Was Augustine the first to introduce "CALVINISM" into the Church?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, interviews one of today's foremost Augustinian scholars, Dr. Ken Wilson.
Dr. Wilson graduated as a medical doctor from the University of Texas system, followed by an Orthopedic Residency and Hand Fellowship. He then taught as a full-time academic professor at Oregon’s medical school for many years. While maintaining his hand surgery practice, Dr. Wilson decided to pursue theology. He graduated magna cum laude from Faith Lutheran Seminary with a M.Div. degree, then magna cum laude from Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary with a Th.M. degree. Dr. Wilson attended The University of Oxford in the United Kingdom where he received his doctorate in theology with the thesis, “Augustine’s Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to ‘Non-free Free Will’: A Comprehensive Methodology.“ More about Dr. Wilson can be found here: www.gracetheol...
To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: soteriology101...
To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip” please click here: soteriology101...
To listen to the audio only be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or one of the other podcast players found here: soteriology101...
For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism) please visit www.soteriology101.com
Dr. Flowers’ book, “The Potter’s Promise” can be found here: www.amazon.com...
To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: m.facebook.com...
For updates and news follow us at: www.facebook/Soteriology101
Or @soteriology101 on Twitter
Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!
To become a Patreon supporter or make a one time donation: soteriology101...
“At the end of my book, I list all of the Scriptures used by the Manichaeans to support their doctrines. And guess which ones they are? They’re the very ones the Calvinists use today.” - Dr. Kenneth Wilson
That is so telling ...
Not sure if you're a Jehovah's Witness or not, @@Tron4JC, but no early Church Father taught baptismal regeneration.
@@Tron4JC You have proved your point very well, sir! Extremely well said!
@@anonimo-um2ng so why the word sacrament is not in the New Testament?
Dear sir, I am so glad to know that someone else than myself believe that our God is in the past, the present, and the future also at the very same time right now. Amen.
Good Lord! This presentation covers a lot of extremely important and foundational issues. EXCELLENT! Recovering hardcore Reformed Protestant of 30 years here! Thank you!
Wow this adds such depth to understanding today's reformed theology. Praise God, His word already denies Calvin's system. And praise Him again, even church history does too.
❤❤ agreed
I was gaslighted by a Calvinist for several years which resulted in a 23 year wilderness as far as my relationship with Christ was concerned. This podcast was the beginning of my escape from the pit of lies that caused me to set aside the Bible for nearly two decades. I have listened to this podcast many times, over the last 3 years, and I still get something new out of it every time. The farther I get from the prison I escaped from, the greater my perspective on Calvinism. I now realize that Reformed Theology is a mere doctrinal exoskeleton obscuring the truth of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thank you Dr. Flowers, and Dr. Wilson again and again, thank you.
"An exoskeleton obscuring the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ." WOW and amen!!!
I was in the same boat, as a young man that did not know the scriptures, I had Bible studies with Calvanists, and I was overwhelmed and despaired of faith. I thought God hated most people, and I could not love him-I am ashamed thar I was bewitched by such nonsense of wholly ignorant men and women, who were shamefully ignorant and mean-spirited ❤
AMEN!!!
I am in complete agreement with all 3 comments here!!!
@SheowCat1 Amen, praying for.all to.find freedom from Calvanism
Great Job Leighton, The Lord is using you to the fullest My Brother in Christ. Keep battling the Evil Empire.
We can say that for the first 400 years of Christianity's teachers, preachers, apostles, evangelists and theologians taught "historic traditionalism" without a deterministic theology. Borrowing from Manichaeism, Augustine brought strong determinism into the Catholic Church while the Eastern Orthodox Church never incorporated Augustinian teachings.
Thanks Leighton for this interview!!! One of the Best!
One correction to your summary: Augustine taught determinism, but it wasn't accepted by the Catholic Church. It was one of the elements of Augustine's teaching that they expressly did NOT accept, per the Second Council of Orange. But Protestant Reformers like Calvin and Luther thought Catholic free will was "Pelagian" and preferred the Augustinian determinist model.
@DavidLarson100
Luther did too??
Do you know anything I can read on that?
@@MultipleGrievance Absolutely. It was one of the top areas of disagreement he had with the Catholic Church. Read his debate with Erasmus, where Luther wrote "The Bondage of the Will" to show we have no free will and are either slaves to sin or to God, and Erasmus wrote "On the freedom of the will." Unsurprisingly, Luther leans heavily on Romans 9. Thankfully, Lutherans almost immediately rejected a lot of Luther's extreme determinism and only hold to 'single predestination' now.
This is the most helpful and enlightening discussions I’ve ever heard on this subject. Thank you, gentlemen!
I've studied Augustine a little and read confessions...what troubled me were his mystical ways of approaching God and even his testimony is sketchy. That combined with his doctrine is enough evidence that he was still a gnostic at heart. I'm thankful for God's patience and guidance in the sanctification process and that he renewed my thinking through his Word and prayer.
