I am mystified with the threat Rogue thinks is posed by Provisionism. Surely there are greater obstacles to the Gospel than that God loves the world and has provided a way of salvation for every man, woman, boy, and girl. This is Calvinism unhinged.
Exactly, under Calvinism there is no threat posed by Provisionism. The elect will still be the elect and saved even if they reject Calvinism; the non-elect will still be the non-elect and go to hell even if they accept and teach Calvinism. The only argument a Calvinist could have is that Provisionism might make non-elect people think they will be saved. Maybe they think that will make hell more hellish for the non-elect than God intends?
How does he feel about Roman Catholicism? Church History? The non-Roman Catholic churches which existed alongside the RCC for centuries? Stop holding back on these people when many will tell you that infant baptism is a necessary part of the Christian faith, cover up Church History, etc. Then there are the weird alternative views of Trinitarianism and other heresies besides. What do they actually believe in? I have thought some of these "Protestants" were Roman Catholic at times on various points.
@@brich2542 there are evangelical groups, That were never protestants, they never had to come out of the Catholic Church because they had the Bible! They were the Waldeseans, Lollards, the Plymouth brethren! Catholic history and evangelical history differ going all the way back 2000 years! Trust the Bible Only; God still made it easy. It’s a one step to find him: read the Bible, and do what it says or go to hell, that’s your only choice. In the fourth century, Augustine invented infant baptism , which is not biblical, just as he invented other heretical beliefs! He’s also the father of the stupid doctrine called Calvinism !
I stumbled across Rogues channel a while ago to see if there was actually a good argument against provisionism and if Calvinism could be true. In less than a minute I realized he was misquoting, and intentionally mischaracterizing provisionism. If you have to be deceitful to try and make your case, then you have no case.
There's no "semi" about it. He has said numerous times he doesn't use his mind and think about the things of God, rather that they are given to Him from above.
35:30 Any conversation with a Calvinist is always rooted in man's Total Inability. There can be no discussion in which their position does not emanate from this false premise.
I am prepared to grant total inability if only for the sake of argument. What can overcome man's total inability? The grace of God and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has been poured out on all flesh, and the grace of God is available for every man ( _For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men_ ). The problem lies in rejecting it.
@@ProRege-1 Gen 4:26 KJV - 26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
@@ProRege-1 grace is always needed. We exist because of His grace, so that question is a bit leading. But man can seek God without being GIVEN faith. God calls upon ALL mankind to repent.
I agree Paul says that Mars Hill that exact thing. Calvinist says that God calling you to do something you can't do is illustrated by Jesus saying be perfect as I am perfect. But they're quoting it out of context.
I agree that Rouge seems crazy. My question is, why doesn’t someone like James White get the same treatment? In his first debate with Leighton he opened by talking about thorough exegesis as if to set the crowd up, and then 5 minutes of hopscotch through Romans 8 and as if that was thorough exegesis. He later focuses on criticizing Leighton for not providing a thorough exegesis as if he (JW) had done any such thing. Does having a seminary degree and a large following make it OK for a professing Christian to carefully construct a series of lies and mischaracterization and then impure another for falling into the trap? Beyond this, 90% of his anti-provisionist material is personal attacks against provisionists instead of any cordial, biblical discussion.
"...why does someone like John White get the same treatment?" Can you clarify or edit your comment? - Did you mean to say JAMES White? - Did you mean to ask why he DOESN'T get the same treatment?
People can be blinded by their doctrine and not thoroughly exegete scriptures. Calvary Chapel people have the same problem with works passages! They will gloss over works passages or not discuss them, even though they claim to go verse by verse! and at the end of sermons the last 10 minutes, talking about Grace Grace Grace, erasing Works/commandments passages, that they ONLY halfway exegeted already.
