idea. This is taken from Jeremiah 18. Alittle scripture in "light of scripture" gets rid of Calvinism pretty quick. "The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord , saying, Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord . Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, "so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel". At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, "turn from their evil", I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them." Jeremiah 18:1-10 KJV This is why Paul reiterates the clay in relation to ISRAEL! Not to individual believers in the church age and whether or not they are picked for salvation or hell. Thats way out of CONTEXT!!! God says he can MAKE THE VESSEL AGAIN, that seems good to Him. This is what He will do with Israel since they rejected Jesus the first time. Then says in verse 8, "if a nation, TURN FROM their evil, i will repent of the evil i thought to do unto them" There is a condition here! Also Paul who wrote the book of Romans, tells Timothy concerning the vessels of honor and dishonor..... "But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work." 2 Timothy 2:20-21 KJV There is a condition here also!! If a man PURGE himself of these things, he SHALL BE A VESSEL UNTO HONOR. There is NO Calvinism here! Its all based on condition. I hope you consider these things, before throwing Calvinist "proof-text taken out of context", at me. Either way, God Bless!
How easy it is to turn the people away. They followed Dr Sproul's teachings ... and now they no longer do ... cause someone else has a different understanding. How fickle we are ... so easily tossed by any wind and doctrine. There is only ONE truth.
GOD said HE takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but yet they say GOD hated an unborn baby --- for HIS own glory??? There is a strong spirit of error there!
My bookshelves are loaded with books, CDs, and DVDs by Reformation Trust, mostly by RC! My collection from Reformation includes authors Steve Lawson, Sinclair Ferguson, Joel Beeke, Stephen Nichols, Derek Thomas, Ligon Duncan, Robert Godfrey, RC Sproul, etc., etc. Steve Lawson wrote 2 600 page books: Foundations of Grace and Pillars of Grace: AD 100 - 1564. Foundations of Grace teaches that the Bible in it's entirety teaches the doctrines of grace, from Genesis to Revelation. Dr. Lawson uses 100's and 100's and 100's of verses from Gen. to Rev., indexed in the back of his book to show where the doctrines of grace are taught. Pillars of Grace has 23 chapters on theologians who taught the doctrines of grace from 100 AD to 1564, with John Calvin being the final chapter. Calvin wrote his book on the doctrines of grace and called it the "Institutes of the Christian Religion" in the 16th century. His followers gave the book the nickname 'Calvinism.' As Charles Spurgeon, called the Prince of Preachers in the 19th century said, Calvinism (the doctrines of grace) is the gospel. RC is one of the the finest teacher of the doctrines of grace today! Your constant criticism of RC , twisting his words, shows that you have no clue what the doctrines of graces teach, have no clue what the essence of the Word of God teaches, as Dr. Lawson shared is throughout the Bible. Calvinism is merely a nickname for the doctrines of grace.
Very familiar with Joel Beeke, a wolf in sheep's clothing and a liar are the best things I can say about him. Uses the Bible to justify his sinful behavior. Despicable!!!
You realize that you've just described EXACTLY what Dr. Flowers does here in his "choice meats" analogy, right? No meaningful exegesis of the text implies that "elect" even remotely means "choice: the best of what is available" as Flowers asserts. He has completely bent the definition of elect/chosen to fit his personal eisegesis.
Maybe I'm not as intelligent as you or Sproul, but is this issue worth getting worked up about? As I see it, both of you accept the foundation of the five solas. Is it really important that we believe either that God is completely sovereign in choosing to save some and reject others or that we have some level of choice? Do we not agree that salvation is by grace through faith? Whether my faith came about by God's will or my own, am I any less saved? Thanks and blessings!
If I was taught unconditional election to faith as a child, I would probably be an atheist now. I would have been taught if God wanted me to be a believer he would have forcibly made me believe. That's no God I want to worship. And if true, I would have no say in the matter and would simply be living as God determined me to.
Have you listened to Leighton's videos with Ken Wilson? If Calvinism is based on Augustine's writings and he *did* revert back to Manicheanism (a heresy) then Calvinism is teaching false theology. Their portrayal of God's character, the belittling of a robust, repentant faith (as a "work") and the refusal to even consider other more plain interpretations of their go-to Bible passages is very concerning. Occam's Razor comes to mind.
It is unfathomable that someone like RC or James White persist in their way of interpreting the scripture, attached to contradicting doctrine that give a wrong understanding of the goodness of God. It is plain from Leighton that God is perfectly just and that He is opening His arms of acceptance to anyone who wishes to listen to Him and turn away from unrighteousness. God is good !!!
Leon Hiew God is a perfect being which means complete, He is balanced in all his attributes, He is lacking nothing,. His character does not change, and He has always and will always exist, So He is the standard for goodness, morality, justice and everything else.
You have strong scriptural arguments to support man's freewill in salvation and I have been sharpened by your arguments in that regard. But I disagree with the "corporate election" view as I believe it denies the clear biblical teaching of election and predestination of individuals before the creation of the world. You say you haven't come across any videos from respected Calvinist theologians addressing the corporate election view. Could it be that at least one reason for that is because for most Christians that view doesn't hold any kind off credibility in light of the clear teaching of the scriptures on election and predestination? I did come across a John Piper audio message (and its transcript) which addresses your view, though not in-depth. This is a portion of it: “There are many, many people who do not believe this. They do not believe that God chose who will be saved and who will be passed over and left to unbelief and rebellion. They insist that this text only teaches that God chose Christ and an undefined number of those who choose to be in Christ by faith. They say that Ephesians 1:4 is not an election or choosing of individuals, but an election of Christ and the church; but what individuals are part of the church, God does not decide. It's like the Super Bowl. The national officials don't choose a specific team of men to go to the Super Bowl; they choose that the winners of the playoffs go, whoever they are. God does not choose who will be in Christ and who will be saved. That lies ultimately in the power of man's autonomous will, which God does not rule. They say that the wording of verse 4 proves this interpretation: "God chose us in him." But this wording will not settle the issue. If anything the wording points the other way: it says he chose us. Not an undefined mass of people, but us, you and me personally. He chose us. The word means select from a larger group. And the way he did it was in relation to Christ. Christ was not an afterthought to election. God chose us to come to salvation in Christ, not apart from Christ. But it was us that he chose. These words are not strained at all in carrying this meaning that God chose particular people to be his children through their union with Christ.” Source: www.desiringgod.org/messages/god-has-chosen-us-in-him-before-the-foundation-of-the-earth
Oracio Sandoval The Piper quote again shows Calvinists cannot accurately describe a view they don't personally hold to. The officials are indifferent to who wins and the players receive no help or assistance from the officials. This isn't right. God desires that all believe. God is at work in the world to spread the gospel to all people and draws people to the truth. It is only by resisting God's grace that we lose out on God's salvation. So it is nothing like officials waiting to see who makes it to the playoffs. Regardless of your opinion that Bible CLEARLY teaches pre-temporal individual election, there are plenty of theologians, pastors, and fellow believers who hold to corporate election (CE) to ignore it or not take it seriously. There are plenty of resources to better understand CE and I would encourage you to make sure you know what you are rejecting - don't trust Reformed pastors or theologians to tell you what CE holds to - go to the sources themselves. I'll include a link of a Doctoral thesis that specifically mentions Eph. 1:4 in regards to CE. evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Ratliff.-Ephesians-1.3-4.-An-Explanation-of-the-Corporate-and-Christcentric-Nature-of-Election.pdf
God chose "us" in "Him". Who is the US that is being addressed. Are believers being address in that passage, or are non-believers being addressed? Was he addressing believers and non-believers together? If that were the case, how would he go about determining who is elect and non-elect? Going back to sports. Say you and I are on a team. The analysts are saying that we are the underdog in the game. The coach walks in and says "no one has picked US to win this game." Who is the coach addressing? The team (us) or every other team? Could it be that when we believe, we now become part of the "US" being spoken of in this passage? Second, who did God choose "US" in? Christ! Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father, but by me. Jesus is the only way. You have to be "IN" "Christ" because that is the way that God chose his people. Not through the Law, works or any other means, but through "Jesus".