How?
@@deusvult8340Bro, be more specific. How what? All you have to do to be clear is type a few more more words. What are you asking?
I don’t know about that brother . Provided I’ve only seen lines from Augustine part I still regard him as a Christian brother who loved Jesus .
Thank you very kindly Leighton Flowers and Ken Wilson!
GLORY TO GOD!
@@Tron4JC - You get your history where?
Burgers baptism was not (invented) by Augustine. It's Biblical.
Excellent interview. So glad more and more are making known the obvious link between Augustinian Calvinism and gnostic teachings.
Billy R The interview and research makes it clear.
Billy R Nothing like being in denial. I actually studied church history for about five years and nothing Dr. Wilson said was inaccurate. And if Dr. Flowers didn’t read Augustine, why did Dr. Flowers know facts that Dr. Wilson confirmed?
@@tommyvedros9936 Exactly. See 23:53 where the Gnostics used the same prooftexts that Calvinists use today.
@@billyr9162
So Augustine studied the NT, but didn't know Greek?
Liars keep calling truth ' determinism '.....you can't help yourselves.
I wish I could like this 1000 times. This is the book I have been wanting to read - I was just about to try and write it myself, but with a toddler that's a bit too much to take on righy now. 😌 So glad someone else put the work in for me! 😜👍
You guys are doing a bang-up job on these discussions! No superficial nonsense here. Grateful for scholars you have on. Didn't even have this array of quality scholars on such topics in seminary. It's high time we very publicly to the proverbial axe to Calvinist arguments.
Amen!
Calvinism has done so much harm to the Church! May GOD have mercy on them.
This was enlightening. Finally my suspicions about Augustan are confirmed.
I've shared this video on Facebook and with a number of my Calvinist-leaning brothers. This is really good stuff. Thanks Leighton.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!! Ahhh. Being able to now to put into historical context the ideas of Calvinism--is such a gift to the saints! Thank you! Please have your guest back and do more like this. You're doing a good work.
I never knew Augustine did not know Greek. A lot of great information. Dr. Ken Wilson's book is going to be very valuable in checking out the beliefs of the early church fathers.
@@Tron4JC , which, of course, explains why Oxford accepted it as sufficient for the granting of a D.Phil for Wilson. Oxford generally is unbothered by theses which are loaded with lies and errors.
Sometime after this video, Wilson wrote a shorter (and far less expensive) book that summarizes his doctoral thesis: "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism"
"""
This book summarizes Dr. Wilson's "ground-breaking" doctoral thesis at the University of Oxford which was published by Mohr Siebeck in 2018 as "Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'Non-free Free Will': A Comprehensive Methodology". With a new audience in mind, Dr. Wilson presents his extensive research on free will in ancient and early Christian thought in a shorter and more accessible format with translations of the ancient and modern foreign languages in plain English. Dr. Wilson first provides readers with essential background information on free will in the ancient philosophies and religions of Stoicism, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Manichaeism. He then guides his readers through the writings of the earliest Christian authors who wrote on free will. Finally, Dr. Wilson explores a curious split between St. Augustine's early and later writings and shows how the ideas presented in Augustine's later writings became the foundation for modern Calvinist (Reformed) theology, also known as Augustinian-Calvinism.
"""
I am a middle/high school Bible teacher, and this interview was Great! Listening to it again, and recommending this episode/entire podcast all around. Thanks for your work! Please interview Dr. Wilson again.
What school in what state is this that you are teaching the Bible
Great interview! I’ve seen some Calvinists who are suddenly experts in church history here when they probably haven’t read a lick of the early church and Augustine.
Leighton, your suggestion of distilling Dr. Wilson's tome for a simpler popular book is a great one.
Dear Dr. Flowers, Your videos just keep getting better and better, even so, all of your videos are works of perfection.
Ditto! Yep, for me its hard to make it past 10 min with videos. Right now I'm listening to this full length for the 2nd time today! Really pumps up my enthusiasm and would love to hear more from Dr. Wilson. This one blew the needle off the meter. :)
This interview provided Wisdom to unlock my world view on Christianity into the next level. As a born Catholic I was fascinated by the reason for infant baptism. And how these reasons penetrated the Church to in large part define, and or give reason for Calvinism. What a breakthrough in understanding. These breakthroughs in turn gives a deeper hunger for the Truth. Just amazing, our God never ceases to blow me away.
Amen!
The best interview I've seen to date! Have him back on in the near future.😉
So basically, the church fathers spent the first 300 years battling against the Gnostics, stoics and Manichaeists, and then Augustine came along and decided ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’.
JourneyROR have you ever read the Martyrs Mirror? I’m going through it now...the church was always there, being persecuted. Equating first Rome and then the reformers as the church discounts the vast majority of those who actually paid with their lives for the cause of Christ.
This was such a good episode!!!!! I learned so much, one of my favorite episodes for sure
That was the best interview and explanation of determination or predestination I've heard!!! Thank you!! And thank you, Dr. Wilson, for all of your tenacious works towards an understanding of this heavy topic.