You both are misguided and also disrespectful in his anonymity by calling him Scott? Your contempt is only discerned by those that are spiritual and discerning You both plat your roles perfectly
You both are misguided and also disrespectful in his anonymity by calling him Scott? Your contempt is only discerned by those that are spiritual and discerning You both play your roles perfectly
"If you realized that making fun of me is what started all of this long before I knew what I was doing" Rogue Calvinist just gave away his villain origin story!
I’m convinced that the reason Calvinists hate theological analogies is that they’ve noticed that analogies about their soteriology always make their theology look absurd.
It is weird that they have any issues against analogies - they continually tout "dead like Lazarus in the grave, called to life from death like Lazarus"
@@breadznfishz4132 Calvinist here. I'd say it depends on the analogy. Personally, I don't find the Lazarus analogy to be necessary. There's some mileage to it. But the passage seems to be about the final resurrection, not regeneration.
Starting at 1:09:57 Leighton gives a good argument for how baptism is a proviso (condition) for salvation but is not a "work" that merits salvation. Instead, like putting the blood on the door post and looking to the bronze serpent on the pole, baptism is something God commands us to do so as to be saved ("repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins"). Referring to the OT accounts, Leighton explains how "I am doing this thing in faith... and God is showing mercy/grace not because they earned his grace but because he is gracious; not because the act somehow merits it." As Leighton's reasoning shows, God graciously chooses to show mercy/grace but it is provisional: provided you wipe the blood on the doorpost in faith; provided you look to the bronze serpent in faith; provided you repent and are immersed into Christ in faith you are given the right to become a child of God.
Interesting analysis. I have struggled with what to believe about how baptism fits in. I was raised in a tradition where it was an absolute requirement, not that baptism “saves”, Christ does that, but that it is part of the faith response required of us. Most Christians I encounter these days are fairly blasé about baptism and MAY say it’s good, but only as an outward display of something that has already “happened”. I do lean toward baptism being and important act of obedience, while trusting God in his wisdom and mercy to judge hearts and situations where baptism may truly not be feasible. My childhood tradition left no room for exceptions, and that didn’t sit right with me. But the lax attitudes about baptism in many “tribes” don’t sit right either.🤷♀️
@AmyPert-s7s As someone who has been both sprinkled and fully immersed, I think that it was all unnecessary and possibly diminishing the actual heroic act which already took place almost 2000 years ago. If you are a Gentile, you likely don't need to be baptized. Jesus paid it all. Baptism washes away the Law/sin which you and your ancestors were never under. If you are a fan of Jesus and you like the idea of Him being the King of Kings, them He has got your back.
@@AmyPert-s7s Just as a wedding is not the marriage itself, neither is being baptized in water being baptized by the Holy Spirit itself. Water baptism symbolically represents being baptized by the Holy Spirit. There are people in the Bible who never underwent water baptism that were saved, like the thief crucified next to Jesus.
@@LawlessNate If you hear the gospel while nailed to a cross or perhaps while dying in a Chinese prison, you might have a good reason for not being obedient in baptism. If not, you have no excuse. When we are water baptized by immersion, it represents Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.
The biggest problem is that people are missing the writers point by not reading the books of Paul because they were letters and ment to be read in one sitting. Know one gets a letter and then don't read the hole thing ans get the same meaning the author was sending.
Its nice to have people Leighton. Finally we can get away from the false dichotomy of Calvinists versus arminians and start calling it TULIPists vs Flowerites.
Honestly calvinists deny the sovereignty of God. They like to say that but it is really their biggest problem. They cannot conceive that a God that know’s all can somehow still say anyone who will may come.
We can modify the syllogism somewhat, and remove the non-sequitur, thus: 1. No person in the flesh can please God; 2. Every believer in Christ pleases God: 3. Therefore, no believer in Christ is a person in the flesh.
I'm literally skipping through the video and constantly hear Warren make little jokes about the Rogue guy. I hope Leighton wears off on Warren because he's not going to help many Calvinists if he keeps up his sarcasm and little jabs at Calvinists.
Hey, that concept of learning from each other, that's in the Bible. I think it's healthy to raise questions about doctrine if it's not perfectly clear. I think it's the asking and searching to answer our questions together that God intended. We, together seek to know Him, spurring each other on.
