Examining The Leighton Flowers & James White Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2024
- Join us for the newest episode of Apologia Radio in which we examine the recent Leighton Flowers vs. James White debate on John 6:44. It was supposed to be, anyway. Tell someone about the episode!
The show continues on Apologia All-Access. To watch The Aftershow: apologiastudio...
-Get the NAD treatment Jeff is on, go to ionlayer.com and put "IONAPOLOGIA" into the coupon code and get $100 off your first three months!
www.ionlayer.com
-Check out our new partner at www.amtacblades... and use code APOLOGIA in the check out for 5% off!
-You can get in touch with Heritage Defense at heritagedefense.org and use coupon code “APOLOGIA” to get your first month free!
-For some Presip Blend Coffee Check out our store at shop.apologias...
Get more content like this (and more!) from Apologia Studios by signing up for Apologia All Access! Click the link for more info. You won't regret it!
apologiastudios.com/all-access-sales/
Topic starts at 17:40 :)
A true Saint you are. Thank you lol.
"And let's get right into it"
Thank you!
...
.... .... . Man MMB nbn
N mom. M
M. ... . Typed this while pulling down misle toe 😅
Jimmy white says you’re off topic..
You the real MVP
TIMESTAMPS
7:55 show starts, Psalm 115:3 & Job 42:2
-EAN updates and announcement for churches in Georgia!
17:44 into to the topic
23:22 first clip: Mr. Flowers' rebuttal, original sin
33:14 clip 2: rebuttal, death/life in the Adams
43:31 clip 3: rebuttal, Scripture verses
46:34 clip 4: rebuttal, presuppositional apologetics
55:42 clip 5: rebuttal, John 3:16, drawing from the text
1:03:20 clip 6: cross examination, John 6
1:07:25 clip 7: cross examination, babies who die
1:15:21 clip 8 cross examination, lost sheep, final debate moments
1:20:15 closing comments
Thank you for sharing this.
Thanks
You are a born again Christian trooper my friend thank you
I’m not a Calvinist, but even I raised an eyebrow when Leighton Flowers read John 3:16
Thank you.
Leighton presupposes man's free will in front of every verse that teaches God's sovereignty in mans salvation, where it never appears.
That is the presupposition of arminisnism.
Have you also notice most of the little flowers supporters are genuinely being petty and showing themselves to be ignorant? Literally had one guy on here say we’re (reformed folk) heretics.
The question is not God’s sovereignty. The question is how does God exercise this sovereignty. God could do it many ways. Yet Calvinist say he could only express his sovereignty one way.
@@michaelksmith579 the Bible says God could and did express this in one way.
@@ds29912 not according to Ezekiel 18 chapter. As just one example
At 46min 40 sec Leighton said, in denial of and mocking the biblical position,“ If they do incline their ear to hear, that must mean that God picked them.” To which a perfect response is, yes that is what Jesus taught: ”Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”“
John 8:43, 47
The reason they don’t hear, is because they are not of God. That means, they need to be of God before they can hear, which means, God has to choose to give them the grace of regeneration.
hello. do you believe in jesus?
John 16:1-3 NKJV
[1] “These things I have spoken to you, that you should not be made to stumble. [2] They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. [3] *And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me.*
This is where idol killer jumps into the discussion with a stream of ad hominems and strawman.
@@TheFreedomDefenderidol tiller
You’re off topic..
Not sure if you'll see this, but your exegesis of John 10 opened my eyes. I saw the debate and most of it was hard to follow, but you've made it clear enough for me to understand. God saves, he elects, he preserves, he protects. God bless you guys!
Look, even if one disagrees with Calvinism, fine: But Flowers is obsessed with it as though he is trying to liberate people from heresy.
Exactly. He has spoken about doing just that. The dangers of false theology, and the heresy that leads people away from the gospel.
Because it is heresy. And he has helped liberate lots of people.
@@apilkey If I have the free will to choose salvation, do I have the free will after being saved to then reject God and thus lose my salvation? If your answer is yes, then that is not good news, that is bad news, because I am a fallen broken sinful human being and the odds are that I am going to chose the desires of my flesh. If your hope is in yourself rather than in the sovereignty of God and the faithful work of Jesus, then do you really have hope?
@@johnQadams107 If I have the freewill to cut my arm off, do I have the free will to magically grow it back?
What a dumb question.
Some freewill choices have eternal consequences.
When you freely believe and God saved you then that is permanent.
You obviously know nothing of salvation if you think man keeps his own salvation.
God keeps it and has promised to never leave us or forsake us.
@@apilkeyIf anything is heresy it’s the theology that magnifies the will of man rather than the will of God
Leighton has a wife named Laura who is a trained councilor. I have often wondered if her reasoning behind the 12 step like processing of the sinner into right living has influenced Leighton’s theology.
He also has an odd clip called the “unwanted child” with daily emo music in the background and a sob story scenario.
He disrespects the person by using them as a ring on in his theological step ladder.
Been watched for years and as a reference for the culture in Christianity which tends to lean unblushingly into unorthodox teaching.
That debate on Romans 9 was Dr. Flowers' villain origin story. Dr. White lives rent free in Dr. Flowers' head.
I don’t think it is possible for LF to discuss his theology, by reading through a particular text of scripture, whether it’s Romans five Romans nine John six, whatever, without using the word Calvinism as they try to interpret.
My BIGGEST issue with Flowers is that his entire ministry is just Anti-Calvinism... Like, we get it, you dont agree with Calvinism, go talk about something else
Yeah, who cares about attacking a popular heresy potentially sending many to hell.
...said the most lukewarm Christian ever.
Yeah God forbid you say Calvinists don’t understand the Bible and don’t know the “true God” of the Bible. Oh wait, that’s literally what Calvinist’s do all the time with anyone and everyone who disagrees with them.
@@Astroqualiathere’s an age limit on here
Agreed, it's just obsession and there are many other signs he is unbalanced on this subject.
Great work fellas!
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@ApologiaStudiosyes sir!
God is sovereign and no one can bring an accusation of unrighteousness upon a righteous and thrice Holy God. Thanks for all you do brothers.
Leighton Flowers will be doing a response to this video 2 hours long. Pray the man finds peace or at least a job
He has a job. Don't be silly here
He actually did😂
@@USSteelMain a UA-cam channel is not a job
2 hours, 24 minutes, 6 seconds is the length of his response video. Also, it's a very unChristian attitude to try and demean a brother in Christ by suggesting that because he disagrees with your specific theology and cares enough to try and explain why he doesn't agree with you that therefore he doesn't have a job.
@@LawlessNate your comment assumes much, including that Flowers is in the body of Christ. I have seen nothing from him to demonstrate he is, and people like Thompson, McGrew that he platforms are literal confirmed heretics. Birds of a feather flock together
I also noticed when Flowers began screaming about "Are you saying God rejected babies before they were born!?!".... That it seemed like he was criticizing original sin. If God saves just one person that's more than we deserve if you accept what God's word says about our fall... But if one doesn't believe we're fallen, of course they're going to get emotional about the whole thing.
Why call this an examination of the debate? 1. You didn't talk about anything that James White said.
There had to be a few things that you would have liked him to say better/differently. 2. You didn't engage with any of the more difficult questions from the other side. If all these arguments are easy to refute, then refute them. There were other things brought up. And 3. If you're going to accuse people of straw manning and being petty, maybe don't do those things.
This is their modus operandi. How can they stay in their stubborn ways if they truly considered the other side - as Leighton does continually, almost to a fault, quoting large passages of the other side.
100%
The debate accomplished nothing and proves Dr. White correctly, Flower's admitting that that had one verse followed another (for which it does) meaning that Dr. White's position of the text is correct makes the whole debate pointless because he just admitted that Dr. White won the debate, what is there to address.
@@Spartan322 I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.
@@mrdandreaI don’t think I’ve ever heard a charitable presentation of Calvinism from Flowers.
Flowers made a 2 1/2 video
response to Wise Disciple’s video review of the debate. Nate didn’t even criticize Provisionism, he was just frustrated with Flower’s confusing debate tactics that constantly veered off topic. But Flowers spent the entire 2 1/2 accusing Nate of being bias, lacking understanding of debate, and then doubling down and restating all of his arguments throughout the debate.
White repeatedly asked Flowers to stay on topic throughout the debate, the moderator had to interrupt cross exam to ask Flowers to stay on topic, Nate Salas of Wise Disciple (a former debate teacher) got frustrated with Flowers constantly going off topic, all anyone is asking Flowers to do is stay on topic during a debate, yet Flowers continued defense to that request is they’re all wrong because Calvinism is unfair.
hello. do you believe in jesus?
Nate is heavily biased towards white
@@buddy_132 Even the moderator had to intervene, that's not bias, LF is the problem, LF is bitter, kinda starts to make me wonder if he actually has the joy of Christ in him.
Moderator stepped in because White was pushing him to step in.
-Does John 6 44 teaches unconditional election?
-Yes
-Does that mean that non-elect aborted babies go to hell?
Tell me, how is that off topic?
@@Spartan322 James White running and hiding behind a moderator who let James White dodge the difficult questions isn't bias? I guess there isn't such thing as bias then.
Thanks brother. Good stuff as usual.
James white said you’re off topic, so shut up..
I saw a podcast where Flowers was the guest and they were saying that calvinism teaches a false gospel. So I don't understand how he is saying that we are all still brothers and have fellowship if we believe a false gospel.
Flowers is a liar and a hypocrite and I honestly doubt his salvation
That's not true. You must have misunderstood. Anyone who watches any amount of Flowers's content would know that he says, time and time again, that Calvinists are his brothers and sisters in Christ. He never says that Calvinism teaches a false gospel. That's 100% misrepresentation of what he believes and says.
@@LawlessNateEither Jesus saved every person ( His people Matt 1:21)from their sins ,that the Father gave to Him and charged Him with saving or He saved no one and simply created a tool for any to use to save themselves by muster up faith ,as a stoney heart,God hating,natural man, that then, causes God to make him born again. If the later is true,there would be no need for the new birth,or heart of flesh,the stoney heart,natural man handled that by himself already .The freewiller will simply ignore this impossibility.