Thanks for all your videos, Dr Flowers. You are a great help in providing accurate Biblical teaching and so building us up in our most holy faith.
Dr Wilson did publish a shorter version of his work in Aug 2019 - I found it on Amazon for $10:
The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism
I just got my copy!
Thanks for that info!! His original manuscript goesfor $118 on Amazon!
I found it on Kindle for $7.99.
Wow! This is the most excellent video with Dr.Wilson's thorough and deep research into the truth. Really lights up all those "foundations" of Gnosticism used by Augustine and expanded by Jean Cauvin. Wilson's information really helped me see more of the big picture of Calvinism and its true roots.
I like lots of videos, but I don't favourite many, this one I did. I love your postings, Leighton, but this was the best yet.
May I ask you why you love this video so much
@@tonymedeiros5515 I see I wrote the comment 5 years ago, so I can't really remember. I guess I found it useful at the time.
"All I did was follow the instructions." Already smarter than most.
Great guest. Hope to see him back. Listening to the glory given to how much more powerful and majestic our God is, was amazing. MORE of that, please.
My one complaint about this video: It’s too short! 😕
B K agreed we need round 2
LOL!
True. Can’t get enough refutation of Augustinian Calvinism.
To be a traditional Christian or a Manichean Christian - the choice is yours. PRICELESS
There is only one traditional church.
Who mentioned the church?@@arnoldvezbon6131
Outstanding interview. Ken nailed it when he talked about Irenaeus's view as calvinistic determinism limits GOD - GOD's allowing free will makes HIS sovereignty true. Calvinistic determinism also falls straight into the lap of scientific determinism. What Augustine did to Pelagius was literally criminal, as, Pelagius was tried before two church councils and found innocent. Augustine was a politician as Ken notes. Calvin also "lost it" in his later writings and became political. Thanks for this, Leighton. GOD Bless
Are you saying Calvinism or Neo-Calvinism ? ...
@@jtfairchild3838 JT - not sure what your distinction is between the two if there is one. Could you define the terms and differences? I honestly do not see much, if any, distinction. Look forward to discussing it! Thanks. GOD Bless
Thank you both of you, tracing the origin & investigate deep & correcting the twisters
Awesome video Leighten flowers. Thank you again for your time. Dr. Ken Wilson thank you some mush for your time as well.
Ken Wilson did later write a summary book called The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism. The new book is likely a "must read" for those interested in this video and this UA-cam site. With paperback at $14.99 or Kindle at $7.99, this is much more accessible in price than $132 for his 2018 massive scholarly doctoral thesis, which was discussed in this video (Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'Non-Free Free Will': A Comprehensive Methodology).
About the newer, shorter book, The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism:
"""
This book summarizes Dr. Wilson's "ground-breaking" doctoral thesis at the University of Oxford which was published by Mohr Siebeck in 2018 as "Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to 'Non-free Free Will': A Comprehensive Methodology". With a new audience in mind, Dr. Wilson presents his extensive research on free will in ancient and early Christian thought in a shorter and more accessible format with translations of the ancient and modern foreign languages in plain English. Dr. Wilson first provides readers with essential background information on free will in the ancient philosophies and religions of Stoicism, Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Manichaeism. He then guides his readers through the writings of the earliest Christian authors who wrote on free will. Finally, Dr. Wilson explores a curious split between St. Augustine's early and later writings and shows how the ideas presented in Augustine's later writings became the foundation for modern Calvinist (Reformed) theology, also known as Augustinian-Calvinism.
"""
From my reading of the book I have concluded that Wilson should not give up medicine.
This is a watershed interview. So incredibly helpful!
What an awesome educational video! Wish this go on every week!! 52 minutes is not enough!!
I have taken several courses with Dr. Wilson and they always leave me wanting more!
@@acolchad83 I love history and especially church history. Fascinating topic!
You should have David Bercot on your program. He's spent considerable time discussing the early church Christians and what they believed about various things. Predestination is one that he hits on and does a very nice job with.
Josiah Bartz I've found Bercot to be a bit of a hack. He refers to "the fathers" as though they are a monolithic whole, who all happen to agree with his Mennonite views, then cherry picks his quotes to prove it. I'm not sure Leighton is well versed enough to engage him. I'd love to see Ken Wilson engage with Bercot, though I doubt Bercot would do it.
Kent Young Thanks for your response. Hack is a bit harsh, although my only engagement with Bercot has been through his series on the early church. I think Bercot is a good thinker and has a unique background as a Jehovah’s Witness and then conversion to Christianity. I take up many of his concerns with modern day evangelicalism. I think his series comes across as monolithic, but if you look at the work in the series he even admits that he is coming at it from their perspective. Even this guy, Dr. Wilson seems very in line with much of Bercots thinking. I think Gnosticism is a big deal and most Christians don’t understand these origins and where some of these ideas came from
which have skewed our Christian thinking. Thanks... This was a good video.