@@ElectOne22_ I would add that God does not FOREKNOW anyone till they are in christ. there is no doctrine of election, elect is to service.not salvation. PREDESTINATION is about believers being PREDESTINED to the adoption the redemption of the body, INHERITANCE, to be CONFORMED to the image of christ.
Calvinism makes me sick. 🤢🤮 I was under this garbage for awhile. But I couldn’t accept God favoritisms before we was born. And God authors sin. When I heard that evil in Isaiah 45:7 means calamity I was on my way out of this hellish doctrine. Thank God for His grace and mercy. Loving us through our errorgance:)
For those that are coming here to watch this after the 44 second clip a Calvinist took out of context and James White responded to, further taking Leighton out of context, just go to the 23:30-25:00 time of the video and see Leighton clearly clarify that we are only found favorable because of Christ. And Leighton clarified this in his latest article about "Choice Meats and Bad Form" where he says that Christ is the "Choicest Meat" (adjective tense of being chosen) and shows that we are only found favorable because of our position in Christ. James White knows this, most of White's followers know this, but they continue to say that Leighton was taken in context and was wrong. Be good people, be objective people, just try it. You'll find that White is out of line and should repent, as well as the person who posted the 44 second clip that started all of this. Shame.
Nathan Hellrung, Dr. Leighton does not believe that there is 'Election for Salvation', And he always refute this with his belief that Election is for service only and not for Salvation... Are you one with his view?
@@josephdurraz8574, I don't believe anyone is elected in order to be saved. Christ is THE elected one, the chosen one, and we are placed in Christ by faith. What we see mainly in scripture is that election is not for salvation but for service.
@@nathanhellrung9810, If so, Then how do you explain Acts 13:48 (KJV) which says: ''And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.''=>>> NOTE: ''AND AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED.'' =>>> It is very CLEAR that before they even believed, they were already ordained to "Eternal Life'' =>>>>> =>>>=>>> Eternal Life= Salvation....
@@josephdurraz8574, what are they believing there? They are believing the teaching of Paul. They were already God fearing people. Meaning, they were already seeking God, fearing Him, so He opened their hearts to receive the further revelation that Paul was bringing. Their being God fearing people was the basis of their ordination to eternal life.
@@nathanhellrung9810, That is what Dr. Leighton always explained... But that is not what the scriptures said...And how do you know that they are already God fearing people... It is only your belief, But that is not what the verse says: IT is a very simple English that even a boy of 12 years old can understand it.. ''AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED"... =>>>> ASKED THIS TO YOUR SON OR NEPHEWS WHO WERE NOT BRAINWASHED TO BELIEVE ANYTHING...
Does anyone who hasn't been born yet "deserve" condemnation? I wonder how Calvinists answer that, without simply changing the subject. My guess is that they will change the subject and answer some other question instead.
Yes. We are ALL born into damnable sin under the federal headship of Adam. We ALL deserve condemnation; God's sovereign ability to glorify himself by saving vessels of wrath is his choice alone.
But who are the righteous? and by whose works are they righteous? There's the rub. I'm not a Calvinist; but their argument do seem to hold water as well as any others I can find.
all i will say is watch the debate between flowers and James white...especially the cross examination it all comes down to what the bible says not hypothetical scenarios ...by the way he saves for his glory and because of his good pleasure !brother flowers such a misrepresentation ... you know better ...come on !
Agreed, a love relationship with God requires that we have the freedom to except or reject His love. For it is written: "We love because he first loved us." For we are able to love God in only one way, by creating something God cannot create, something only we can create, a grateful heart. For the humble are grateful for life, while the ingrates believe life is a right due and owed. "The work of God is this, to believe..." And so, as faith is faithfulness, trust and loyalty, nothing more then the good works that the indwelling Spirit gives us the ability to perform, the free choice that we must make to be saved, it must be made before salvation even begins. Surely, it can only be the creation of a grateful heart. And by our willing to endure the loss of pleasure in being a pacifist with no more wealth then the poor, that is our proof of salvation.
Did Jesus have freedom during His earthly ministry to accept or reject the Father? Why are some so obsessed with promoting this kind of autonomy when we know how little control we have even over our own wicked hearts?
@@rmlrobl Amen. God chose every single person mentioned in Scripture, even those He chose for reprobation. God owes us nothing, and can leave us in our sin if He chooses (i.e. Pharaoh, Judas, etc.). There was nothing inherently worse in those men than in Saul/Paul, Moses, etc.. To think otherwise is to miss the heart of the gospel.
@@TheRealCestus you just asked if God had the choice to reject God. Your question makes no sense. Scripture tells is a divided house will not stand. So how could Jesus who is God in the form of man reject God the Father?
@@markboyce443 God is sovereign. He knew that the Law could never bring man to Himself. So He sent his Son, to do what the Law could not. That is to draw all men when He was lifted up on the cross. How does God show his sovereignty? By choosing the means in how one can come to Him. What is the means? Belief in Jesus and no other way. Belief is not a work, because Christs death on the cross was the finished work that gave us something to believe. God loved us first, and that's what gave us the ability to love him back. How did God show his love first? By sending His son, who knew no sin to the cross to bear the punishment for our inequities.