I’m not a Calvinist, but there are many many verses that says God chose some for salvation. You can’t ignore that. How does that work with our free will to choose? It makes sense to God. It is our job to whosoever and the spirits job to draw That being said left to ourselves we do not want God. The flesh clearly pulls even on believers why? Because we are so in the flesh we even as believers have a hard fight with the flesh
@ 2 Thesselonians 2:13 But we ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 1 Thesselonians 1:4-5 For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, in the Holy Spirit, and with full assurance. Colossians 3:12 Therefore, as God’s chosen ones, holy and dearly loved, put on compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience,
A fundamental question: Do human beings have ANY power or ability to decide their behavior? If one answers "no," then explain Adam's and Eve's behavior, the first humans created by God.
Please explain to me,, when Jesus left earth he said I will leave you the comforter the HS to help you. So why do you just go with free will when it’s the HS that helps us. 👇🏼 stating that humans have the natural ability to respond to the gospel without needing any prior internal work of the Holy Spirit to do so;
You can't isolate the Holy Spirit from the speaking and hearing of the Gospel. He is present there. Everyone has the same opportunity upon hearing the Gospel to repent or not.
Leighton no disrespect you definitely could be a little more charismatic and concise. This Rogue guy is probably going to through some pain mentally due to you logically picking apart Calvinism.
Jesus just sucks... with his limited atonement stuff. Is just disappointing this notion that we pay for being born... i dont know how you all just take it...
Well it sucks because it isn't true. We pay for what we've actually done not simply for being born. Jesus died for all. So anyone who believes can access the atonement.
I want to like Warren but after watching many of his videos I noticed he was too sarcastic and overall un-Christian when it came to Calvinists. Even though I agree with him I don't support people who are too negative. Leighton genuinely loves the Calvinists - but I think Warren is filled discontent and frustration - which I totally understand but don't want to hear it. Maybe he is a little more forgiving now? We'll see.
I've interacted with her numerous times in texts and comments but as far as his voice he has done real time debates with Warren and others and a bot for AI would not be capable of interacting in that form. You should go look up one mcgrew's debate with Rogue it'll make you tear your hair out. Basically Rose argument simply says that he understands divine revelation and Warren does not and this is by God's decree and evidenced by Warren's disagreement with him.
Dr. Leighton Flowers i really have been blessed by your ministry but I am greatly disappointed that not only you but both Braxton Hunter and Jonathan Pritchet have all given a platform to "idol killer", who teaches and promotes heresy and I am disappointed that you gladly and willingly call out Calvin's but will not call this man out for his heretical views like denial of PSA, original sin (nature of sin), open theism, we share a convention with Calvinist but this man is not even Evangelical which is bewildering for any baptist and even shameful, so secondary issues are more important than Essential doctrine? This is no longer Soteriology, it's Anti-Calvinism and now whoever is against Calvinism we give him a platform even though his views are contrary to Evangelicals especially Baptist. You guys represent Trinity and now students are being influence by McGrew because of you guys. I used to hold you guys in his esteem but now I am greatly disappointed.
Rejecting Augustinian anthropology and Anselmian Atonement Theory does not make one a heretic. It makes you orthodox. Engage the evidence and arguments and stop pearl clutching. I don't claim those affirming such things are not Christian but you've seemingly made this matter salvific.
Have you gone through his whole PSA series? Be a good Berean and watch everything then use your bible to refute anything that doesn't align with the Word of God. And if you come out still with your views intact then indeed you would have reenforced your views and at a better place defending your believe. I think Christus Victor Victor and PSA have to go hand in hand. PSA is necessary but as 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 says And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. It has to be a combination of these theories IMO. I am not an expect though.