Josiah Bartz
The value of Bercot is that he exposes blind spots in modern churchianity. We have veered way off in some areas but our traditions are so imbedded we don’t question them.
Laura Kakoschke Yes, I agree 100%.
Dr. Flowers, surely the Calvinist theologians (like Mohler, Sproul, etc) and seminary students know some of these egregious facts about the basis of the beliefs they are accepting. How can they receive and propagate Augustine’s ideas in spite of this? I’ve never understood how they could overlook Luther’s and Calvin’s support of opponents’ executions. How/why do they ignore these things? Thank you.
I'm amazed you'd listen to a guy like Peter. He attempted to split a guy's head in two with a sword. He's got some serious issues. He needs Jesus! And so do I! And so did Calvin & Luther.
The difference e between Preachers, such as those you listed and scholars is that the preachers don't look to primary sources, they are trained in seminaries that promote a bias and preachers just take what they are taught without looking to where the evidence is for particular stances. This is much of the problem in the western church; we have been taught WHAT to think and not how to think. Scholarly level teaching will leave a bread trail for you to follow so you can determine for yourself what is clear and unclear in the scripture. We need to shift from being spoon fed by preachers to engaging the scholars. And in fairness there are preachers who do engage with scholarly material, we should be supportive of them.
@@DeltaDawn77 Randy White Ministries is one. He’s a thinker and teaches others to reason through.
That was extremely enlightening. Thank you so much. 😊
Great discussion; informative and important.
As a non believer (agnostic), i find your debate on free will, predestinación, and Augustinian philosophy very serious and scholarly. and you and your guest share a desire to elevate this topic to a higher scholarly level. Your arguments do not sway me but i respect you nonetheless.
Hi Mildred! I suggest reading “The Case for the Ressurection of Jesus” by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona. All of Christianity hangs on the resurrection, and Habermas is a serious historian and scholar.
So enlightening!!!
Wonderful video. I know Augustus was involved in several heresies. But I didn't know how they affected his theology.
One of your best interviews yet Leighton!
Thank you
The Ravi Zacharias statement around 22:30 unfortunately didn’t age well.... It’s crazy how much influence and impact Zacharias had-enough to be mentioned in a video that isn’t even remotely about him. However, it’s even more astounding how much of a corrupt fraud he was. Such a shame....
Zacharias aside, thank your for the very insightful discussion that took place during the video!
Attention Calvinists: Sovereignty DOES NOT EQUAL determinism. God is not a dictatorial micro-manager.
Excellent interview! I learned a lot. Dr. Wilson seems like a great man.
Indeed
I'd love to hear James White try to go head to head with Dr. Ken Wilson.
I thought the same thing.
Dr. Wilson would lovingly eat Dr. White for lunch. Dr. White has a lot of good content -- but he clearly loses Calvinist debates ... just look at the one with him & Dr. Michael Brown.
Both church historian John Gerstner and RC Sproul would destroy this nonsense of free will.
Wilson would be outmatched.
@@slamdancer777 can you say on what? What exactly was he wrong on?
Excellent video. I will watch it again to glean all of the excellent resources!
Iv'e watched it four time now. Love it.
Great interview. It has a lot of value to me, & I will definitely be looking for Dr. Wilson's book.
However, I would like to point out that the Bible does not teach that God is atemporal
We need round two ASAP
I guess that Calvinists will simply think that Augustine was the first in church history to get it right. How they can hold to that position when those far closer to the apostles clearly didn't teach determinism & in fact opposed it defeats me...
Um, no... Jesus and Paul were "the first to get it right", and they came LONG before Augustine.
Funny... Moses taught something remarkably consistent to Calvin's soteriology. Why blame Augustine?
@@timfoster5043 really? Where?
John Calvin said he got all his doctrine from Augustine. Too bad he didn’t go all the way back to Paul.
Where did Calvin say that?
Calvin's doctrine aligned with Gnosticism is interesting because the Cathars, which was a Gnostic sect, lived in Switzerland, so Calvin's doctrine could have been a reframing & rebranding of the Cathar's doctrine as reformed theology calling it the Reformation then tying it to Protestantism of Luther to make it acceptable.
Great interview Dr Flowers learned a bunch.thank you
Well done Leighton! Great interview with Dr. Wilson.
Extremely educational video! Thank you for this!
The ANF were not "Traditionalists" in the way Dr Flowers defines it. One main difference is that they believed salvation is conditioned upon ongoing faith and obedience whereas evangelicals who come from Southern Baptist backgrounds like Dr. Flowers hold very strongly to unconditional eternal security which was more LIKE the Manichean's belief that salvation was due to an implantation of divine essence which could not change no matter what sins the individual might engage in. The ANF utterly repudiated this idea:
.................................................