@@CBALLEN All Matthew 1:21 says is "...He will save His people from their sins."
It doesn't say "He will save His people, who are those Whom He chose to make believe in Him before He made the world, from their sins." That extra part is something you're reading into the text that the text itself doesn't state.
Are "...His people..." His people because God unconditionally decided to make them believe in Him? Or, are "...His people..." His people because God decided that anyone who willingly puts their faith in Him are thereby His people? That's the heart of the discussion and disagreement between the two sides.
"...or He saved no one and simply created a tool for any to use to save themselves..."
This is a gross misrepresentation of the Provisionist position. Any Provisionist would tell you that God is the one who saves. If someone put their faith in Jesus but Jesus didn't die on the cross for their sins then that person wouldn't be saved by their faith. What Jesus did on the cross is what enables God to forgive humanity for our sins.
God doesn't save everyone; he saves those who choose to trust in Him. Both Calvinists and Provisionists believe this. That, again, gets to the actual point of contention: does someone come to have faith in God because God forced them to, or do people have faith in God because God gave us the ability to willingly accept or reject Him?
The point you made is just rhetoric. It doesn't support Calvinism nor does it refute Provisionism. It dances around the actual point of contention instead of actually addressing it. James White did the same thing in the debate, and Leighton Flowers called him out on it.
Flowers is 100% correct. But then if you are a determinist.. he is still free to be wrong... Or god ordained to be correct...
I appreciate you guys all the way from North Dakota.
He does something that a pastor once said, " explains everything away. " and even that pastor wasn't reformed, though his quote was true. Leighton spends hours answering total depravity when it's answered in three verses, not to his favor Jeremiah 13:23, 17:9, Isa. 64:6. I was taught to do subject studies and read the Bible once every year. You gentle men teach the same, may God keep you and bless you to pass on truth. I didn't understand Calvinism and I kept hearing total depravity, I said let me see what they are talking about. The labels I put on these verses are not unique. By me, it is what it means. Jeremiah 13:23 " You can't change yourself" then I say why? Jeremiah 17:9 "Because of our heart." Which renders everything you do outside of Christ no good even our good is no good. Isa. 64:6, "...our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." And also leaving our human faith tainted. After learning " T," everything fell in line. THANK YOU MUCH. AND PRAISE GOD FOR HIS MERCY. Oh, tell Mr. White I have a title for a book I think he should write, and the title should be, " What is written in the law? How realest thou? " or " What sayeth the scripture ? How readest thou ? " Luke 10:26
Even before I was a Calvinist--and I fought it for several years--I never understood how John 3:16 was seen to contradict it. Leave all the argument about translation, participles, etc., to the side; the Calvinist can easily, confidently, and unequivocally affirm that "whosoever believes" will have eternal life. That isn't at issue and never has been (at least in the context of this debate). The question is who *can* believe, and "whosoever believes will have eternal life" does not speak to that question in the slightest. The argument between "whosoever believes" and "all the believing ones" is completely irrelevant, and I think it needlessly confuses the issue.
I totally see your point. However, to me at least, it seems disingenuous to say “whoever believes in him shall not perish” or “Whoever believes in him is not condemned” but then to say that the “whoevers” are actually just those he pre-caused to believe.
@@whattheheckification What I find silly is arguing over English snippets instead of arguing in accordance to original language in context both historically and linguistically, Dr. White can do that, and we can examine this exegesis, LF never performs exegesis, he can't, and he never references Scripture as the basis for his arguments.
@@Spartan322Here is how Flowers often argues.
1: This is the Calvinistic interpretation of this verse (A). (He states the Calvinistic interpretation).
2: Here is another passage of scripture (B). (He presents the different passage of scripture.)
3: Here is how the Calvinistic interpretation of verse (A) contradicts what is said in passage (B).
4: Here is my interpretation of verse (A). (He presents his interpretation)
5: Here is how my interpretation of verse (A) also fits with verse (B).
6: Therefore my interpretation better conforms to scripture than the Calvinistic interpretation.
"Exegesis" doesn't mean reading the verse is Greek. The context of scripture always, always, always trumps someone trying to pull the Greek over your eyes. Leighton Flowers gets accused of "jumping around the text" because that's what exegesis is; it's establishing your interpretation of scripture by showing how it conforms to what other passages of scripture say. If someone can show your interpretation of a verse contradicts the Bible somewhere else then that should refute your interpretation; that's what Flowers does.
@@LawlessNate Exegesis inherently requires analysis from Koine Greek, that's the Apostolic language, if you're not gonna analyze it from the Greek then there is no pointing even debating the meaning of Scripture at all because you can make it say whatever you want by your own local definitions, it wasn't written in our language, to understand what God and thus the Apostles mean and intended requires historical, linguistic, and theological context, none of which LF does.
@@Spartan322 "Exegesis inherently requires analysis from Koine Greek...."
You don't know what exegesis is. Flat out. Suggesting you cant' know what the Bible teaches unless you read it in Greek is a bad take.
Apologia Studios/James White playbook:
1: Presume your systematic theology (Reformed Baptist, usually 1689).
2: Presume that because of the perspicuity of Scripture, your systematic must be the *only* reasonable conclusion to come to.
3: Refer to your reading of Scripture filtered through your systematic presumptions as "the clear teaching of Scripture".
4: Whenever someone disagrees with your systematic, claim that they are "denying Scripture".
5: Act incredulous, usually by addressing your opponent as "sir" or "Mr. (Name)"
5a: Sometimes included: incredulously ask if your opponent is a Pelagian (because you've assumed that everyone who isn't a Calvinist is a Pelagian).
6: Read the passage as if it actually defends your systematic, rather than defending your hermeneutic against the opposition.
7: If you're Dr. White, read the passage again in poorly pronounced Greek.
8: Act like that's all the argumentation needed
9: When your opponent tries to show the inconsistency of your systematic by appealing to the entirety of God's infallible Word, accuse them of "failing to exegete the text" and "running all over the place."
10: Repeat as needed.
For a good example, see 23:22-43:31 above.
This isn't even good Calvinist apologetic. You need to *defend* your systematic, rather than just *assuming* it.
@RandomOccurrences nope, I did. 😊 I’ve got no problem with presuppositional apologetics, I just think Apologia tend to use it extremely poorly.
The problem is that Apologia et al refuse to examine their *reading* (as opposed to presumptions) of Scripture. Two people can simultaneously presume the truth of Scripture, the fact that when God speaks He is true, etc as listed in the video, and STILL come to different conclusions.
For example, Durbin’s reading of Romans 5 re: original sin. I share his presuppositions about the nature of Scripture. And yet, when I (and many others throughout church history) read that passage, I don’t see anything at all about the will of man being bent to the point that he *cannot* seek God. Durbin does.
So we have a problem. Either:
A: one of us is unregenerate, and only the regenerate can read Scripture properly. (Hardline Calvinists take this option).
B: it’s possible to have two readings of Scripture, even coming from the same presuppositions.
Option A has a lot of follow-on issues. If only the regenerate can properly understand Scripture, that problematizes the doctrine of perspicuity. Which is a fundamental tenet of presuppositional apologetics. It devolves into circular reasoning where (to oversimplify) “I’m right because I’m right.”
If option B is the case, then the opponents in a debate MUST actually debate their presuppositions rather than assuming them. Because God created us with a reasoning mind, and because scripture is perspicuous, therefore we can use our reason to see which systematic makes the most sense of the data God has given us in His Word.
The Apologia guys stick with option A, and their argumentation is incredibly circular.
@@TheBillyDWilliamsseems like it's Pelagian because it clearly is. If not, then what's your definition of Pelagian or are you just going to say it's Biblical Christianity and assume "your systematic is the correct one"? Some of what you said can be directly applied yourself.
Number 7 is the most annoying. JW manages to sound super condescending and ridiculous at the same time. JWs Greek usage also assumes the the truth of Scripture is not translatable into English.
@@barrettcarl3009 Affirming free will and the ability to respond to God is not Pelagianism. It's synergism. Synergism ≠ Pelagianism. Of course you're free to disagree with both, but we have to use the correct terms here. Pop-level Reformed Baptist apologetics tend to use "Pelagianism" to define anything that supports the freedom of the creature's will, but that is *not* Pelagianism. Thankfully the Presbyterians do better with this, so it's not the entirety of the Reformed camp..
Pelagius taught that the human nature is entirely incorrupt (potentially unaffected by the Fall) and that no additional works of grace are needed for the human to attain salvation and Christian perfection. Source: Rackett, Michael R. (2002). "What's Wrong with Pelagianism?". Augustinian Studies. 33 (2): 223-237. doi:10.5840/augstudies200233216.
The vast majority of non-Calvinist theological systems are non-Pelagian (classical Arminians, Lutheran soteriology, Roman Catholicism, Molinism, etc etc), so for Apologia to go around describing everything that isn't 5 point Calvinism is a non-starter.
Even provisionism, as inconsistent as it can be, is definitionally NOT Pelagian. Once again, Pelagius taught that no additional grace was needed for the human creature to attain salvation. According to Flowers' own writing, provisionism accepts that there is need for external grace to allow the human to respond (shown in a succinct form in the acrostic image here: soteriology101.com/about-2/statement-of-faith/)
If we're going to be throwing around accusations of belonging to an ancient heresy, we need to actually know what that heresy is.
@@UnderTheFloor79 Agreed. It's close between 5 & 7 for me, but hearing "Pahhs haww did-oh-mee" 12 times is like nails on a chalkboard lol
John 6:44 - No man can (δύναται) come (ἐλθεῖν) to me unless the Father draws (ἑλκύω) him.
δύναται: is able
ἐλθεῖν: to come
ἑλκύω: drag a person forcibly and against his will
No man is able to come to me unless the Father drags him forcibly against his will.
That's the original Greek. Case closed.
Nothing about the Greek lends itself to the Calvinistic interpretation. There are plenty of people with real doctorates from actual universities that have said as much. You've had the Greek pulled over your eyes. Every time James White hides behind the Greek he's admitting that the Bible doesn't teach Calvinism in English.