PSA is Scriptural, and to deny it, is not denying some theory of man. If Christ did not die in our place we are still in our sins. While rejecting Calvinism, one must be wise not to throw out any connection to the stain and effects of sin on the human condition. Leighton's work against Calvinism is good work, but even he has flaws, C.S. Lewis seems to be a hero of his. And Lewis was absolutely heretical in numerous beliefs.
Flowers the second you are challenged you become off subject. Like you did in John 6 with White. You deflect and twist scripture taking the glory of God down
I am mystified with the threat Rogue thinks is posed by Provisionism. Surely there are greater obstacles to the Gospel than that God loves the world and has provided a way of salvation for every man, woman, boy, and girl. This is Calvinism unhinged.
Exactly, under Calvinism there is no threat posed by Provisionism. The elect will still be the elect and saved even if they reject Calvinism; the non-elect will still be the non-elect and go to hell even if they accept and teach Calvinism. The only argument a Calvinist could have is that Provisionism might make non-elect people think they will be saved. Maybe they think that will make hell more hellish for the non-elect than God intends?
Something about God's glory, probably!
Election has to do with the ordaining of works in a believers life.
Second Peter 1:10 We are encouraged to make our calling and election sure.
How does he feel about Roman Catholicism? Church History? The non-Roman Catholic churches which existed alongside the RCC for centuries? Stop holding back on these people when many will tell you that infant baptism is a necessary part of the Christian faith, cover up Church History, etc. Then there are the weird alternative views of Trinitarianism and other heresies besides. What do they actually believe in? I have thought some of these "Protestants" were Roman Catholic at times on various points.
@@brich2542 there are evangelical groups, That were never protestants, they never had to come out of the Catholic Church because they had the Bible! They were the Waldeseans, Lollards, the Plymouth brethren!
Catholic history and evangelical history differ going all the way back 2000 years!
Trust the Bible Only; God still made it easy. It’s a one step to find him: read the Bible, and do what it says or go to hell, that’s your only choice.
In the fourth century, Augustine invented infant baptism , which is not biblical, just as he invented other heretical beliefs!
He’s also the father of the stupid doctrine called Calvinism !
I interacted with him last week.
The thing that stuck out to me was that he kept avoiding the text. Kept avoiding the context. That says a lot.
I stumbled across Rogues channel a while ago to see if there was actually a good argument against provisionism and if Calvinism could be true.
In less than a minute I realized he was misquoting, and intentionally mischaracterizing provisionism. If you have to be deceitful to try and make your case, then you have no case.
In all seriousness, it sounds as though Rogue has a mental illness. He needs help. I pray he finds it and receives it.
Rogue really seems to think that critique = persecution.
These types of Calvinists are like Wokies in that respect.
Unless he's doing it to others and then it's only correction, no matter how much he lies.
Rogue makes it very hard to avoid the accusation of being a semi-Gnostic.
There's no "semi" about it. He has said numerous times he doesn't use his mind and think about the things of God, rather that they are given to Him from above.
35:30 Any conversation with a Calvinist is always rooted in man's Total Inability. There can be no discussion in which their position does not emanate from this false premise.
I am prepared to grant total inability if only for the sake of argument. What can overcome man's total inability? The grace of God and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has been poured out on all flesh, and the grace of God is available for every man ( _For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men_ ). The problem lies in rejecting it.
What's a text that supports man having the capacity to incline himself to God without the preceding grace of God?
@@ProRege-1 Gen 4:26 KJV - 26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
@@ProRege-1 grace is always needed. We exist because of His grace, so that question is a bit leading. But man can seek God without being GIVEN faith. God calls upon ALL mankind to repent.
I agree Paul says that Mars Hill that exact thing. Calvinist says that God calling you to do something you can't do is illustrated by Jesus saying be perfect as I am perfect. But they're quoting it out of context.
I agree that Rouge seems crazy. My question is, why doesn’t someone like James White get the same treatment? In his first debate with Leighton he opened by talking about thorough exegesis as if to set the crowd up, and then 5 minutes of hopscotch through Romans 8 and as if that was thorough exegesis. He later focuses on criticizing Leighton for not providing a thorough exegesis as if he (JW) had done any such thing.