Since all things are seen and heard [by God], let us FEAR Him and forsake those WICKED WORKS that proceed from evil desires. By doing that, through His mercy, we may be PROTECTED from the judgments to come. For where can any of us flee from His mighty hand?
Clement of Rome (c. 96, AD), Vol. 1 page 12
It is only through FORSAKING WICKEDNESS that we can be PROTECTED from the judgment to come.
.................................................
Now He that raised Him from the dead will raise us also; IF WE DO HIS WILL and WALK IN HIS COMMANDMENTS and LOVE the things which He loved, abstaining from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, false witness; not rendering evil for evil or railing for railing or blow for blow or cursing for cursing;
Polycarp (A.D. 69-156), Philippians 2
.................................................
Let us therefore repent with the whole heart, so that none of us perish by the way...Let us then PRACTICE RIGHTEOUSNESS so that WE MAY BE SAVED unto the end.
Hermas (c. 100-150 AD) Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7 page 522, 523.
.................................................
It was not to those who are ON THE OUTSIDE that he said these things, but to US-lest we should be cast forth from the kingdom of God, by doing any such thing.
Irenaeus (c. 180 AD), Vol. 1, page 500.
.................................................
God gives forgiveness of PAST sins. However, as to FUTURE SINS, each one procures this for himself. He does this by REPENTING, by condemning the past deeds, and by begging the Father to blot them out. For only the Father is the one who is able to undo what is done. . . .
Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 AD), Vol. 2 page 602.
.................................................
No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even TO THE END.
Tertullian (c. 197 AD), Vol. 3 page 244.
.................................................
A man may possess an acquired righteousness, from which it is POSSIBLE for him to FALL AWAY
Origen (c. 225, AD), Vol 4 page 266.
.................................................
Many more references could be cited to show that this view was as universal as their position on free will in initial salvation
Thanks for pointing this out.
I find their definition of Gnosticism doesn't match up either.
Listen with discernment.
Thoroughly enjoyed this, I learned a lot!!! Thank you!!
Absolutely incredible interview, thank you. God bless
This was eye opening for the non-Calvinist. Excellent episode and guest.
Exceptional! Thank you so much Dr. Flowers!!
Augustine interpreted the Bible by allegory and philosophy. By contrast John Chrysostom interpreted the scripture verse by verse according to the language and grammar and words of the Greek text which was his native tongue. Which method would tend to yield a more accurate interpretation of the scriptures?
@@Tron4JC
Yes many did confuse symbol and reality. At least they denied the false Manichaean teaching of TULIP.
@@Tron4JC
This point is irrelevant since the Gnostics rejected the role of the material world in salvation. Tell me, are you saying you personally believe in "baptismal salvation" and the "real presence?"
@@Tron4JC
I do not believe the Eucharist is "just a symbol" and I know absolutely the ECF did not. I have read what Ignatius said
@@Tron4JC
The pre-Augustininan Church did not believe infants had any guilt so they would not have believed their guilt could be removed through baptism. Augustine used the fact that infants were baptized as an argument against Pelagius to show that mankind if born guilty.
“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists ONLY in the REMISSION OF SINS, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason WE BAPTIZE EVEN INFANTS, though they are NOT DEFILED by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members”
(Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
What these reasons for baptizing infants are I don't know. I generally disapprove of it since it was not a NT practice.
@@Tron4JC
My position is closer to yours than to those who believe it is all symbols. Since I am not a Gnostic who believes only in the Spiritual world your attacks against me on that ground are irrelevant. After all the Logos Himself became flesh. "Material" practices like Baptism and partaking of sacraments are part of being saved and I believe the command to be baptized is essential. I have seen the results in those who do not follow through. My own Church baptizes people as soon as they give a confession of faith. If you want to believe I am a Gnostic so I will be useful in target practice then go ahead but don't expect me to engage much longer
Great interview and information. I’m always surprised that no one addresses how it was the Alexandria School who popularized the spiritual/allegorical interpretation of scriptures. At the basis of all of the debate is the rejection of a literal reading of the Bible. Augustine declared the body of Christ as the new or spiritual Israel. This became the foundation of the Catholic Church and was retained by Protestant reformers. Romans 9 is a great example. Clearly about those within Israel chosen by God, not about the church. Why do we make it so hard when it’s so clear? Because we won’t let go of Augustine’s legacy of spiritualizing the words. When we read it as is, it all fits beautifully.
Let the Bible define and explain itself. Let it mean what it says.
Deut 7:6, 14:1-2; Isa 44:1, 45:4; Ps 135:4; Rom 11:1-2 then explains 8:29-30.
It’s trustworthy, I promise.
I have studied the Calvinist doctrine quite intensely since I was first introduced to it many years ago, I finally came to the conclusion that it is a false doctrine, thank God. It is very enlightening to hear this video of the explanation to where this doctrine came from and now it all makes sense. Just like any cultist doctrine, it twists and turns scripture into what it was not intended for. Not saying the Calvinist doctrine is a cult like traditional cults are but rather a tying of the hands of Christian believers to the gifts of the spirit and knowing who God is. Thank you Dr. Flowers for helping so many to understand this deterministic viewpoint and how off base they really are.