The issue is that by suggesting the English translations are inaccurate James White, with his bought-on-the-internet-doctorate, is thereby suggesting he knows more about ancient Greek than the many actual scholars of ancient Greek who participated in the creation of the major English translations of the Bible.
@@LawlessNateaccording to verse 44, who are the ones who are raised up at the last day?
@@Nathan-mf2yz Many of the same people who in verse 66 of the same chapter left Jesus.
The term ἑλκύω does not always or even primarily imply a forcible dragging, a simple use of a Greek lexicon would tell you this. Whether or not ἑλκύω implies an irresistible contra-will force is entirely dependent on the context.
The very idea of IF the drawing is a forcible/irresistible is the whole premise of the dispute in the debate, for you to just assert that this it what it means and ignore the other potential implications of ἑλκύω is disingenuous.
In cases like Acts 16 & 21 the drawing is forcible and against the will, this we can agree on.
In other cases John 18 & 21 to say that the drawing is contra-will is to ascribe a human will to swords or fish/nets.
I’m willing to bet you would not use the same definition of irresistible, will-defying drawing if we were discussing John 12.
I say all that to simply say Do better, if in order to win an argument you must resort to sophistry and obfuscation of meanings it doesn’t look good for your argument.
@@JayReacio I would absolutely use the same definition in John 12:32.
Notice that the Greek does not even have the word men in it. It says, "And if I am lifted up from the earth all will draw to myself."
All of what or whom? What is the subject? I would argue using Scripture to interpret Scripture, that all in this passage means all the elect.
It seems as if Leighton doesn’t understand that God has saved us from God’s wrath.
🕵️ I believe that he knows that.
You're being unfair to Leighton Flowers. He spoke about the thumbnail and apologized. Please hear.
And Flowers had nothing to apologize for. None of the thumbnails were bad. It was simple Vanity on Jeff's part to think that he looked bad, and then in a very unChristlike way he assumed malice of Leighton.
It's a tactic, he's making his viewers not like Leighton before even playing the video.
@@eleazarfernandez9369 Emotional manipulation is a pattern I'm seeing between both James White and Jeff.
@@LawlessNate correct, I used to love listening to white. First time I saw his debate against Leighton I repeated exactly what white manipulated his followers into repeating. It wasn't until the 3rd time watching that I actually paid attention to Leighton and realized he made more sense. It's just hard understanding anyone else when you're possessed by a system
@@eleazarfernandez9369 I don't believe you...
Why can’t you guys have Flowers on to have a conversation. And then leave it at that.
do you believe in jesus?
@@BENJAMINJAMESSMITH2000 yes?
i feel as if flowers will get to heated lol. James white said if he ever wants to debate flowers again someone should snap him out of it
@@veltreproductions9240 I don’t think Flowers would get “to heated” if they just had a normal conversation not another debate, flowers has had TONS of Calvinist of his channel and they have had good discussions. Nothing heated.
Flowers has said many times that he's more than willing to have a discussion. The lack of consent to an open, honest discussion on the topic is one way. It's really telling. If they're so confident that Calvinism is true then why avoid the discussion?
Can't wait to hear added *Leighton* sound bites to the Radio Free Geneva theme 🤣😂
Some in the IFB movement deny original sin altogether. Steven Anderson has preached that they are innocent and skate right into heaven.
Edifying video @Apologia Studios. Thank you.
Oh boy….hope your guys are ready for a 4 part series of 12 total hours of his rebuttals to this video 😂.
A least the video will contain truth unlike this one
@@biagiomaffettone1497 - did you actually watch this video and listen to it, intently? If so, you'd actually see that Jeff was graciously correcting the many false assertions, claims, and statements that LF made throughout the debate. If you are actually about truth, then you'd see that. Or, perhaps you're just a "hater of Calvinism" supporting anyone who goes against it, even if they do it at the expense of biblical truth....🤷♂️
@@JFLJR28Why don't you provide specific examples. So we can discuss. I am open to education.
@@biagiomaffettone1497jeez you’ve got to be the biggest LF supporter ever dude lol. I’ve literally seen you reply in his defense to about 90% of the comments on this video.
@@biagiomaffettone1497 you want us to take the time to sit down and write out a case for you, but you can't take the time to actually watch the video? If you didn't bother to listen to what Jeff said, then why would we think you'd listen to us?
1:05:25
It should be telling that when James asked him for an answer to a text, he immediately jumps to an analogy. I know you've talked about this before, but it's so common. Immediately make an analogy out of the text, which by nature imports your assumptions, then argue based of the conclusion of your analogy.
Leighton says, "I don't assume... like YOU do..." then says "I believe...." and immediately answers based on his assumption. Just because you call James' belief an assumption, and your belief a belief, doesn't mean yours is right. So then he makes the teacher analogy based on his "belief" (aka assumption) and thinks he's somehow proven it more than James, who only "assumes" (which apparently isn't a belief, like Leighton's is).
So what was wrong with the Teacher analogy?
So your belief in God is an assumption I suppose?
Why do Calvinists have such a hard time with words? Regardless of Leighton being right or wrong it's pretty clear what was being said. And actually I think his interpretation is wrong here. But He's simply saying he doesn't make a PARTICULAR assumption that James does, not that he does not assume things. We all assume things but some things we assume have a better basis.
@@r.rodriguez4991
"But He's simply saying he doesn't make a PARTICULAR assumption that James does, not that he does not assume things."
No. His criticizing James for "assuming", and presenting his argument as if it's not an assumption.
If he was saying what you claim he's saying, then it wouldn't even be a counter argument. It would be "James assumes X, I assume Y"... that's not a counter argument. So he's clearly saying James assumes, and that's a bad thing, and contrasting that to what he "believes" as if it's not an assumption.
I'll just ignore your "Calvinists have such a hard time with words" because I don't care to throw petty insults.
@@MansterBear It's not an insult, it's a genuine critique. Calvinists tend to treat words as part of some mathematic formula rather than understanding that there is a lot of nuance to even simple statements. You're being extremely rigid with how you are interpreting Leighton's statement and you are thereby twisting that statement to say something Leighton never said.
And then you try to make belief into an assumption. Belief just means that you accept something as true. So what Leighton said is, "I accept as true..." He's not contrasting assumption and belief like you're trying to claim.
@@r.rodriguez4991
"I don't assume, as you do, that just because someone is taught that they will... listen and learn. I believe that if a teacher is in a classroom..." (goes on with analogy)
I didn't make a belief into an assumption. I said pretending James is an assumption (as opposed to a belief), and calling your assumption a belief, doesn't make it correct.
Why is James' view labeled as an assumption, but Leighton labels his own view as a belief?
The implication is James is just assuming, while Leighton has something more than that. I'm not claiming an assumption is a belief, I'm saying that if James is just assuming something, so is Leighton, but he's calling his own assumption a belief and implying he's not just assuming like James is, but nothing in his analogy substantiated his belief to be more valid than James' "assumption". So they're either both assuming, or both have "beliefs".
Belief does mean to accept something as true. An assumption is accepting something as true without evidence. So Leighton is, by definition, trying to imply that James has no proof, while Leighton does have proof. But then characteristically goes into analogizing based on his belief (or assumption) but gives no reason why his belief is more valid or proven than James' "assumption.
And pretending Calvinist don't nuance is just ignorant of what Calvinists believe, teach, and write about.
Excellent work guys.
hello. do you believe in jesus?
@@BENJAMINJAMESSMITH2000 um, yes.
@@BENJAMINJAMESSMITH2000 do You believe in Jesus?
@@miguelfcervantes that’s great. yes. i do. have you repented?
@@BENJAMINJAMESSMITH2000 i have. Have you repented?
Yes Flowers and followers seem to be close to MTD. Moral thereputic deism. And his commenters say the same. "White is mean" "Flowers that was beutiful" "you are so nice and repsectful". "this is love" etc etc.
Can you make the list of those books you would send Flowers? I would like to know, please.
Thank you!
Abraham Kuyper on predestination covers it all.
When is the thing in Kentucky? I don’t see a link.
do you believe in jesus?
@@BENJAMINJAMESSMITH2000 absolutely I do. Jesus is king of kings!
But I am unsure what this has to do with my question
@@caseybee123 that’s great. i just want to make sure that you’ve been saved. that’s all. have you repented?
even if God looked thru time and saw who would choose him , He still choose to create those whom He knew were destined for destruction, which is his argument
But he didn't make them choose destruction. He saw them choose it and decided to create the future ultimately for those who would choose him. Some love is worth much hate. If that's the case. I'm not settled on that view either, but it's not the same view as... God MADE them sin and go to hell, (He wrote a script out before creation) closed future view either..
hello. do you believe in jesus?
@@dannychapman456Calvinism does not say God makes them choose destruction either.
@@ShepherdMinistryJimmy white says you’re off topic..
@@ShepherdMinistry that’s convenient. The most ridiculous part of Calvinism is to think that God made the world knowing He’d sentence millions of people of the world to eternal punishment without giving them a chance because he “chose” people to be in or out. It’s ridiculous. If you think that is the God of love, I guess we have different Gods all together.
Leighton does analogesis. He explains texts by way of analogy, and he’s usually wrong. He also does rhetorigesis. With Leighton you just get an onslaught of rhetoric and analogies. Nothing more, nothing less.
Name one analogy he gets wrong ?
@@biagiomaffettone1497 choice meats
@@masont2429 Said the intelligent Calvinist
“Tell me you have no idea about presuppositional apologetics without telling me you have no idea about presuppositional apologetics”🤣🤣
Pastor's good morning, thank you all
hello. do you believe in jesus?
@@BENJAMINJAMESSMITH2000hey Benny, still trying to draw people into a baptism debate I see!
@@simonbrown1486 hello. do you believe in jesus?
@@BENJAMINJAMESSMITH2000 are you a bot?
@@simonbrown1486 no.
Flowers has the energy of a guy who was beat in his first debate and hasn't gotten over it yet.
@@meowpurrrrragree
That's the energy of someone who knows they're right and it drives them nuts someone is promoting clear heresy of scripture.
@@Astroqualia except flowers was the guy waiting all these years for another shot at white and white couldn't care less about
Flowers.
@@johnlocke6800 ok. Flowers still has the correct position, regardless of how many calvinists flood the comments.