So are you saying that once we turn to God He then pours out His Grace and grants us repentance! Instead of us having to wait for Him to pour out His Grace upon us FIRST?!! SO WE'RE NOT DEAD IN OUR SINS LIKE A REAL DEAD PERSON AT ALL 😢😥😢Ohh please be right!! It took me months earlier this year to learn about Calvinism. Election, predestination, foreknowledge, the TULIP. At first I was soooo amazed.. but I learn process things fast, and I realized God was creating man for hell. I was sick, sad, and disgusted. What was the point in evangelizing if God already knew? (Charles Spurgeon: lift up their gown and look for their yellow stripe and only evangelize them!) I began to lose my new found amazing Faith! I had a regenerative heart, I was a new person!! I was. It felt so good. All I wanted to do is read my Bible 8 hours a day, listen to sermons, take notes. All I wanted to do was talk about the Lord Jesus Christ, God, talk about the word of God to everyone. People started making fun of me but I didn't care. And the more I learned about this Calvinism the more evolved it became in my mind it didn't sit well with me. And then it started to make me sad. I don't have a church. I learned everything on here by RC Sproul, John MacArthur, Steve Lawson, Paul Washer, Justin Peters, Todd Friel, Voddie Bachman, Jeff Durbin, to name a few. I also liked watching Living Waters now and then. I just want to get back there..I was so close to Jesus. Help. Please.
V FOR VENDETTA God grants repentance in that He didn’t harden certain people. Jhn 12: 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These could have believed if God hadn’t hardened them. God hardened them for a purpose that is explained in the bible (we can get into that if you like). Therefore, whoever wasn’t hardened was granted (allowed) repentance. Just so you know it was only the Jews of that generation who had rejected God that were hardened. Gentiles were not. They were granted. And no we’re not dead like a corpse. There are several examples of wicked men that did good in the sight of God. I can show you those as well if you like. Regeneration happens after faith.... Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) All that believed would receive the Spirit after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension.... Jhn 14: 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. Jhn 15: 26 ¶ But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: Jhn 16: 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. The Holy Spirit is first given here.... Jhn 20: 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: So they didn’t receive the Holy Spirit until after the resurrection as Jesus stated in John 7. That’s well after the disciples believed, and many others as well...... Jhn 2: 23 ¶ Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. Luk 7: 50 ¶ And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. Even after the resurrection, faith still preceded regeneration..... Eph 1: 13 ¶ In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Acts 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. Just to clarify what regeneration is. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.... Rom 8: 9 ¶ But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Spiritual life happens after belief..... Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. The disciples hadn’t received this life before the resurrection of Christ..... Jhn 14:19 ¶ Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. Peter hadn’t yet been converted..... Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (Matt 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.) God bless
2 Cor. 3:13-18 "Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13 not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. 14 But their *minds were hardened.* For to this day, when they read the old covenant, *that same veil remains unlifted,* because *only through Christ is it taken away.* 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil *lies over their hearts.* 16 *But when one[c] turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.* 17 Now the Lord[d] is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. *For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.* The scriptures teach you must first *turn to the Lord* for the veil of the heart & mind to *then* be taken away, because the veil is *ONLY* taken away *THROUGH CHRIST* , not outside of Christ. And *"This comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit"* Calvinism *does not* come from our Lord because they teach the reverse; "God must *first remove the veil of the heart & mind,* so you can *then turn to the Lord.* Many blessings to you.
I learned this weekend from a Calvinist posting in FB Sot101 that foolish virgins missed the groom, not for the little act of faith the wise virgins did, but because the foolish virgins were not believers. Matt 25. Were the foolish virgins regenerated to leave their dead as Lazarus condition, to hope for the coming for the Groom, to ask for lamp oil from the wise virgins, to go out searching for a seller of lamp oil at a late hour ? If the parable is about it's better to be a believer than not, why is it taking up space in the Bible ? Was God surprised he had regenerated foolish virgins ? Is the parable a mystery to be answered later, why did the groom lose the five foolish virgins ? When you are told Don't worry about these little sins, The fact you are asking means you are saved. Really ? Who do you complain to if there is more to the parable than it's better to be a believer ?
The issue of the parable of the 10 virgins is that all of them were waiting for the same Bridegroom, both the wise ones and the foolish ones. How can unbelievers, if the foolish ones are considered as such, be waiting for the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ?
Calvinism doesn't believe in "free will". That means God created people like his robots with a remote control? Picture it out which is better, a boy who has a robot dog which he can choose what will his robot dog will do and play with him. Or a boy who has a real pet dog who wants to build relationship with each other and it would be good to see playing with him, following him whenever his master goes. Im confused with this Calvinism....
If Calvinists don't believe in free will, why do their confessions always include statements asserting man's free will? The Westminster Confession, for example, dedicates the whole of chapter 9, appropriately titled _Of Free Will,_ to this topic.
Glory To GOD!!! Thank you Leighton Flowers, for this very informative rebuttal! Thank you so very much for pointing out in the Scriptures that "WE ARE TOLD TO HUMBLE OURSELVES." A!so, what you said about one being "IRRISISTIBLY and EFFECTUALLY" HUMBLED IS TRUE --- BUT ONLY IN JUDGEMENT. Jacob Preach said that Calvinism is a strong spirit of error.
@@sharonl6202 what kind of Comment is that? ""Wow ! I can walk around heaven bragging that I was chosen because I was humble."" I have never seen one who truly comes to God with a broken contrite spirit, and humble themselves who walked around with Pride about it, Ever, Moreover this si right one with scripture, What I have seen so very very very much is the pride with people who are high on that fact that God chose them from the beginning of time for no reason within themselves
Disagree! No man has any desire to humble himself before God unless God makes that dead person alive first. Eph 2 is pretty darn clear on this. A dead man can do nothing....period!