So let me ask you....you studied with your brain and logic the Scriptures and you figured it out....yeah...but doesn't the Bible say that we live by FAITH not by our logic and sight? If you figured out all the paradoxes of Scripture, you just made your own little religion and you don't know the Scriptures as you think you do. WHO lives your christian life and how do you know that?
Thank you big brother, again
47:15 work ethic- “spent a year reading clement of Rome”; “reading 12 hrs per day, 6 days a week”!
47:40 “learn Latin and Greek”
Thanks for this, its on my favorites list, and my watch again list..
How did I miss my Prof. Dr. Ken Wilson on your channel?! Must watch!!
Great interview. Very educational.
The inconvenient truth for Traditionalists is that the ECF did not believe in Unconditional Eternal Security.
So true. Once-saved-always-saved (OSAS) is not a biblical teaching.
Dr. Kenneth Wilson said, “At the end of my book, I list all of the Scriptures used by the Manichaeans to support their doctrines. And guess which ones they are? They’re the very ones the Calvinists use today.”
Very telling. Calvinists avoid any church father prior to Augustine constantly and they do so because they know that the teaching they hold to did not come until Augustine and the fact that they use the same verses as proof texts as the Manichaean Gnostics did is damning.
"Very telling. Calvinists avoid any church father prior to Augustine constantly and they do so because they know that the teaching they hold to did not come until Augustine"
Wow, seriously?!
So let me get this straight....
Not only do you claim to "know" the reading lists of Calvinists YOU HAVE NEVER MET, but you also claim to "know" their MOTIVES and INTENTIONS as well? Am I understanding you correctly?! At what point in your life did you obtain magical mind-reading ability? Was it before or after you became a Christian?
What is your EVIDENCE for your claim that "Calvinists avoid any church father prior to Augustine"?
Just so you know, I LOVE reading the Apostolic Fathers.
But on the other side of the coin, hopefully you know that Calvinists believe in "Sola Scriptura". So we don't get our theology from "church fathers", we get our theology from the BIBLE. I thought that ALL Protestants believed in sola Scriptura, but perhaps that's something that non-Calvinists have rejected? I don't know...
Jeff Shirton you claim sola scripture, but are unable to read it without your calvinist filter. If you could read it without the calvinist filter, you would see the truth.
@@jaygee2187 Sadly, all you're doing is LYING about me, Jay. Are you familiar with the commandment, "THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS"?!
Let me tell you something.... When I first became a Christian, my church taught me "free will" theology. I didn't know the Bible at all, so I blindly assumed that my church and my pastor knew the Bible better than me. They brought me to LOVE the Bible, and I read it voraciously.
Being a believer in "free will", I read and studied the Bible, and my study of the Bible LED me to Calvinism.
So pray tell me, where was thy "Calvinist filter" when I was not only NOT a Calvinist, but was RABIDLY AGAINST Calvinism theology?
I will accept your apology now.
If you are a true Christian, you will offer it.
Jeff Shirton so where exactly is limited atonement clearly explained? Every verse on the atonement that I find is inclusive, culminating in a universal atonement. If Christ only died for a predetermined ‘elect unto salvation’, where is it stated?
Calvinist filter....that’s what causes you to read what isn’t there.
Jeffy --- You talk a lot of smack, like a big tough guy, but you ran away like a little girl, where did you go, please come back and show us what you've got, by answering the hard defining questions on my OP, with plausible non-contradictory explanations, instead of slithering around elsewhere in the comment section spreading the lies of Calvinist propaganda.
This is a great video.
Just purchased the doc’s book.
Searching other of his videos now.
This was a really good interview.
I don’t know how much longer Calvinists will be able to just bury their heads in the sand and ignore verifiable historical facts.
Well they've been at it for nigh on 400 years so they'll probably keep going a while. After all, what's biblical truth to heretical theologians?
@@nohandle257 While I'm wholeheartedly opposed to the reformed soteriology, I'm not sure we want to delude the meaning of the word "heretic." Heretical teaching is, by definition, teaching that will not allow for salvation if held. I don't personally think that someone being reformed is going to keep them from heaven. Having a correct view of how we receive grace isn't listed as a prerequisite for salvation in scripture. They trust Christ, they just don't understand how they came to do so.
I would not call Calvin a heretic. @@Cyber-Journey Calvin was not a calvinist by what extreme 5 point calvinists proclaim today. But Augustine was gnostic, antisemitic and a corruptor and Denyer of much scripture. Thus, a heretic.
James Franklin Calvinism is definitely not orthodox Christian teaching, as Dr. Wilson demonstrated.
reed scott I would call John Calvin a heretic not by his theology alone but by his actions. No spirit-indwelled believer would condone murder and violence without ultimately feeling conviction and repenting. And Calvin has no excuse because he knew the Bible completely and just ignored what Jesus said about treating people.