@@Astroqualia lol
I'm not a Calvinist, I personally am more towards Classical Arminianism. However flowers lost the debate and made it a waste of time. I was really hoping it would go differently from his last debate with James White but somehow, it went worse.
I genuinely and sincerely have one question for u then, if God is trying to save everyone equally, person A believes, and person B doesn't believe, what is the difference between person A and B? (hint: if u say any difference then that leads to a laundry list of issues)
I guess I have to repeat myself, I am not a Calvinist :) However, what do you mean by God is trying to save everyone equally just out of curiosity? @@throwawaypt2throwawaypt2-xp8nx
I'm not a Arminian nor Calvinist but I think Flowers trounced White. Why do you think White won?
@@USSteelMain my answer lies within the question I asked above, read it and see if u can come to a sound answer :)
Thank you for posting this. While we may disagree, I'm glad we can be objective about these things. I'm personally a huge fan of Mike Winger for being open and honest about his views and why he does/doesn't believe something. We need more brothers like him and you.
when the bible warns of being conceited this is why. Leighton has a huge heart issue.
James white says you’re off topic..
6 things the lord detests 7 he hates, stirring up conflict in a community he despises
@@HeIS-Isaiah45 you’re off topic..
@zeekzeek9088 repent zeekzeek your heart isn't in the right place bro after you repent, weep, mourn and wail, then get up on your feet, let your mom know that you started shaving, moving out and getting a job.
Leighton has a huge heart issue because he doesn’t subscribe to Calvinism? Calvinism is probably one of the worst things that the church has ever entertained. It not only says some people were just not meant to be saved, like it’s a little club or something, but it turns people away from God entirely. Because what the unbeliever hears when Calvinists talk about God’s omniscience, is that God forced suffering upon you instead of worked through your suffering.
I think my biggest problem with Flowers is he believes himself the Arbiter of God deciding what is good and bad but mostly what he feels is unfair. He clearly rejects the concept of original sin, and doesn't even understand that death is wages. Wages of what? Sin. So even when children pass, they are subject to the consequences of Adams sin but it's not our place to judge what is clearly in God's hands. He is on the verge of Universalism where everyone is simply saved because (The "World" is all he sees) he rejects other texts that aren't conducive with his own presuppositions.
🧑⚖️ So why did Paul have to encourage the Gentiles to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved if, at the end of the day, some of them would go to hell simply because God did not choose them to be saved?
🧑⚖️ It could bring false hope to those who believed but not chosen by God.
The last thing we should ever want is free will. Without God overcoming our free will and giving us faith we will all die in our sin. And rightfully so.
Flowers seems to think that people can simply be reasoned into the Kingdom. If Arminians are semi pelagian, then LF 3/4 or all the way there. He even kinda defends Pelagius in one of his videos
ua-cam.com/video/gAMAyi1cjZw/v-deo.htmlsi=jpAuli0rHSra20gW
hello. do you believe in jesus?
"Flowers seems to think that people can simply be reasoned into the Kingdom."
That's not Flowers's position at all. Flowers doesn't teach that salvation is something someone does in isolation apart from God. He says, as the Bible teaches, that salvation is a result of the Holy Spirit working in someone's life, the Father ensuring the gospel message is sent to the world, etc. He simply teaches that people have the capacity to either accept or reject God's drawing.
@@LawlessNate I’ve listened to him enough, and while he talks about a drawing he always seems to mean through special revelation alone, but it is different than the Arminian view of Prevenient Grace, which allows us to overcome our sin nature providing the opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel-something more than a message but a Spiritual Grace working against our nature. For him, it’s pretty clear that as long as you have special revelation, our nature is free enough to accept or reject without the prevenient grace demanded by the Arminian or effectual grace demanded by the Calvinist, so it is enough to hear the truth and be reasoned into the Kingdom. If he is saying his position requires more than this, then his position on human nature proves inconsistent because if our nature requires a special Spiritual drawing, then it would mean we are not able to choose on our own.. so total depravity…
Look for the steel man argument on the other side and don’t misrepresent the argument. You guys are smart, do a better job of defending Calvinism and address the hard passages in Calvinism. There is a reason less than 5% of Christians are Calvinist. Try to find out why..
Most people who dislike Calvinism do not understand it and misrepresent it-from my observation.
Actually I believe most Calvinist don’t understand the theology behind the 5 points. My experience is when I just ask for them to explain, they really struggle.
@@Doug-jf5hx Most church goers cannot explain theology-Calvinist or non Calvinist.
What questions do you need answered?
@@Doug-jf5hx I wish Leighton or other anti-Calvinists would avoid the problem and base their arguments on the historic Reformed confessions. So much of what they base their arguments on is directly rejected by Dort or Westminster, etc., but too many don't think steelmanning is a worthwhile endeavor. A solid argument based on a consensus statement like the confessions would go a lot further than an analogy or argument based on cherry-picked quotes.
@@Doug-jf5hxThe debate itself and this video explain scripture very clearly. Aren’t you listening?
Choice meats theology fails at the start as it denies salvation by grace through faith. If it is by choice meats and God sees something good in man, then it is not of grace.
God chooses those who humble themselves and turn to him. Do you deny that ?? And that is Salvation by Faith.
@@biagiomaffettone1497 why are some humble and some not?
@@philipmurray9796 Why are *MOST* decreed to go to Hell ? And not you ?? What makes you so special. Please explain so we will all know.
@@biagiomaffettone1497 nothing makes me special. Salvation is of the LORD.
@@philipmurray9796 Then why are you Calvinists so arrogant? Did your God decree it?
*The perfect way to show Flowers is in error is to debate him on Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Total Depravity.. Your superior theology will show him to be in error... So when can that be arranged??*
Flowers would love to debate any of those topics. He'd prefer to have an open, honest discussion instead of debate. However, there is a one-way refusal to do either with Him, that being Calvinists largely refusing to engage with Flowers being perfectly willing to do so. When one side is willing to have a discussion and the other refuses it, who do you think is more likely correct?
Your superior theology? Listen to yourself. By your own words to reveal your own pride. Disgusting.
He has to condemn us all equally. 💯🙌
No He wants to forgive all equally. And He has given you the chose to believe..
@@biagiomaffettone1497 Nope. What you have said is found nonwhere in scripture. :)
@@koraegis Show me in scriptures where God says He damns people to Hell before birth ??
@@koraegis *The Lord is not willing that any should perish but that ALL come to repentance !!*
@@biagiomaffettone1497 not all are granted genuine repentance. Not all will be saved.
1:12:00 Where's the hope for the baby who dies in the womb? Well, their system depends on an equally-unbiblical "age of accountability." Whatever that age might be, the baby not yet born surely is less than that age, therefore not accountable, therefore not guilty, therefore goes to heaven on death. It flies in the face of Romans 5, not to mention Psalm 51, Ephesians 2, Proverbs 22, Genesis 8, etc., but that's the answer of the provisionist.
2 Corinthians 5:10: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.”
Is a baby who dies in the womb going to be able to give an account for the wrong deeds they committed here in earth?
@@whattheheckification But 2 Cor 5 isn't talking about salvation; it's written to believers--"we" have a building from God, "we" groan, "our" heavenly dwelling, "we" have been prepared for this, "we" aim to please God. The "we" in verse 10 is the same as the "we" in verse 9, so verse 10 is speaking of believers appearing before the judgment. And since it's believers, what "each one may receive" is not salvation vs. condemnation, but what's usually described as "heavenly rewards."
Now, I'm not making any dogmatic statement about what happens to babies who die--the Bible has very little to say on the subject (particularly with respect to the infant children of unbelievers), and I try not to speak where scripture doesn't speak. Many Reformed theologians, including Calvin himself, have believed that all babies who die go to heaven; a good modern treatment of this question can be found in Loraine Boettner's _Reformed Doctrine of Predestination._ But where I think the Bible is very clear is that the babies who die and go to heaven, do so because God saved them, not because they didn't need to be saved in the first place.
Will they be rewarded for what they did in the womb, not having been justified by faith and not being born again? You have to consider both sides. Ultimately, God knows the answer and it's right regardless of what anyone thinks.
@@JesusIsLord777-lz7mgWho says they haven't been born again? Or, for that matter, that they didn't have faith? Because we have direct biblical testimony to the latter in at least one case. And as to the former, I believe the WCF (and the 1689) have it right: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how he pleases."
@danbrown586 John in the womb did not have saving faith prior to sinning. Saving faith comes as a result of being born again. John wasn't born again in the womb. The problem of bema seat judgment rewards for "elect infants" who die in the womb also was not addressed. They don't meet the criteria for the 5 chains in Romans 8 29-30. Never predestined TO BE conformed to the image of His Son. Never shared the gospel. Never experienced trials, tribulation, persecution. They don't meet the criteria of a born again believer according to scripture. But then you can bring up the thief of the cross.
Many of the comments here, particularly from the Flowers followers, are quite antagonistic, hateful, and not at all Christ-like.
And the counter arguments are??
do you believe in jesus?
@biagiomaffettone1497 the counter arguments are sound Doctrine oooooooooo!!!!! You stepped in that trap
And the pro-White side have said Flowers “needs to get a job”, “should just grow up”, “made up his own god”, and “is a heretic”.
Both sides are being childish.
@@TheBillyDWilliams Difference in the theologians is also different, LF resides with those that call Jeff Durbin and Dr. White heretics, neither Durbin nor White call him that nor approve of people who do that, they just can't stand to deal with him.
Kudos to Jeff for not saying Louisville, or Loueyville. He said it proper ........ lou a vl.
avl.
We are encouraged to speak the truth of Christ knowing it will be the sweetest music to some, while provoking hellish outrage in others.
Unfortunately, it is not the truth... But you would be correct if it were.
@@biagiomaffettone1497 Let's just look and see which side in the chat is outraged by the other side...
"Clear enough!" That was so embarrassing. Whenever people who aren't tough try to sound tough and aggressive it makes me cringe.
I have found that most people that I engage that are Christian, don't understand let alone know about the doctrine of original sin.
Explain it to us, So we will all know it...