@@jimlipe385 Ephesians 2 really doesn’t say that number one Number two you didn’t just find the one scripture that takes away the hundreds of scriptures that say we have a responsibility to respond And if you did, or you would’ve done is pound contradictions in the Bible Do you think the Bible is full of contradictions? If so, why not throw the whole thing out And another thing, what would even be the purpose of the entire Bible, and everything else that is supposedly there for us to learn, from first Corinthians 10 says to learn from what happened to the Israelites in the wilderness I mean, why if we can’t respond unless God put it on our hearts what’s the purpose? Iand lastly what does that say about god who declares himself to be merciful to be calling people to repentance, calling for his image bearers to do the same thing, as this is his being that he wants to be known by Why will you die he says If a wicked man turns from his sin he shall live I hold up my arms with all day long The God that wants to be known of fairness in fact, he says the soul that sins dies and you say this is not fair He rebuked Israel for this line of thinking And it’s sickening to him Is he a liar?
in romans 9 i loved jacob,but hated esau....God hated esau because his heart is uncircumcise.all those who will be saved must be circumcise...look at lydia...God open her heart meaning circumcise ...why do we have to be circumcise in our heart...because the Holy spirit will dwell in our heart.God have mercy and compassion on those who loved God.
Ephesians 1 and 2 need to be reread. God predestinated and saved some by faith that he gave them. A person will never want to, or ever turn to faith in Jesus Christ unto salvation unless they are predestinated to be in His favor....Jacob and Esau pretty much makes that clear. I believe Flowers is conflating justification and sanctification based on some of the verses he chose to use as proof text for his argument. While Flowers is a learned teacher, I believe RC is much closer to the truth. Humbling oneself is what saved people do, and in the OT, those that wanted to follow the law of God as they were taught. Most of the verses that quoted support RC's position, so thank you for that.
Tell me then,why does Jesus PLEAD with people and the Pharasees to come to him.Why Does God command all men everywhere acts 30-17 if he already elected some? NOT only that GOD commnds ALL men not some . ALL thru Scripture God says ,you were Not Willing.This sounds irrational if some are called before it happens. Just because God knows does not mean man cant Believe.WHY does jesus say Whosoever WILL. how clear can one get.
@@sharonl6202 But that gives them a bigger excuse! If you tell your kid to clean the kitchen, but you lock the door and they can't get into the kitchen, isn't that an out for them? "I couldn't clean because the door was locked!" If the door wasn't locked and they didn't clean then they have no good excuse.
One person who is cowardly, and not letting me reply, said that we pray for sinners through the spirit to open their hearts to receive the faith. Layton flowers are saying the same thing he's just saying that they were not ordained to go to hell of course God opened their heart to the Holy Spirit. Faith comes from hearing, but everybody has the ability to hear. God gives them ability. It's so simple but yet CALVINISTS is just do not understand. if you are truly filled with the Holy Spirit, you can just hear what RC Sproul saying John MacArthur James White, and see the arrogance that spew from their lips.
22:10 - Flower's says it is those who humble themselves who God chooses to save. 15:42 - 16:51 "The Calvinist... says 'we just don't know what the reason [for our election] is', therefore can you say with certainty there is no reason based upon our choices or our decisions independently of God that would cause him to show favor to one person over another? When we ask about election we're talking about namely God having favor on somebody, him choosing somebody over someone else. Whenever we use the word 'choice', a lot of times we're thinking of kind of the verb form of it like "I made a choice between these options", but if you go into the grocery store, later today, and you go to the choice meat section the word choice there is used more of an adjective, it's describing the type of meat. It's the type of meat that is favorable over the other, lesser favorable, meat. And so, when you talk about something that is choice, you're not always talking about God choosing something for no apparent reason but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat. There's a reason to have that choice of that meat and so the question becomes, really in this debate, does God really favor some people over others and let's just look at that question... " 18:46 - "...so we see throughout the text that the answer to the question is 'ues', God does show favor over some to some and not others. And so I would agree with the Calvinist that God does favor some people over others but the question is does God show favor for no apparent reason..." 20:47 - 20:55 "... so it's from turning from your iniquity and giving attention to truth, in other words believing the truth, confessing your iniquity and saying "I believe in the truth"... that's how you have favor, that's how you seek the favor of God, so it's not this arbitrary for no reason..." So... yah, White's exactly right about what you said.
God elect us because we loved God and keep his commandment...the commandment of God is to have faith in his son and loved one another.God knows our heart...heart that is circumcise...because the Holy Spirit will dwell in our heart.God hated esau because he has uncircumcise heart.God have mercy and compassion on those who loved God.if we have an uncircumcise heart..the result will be bad works because the Holy Spirit is not in us.
One person who is cowardly, and not letting me reply, said that we pray for sinners through the spirit to open their hearts to receive the faith. Layton flowers are saying the same thing he's just saying that they were not ordained to go to hell of course God opened their heart to the Holy Spirit. Faith comes from hearing, but everybody has the ability to hear. God gives them ability. It's so simple but yet CALVINISTS is just do not understand.
One person who is cowardly, and not letting me reply, said that we pray for sinners through the spirit to open their hearts to receive the faith. Layton flowers are saying the same thing he's just saying that they were not ordained to go to hell of course God opened their heart to the Holy Spirit. Faith comes from hearing, but everybody has the ability to hear. God gives them ability. It's so simple but yet CALVINISTS is just do not understand. if you are truly filled with the Holy Spirit, you can just hear what RC Sproul saying John MacArthur James White, and see the arrogance that spew from their lips. When the woman crawled before Jesus at the banquet table, what did Jesus say? How could the dogs dwell within the superiors? I'm not wording it correctly, but you know the gist but the woman's answer? Even the dogs can receive the scraps from the masters table. If this is not a choice and faith, I don't know what is what was Jesus response? Is he just being a hypocrite? No, his response was that he marveled at the woman's faith and how great it was!! I rest my case we
There are over 60 verses that have a particle of conditionality in them concerning redemption. The word "IF" in the KJ is Strong’s G1487 εἰ Derivation: a primary particle of conditionality; Definition: *if* whether, that, etc. In other words, one is DEPENDENT on the other. - - - *John **14:15* - *"IF"* ye love me, keep my commandments - - - - John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, *"IF"* ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; *John 15:6,10 &14* 6. *"IF"* a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. 10. *"IF"* ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love 14. Ye are my friends, *"IF"* ye do whatsoever I command you. *Hebrews **10:26* For *"IF"* we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, - - Hebrews 3:6 - But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, *"IF"* we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. *Hebrews 6:4-6* For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5. And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6. *"IF"* they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. *Tim **2:12* *"IF"* we suffer, we shall also reign with him: *"IF"* we deny him, he also will deny us: *2 Pet **2:21**-22* - For *"IF"* after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them *2 Cron 15:2* and he went out to meet Asa, and said unto him, Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin; The LORD is with you, while ye be with him; and "IF" ye seek him, he will be found of you; but *"IF"* ye forsake him, he will forsake you. *1 Jon 1:7* But *"IF"* we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. *1 Jon 2:3-4* And hereby we do know that we know him, *"IF"* we keep his commandments. 4. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. *Rev 3:5* - He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels,
John 6:44. "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:44 KJV Calvinist always say, see, God the Father "DRAWS" anyone that will ever come to Christ. Men are dead and need to be "drawn". I then ask, what does DRAW mean? They say to "pull with/by force". Like drawing water from a well One guy said to me, God overcomes our will by "force" and draws us out of our sins. Regeneration precedes faith I then said, if thats the definition of "DRAW", then you have a HUGE problem. Lets look at John 12:32.......its the same Greek word used for DRAW in both verses. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will "draw" ALL MEN UNTO ME." John 12:32 KJV Conversation got quiet real quick. Lol I have no problem as a bible believer with God drawing people. But its not how the Calvinist defines it. Actually, the bible says The "Father" does the drawing in john 6:44 Then in john 12:32, Jesus/Son does the drawing. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto ME." John 12:32 KJV And we know that the Spirit convicts the world of sin after Jesus ascended back up to heaven. John 16:8 The Calvinst will never show you John 12:32. 😉
@@KingjamesAV1611 Thanks for the detailed answer. I've been describing it in a similar way to how the Army recruits someone but that person still has to enlist. This works well with calvinists because they consider faith to be a work.