Calvinists use the same basic verse proof-texts to refute Free Will that the Manichean Gnostics also used. See 23:53. The whole interview is terrific. The Early Church is a smoking gun against Calvinism.
Keep dreaming.
Thanks Dr Wilson, I bought your book today.....Thanks Dr Flowers - for being an awesome voice !!!!
Great guest and very informative.
Best quote in ages 39:16 - The Calvinist: 'If I can’t imagine how He does it. Then it must be that He can’t.'
Actually, it's not the Calvinist who says that, it's the critic of the Calvinist who says that the Calvinist says that. What Calvinists actually say is more like, "It doesn't matter if I can imagine how God does it. If the Scriptures testify that He does it, then He does it."
Just remember, @@noxvenit, that Calvinists MUST conduct Olympic-level linguistic gymnastics in order to eisegete their ideas into the Text. Thus they are hypocrites when they claim 'sola scriptura.' A 6 year-old can understand John 3:16, but it takes a Calvinist to twist it.
@@IndianaJoe0321 Actually, the 6 year old and the Calvinist have the same understanding of John 3:16. We both believe that "that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life...." The question is, "How does the 'whoseover' come to 'believeth' on him. As the hypocrisy regarding sola scriptura, I'll respond after you give me your understanding of what we mean by the term.
@@IndianaJoe0321 The word whosoever is not in the original language and also the meaning of whosoever will does not necessarily imply a free will nor an universal extent of the atonement anyway if that is what you are concerned with.
@@noxvenit Liar! I’ve actually had tell me that to my face!! Go away, liar!
Salvation History actually points toward the synergy or provision side of things. 2 Esdras 8 addresses the culpability of the damned, and how their own choice to reject God is the cause of their destruction. The 2nd temple literature is full of the awareness of the problem of fatalism vs human responsibility. The screw turns on the human conduct - does he live in fear and repentance or does he reject the Creator? The 2nd temple leaves no room for determinism.
“Augustine brought into Christianity the Manichaean concepts of total inability (infants cannot make a choice), damnable sin at birth, and unconditional election (God chooses unilaterally). This logical deduction from infants being baptized was then extrapolated to adult humans-human choice was unnecessary. Note that the basis for this logical argument was the assumed salvific power of water baptism for an infant combined with the Stoic philosophy of divine meticulous control of all events. We do not possess even one prior extant Christian writing that taught these three pagan ideas.”
“Augustine was the inventor of the five points of Calvinism. His five points of total inability, unconditional election, limited atonement (propitiation), "irresistible" grace, and perseverance are the five points of Calvinism. This is why Helm, as a Calvinist, advocates the term "Augustinian-Calvinism."
Ken Wilson, "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism"; Kindle
I just discovered by watching historian Ryan Reeves videos that Calvin's first literary work while yet an unconverted humanist thinker was a dissertation on Seneca and the Stoics. Revealing.
So you're judging Calvin while an unbeliever? That's revealing of your heart for sure. How about when he was a believer and wrote letters of encouragement to people in prison that lost their lives for Christ? Ever read that?
@@christianmama2441 That's unrelated. He's not talking about Calvin's character but his intellectual influences.
What about his vicious attacks on those who disagreed with him and his support for murdering “heretics”?
@@jordandthornburg Luther was about as bad.
I knew deep in my heart that there MUST be a connection between Calvinism and Gnosticism, the connection is good ol' Augustine of Hippo through his Manicheanism background. I just don't have time to do the research and go back to the sources and roots of Calvinism as Dr. Wilson brilliantly did.
I knew that the Calvinist emphasis on Jehovah God sovereignty was not a religious "pious" way of giving God all the Glory and a Calvinistic "submissive" way to obey God's will .
Calvinism emphasis on God's sovereignty is a GNOSTIC approach/view, that since God is a Spirit (the spiritual is 100% good and pure) being and we as humans have a corporal body (the flesh is 100% evil , corrupted and because of it we are TOTALLY depraved) , that implies that God MUST take over our WILL (our will which is controlled and influenced by the flesh) and SPIRITUALLY ( through the regeneration by The Holy Spirit) save us by the new spiritual rebirth!!!.
There is where Dr. Wilson connected the dots, in Manicheanism God MUST supply ALL the means and CONTROL the process to be able to save the lost souls. That includes giving the lost souls the FAITH to be able to TRUST Jehovah God and believe the Gospel and be save.
Both Manicheanism and Calvinism view the flesh (our WILL is DIRECTLY connected to our FLESH and IS continuously INFLUENCED by IT) as an IMPENETRABLE barrier where a Spirit being like Jehovah God CAN NOT enter without removing OUR WILL which is the reason THAT THE BARRIER CAN NOT be penetrated so Jehovah God could to reestablish a spiritual communication and an intimate relationship with OUR spirit which is dead because of our flesh/barrier !!!