@@biagiomaffettone1497 Adam sinned first in the Garden, through Adam's sin the world was corrupted and death entered the world, all men born of the seed of Adam are thus born in iniquity inheriting the sin of Adam and by that they are partakers of sin and so are condemned. Everyone in the womb is conceived equal in this sin before any other because it was the Original Sin from which all sin is spawned. It was also common Ancient Hebrew methodology to know that sin entered through the seed of man, that is a part of the fleshly reason why Jesus being conceived not of the seed of man is the New Adam, for just like the Old Adam, He was not born of the seed of man but of the seed of God and thus did not inherit the sin of man. (Adam could not inherit sin but established it into his very nature and so it was put upon him for his rebellion)
@@Spartan322 Yes, that is the standard Calvinist talking point, you memorized it well, but you have several serious issues:
1) If everyone is conceived in sin in the womb, as you say, then every infant aborted would go straight to HELL.. But there are many Calvinists who do not believe that, so WHY the contradiction???
2) You anticipated the “Jesus had Sin question” Ok, so if Jesus did not have Sin inputted onto him, then, he is not the High Priest Hebrews says he is. He was not Tempted in every way we are. So the Bible is wrong and Jesus was *NOT* fully human….
*So which Blasphemy are you going with ??*
*Hebrews 4:15 :"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-yet he did not sin."*
@@biagiomaffettone1497 Its not a Calvinist talking point, even Semi-Pelagists affirmed Original Sin originally, it was the Pelagist heresy that rejected it.
@@Spartan322 *So which Blasphemy are you going with ??*
Im subscribed to both channels because I have been discipled by both and have learned so much praise God. Im so curious @Apologia Studios @Jeff Durbin why you wont speak with him directly? That would be masculine and actually productive. Leighton would love to speak directly! Much love
do you believe in jesus?
Uh....yes! Lol
@@DAYSIX23 that’s great. have you repented?
@@BENJAMINJAMESSMITH2000 well, can I believe without repentance?
@@DAYSIX23 yes. you can. have you repented?
Beware. The Flowerites are everywhere.
And Durbinites can't answer basic questions
They’re multiplying 🤮
@joelwoody517 @biagiomaffettone1497 @sarahd5341
How does your guy’s hostile comments towards each other glorify Jesus and benefit His kingdom? In the grand scheme of things in our faith that we share together, getting nasty over this one particular topic is not important enough for hostility and broken unity in the Body of Christ.
@@jasonhussong1378I suppose Jesus was un-Christ like when he overturned tables on two separate occasions.. Some things are wroth "Fighting" for... You should ask Calvin and Luther who killed many people for God...
@@biagiomaffettone1497Jesus flipped tables for reason much greater than a Calvinism vs. Traditionalism debate. I urge you to know context of Scripture before using it so loosely. I highly doubt you would find it reasonable to walk into Apologia Church mid sermon and start flipping chairs, even though they love Jesus and preach the same Gospel. Jesus flipped tables against those who not only reject Him and His message altogether, but used the temple to gain profit selfishly taking advantage of others.
I wish Dr. White would stop using the deflecting euphemism of the Flower's camp: "Provisionalism". I would like to see Dr. White and Jeff Durbin use the more correct theological term, "Provipelagianism". Flower's use of the terms provision and provisionalism are simply a way to deflect the obvious implications of a theology that denies man's deadness in sin and man's total inability to do anything to contribute to his own salvation. That theology is much more accurately described as Pelagianism. In Pelagianism, God provides salvation, but you must ultimately save yourself. There's a reason 2 major church councils condemned Pelagianism as heresy. Flower's modern equivalent, euphemistically called "Provisionalism", is nothing more than good old-fashioned Pelagianism. In Flower's doctrine, dead people can do all sorts of things!
*No. The Bible claims that there isn't anyone that can not be saved if they humble themselves and turn to Jesus... everyone is invited... That, My Friend, is GOOD NEWS .. in your twisted Theology not All are invited and MOST are decreed to go to Hell... This is not Biblical and is Sick !!!*
@@biagiomaffettone1497born dead in sin. By default they are children of wrath. The fact that any are saved at all is the key. Amazing Grace. ❤
The fall has the will in bondage this is why we need a Savior. New heart. New free will. New affections. 🙂
@@koraegis We are born dead (Separated from God) we have the propensity to sin and that can eventually send us to Hell. But the Calvinists goes too far when he says that God can not touch the heart of EVERYONE on this plant... Provided the person has not been harden beyond the point of saving..
May I ask why Dr. white disables comments?
Im happy flower's said he had presupposition's as well, but with all respect, i believe flower's presupposes human philosophy according to man's tradition and not according to christ (colossians 2:8)
So his presupposition of John 3:16 is wrong ?? Can you explain ?
Interestingly enough, before Calvin and before Augustine changed his mind, most of church history had believed in free will. Augustine was influenced by gnostics when he introduced Calvinism, and Calvin followed Augustine. Many reformers were willing to kill those that believed in free will or did not baptize babies. Look into Zwingli. Calvinism and TULIP are “man’s tradition” as well. I don’t think Paul would be impressed with Calvinists.
@@biagiomaffettone1497 i mean his view on freewill, very platonic.
@@biagiomaffettone1497 his view on john 3:16 ...ignores the greek...but its fine we speak english so lets go through it..."for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that who ever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life" Who ever believes in him will not perish. So the question is....DO YOU BELIEVE IN HIM? koz if u do then jesus is your's and you are his.
Dr. Flowers is making it seem like john 3:16 is an invitation
When Provisionists claim that God decreed man to be in sin at conception, unable to seek God, and not loving them, they are ultimately rejecting federal headship. LF presents that God decrees at the moment of conception that each person be sinful. This claim is false. The proper response is God’s decree to make Adam a federal head of man was made during creation, when creation was very good. Making Adam a federal head was a loving, good, holy, purposeful action. Adam had to be a federal head because Christ had to be a federal head. If Adam isn’t, then Christ isn’t. The purpose of federal headship looked toward the cross and the atoning work of Jesus. Man inherits the sinful nature due to Adam’s one transgression, not God’s decree. Adam was created with the capacity to perfectly keep God’s command. AW Pink points out that man is morally responsible to keep God’s law perfectly because Adam was created in God’s image, and humanity through Adam. God’s mercy, grace, justice, does not require God to redo His command of perfection just because Adam sinned. We have the same requirement as His seed (1 Corinthians 15), we are flesh and blood and of the earth like Adam. Ultimately, Provisionism shows contempt toward God for not changing the rules, for not making everybody an Adam at conception.
So God intended Adam to fall? That's pretty gross. That's like having a child just to send them to prison.
*Ezekiel 18:20, which states: "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."*
@@biagiomaffettone1497
Romans 5:12 states "depth spread to all men because all sinned." Death did not spread to all men because Adam sinned, but because the person sinned. As Ezekiel stated, the one who sins dies. A child dies because they sin, not their father, not Adam. Death confirms that every person is conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity, Psalm 51. Shapen is defined as an internal energy, speaking of the process of development in the womb. Once again, the death of a person in the womb is due to their sin. A person sins through the evil passions and desires of the evil nature. Thoughts and intent of the heart produce evil, and the person is morally responsible for this evil because they die. The Doctrines of Grace are the only grounds for biblically claiming all children go to heaven. Since salvation is according to the good pleasure of God's will and not man's will, He is just in saving every person short of the cognitive ability to make a sincere confession. The answer is not creating a second way of salvation that requires God to abandon new birth, justification of the righteousness of Jesus, being the sheep of the Shepherd who enter through Christ, being an heir promise and the seed of Abraham. All of these doctrines require faith, and one must deny that everybody must enter through Christ if God spares a person from the justice of their sin without being in Christ. God regenerates a person which produces faith. This is the only answer that remains standing on the tenets of the Christian faith.
@@bradcain7860 (((Romans 5:12 states "depth spread to all men because all sinned." Death did not spread to all men because Adam sinned, but because the person sinned.)))
I Agree. But death used by Paul is the separation form God. So the person is not predestined to damnation at the moment of birth.. But, Yes he is born with the sin nature. And if, he does not humble himself and turn to Christ, as the scriptures say, he will then be damned
(((As Ezekiel stated, the one who sins dies. A child dies because they sin, not their father, not Adam. Death confirms that every person is conceived in sin))
Agreed, no issue here.
(((Once again, the death of a person in the womb is due to their sin)))
There is no such thing as the death of a person in the womb. You have created this fallacy. You need to provide scriptural references for your assertions. The Child is born innocent, but with a sin nature, and if left to himself, will horribly fall into all kinds of sins.. Telling me David was conceived in sin is not a valid proof text..
(((A person sins through the evil passions and desires of the evil nature. Thoughts and intent of the heart produce evil, and the person is morally responsible for this evil because they die)))
So how can a person be responsible for his sins, If Calvinism is correct, since God decrees ALL sins ??? What is your justification for that?? “Pride and Lust is not from the Father, but from the World” Yet, Calvinism would deny this verse.
(((The Doctrines of Grace are the only grounds for biblically claiming all children go to heaven. Since salvation is according to the good pleasure of God's will and not man's will)))
I don’t see why since if Calvinism is true, the Reprobate is decreed to NOT believe in God from eternity past. Then, how can an infant go to Heaven, if that infant has been decreed to be a Reprobate?? So this is the Fallacy of Calvinism… When does this innocent infant become Reprobate if he is decreed to be so ??
*Would not the most loving thing we could do is abort ALL babies, so All Reprobates go to Heaven ?? See the logical fallacies you get into?*
(((He is just in saving every person short of the cognitive ability to make a sincere confession. The answer is not creating a second way of salvation that requires God to abandon new birth)))
So, what is the difference between a Reprobate infant and a Reprobate Adult.. They both are incapable of make the right decision, they both have been decreed to go to Hell in eternity past… So tell me…
hello. do you believe in jesus?
Leighton Flowers needs to grow up. He pontificates about things he knows very little about.
Leighton Flowers applies poor hermeneutics. One can get the Bible to say anything the way he goes through the scriptures. Sad thing is, his followers don’t know nor understand hermeneutics to see it.
Cope harder because your man James white lost.
You prove their point @@dandeliontea7
@@dandeliontea7Leighton used emotionalism, instead of dealing with some of the texts.