Does having a seminary degree and a large following make it OK for a professing Christian to carefully construct a series of lies and mischaracterization and then impure another for falling into the trap?
Beyond this, 90% of his anti-provisionist material is personal attacks against provisionists instead of any cordial, biblical discussion.
"...why does someone like John White get the same treatment?"
Can you clarify or edit your comment?
- Did you mean to say JAMES White?
- Did you mean to ask why he DOESN'T get the same treatment?
People can be blinded by their doctrine and not thoroughly exegete scriptures. Calvary Chapel people have the same problem with works passages! They will gloss over works passages or not discuss them, even though they claim to go verse by verse! and at the end of sermons the last 10 minutes, talking about Grace Grace Grace, erasing Works/commandments passages, that they ONLY halfway exegeted already.
You both are misguided and also disrespectful in his anonymity by calling him Scott? Your contempt is only discerned by those that are spiritual and discerning
You both plat your roles perfectly
You both are misguided and also disrespectful in his anonymity by calling him Scott? Your contempt is only discerned by those that are spiritual and discerning
You both play your roles perfectly
Your explanations of scripture is down playing what scripture is saying.
"If you realized that making fun of me is what started all of this long before I knew what I was doing" Rogue Calvinist just gave away his villain origin story!
@@savemyplace235
Syndrome
@@RogueSycophant "And when everyone's elect... no one will be!"
@@AndrewJohnH 😂
I find Leighton's eccessive kindness and charity toward his theological opponents to be pacifying.
Turns out it was hypnotism all along.
"Christian-DUMB"
har har!
I just can't get over the intro lyrics: "...where even the devil dared not go." Who wrote that?! It's brilliant!
Thanks! 😅
Leighton, you ARE too nice to Calvinists 😉😉
Appreciate you both. Thanks for both of your UA-cam channels 💜
Thank you both for this. I truly enjoyed it!!!
I’m convinced that the reason Calvinists hate theological analogies is that they’ve noticed that analogies about their soteriology always make their theology look absurd.
It is weird that they have any issues against analogies - they continually tout "dead like Lazarus in the grave, called to life from death like Lazarus"
@@breadznfishz4132 Calvinist here. I'd say it depends on the analogy. Personally, I don't find the Lazarus analogy to be necessary. There's some mileage to it. But the passage seems to be about the final resurrection, not regeneration.
Starting at 1:09:57 Leighton gives a good argument for how baptism is a proviso (condition) for salvation but is not a "work" that merits salvation. Instead, like putting the blood on the door post and looking to the bronze serpent on the pole, baptism is something God commands us to do so as to be saved ("repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins"). Referring to the OT accounts, Leighton explains how "I am doing this thing in faith... and God is showing mercy/grace not because they earned his grace but because he is gracious; not because the act somehow merits it." As Leighton's reasoning shows, God graciously chooses to show mercy/grace but it is provisional: provided you wipe the blood on the doorpost in faith; provided you look to the bronze serpent in faith; provided you repent and are immersed into Christ in faith you are given the right to become a child of God.
Well said.
Interesting analysis. I have struggled with what to believe about how baptism fits in. I was raised in a tradition where it was an absolute requirement, not that baptism “saves”, Christ does that, but that it is part of the faith response required of us. Most Christians I encounter these days are fairly blasé about baptism and MAY say it’s good, but only as an outward display of something that has already “happened”. I do lean toward baptism being and important act of obedience, while trusting God in his wisdom and mercy to judge hearts and situations where baptism may truly not be feasible. My childhood tradition left no room for exceptions, and that didn’t sit right with me. But the lax attitudes about baptism in many “tribes” don’t sit right either.🤷♀️
@AmyPert-s7s As someone who has been both sprinkled and fully immersed, I think that it was all unnecessary and possibly diminishing the actual heroic act which already took place almost 2000 years ago. If you are a Gentile, you likely don't need to be baptized. Jesus paid it all. Baptism washes away the Law/sin which you and your ancestors were never under. If you are a fan of Jesus and you like the idea of Him being the King of Kings, them He has got your back.