@@KingjamesAV1611 I see it like this.... Jesus is physically with these people. Starting in verse 36, Jesus says "you have seen Me and yet do not believe". In verse 40, Jesus says "everyone who SEES the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life". I think the time in history plays a big role. All men cannot be drawn at this point in time because Jesus hadn't been lifted up yet and the Holy Spirit hadn't come on the scene. It took physically seeing Christ and believing His message, believing He was who He claimed to be, etc. Only after Jesus had ascended and the Helper came could all men be drawn. I don't know exactly how to put into words what I'm trying to say. At the time of 6:44, salvation by grace through faith was not attainable because Jesus hadn't finished His work. Only those who saw Jesus and heard Him could believe or not believe. Later, Jesus tells Thomas, "because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed". I probably made a mess out of this. Lol! I'm not the best at typing my thoughts...
@@djohnson3093 .... Your spot on my friend!! Calvinism and context NEVER go together. They always present a proof text, followed by a silly question/philosophy. You always gotta remember when the event is taking place, who's talking, and who's the audience! This is Jesus before the cross, speaking to Jews in his "presence", and before the Holy Spirit was given. The next chapter tells you that plainly..... (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) John 7:39 KJV So Jesus is in the body walking on Earth. The Spirit is not yet given, so God the Father is making the revelation in men's heart, that Jesus is the Christ, at this point in history. That exactly what Jesus tells Peter...... "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 16:15-17 KJV Keep the context and timing of events, and calvinism will show itself to be error. God Bless!
If you are a Christian and believe in the Bible at face value, then you are Calvinist and believe in the doctrine of the TULIP. Why ? Because the doctrine is Biblical, period!
I have written a lot of books and taught many courses, all of them, no doubt relying on his own Braggadocious attitude and boasting. Mr. flowers makes all the sense in the world and my spirit can see that he is responding to scripture and truth. RC Sproul is blind. He has a student of human teaching rather than spiritual teaching of scripture
Yes he is a snake oil salesman and an intellectual, Here is the thing My journey started with the bible and I have had a hard time to find a church that actually follows it in the bible belt, After disqualifying all the grace church's for all kinds of gross biblical error, I ended up at one calvinist reformed church and at the time I had a weak understanding of calvinism, but the deal was the preached repentance, where the other grace church did not or at best weakly, and this church preached to live seperate from the world, But not long in I began to see some issues with christian nationalism with some, who as it turned out believed in this postmillennialism based on this partial preterism So confused I went down the rabbit hole to learn what the deal is, In it I sawy many RC Sproul video's I thought he sounded suspect from the beginning, But the more I learned about this, I found it to be a complicated house of cards , that attract intellectuals, I found there were sever things that none of them can answer and the whole thing falls, But I wondered at it,, Why so many intellectuals loved it, And I can see unless one knows whats going on thye can twist you here and there pull you in the weeds and convince you you never knew the bible, but if You study hard you will find it to be smoke and mirrors, Interesting thing I found RC Sproul and he proudly said it, they he turned to this preterist to win a debate with bertrand Russel, a famous atheist, who had an objection to when Jesus said this generation But I found him to be prideful in his ability to win with words he uses a lot of psychology in all of his teachings After I left this Church and I learned little about calvinism though I really shelved it due to focusing on the postmil and preterism So I eventually ended up at a MacArthur church not in CA but a branch not his home state, I thought I have listened to a lot of MacArthur, He preaches repentance, and holiness, and the lordship of Christ, But soon after starting there was a new member class where they talking a lOT about the 5 points of calvinism and its in their statements heavily Westminster confession and the whatever of Dort and on and on and on So i though I better really research this out, I had at one point thought I understood it but when doing the last research, I had found some contrary weird things about the puritans in particular John Owens that did make sense to make a long story less long I did A LOT of RC Videos again And often he did a ton of Word gymnastics liek people say we don't believe in free will LOL they think we are robots Beep Beep beep, Nothing further from the truth and then take a 45 min round about way to say our free will is not free will because its controlled by our desires, and therefore we do not have the ability to choose God because our desire is predetermine to choose not God He uses a lot of straw man arguments, he does a lot fo accusing like if you don't believe this you might be a Pragian or a catholic or this or that , not in an aggressive way he has a slick way of doing it subtually ,, He is very talented
It is unfortunate that IRC Sproul must kneel before Jesus and explain why he misled many people away from Christ thinking that they were not chosen! I would hate to be in his shoes
It is tragic that some think that there is a significant (meritorious) difference between the unregenerate who loves wickedness and hates God slightly less than another. Until one is delivered from such anthropocentrism, they will never truly begin to understand God's mercy. Neither you Mr. Flowers, nor me, nor any Christian had any spark within us worthy of God's favor. To teach otherwise is dangerous at best and at worst damnable heresy. The entire narrative of the Scriptures teaches that left to our own devices we will only ever hate our Creator. It is only those God has graced with regeneration that will love and cherish Him. Just because this process looks different in the lives of different people does not mean that we jettison the biblical doctrine of total depravity. The eisegesis to support your position turns my stomach, reading your modern views back into out of context passages for your own devices.