His followers do the same thing.
@@dandeliontea7Imagine carrying water for Leighton Flowers. I’m so sorry for your affliction.
Where does apologia stand on divorce and remarriage while the original spouse(s) is(are) still alive? I really home the stick with the clear teaching in scripture, that it is adultery.
I'd recommend looking at Mike Winger's video on the topic. ua-cam.com/video/N2pC6ZikbYo/v-deo.html
It depends on the context. If the divorce was Biblical (EG adultery or actual abuse) then the person who escaped the unBiblical mariage isn't somehow barred from remarrying until the person who cheated on them or abused them dies.
Again, look at that video from Mike. He goes into the topic covering everything the Bible teaches on the topic.
@@LawlessNateI appreciate it and I’ll watch the video! However, scripture says over and over that remarriage is adultery by the simple fact that those who marry a divorced person commit adultery. Matthew 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18. Meaning the marital covenant isn’t broken until death (Romans 7:3). There are a lot of people led into destruction by their churches because of incorrect teaching of this. Divorce because of sexual immorality is not a sin but one cannot remarry. Matthew 5:32 explains how you are not responsible for your spouses adulterous remarriage if you divorce for this reason. Otherwise, you share in their sin. God bless!
@@LawlessNateThe gentleman definitively answers the question within the first five minutes of the video. At a certain point, it isn’t interpretation, it’s disobedience.
They do not hold to that. It is one of their most troubling views, going as far to give at least 3 supposedly "Biblical" grounds for divorce (When the Lord Jesus gave one, and I have yet to see a passage that advocates for remarriage for those who are divorced, and with the apostles now asleep I highly doubt there will be an addition to this any time soon). Some of the confusion seems to be around 1 Corinthians 7, even though the passage ends with "A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord." People quote 1 Corinthians 7:16, which used a different word, and would overturn the teaching of the Lord as well as the apostle later in the chapter, as well as what is written in Romans 7.
People do a similar thing with foods sacrificed to idols nowadays, saying Paul deemed it ok, yet in chapter 10 he plainly calls it idolatry, and the early church from what I have read seems to have considered this to be grievous (Irenæus likening it to a type of apostasy, "fallen away from the truth"). It would also make zero sense for the apostle Paul to bear the message to the Gentiles in Acts 15 with the other three, teaching them to abstain from sexual immorality, foods sacrificed to idols, blood and things strangled, then turn around and contradict that later on by epistle, when the one who wrote the account was even a traveling companion of his. It is incoherent.
While I didn't listen to the full video from Mike Winger, the parts that I did hear were not convincing, especially what he says regarding Romans 7:3, saying one of his teachers said that "Romans 7 isn't about divorce at all", which seems to have completely shifted how he viewed the passage, which is ridiculous, when the only way the analogy works is if the principle applies in both cases. Seems he drops the ball on head coverings as well.
@@matthewsouthwell3500 "People do a similar thing with foods sacrificed to idols nowadays, saying Paul deemed it ok, yet in chapter 10 he plainly calls it idolatry..."
No, you misunderstood that big time. The point of that passage is that if someone's conscious is telling them that something is wrong then it's genuinely wrong for them, but if there's nothing specifically teaching against that specific something in question then it's not a law that the convicted person can use against other people.
In that example, there were people who felt convicted about eating such food offered to idols. To those who felt convicted, they were not to eat it. To those that didn't feel convicted, and recognized it as just plain food and that the idols they were offered to were fake things created by men that meant nothing, it wasn't wrong for them to eat it.
If he, LF, could imagine what has been said here.... *Fully.* He should then be afraid in the most healthy way. If he should be terrified. That would be a good thing.
Otherwise LF is trying to imagine getting God off the hook!
Leighton Flowers has a job and does things other than this. He is just most popular for this because it haunts calvinists that he has found holes in their arguments. Denial is the first stage
😂
If "yer just salty because Leighton is so awesome" was a comment...
This is actually no longer true. Leighton is going to be taking on both his seminary teaching and Soteriology 101 full-time soon.
Bro - I’ve gotta tell you that no serious Calvinist finds Flowers remotely convincing. When White says Flowers constantly misrepresents the reformed position, he means it. The arguments made by Flowers are going to convince nobody because he’s constantly punching at air.
Why would he not exposit John 6:44? Why could he not answer Dr. White's objections regarding John 6:45?
While I'm personally not a calvinist (I just don't see it in Scripture), I don't have a problem with it. It's obvious that if God chose to operate in that way He would be completely right in His decision. He's the standard, not us. (I think the only difference between us is how see God using His sovereignty in Scripture.)
Anyways, love your guys’ ministry. May the Lord continue to bless you and keep you (not that I believe that a true believer is capable of losing salvation, that doesn't seem possible according to the apostle John and the Lord Jesus).
This guy though, he seems crazy. He isn't showing the love of Christ toward you guys that one ought to give to his brother.
What scriptures would you use to support your Calvinist leaning??
@@biagiomaffettone1497 in what sense do you mean “calvinist leaning”? Because I agree with them so as far as they agree with Scripture.
@@biagiomaffettone1497 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand,
And marked off the heavens by the span,
And calculated the dust of the earth by the measure,
And weighed the mountains in a balance
And the hills in a pair of scales?
Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD,
Or as His counselor has informed Him?
With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding?
And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge
And informed Him of the way of understanding?
Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket,
And are regarded as a speck of dust on the scales;
Behold, He lifts up the islands like fine dust.
Even Lebanon is not enough to burn,
Nor its beasts enough for a burnt offering.
All the nations are as nothing before Him,
They are regarded by Him as less than nothing and meaningless.
To whom then will you liken God?
Or what likeness will you compare with Him?
As for the idol, a craftsman casts it,
A goldsmith plates it with gold,
And a silversmith fashions chains of silver.
He who is too impoverished for such an offering
Selects a tree that does not rot;
He seeks out for himself a skillful craftsman
To prepare an idol that will not totter.
Do you not know? Have you not heard?
Has it not been declared to you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
He it is who reduces rulers to nothing,
Who makes the judges of the earth meaningless.
Scarcely have they been planted,
Scarcely have they been sown,
Scarcely has their stock taken root in the earth,
But He merely blows on them, and they wither,
And the storm carries them away like stubble.
“To whom then will you liken Me
That I would be his equal?” says the Holy One.
Lift up your eyes on high
And see who has created these stars,
The One who leads forth their host by number,
He calls them all by name;
Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power,
Not one of them is missing.
- Isaiah 40:12-26
@@biagiomaffettone1497“Coastlands, listen to Me in silence,
And let the peoples gain new strength;
Let them come forward, then let them speak;
Let us come together for judgment.
“Who has aroused one from the east
Whom He calls in righteousness to His feet?
He delivers up nations before him
And subdues kings.
He makes them like dust with his sword,
As the wind-driven chaff with his bow.
“He pursues them, passing on in safety,
By a way he had not been traversing with his feet.
“Who has performed and accomplished it,
Calling forth the generations from the beginning?
‘I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He.’”
- Isaiah 41:1-4
@@biagiomaffettone1497 Who among you will give ear to this?
Who will give heed and listen hereafter?
Who gave Jacob up for spoil, and Israel to plunderers?
Was it not the LORD, against whom we have sinned,
And in whose ways they were not willing to walk,
And whose law they did not obey?
So He poured out on him the heat of His anger
And the fierceness of battle;
And it set him aflame all around,
Yet he did not recognize it;
And it burned him, but he paid no attention.
But now, thus says the LORD, your Creator, O Jacob,
And He who formed you, O Israel,
“Do not fear, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name; you are Mine!
“When you pass through the waters, I will be with you;
And through the rivers, they will not overflow you.
When you walk through the fire, you will not be scorched,
Nor will the flame burn you.
“For I am the LORD your God,
The Holy One of Israel, your Savior;
I have given Egypt as your ransom,
Cush and Seba in your place.
“Since you are precious in My sight,
Since you are honored and I love you,
I will give other men in your place and other peoples in exchange for your life.
- Isaiah 42:23 - 43:4
Around 1:04:28... Leighton asking White about infant damnation is NOT a change of topic. This is quite a ridiculous claim that many Calvinists are making. The topic of this debate concerned John 6 and unconditional election... a doctrine which concludes that God brings infants into this world who are either elect, or non-elect. Leighton has every right to challenge this and ask about it. It's a difficult question for Calvinists to deal with and so it's easier to gaslight the one who challenges or questions it, rather than actually answering and explaining.
Calvinists trust God to do what is just. Anti-Calvinists don't seem to trust God to make just choices. Man is the only one they trust to do right.
hello. do you believe in jesus?
Another feelegesis buddy
@@oracleoftroy I trust God to do what is right. Which is why I reject Calvinism.
@@GreatLightStudios And yet when Calvinists say salvation is up to our holy and just God who is mighty to save no matter the age of the person, your side start some dirty ploy about how God sends babies to hell. Why support such lies? Why not just do as Christ commands and truthfully state our position, including that we make no claims one way or another about whether any baby is send to hell at all? The Bible is silent about it, so we don't make up man-pleasing doctrines about how people we thing deserve a free pass automatically get into heaven. Instead, we leave it up to God, knowing that he will do what is right.
Video starts at 19:00
Man Leighton is an angry dude
LF is on the road to heresy rejecting Original Sin, or he'll become an apostate, it is not much of a stretch to reject the faith with that theology.
He rejects Original Guilt, as I have already explained it to you. You can correct your comment now..
@@biagiomaffettone1497 Then he rejects the entirety of the historical members of the Church.
@@biagiomaffettone1497 Then how do you explain Romans 3, Psalm 14, Psalm 53, Psalm 143?
@@Spartan322 That's not true. The church has always believed in Original Sin but not Guilt.. Augustine in the 400AD, was the first Christian to believe in Original Guilt and this was from his previous Manichean influences.. So I don't agree with statement
@@biagiomaffettone1497can you tell us what in manicheanism influenced him?
Leighton's fundamental position is, "It doesn't matter what the text says. I believe Calvinism is unjust so Jesus couldn't have taught it."
Sola Personal-sensibilities.