@@AmyPert-s7s Just as a wedding is not the marriage itself, neither is being baptized in water being baptized by the Holy Spirit itself. Water baptism symbolically represents being baptized by the Holy Spirit. There are people in the Bible who never underwent water baptism that were saved, like the thief crucified next to Jesus.
@@LawlessNate If you hear the gospel while nailed to a cross or perhaps while dying in a Chinese prison, you might have a good reason for not being obedient in baptism. If not, you have no excuse. When we are water baptized by immersion, it represents Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.
I feel like what Rogue refers to as manipulation is what most people would consider persuasion.
The biggest problem is that people are missing the writers point by not reading the books of Paul because they were letters and ment to be read in one sitting. Know one gets a letter and then don't read the hole thing ans get the same meaning the author was sending.
Sometimes the best response is no response
Its nice to have people Leighton. Finally we can get away from the false dichotomy of Calvinists versus arminians and start calling it TULIPists vs Flowerites.
Honestly calvinists deny the sovereignty of God. They like to say that but it is really their biggest problem. They cannot conceive that a God that know’s all can somehow still say anyone who will may come.
We can modify the syllogism somewhat, and remove the non-sequitur, thus:
1. No person in the flesh can please God;
2. Every believer in Christ pleases God:
3. Therefore, no believer in Christ is a person in the flesh.
I Love listening to Dr. Flowers but didn’t understand start that comment.
20:12
I'm literally skipping through the video and constantly hear Warren make little jokes about the Rogue guy. I hope Leighton wears off on Warren because he's not going to help many Calvinists if he keeps up his sarcasm and little jabs at Calvinists.
Hey, that concept of learning from each other, that's in the Bible. I think it's healthy to raise questions about doctrine if it's not perfectly clear. I think it's the asking and searching to answer our questions together that God intended. We, together seek to know Him, spurring each other on.
I’m not a Calvinist, but there are many many verses that says God chose some for salvation. You can’t ignore that. How does that work with our free will to choose? It makes sense to God.
It is our job to whosoever and the spirits job to draw
That being said left to ourselves we do not want God. The flesh clearly pulls even on believers why? Because we are so in the flesh we even as believers have a hard fight with the flesh
@@CoffeeWholeBean what would be one example of a verse that you understand to say that God chooses some for salvation?
@
2 Thesselonians 2:13
But we ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
1 Thesselonians 1:4-5
For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, in the Holy Spirit, and with full assurance.
Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God’s chosen ones, holy and dearly loved, put on compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience,
2 thes 2:13
That's about temporal salvation THROUGH the persecution they experienced
1 thes
Again, temporal issue
Not eternal salvation
Jeez. Do you understand what context is?
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi
I do think try to explain verses away looks kind of bad.
A fundamental question: Do human beings have ANY power or ability to decide their behavior?
If one answers "no," then explain Adam's and Eve's behavior, the first humans created by God.
Calvinists are determinists. So determinism is how they'll explain Adam, Eve, and everything else.
26:58 I'm happy to hear you are doing your homework 😮😂😂
Please explain to me,, when Jesus left earth he said I will leave you the comforter the HS to help you. So why do you just go with free will when it’s the HS that helps us.
👇🏼
stating that humans have the natural ability to respond to the gospel without needing any prior internal work of the Holy Spirit to do so;
You can't isolate the Holy Spirit from the speaking and hearing of the Gospel. He is present there. Everyone has the same opportunity upon hearing the Gospel to repent or not.
Just bought my copy of the potters promise🙂
Rouge: News flash....your claims, your accusations against Leighton and Provisionist IS NOT evidence. It's nothing more than an unfounded claim.
1:16:00 Warren, get a flowbie....easy peasy haircuts at home.seriously😊 save time and $$$$$$
Maybe he's just trolling. 😅
Why this gid even created people.. ?