It is not that we don't realize we are sinful, it is our inability to get rid of it, meaning our sinful nature, and that's where Jesus comes in. We are incomplete without the Holy Spirit, God want's us to decide who or what we are going to follow either Him, which means life, or our own sinful nature which means death. Everyone make this choice of our own free will, thinking God has condemned many ahead of time is against God's best interest and plainly it is a lie from Satan. How can this be true of God according to Calvinism? " KJ21 Say unto them: ‘As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?’ "
@@fcastellanos57 there is nothing in Calvinism that rejects the will of man. We simply reject the unbiblical notion that man has a freedom that is independent of God's. One simply cannot read the Tanakh and see that man's freedom leads anywhere but death. Even Solomon was led to paganism by his free choices. Apart from faith, it is impossible to please God, and faith is something that follows regeneration (Eze 36).
@@fcastellanos57 this is a theological mess, friend. Do you think Scripture teaches that prior to Christ there was no means of salvation? That is a level of dispensationalism that is outside of orthodox Christianity.
Matt Hannan Salvation is a complex matter. No one received the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, this is scriptural. This is not to say that those who had the faith of Abraham where not accepted by God aa those who will inherit salvation, but it is clear that only after Pentecost, what Jesus said “ you must be born again” this new creation could have taken place. What regenerates is the Spirit of God in us, so if Calvinist say that only you have faith after you have been regenerated, then how about Abraham?
How can election by God be anything but unconditional ? If man is in a position to deserve salvation without God's grace, then of course God can elect man to salvation because man, by his own Christ-free desire for salvation, his own efforts, his own working, and his own merits, of which holy and righteous man is alone the author, has made God his debtor, so that God cannot without injustice refuse to elect man to salvation. Election by God is of its very nature not based on anything in man - it is, and can only be, wholly gratuitous, IOW gracious.
So you are saying that at the end of the day we are saved because if our choices. So salvation is by choice and not by grace. If i am saved because of my good choice then i have something to brag. I found favor from God because i did something good. Who among us chose to be born physically here on earth, did we oneday just decided i want to be born today? Our Lord Jesus said we must be born again. And being born again is an act of God not an act of man.
If a business puts up an ad to hire an employee and I come to the training seminar and I sign up for the job, signing my name for taxes and an oath to keep the companies mission statement. Yes, I had to come give my consent to get the job. But would I credit myself for being responsible for creating the job? Who hired who? Who is ultimately the purveyor of employment? The business owner gave me the job. And he is responsible for making a way to make me employed
@@Jamie-Russell-CME Or the drowning person analogy. The lifeguard swims out. The drowning guy fights him. The lifeguard says, "Dude, relax! You have to trust me. I'm here to save you." If the drownee trusts and lets the lifeguard pull him to shore, is he going to brag about saving himself? No, he's going to praise the lifeguard! He will probably belittle himself for being stupid, disobeying the notices about riptides, talk about how terrified he was. And you can take it a little further. You can say that once he trusted the lifeguard he was predestined to be carried to shore and saved. And he didn't do anything except have faith in the lifeguard!
IMO: Election and humility are NOT mutually exclusive. Those that humble themselves ARE the elect. Total depravity doesn't allow for humility but only in those chosen, the elected. Remember, Jesus said: "I can do nothing without the father." Wasn't Jesus elected before the foundation of the world. Those that will never watch this video should be the ones making your argument. They don't have eyes or hears to hear the gospel. You are arguing against your OWN election. Could pride force us to believe in us choosing Him versus Him choosing us? Hmmmm. God bless.
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may ^KNOW* that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:13 (KJV)
We are obligated to bring the truth of what the gospel and Bible teaches us to say not what we feel RC says. But unfortunately, man is fllawed in his own wisdom. They read it the way they want the way the Catholics read the Bible. They want the way Mormons read the Bible the way they want and all of them have one thing in common. They think this is the truth and what these verses are saying rather than the true God and what he's trying to tell us.
Just because you don't like doesn't make it false. A dead man can't chose life. Stick within the metaphor. God could have used any term to refer to the state of man and he chose "dead" think about that in your devotions.
.....Man is made up of 3 parts, body, soul,spirit "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole "spirit" and "soul" and "body" be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thessalonians 5:23 KJV A natural man is only spiritually dead towards God. He still has a body and a soul. God gave him enough to respond to the gospel. "For with the "HEART" man believeth unto righteousness; and with the "MOUTH" confession is made unto salvation." Does a spiritually dead man still have a heart?? Yes!! Does he still have a mouth?? Yes!! So........ "That if thou shalt confess with thy "mouth" the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine "heart" that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Romans 10:9 KJV Have you never read Romans 1?? God gave every man enough knowledge of God to be without excuse. Read slowly....... "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest "IN" them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are WITHOUT excuse: Because that, when they "knew" God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 1:18-21 KJV Calvinisms "total depravity" is a Total Scam! 😂
Not all who say, Lord Lord, have I not cast out devils have and I brought your word to others. Only the elect RC sprawl answers. Jesus declares to be your worker of iniquity
If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.” C.S Lewis SO CS is exactly correct and this statement shows the Flaw in calvanism.
I think is a fallacy to think that free will presupposes only choosing good or choosing evil. Have you ever thought Jesus was free? was he able to sin? obviously not. Jesus even says that those who sin are slaves of sin, so having free will does not presuppose having those two choices only, you can choose between two good things and this is also free will. Was Jesus not free to Love the Father because He can't sin? is Jesus not free because He can't sin? so being free does not of necessity mean that evil can happen or has to happen. What causes evil is being drawn by what goes against God's character, it is having a nature corrupted by evil desires that makes us behave a certain way, when this evil human nature is done with, we will still be free but our freedom is to do what our new nature desires which is what God desires. Having a sinful nature is the problem not having free will.
@@fcastellanos57 Is God free or not? There can only be one truly free being. If you want to say that we are free than God is determined by our actions and we still live in a deterministic existence. Scripture is far more nuanced than you give it credit for. God uses the decisions of individuals to fulfill His purposes. They are known in eternity past, but they are still freely made by the individual. Foreknowledge does not necessitate responsibility.
Matt Hannan Jesus defined what being free is, he said “whoever commits sin is a slave of sin” since God can’t go against His own nature, He is free to do anything He decides to do. God cannot sin or go against himself, we can look at this as not being totally free but according to Jesus, to do anything outside God’s boundaries is being a slave of whatever is making you go against God’s Laws. I do know about those nuances, I am not ignorant of them, this is not my first time with this topic.
1st notion of RC Sproul, he follows Tulip and will not say Sulip. This little bad joke tells me he is incapable of independently study the Word of God led by the Holy Spirit.