Nailed it
Flowers seems like he is making great points, but when he is pressed his arguments falls apart
Which argument is that?
@@biagiomaffettone1497 did you listen to these three gentlemen speaking here it is to me astonishing how people can listen to someone and not see that they are wrong and before you say something else I am not a calvinist, but it is hard to say that there position is wrong
@@allenvermeulen8018 Which argument are specifically talking about? Don't make me guess.
You really have to ask , is Layton Flowers saved ????
What I have to ask is whether or not you understand the gospel all that well. "Yeah this guy trusts in Jesus and His sacrifice and resurrection as being the payment of the guilt of his sin, but is God really capable of saving him since his secondary theology is so different from mine?"
His name is Leighton. Yes, of course. Or do you think God didn’t choose him? Then election wouldn’t be unconditional 😊
Are you? How do YOU know you are part of the elect? Because John Calvin says so?
Bruh Rekt himself, poor Flowers probably though he won that debate....
Immediately after the debate some big Calvinist 'exit poll' (I think it was on twitter or something, it was for people who watched the debate) gave Flowers the win.
It's WILD to me that Leighton has the audacity to accuse White of not exegeting the text, when his entire opener was literally a ful exegesis of the text. Leighton is projecting hard when he says White didn't exegete the text and instead bounced around in the Roman's 9 debate.
hello. do you believe in jesus?
Reading a verse in Greek isn't exegesis. Reading a text and stating how you interpret it isn't exegesis. That's all White did.
Leighton gets accused of "jumping around scripture" despite the fact that this is how you do exegesis. Flowers shows how the Calvinistic interpretation of a verse contradicts other passages of scripture (IE exegesis).
@@LawlessNatethat is absolutely false, from his perspective he believed scripture contradicts other scriptures, he believes John 6 contradicts the passage and joshua, even though they have two different contexts, I do not believe that scripture contradicts of if you believe the way flowers teachers, you have to believe that God contradicts himself in his own word, which I do not believe he does. And neither does James white, what people do is they say we'll see second Peter chapter 3 contradicts John 6, so therefore we're just going to ignore 2 Peter chapter 3 context and John 6's contacts, and that's not how you read any of the book ever.
Apparently Leighton Flowers never attended a unaccredited Independent Fundamental Baptist Bible College.
*Jeff: Instead of making excuses (**28:45**) show your manly character and invite Flowers on your show*
It would be largely fruitless.
@@Fassnight No. It would be fruitful to show the difference between both Theologies. Unless you are concerned that your side would come out looking bad.
Trying to understand God completely will leave us all with questions. It doesn't matter if it's fair or not, God is in control. We are sinners. We look through a blurred lens, my friend. To say that Christ loses those who the father sends is NOT a good look, regardless of what you believe. We can try to say whats fair and whats not, but we dont have any authority.
Most of Generation X has the ability to talk about a subject for hours unlike most Millennials. That is just how we roll. We were raised to think, take care of ourselves, and have face-to-face conversations for hours. Plus, we do not trust authority. We analyze everything. We don’t pick our favorite authority or system to follow blindly. This is probably why we can’t have an honest back-and-forth conversation with Millennials. Xers have the ability to change their mind about things also. We have had to relearn every new technology in the last 50 plus years. We started our lives with record players and calculators.
Flowers won that debate. Clearly.
hello. do you believe in jesus?
@@BENJAMINJAMESSMITH2000
Yes. Christ is King
@@USSteelMain that’s great. have you repented?
@@USSteelMain that’s great. have you repented?
@@USSteelMain have you repented?
Leighton provided a great service to the body of Christ in this debate by both exposing the falsehood of Calvinism and by proclaiming the good news of Jesus at the same time. ✝️🙏🏼
Salvation being dependent on man is not “good news”
@@sarahd5341
Are you one of those that Paul describes as having believed the good news in vain?
“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, UNLESS YE HAVE BELIEVED IN VAIN.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 ✝️
@@sarahd5341how is salvation dependent on man when we believe that we can’t save ourselves and therefore are in need of a savior and humble ourselves to repent therefore and apply the death and resurrection of Jesus, the only sinless man by simple faith? That is Christ-centered.
@@an_nie_dyc1386 “humbled yourself”. Sounds like something you do…is the Holy Spirit active in the heart of someone being regenerated? Does he DO something to regenerate a person?
@@sarahd5341 not every action is a work. Especially not a work of the law. In fact, it’s the opposite of a work.
Humbling is a change of heart. In another word- repentance. Seeing that you are sinful and in need for a savior.
I know that you think we are marionettes, and I wish sometimes I was - but I never see that in the Bible.
Wow! Jeff you say Leighton misrepresents?.. That video he was doing on your sermon, he literally asked you to come on and make your points more clear, yet you refused, that sir is on you. I believe Jeff that you think you're right, and I do believe your intentions are to honor God. But "what" if you are wrong on soteriology? What if you've misjudged Leighton's character, and in some way, you've missed what he actually believes. I love you, brother, so I challenge you to think better of others than we think of ourselves. What if you're wrong?
I don’t think he’s missed what leighton believes because there are millions of hours of leighton saying what he believes. Mostly analogies
@justinholt2247 Possibly, but many of those hours are Leighton saying in response to James and Jeff, "That's not what I believe." I do appreciate you saying you "think", which implies, still a possibility of misunderstanding.
Jeff clearly is offended by Leighton, because Leighton used a picture in the thumbnail of a video where Jeff didn’t think he looked good. lol that is as petty as it gets.
Refusing to go on someone’s show is not misrepresentation. What a strange argument.
Also - this isn’t a fairytale. It’s not medieval England. No one is duty bound by honour to accept an invitation like that. It’s only a problem in your mind.
@@coletownsend3229
Or, you should look at it yourself instead of running immediately to Leighton's defense and assuming the worst about Jeff? Partiality is a sin, friend.
ua-cam.com/users/liveylzLsnnLlic?si=EIsVzFag2N2yRVDB
Im perfectly fine with people rejecting calvinism or even being opposed to calvinism. People who are hyperfixated on calvinism to where its the only issue they only ever speak on are rarely respectable.
I don't see why that would be problematic. Calvinism is a very damaging false doctrine. It hurts Christianity and Gods character.
@@krazzykracker2564 yeah your real issue with the biblical God. I see in one of your other comments you say that God doesn't choose people for salvation. So then can you explain why Acts 13:48 says as many as were appointed to eternal life believed?
@@danielomitted1867 im uncertain of your question exactly. I do not see anything calvinist in acts 13. Im going to assume you have a presupposition that you are inserting into the text. Would you kindly present what you are interpreting it to mean and what in the context of chapter 13 led you to that interpretation. Then perhaps I could answer your question with understanding.
@@krazzykracker2564 God appointed certain gentiles to eternal life, as many as were appointed believed. The appointing results in the believing. You don't believe God has chosen anyone for salvation yet the text very plainly shows God chose some for eternal life. The ones that were chosen or appointed, believed. Pretty straightforward.
@@danielomitted1867 when was the ordination taking place?
I agree that the death of toddlers doesn’t fit this debate. I also agree it’s not a reformed or Calvinist issue. I loved how you acknowledge scripture doesn’t give express instruction in this point but it also isn’t silent.
I am reformed in my theology. I believe I am saved only because God saved me. My two year old son died on my birthday this year. I don’t raise that as an argument but perhaps simply to introduce myself as a father who was wept and prayed and studied and thought about this question - is my son in my heaven.
For me, it’s a matter of trusting the character of God. I know my God is good and can save my little boy as a two year old. I have a strong hope that he has.
At his funeral, our pastor compared two sons of David who died. David begged God for his baby’s life and yet immediately stopped when the baby died. In my view because David too knew who God was. When a wicked son died after raping his sitter, David mourned because he knew his son would be judged.
Dead babies are a horrible thing. However, I do not see how believing in the unfailing, irresistible call of almighty God to himself is at all problematic for a dead child. The sovereign God of the Bible allowed my son to live for two years, saved him, and called him home.
Love you all, my brothers and sisters in this Christ
🧑⚖️ So why did Paul have to encourage the Gentiles to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved if, at the end of the day, some of them would go to hell simply because God did not choose them to be saved?
🧑⚖️ It could bring false hope to those who believed but not chosen by God.
@@calebjushua9252 those who would be saved are encouraged, those who are not saved are not. God calling some to himself is the explanation of why two equal sinners may end up in different eternal places. It’s not meant to assist us in spreading the Gospel. All are invited but only Gods elect will accept.
@@b.j.allison6271
🧑⚖️ Let's say I believe on the gospel but not one of the elects, shall I be saved?
@@calebjushua9252 Demons believe. I think what your asking is can you believe in the gospel and be repentant and yet not be one of the elect. The answer is no. We’re all separate, spiritually dead, and incapable of good. God provides all aspects of salvation including the faith to believe in it. The horrible reality is everyone - including the lost - will get exactly what they want. Eternal communion or eternal separation. In my view, that’s what scripture teaches friend :)
@@b.j.allison6271
🧑⚖️ Satan's belief is different from the faith that saves.
✅ Satan only believes that God exists.
✅ I believe in the gospel-that Jesus Christ was crucified, buried, and resurrected as payment for my sins.
🕵️ Now, I sincerely disagree with you about faith and repentance. A person cannot exercise repentance without faith. This means that when I say "believe", it implies repentance as a byproduct of it.
🧑⚖️ Can you explain your point when you said "The horrible reality is everyone-including the lost-will get exactly what they want"?
Unless he changed the thumbnails after this podcast, all of Leighton Flower's posts about Jeff Durbin (that I saw) showed normal, and often really good, pictures of Jeff. Not sure which one he's referring to...
Once the big ego is damaged, nothing can repair it obviously
@@an_nie_dyc1386Video is titled “Jeff Durbin’s Abuse of church history”
Pastor Jeff is a very down to earth person. Please don’t make up gossip that his ego is big.
Leighton got shredded.
I wish you guys would consider a discussion with Jay Dyer in regards to reformed theology.