Leighton no disrespect you definitely could be a little more charismatic and concise. This Rogue guy is probably going to through some pain mentally due to you logically picking apart Calvinism.
Calvinism is narcissisticism
Im wondering if this Rogue channel is an AI channel? There are heaps of them now - promoting a false gospel!
No, it's a real guy
@peterfox7663 how do you know?
@@byronbarker936 it's pretty obvious from watching his other material, interviews, and interacting with him
BUBBA! 😍
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Jesus just sucks... with his limited atonement stuff. Is just disappointing this notion that we pay for being born... i dont know how you all just take it...
Well it sucks because it isn't true. We pay for what we've actually done not simply for being born. Jesus died for all. So anyone who believes can access the atonement.
I want to like Warren but after watching many of his videos I noticed he was too sarcastic and overall un-Christian when it came to Calvinists. Even though I agree with him I don't support people who are too negative. Leighton genuinely loves the Calvinists - but I think Warren is filled discontent and frustration - which I totally understand but don't want to hear it. Maybe he is a little more forgiving now? We'll see.
The more I listen to your analysis of this channel - I believe this is in fact an AI channel.
Rogue is a real guy. He's using ai to enhance his content... that is his real voice.
@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT "that is his real voice"... is that your explanation? Or have you met him in person?
He's done real time discussions and debates, he's almost certainly a real person.
I've interacted with her numerous times in texts and comments but as far as his voice he has done real time debates with Warren and others and a bot for AI would not be capable of interacting in that form. You should go look up one mcgrew's debate with Rogue it'll make you tear your hair out. Basically Rose argument simply says that he understands divine revelation and Warren does not and this is by God's decree and evidenced by Warren's disagreement with him.
Interesting how you're teaming up with McGrew a well known hetetic and open theist. "Birds of the same feathers...".
And yet clicked on it
Dr. Leighton Flowers i really have been blessed by your ministry but I am greatly disappointed that not only you but both Braxton Hunter and Jonathan Pritchet have all given a platform to "idol killer", who teaches and promotes heresy and I am disappointed that you gladly and willingly call out Calvin's but will not call this man out for his heretical views like denial of PSA, original sin (nature of sin), open theism, we share a convention with Calvinist but this man is not even Evangelical which is bewildering for any baptist and even shameful, so secondary issues are more important than Essential doctrine? This is no longer Soteriology, it's Anti-Calvinism and now whoever is against Calvinism we give him a platform even though his views are contrary to Evangelicals especially Baptist. You guys represent Trinity and now students are being influence by McGrew because of you guys. I used to hold you guys in his esteem but now I am greatly disappointed.
Have you interacted with his work on why he rejects PSA and Original Sin, or is he just a heretic for doing so?
Rejecting Augustinian anthropology and Anselmian Atonement Theory does not make one a heretic. It makes you orthodox. Engage the evidence and arguments and stop pearl clutching. I don't claim those affirming such things are not Christian but you've seemingly made this matter salvific.
Have you gone through his whole PSA series? Be a good Berean and watch everything then use your bible to refute anything that doesn't align with the Word of God. And if you come out still with your views intact then indeed you would have reenforced your views and at a better place defending your believe.
I think Christus Victor Victor and PSA have to go hand in hand. PSA is necessary but as 1 Corinthians 15:14-19 says And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. It has to be a combination of these theories IMO. I am not an expect though.
PSA is Scriptural, and to deny it, is not denying some theory of man. If Christ did not die in our place we are still in our sins.
While rejecting Calvinism, one must be wise not to throw out any connection to the stain and effects of sin on the human condition.
Leighton's work against Calvinism is good work, but even he has flaws, C.S. Lewis seems to be a hero of his. And Lewis was absolutely heretical in numerous beliefs.
@Obrandoporlaverdad
I appreciate your comment.
Flowers the second you are challenged you become off subject. Like you did in John 6 with White. You deflect and twist scripture taking the glory of God down