“For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love He predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will” - Ephesians 1:4-5 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” - John 6:44 “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” - Romans 8:29 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide” - John 15:16 “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” - Acts 13:48 I hear so many false accusation about what Calvinist actually believe. I hear so many people twisting the words of reformed theologians like Sproul. You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to get around the doctrines of election and predestination in the Bible. Calvinism is nothing but biblical Christianity but people have false assumptions about reformed theology and they like to say things like “Calvinism teaches that all humans are robots” and silly things like this. They haven’t done their homework...
Dylan M Jhn 12: 40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. Could have these believed had they not been hardened?
Dylan M Yeah. Jesus was speaking to a nation that had a judicial hardening placed upon them. My question is if they could have believed had they not been hardened?
Evan U Jesus wasn’t just speaking to Israel in John 6:44. Everyone is born with a hardened heart because of the fallen nature of man and only God can change that. Could they have believed if their hearts weren’t hardened? Yes, they could have but ultimately it’s God who decides to change hearts and draw people to Himself.
Dylan M Jesus was speaking to the Jews..... Jhn 1: 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. Matt 15: 24 ¶ But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It was only the Jews that were hardened..... Rom 11: 7 ¶ What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 11 ¶ I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 13 ¶ For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 25 ¶ For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in So if the Gentiles were not hardened then as you say, they could believe. Agreed?
I totally agree that there has to be some responsibility on man's part, the bible refers to it way too many times,"when we do this,God does this" I also believe though,that as humans,we sin because were born with a sin nature,not that we develope a sin nature because we sin. Therefore were guilty because were born guilty.
Ephesians 2:10...why are some chosen and saved. Flowers is correct on Jews purpose of election and God's dealing with Israel is a picture of the coming reality of those to be saved, chosen, predestinated in Christ.
how can you humble before God if you are already born in sin and sin is rebellious to God. its Holy spirit power to humble man. you are confusing people like the faith word movement thinking like the we can freely choose God.
John Calvin says of his god...... “thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5) “The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11) John Piper says of his god..... "God . . . brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. @-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes-as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem-God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child . . . EVERY CALVINIST I HAVE TALKED TO says the same. Including Paul Washer .......John MacArthur, Sproul, White and a whole lot of other modern heretics. Jews thought salvation was only for them as the elect nation of God and could be achieved through works of the law. Calvinists think salvation is only for them as the Augustinian-elect of God. Ironically they both have the same elitist objections and can’t stand the fact that salvation is freely and genuinely offered to all through faith. Calvinists can even see the similarity between themselves and the Jews who boasted of their election. The irony is literally staggering. Calvinists are the 21st century Pharisees. Calvinism: Satan's way of unloading his responsibility for what he has done in this world and placing it on God.."God predetermined everything and caused everything including evil" If God predetermined everything..that means everything!! And so Calvinism places the blame of anything evil on God.. That is blasphemy..They follow a false god that is responsible for evil. I mean really?!? God gets glory by purposefully creating creatures that are intended to burn and suffer in unfathomably painstaking eternal torment as a way for Him to have glory? My God ( who is the only true God) says it like this. Acts 2 :21And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off-.... 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people.Paul Washer is very careful not to allow a sound bite out that could expose him as obvious as John Piper or MacArthur do. But just the same listen to this: Paul Washer states, “You cannot rely on the testimony of Calvin alone…." Calvin under his reign of terror in Geneva had over 60 people burned at the stake for disagreeing with his teachings. He tortured people etc. This is common knowledge. Calvin zealously sought to murderously enforce his own laws to his own dogmatic, egotistic ends. Reformed teachers know the knee jerk reaction people can have with reformed theology plainly and honesty spoken so they couch their words. But at the end of the day the message is John Calvin. I would be happy to give you a list of the best Biblical teachers I have ever heard. On youtube you can find them. Soteriolgy 101 Dr Flowers David Pawson Dave Hunt "What love is this?" Moriel TV
God elects unconditionally because His Love is unconditional. It is totally unconditioned by anything in creatures, who can in no way begin their own salvation - God's grace always takes the initiative.
Actually, Calvinism was born out of Manichaeism, which is a form of Gnosticism. This makes it quite ironic when reformed theologians use Paul's warning in Colossians 2 regarding "hollow and deceptive philosophies depending on human tradition" to defend their doctrine, as they are the ones Paul was warning his readers about.
If we are all sinners who can't respond unless God choses us, He either needs to choose all some or none. He chose some to display his grace and some to display His wrath. Flowers do you really think you can stand up to one of the greatest bible teachers of our time? Forget it.
Yes, and that's the definition of arbitrary - picking some without any outside influence who to save and who to damn. Paul is interesting - he was a child of wrath at one point, and changed to a child of grace. So it's possible to be both during your lifetime.
Election in Christ unto salvation took place before the foundation of the world and there are no conditions that a sinner can do to become one of God's elect. It is the sovereign work and purpose of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God that one person is chosen and another is left to perish in his/her sins. There is many scriptures to support this Biblical and historical teaching. Believe it or not!
God's Word clearly says this in Eph. 1:3-14, etc., etc.!! If you scroll up I made quite a long comment on all this a year ago! Refuting where Flowers is coming from, he's a well known unregenerate heretic, clearly not one of God's elect!!
Brother Carlton In Eph 1:3-12 Paul keeps saying “us” and “we” buy them when he gets to verse 13 he says “and you”. Who are the “we” and who are the “you”? Thanks.
RC Sproul is realy God anoited.... wonderful explation about our ellection, if you can't understand bec we refuse to understand and its bec. we feel we understand more than he is, well the problem is us...our old nature, soon all things will be explain by him the author and finisher of our faith.
I think that most Reformed theologians with phd's will not engage Traditionalists because they don't find their hermeneutic to be tenable. The traditionalist perspective is seen to be a ridiculous method of interpreting Scripture that it's hard to take the position seriously. It's definitely a minority approach to interpreting Scripture and an easily refutable perspective when debated and cross-examined. I've found that Traditionalist exegetes, such as Prof. Flowers, just aren't careful in their study of Scripture itself. I've been following Prof. Flowers' podcasts and debates and have found that he's just not a careful exegete of Scripture and he's often made to look foolish when confronted with learned Reformed theologians or students of the Scriptures. It's very clear that Prof. Flowers just chooses to reject tota scriptura and oftentimes pits Scripture against itself to support the Traditionalist perspective. May God grant him repentance and humility to see what he has yet to see.