I like Jeff, James and Leighton. I am disappointed that Jeff would refuse to talk to someone he apparently believes is a brother in Christ. I also noticed that in the introduction of this video, Jeff refers to his close friend as Dr. James White, and to Dr. Leighton Flowers without the “Dr.” about 4-5 times, and referred to him as “Dr.” only once in the first 23 minutes. It would seem more natural to be less formal with your friends name. It seems to be petty along with the complaint about the picture that Leighton apologized for and offered to change. I love you Jeff, and the work that you do, but this wasn’t what I would expect from you brother. May God continue to bless your ministries.
I wish I could go see you guys. I'm in Kentucky but I'm a few hours away and I lost my car a year ago
retrace your steps, where did u see it last
"dude, where's my car?"
Transmission went out on the ole girl
@@MansterBear if he re traced his steps it would help him find it
@@roguecalvinistLove your channel man! Keep it up :)
Thank you so much for your ministry Dr Flowers. I came out of a Reformed Calvinist backround and truly love how you plainly teach the love and grace of God available to ALL people. If you want a clear understanding of Calvinism go to 42:42 -42:50.
Calvinisim explaining salvation:
God picks people to be saved from eternity past, but still requires them to believe in his son who died for them only; at the same time granting them the belief they need to believe, because they can't believe, even though he tells them to believe. Then he makes sure they continue to believe, even though they were chosen to believe.
Clear as day.
Meanwhile: The Bible
John 3:16
I mean are you just going to ignore the many times in the NT it says God chooses us for salvation?
@@firingallcylinders2949 there is no scripture, not a single one that says that.
that’s a matter of proper exegesis, you wouldn’t take this as very helpful i said, “the whole synergistic argument: We feel the need to fit our own free will into Gods perfect sovereign decree meanwhile John 15:16 existing:” So just because you show one verse with an eisegeted interpretation doesn’t dismiss Reformed theology. What you will find out is that if you read the Koine Greek within its context it “whoever believes in him” translates to “whenever are the believing ones” which are those who are elect.
@@andrewtsousis3130…Deu 7:6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. He has chosen you to be his people, prized above all others on the face of the earth.
Deu 7:7 It is not because you were more numerous than all the other peoples that the LORD favored and chose you - for in fact you were the least numerous of all peoples.
Deu 7:8 Rather it is because of his love for you and his faithfulness to the promise he solemnly vowed to your ancestors that the LORD brought you out with great power, redeeming you from the place of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt
@@Kenneth-nVA Is this your proof of God choosing people for salvation? Because this is Moses reminding the Israelites they are Gods chosen people, for what? To be the lineage for the messiah who will take away the sins of the world.
This is what Calvinisim does it takes everything out of context, and reads it with distorted Gnostic lenses.
So tell me, how were the Israelites saved? It wasn’t because they were chosen, they had to show Belief, Faith and be obedient. Was it God that made them believe, have faith and be obedient? No, they had to choose to do this. What happened over the many instances when they didn’t do these things? They were judged, sometimes severely by God.
Show me some more verses about God picking people for salvation.
He might be older elder ... but he'd beat them all in a bike ride
Where can I go to learn these things from people like James White and Jeff Durbin?
Romans would be a great start, it is where Paul goes a bit deeper into the theology of the Gospel. The trick when reading scripture is to get to the real meaning of the text. The authors weren’t post-modernists, so there is only one interpretation of it, not multiple. This is a struggle, because we are unable to rid ourselves of bias shaped by emotion or tradition (including me). There are methods developed to present as plain a meaning of the text possible (such as systematic theology), it’s not perfect, but its the best we have to get as close to the real meaning as possible. If you want to learn how to read the Bible, then learn how to do exegesis. A good book on this is “Dig Deeper by Nigel” which is short, and gives a good introduction to identifying the genre of the text, context and authorial intent.
@@mpalmer22 thank you 🙏
Also the entire gospel of John is full of the doctrine that Jesus perfecting died and purchased his sheep! Love you brother
@@sageh642 thank you sir 🙏
@@mpalmer22 If someone starts reading Romans from chapter 1 instead of chapter 9 then chapter 9 no longer seems to teach Calvinism.
If God predetermined all things, why does he give commands? James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up. James 4:6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble......I will continue to Believe the gospel of truth rather than any philosophies of any man. Romans 3:4 God forbid: yeah, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou might be justified in thy sayings, and mightiest overcome when thou art judged.
do you believe in jesus?
@@BENJAMINJAMESSMITH2000I believe the same as Peter in Matthew 16:16 And Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
@@bolsonoutdoors9205 that’s great. have you repented?
@@BENJAMINJAMESSMITH20001 John 1:9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
@@bolsonoutdoors9205 is that a yes?
There are no babies in hell.
Why does Paul say he was "Alive"... before the law came? He certainly wasn't talking about his body.. And why does God throughout the scripture make a distinction between ignorant ppl (Children - unaware of sin - NO knowledge of good and evil) vs. those who know? Not even MOSES was allowed into the promised land - but guess who was allowed? The kids that the Israelites of that day said would become prey -(They would be punished for their parent's sins..) "Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your *children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil* - they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it."
And why is God angry with the Israelites saying this proverb -?
Ezekiel 18 As I live,” declares the Lord [b]God, “you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. 4 Behold, all [c]souls are Mine; the [d]soul of the father as well as the [e]soul of the son is Mine. *The [f]soul who sins will die*. "The fathers eat sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge..." and goes on to say that He doesn't punish the children for the sins of their fathers. God was mad that Israel was claiming He did. God calls children "innocent blood" - Psalm 106:36-39.
Jesus also says that "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such" - Innocent children. The idea that Jesus is roasting babies in hell isn't the theme of Sola Scriptura. This is not his attitude towards them. Yes, we are born into the consequences of Adams' sin - the effects of it - but we are not guilty for it. We are guilty of our own sins. At some point when we become aware - Just as Paul did and then... he/we died...
So there is a theme throughout scripture - the God of scripture doesn't proclaim babies are guilty and go to hell.
He makes a distinction between those who know "Their right hand from their left" - Niniveh... and those who don't. He treats those who know and those who don't differently.
Lastly - who is worse, the Calvinist God who roasts babies for an eternity in hell or PPH? Not only are some children being murdered and dismembered by pph (Which the Calvinist god predestined yet .. also abhors and fights against) but then according to some Calvinists they are handed off to God who will put them in eternal flames? Dismembered, decapitated, burning in torment forever ALL of it decreed by the Calvinist god.
They never said that the babies are in Hell babies come from God and a baby is not any kind of baby that's too young is not at the age of accountability to understand so obviously when it babies die or the stillborn or they died too young or whatever before the age of accountability to understand then yes they go back to Heaven you'll never hear anybody say that I don't know where you're making that up from because that's pretty silly also, The Tavern is God you keep saying first of all for your information the god of the Bible the Bible had already subscribed, to what they now call Calvinism the Bible itself had already subscribed to that so if you're denying that then you are denying scripture oh yes you are and it's blatantly obvious you were yourself, you're not born again because you're denying what the Bible says you cannot deny the doctrine of election it's very very biblical quite biblical the problem here is you just don't happen to like it that's the real problem
So you're calling Calvinists heretics?
@@Spartan322 Want to deal with the text? I'm just posting what God has said and it doesn't sound the same as what Calvinist say on OS and guilt.
Also, why does God say in Isaiah 54, "If anyone fiercely assails you *it will not be from Me* and "Whowever does assails you will fall" - Don't Calvinists believe God determines every thought, action?
@@dannychapman456 You said Calvinists had a different God, so you're accusing Calvinists of being heretics. Also no the Calvinist does not say that, God already knows everything, God does not need to determine anything, He is already the master over it, that's not how predestination works, that's a strawman. (also technically a presumptive and guilt by association fallacy since you accuse me of something for which I didn't make a position towards and you association me with people simply for questioning you)
@@Spartan322 there is no babies in hell because babies that that died before they have age of accountability end up going back to heaven the Bible is very clear about that with this guy doesn't seem to understand is that what they now call Calvinism was already subscribed long before John Calvin or Mark or Matthew subscribe to it the Bible had already subscribed to it so he's denying the doctrine of election if that's the case cuz the doctrine of election is very much biblical absolutely always has been biblical we can't choose God because if he didn't choose us we can only choose him because he chose us because the god of the Bible knows everything he knows who would believe the truth he also knows who would never believe the truth so that's why that's also very important to mention
For people who seem to be so offended by there position being misrepresented, it’s quite ironic that they’d so blatantly misrepresent there opponents position…
hello. do you believe in jesus?
Leightons question of John 3:16 was designed to try and get a sound bite of James saying he is inconsistent in some way.
Same as the sound bite used of Leighton for Radio Free Geneva.
"Is that the same hermeneutical method to dedend the trinity?" " No! "
hello. do you believe in jesus?
Ok. I totally disagree with Dr. Flowers interpretation of Calvinism, and said text--but, people gotta admit that JW wasn’t on his game for this debate.
Maybe it was because he was sick-but he was just not his usual, concise, clear self on this one. Do ten more- He wins 9 of them.
Leighton’s fundamental error is that he tries to hold God accountable to standards that God holds man to. He wants to make God subject to the law, not the Law Giver.
Example: “We know racism is wrong, because a person can’t help the color of their skin.”
Wrong. Racism is wrong because God says it’s wrong. Leighton’s entire approach to God is man-centered. “Libertarian free will” is the only presupposition forced onto the text.
No, he holds a Calvinist interpretation of scripture accountable. Not God. You're conflating two distinct things
@@USSteelMainVery good point.
Aren't you essentially arguing that we can't understand the reasoning behind God's law? You don't think when he created us in his image he endowed us with an ability to comprehend why his commandments are good?
It's actually better to be able to understand the reasoning behind his laws. Then we can actually appreciate his laws more.
So when man is commanded to love his enemies, God should not be expected to love people who are enemies with Him? Sounds like you are saying God expects us to be more moral than we should expect Him to be. I believe in a God that is just and judges impartially, and that is impossible if he does not love all people equally. How prideful it is when anyone believes that they are better than God. Hope that is not what you are really saying.
So when man tortured babies it’s horrible and demonic, but when God tortures babies in Hell he’s holy, righteous, and just? Calvinism worships a demon