Troy, I tend to agree with you. I don't listen to all of his podcasts, but I've listened to enough to see that he tends to go all over the map when interpreting passages. He also likes to quote alot of reformed folks that may disagree on certain subjects as if it changes the meaning of scripture. That's not a great argument since anyone could do the same with Traditionalists. To be honest, when you erase the Calvinist name-calling, philosophical arguments, and quotes (to sometimes even misinterpret others), you're left with scripture alone to make your case. His debate with James White on Romans 9 is a good case of him going off topic instead of going through the text verse by verse. I thought he had a perfect opportunity to make his case and was interested in what he would say and was blown away that he went off topic to avoid interpreting Romans 9. And I know many will say that he didn't or that I"m misrepresenting him, but anyone can look it up and watch Dr. White go through the text and Dr. Flowers go all over the map, picking scripture he wants to pick. What grieves me most about Dr. Flowers is that he seems very sincere and actually is a likeable guy. But the fact that his soteriology is always about refuting Calvinism and Calvinists more than explaining the doctrines of salvation through the scriptures is troubling. I am not as learned as him and can find scriptural support for reformed soteriology without once mentioning any labels. In fact, the subject of election, free-will, and the love of God came up in an apologetics class I'm teaching at my church and all I did was go to various scriptures and we went over it. No one was insulted when we plainly read Romans 9, Ephesians 1:4-5, and other verses that talk about God's sovereignty. And I don't avoid 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:4,. or 2 Peter 3:9 either. It's amazing, that even in disagreement, when we just go to scripture alone first to find out what God says, we can learn what He is saying clearly. It just takes our submission to the Spirit by the new nature God has given us and not thinking highly of ourselves above the absolute attributes of God.
Eric Smith you are right on point brother! Leighton is quite likable and articulate and these attributes tend to lower the defenses of many who follow him. I'm a firm believer of sticking to the text vs defending an "ism" (i.e. Calvinism). I've often heard Leighton say, "I know you won't agree with me. I just want you to understand my perspective." This is indicative of a person who wants to espouse a "perspective" of Scripture, rather than espousing truth as presented in tota scriptura. As much as he and other Traditionalists deny this fact, they are, in fact, the opposer in Romans 9. They are refusing to bow to God's sovereignty AS REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. The Traditionalist, in essence, blames God for creating mankind with a sinful nature because they mock God by making such statements as, "If God has given mankind their desires, then how can they be held culpable for their sins?" OR "How can God judge mankind if they're born under the hatred and wrath of God already prior to salvation?" These statements actually place God on trial as an unjust Judge who judges His creation who He creates with a sin nature. The Traditionalist will not say this, but they are, in essence, blaming God for mankind's total depravity and their inability to respond positively to the Gospel. The Arminian view is more tenable than Traditionalism since Traditionalism tends to borrow from other heretical teachings (i.e. Molinism, Middle Knowledge, semi-Pelagianism). If a faithful student/teacher of the Word keeps a typical Traditionalist on the text itself, the Traditionalist WILL be made to look foolish. For example, Leighton's teaching on the "lump of clay" in Romans 9 only refers to rebellious Jews, reveals his faulty hermeneutic as the "lump" is clearly identified as both believing Jews AND Gentiles. But God has raised up Leighton and other Traditionalists as a test to believers who aren't faithful to tota scriptura. The question is, "Will you listen to teachers who appear humble and articulate or will you bow to ALL that God has revealed about Himself and His Gospel in the Scriptures?" Thank you Eric for sharing your perspective with me brother.
My background is in philosophy. In philosophy we are taught to question and to question deeply. I know for a truth that you are a dishonest man because all I would need to do is place you under questioning and what you believe would be shown to be inconsistent and illogical and you would be shown to be dishonest. No Calvinist can live honestly and consistently in Calvinism.
ROOT CAUSE OF SIN To justify exiling Satan and sinners from heaven, God designed for sin to reach it's ultimate conclusion on earth. For if we have the freedom to choose salvation on earth, then we also have the freedom to choose sin in heaven.
One person who is cowardly, and not letting me reply, said that we pray for sinners through the spirit to open their hearts to receive the faith. Layton flowers are saying the same thing he's just saying that they were not ordained to go to hell of course God opened their heart to the Holy Spirit. Faith comes from hearing, but everybody has the ability to hear. God gives them ability. It's so simple but yet CALVINISTS is just do not understand. if you are truly filled with the Holy Spirit, you can just hear what RC Sproul saying John MacArthur James White, and see the arrogance that spew from their lips. When the woman crawled before Jesus at the banquet table, what did Jesus say? How could the dogs dwell within the superiors? I'm not wording it correctly, but you know the gist but the woman's answer? Even the dogs can receive the scraps from the masters table. If this is not a choice and faith, I don't know what is what was Jesus response? Is he just being a hypocrite? No, his response was that he marveled at the woman's faith and how great it was!! I rest my case we
One person who is cowardly, and not letting me reply, said that we pray for sinners through the spirit to open their hearts to receive the faith. Layton flowers are saying the same thing he's just saying that they were not ordained to go to hell of course God opened their heart to the Holy Spirit. Faith comes from hearing, but everybody has the ability to hear. God gives them ability. It's so simple but yet CALVINISTS is just do not understand. if you are truly filled with the Holy Spirit, you can just hear what RC Sproul saying John MacArthur James White, and see the arrogance that spew from their lips. When the woman crawled before Jesus at the banquet table, what did Jesus say? How could the dogs dwell within the superiors? I'm not wording it correctly, but you know the gist but the woman's answer? Even the dogs can receive the scraps from the masters table. If this is not a choice and faith, I don't know what is what was Jesus response? Is he just being a hypocrite? No, his response was that he marveled at the woman's faith and how great it was!! I rest my case
One person who is cowardly, and not letting me reply, said that we pray for sinners through the spirit to open their hearts to receive the faith. Layton flowers are saying the same thing he's just saying that they were not ordained to go to hell of course God opened their heart to the Holy Spirit. Faith comes from hearing, but everybody has the ability to hear. God gives them ability. It's so simple but yet CALVINISTS is just do not understand. if you are truly filled with the Holy Spirit, you can just hear what RC Sproul saying John MacArthur James White, and see the arrogance that spew from their lips. When the woman crawled before Jesus at the banquet table, what did Jesus say? How could the dogs dwell within the superiors? I'm not wording it correctly, but you know the gist but the woman's answer? Even the dogs can receive the scraps from the masters table. If this is not a choice and faith, I don't know what is what was Jesus response? Is he just being a hypocrite? No, his response was that he marveled at the woman's faith and how great it was!! I rest my case