Calvinists are our modern day "Christian" Gnostics (just as Jehovah Witnesses are our modern day Arians) who Paul and John refuted and fought valiantly!. Heresies will always be present , just in different forms and by different religious systems.
Dr. Flowers, I have a question for Dr. Wilson. I just finished his Foundation of AC book. He makes a point of saying that other theologians have missed the timing of Augustine’s change in theology. Why is this significant?
Wow! Excellent!
Does Ken also do doctorin'? I've abnormal (but benign) hypertrophy at the end of the index metacarpals of both hands adjoining the trapeziods. Sometimes painful. Should I have them reduced surgically?
Protestantism operates as a negation of Rome. The soteriology in Protestantism comes from Augustine. Catholic Orthodoxy was not based on the teaching of one man. It was based on the common and universal teaching of the church. Augustine did add the notion that we share in Adams guilt which was a departure from the common teaching of the Greek church fathers on the fall. For example Maximus the Confessor stated "that we inherit NOT Adam’s own sin itself (though humanity has certainly continued to imitate his disobedience); rather, we inherit that generic “sin” that is its consequence: passibility, corruptibility, and mortality". It's important to understand this point because Protestantism's doctrines of grace are based on Augustine's theory of imputed guilt. The problems that occur in Augustine's theology come from the fact that he was cut off from the Eastern fathers because he did not read Greek. Augustine's interpretation of Romans 5:12 was faulty for the same reason. He only read Latin. The idea that nature is evil is Manacheanism. That is why Eastern Orthodoxy has consistently rejected Augustine's doctrine of Original sin. Paul the apostle rejects Augustine's doctrine because he states in Romans 5:14 that "sin reigned in death". Sin did not reign through imputed evil. If nature became evil at the fall the incarnation would not be possible. Augustine obviously believed in the incarnation but his theology lacks consistency and harmony with the universal teachings of the church. Augustine's doctrine of the fall only takes hold in the West around 800 years after the apostles. This is why Rome and the Reformers end up with a false anthropology. Protestantism develops the theology of the Noetic effects of sin as one element in Augustine's doctrine of Original sin. The noetic doctrine is the mental effects of the fall. This is why you get the idea of the bondage of the will. The human will is a function of human nature and thus you get the doctrine of total depravity. The will is destroyed in its ability to do anything salvific toward God. But this noetic doctrine also states that the believer never shakes off the noetic effects of sin even after conversion. This means that you can never have any degree of certainty in your understanding of scripture or your own salvation. This is why Protestants generally will sit under hours of expository preaching trying to mine out some level of certainty in their faith. It's all ratiocination to the tenth degree. When I was a Calvinist I would often run across people who would struggle with their election. Am I really saved or am I deceiving myself? This Noetic doctrine comes from a false anthropology. And it has devastating emotional effects on people. I was surprised that this discussion never referenced the fact that Augustine held to the Platonic doctrine of absolute divine simplicity. If Dr. Wilson is an expert in Augustine he should be aware of this fact. Augustine, when he wrote on the Trinity, had difficulties with the epiphanies in the Bible. The doctrine of absolute simplicity says that to make a distinction in God is to imply division or composition. Since God is absolutely simple any divine action such as Jesus walking on the water would have to be a created effect since the divine essence cannot appear in time or space. Platonism does by its doctrine equate any divine action to be isomiphorically identical with the essence of God. This is exactly why the West believes in created grace instead of uncreated grace. This is what leads to Atheism in the West. Augustine had no knowledge of the Person/nature distinction in God nor did he know the theology of the essence/energy distinction which would have cleansed him of his Platonism. The common and universal teaching of the church fathers and the church councils teach these doctrines. The church fathers reject the Platonic notion that to make a distinction in God implies division or composition. The fact that we make a distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does not mean that God is not simple or whole. There is no dialectic tension between the one and the many. The filioque heresy on the Holy Spirit flows from Platonism. The Papal Galactic Emporer in Rome comes from the heresy of absolute divine simplicity. The analoglia entis and analogia fidei doctrines come from absolute divine simplicity. And the strict predestinarianism of the Reformers comes from Platonism. So this discussion missed the real central problems with Augustine. At the end of this discussion, both Leighton Flowers and Dr. Wilson seem to agree that we need to return to a traditionalism that was held to by the early church. I agree. This discussion leads me to believe that both of these men are on the road to Eastern Orthodoxy. When I listened to them talk I remember my own struggles with these subjects. The Next Step is to believe in the Apostolic Church which is the visible institutional Church. No Protestant or Evangelical Church has any authority because they are not Apostolic. The Orthodox Church is only the Apostolic Church. Orthodoxy has the proper spiritual understanding of the text of scripture. Because it has Apostolic succession. Orthodoxy is historic traditionalism. Welcome to Orthodoxy.
Randy, I really enjoyed reading your commentary, this is probably the eventual line of reasoning that led Hank Hanegraaff to Orthodoxy.
@@JohnQPublic11 I really don't know about Hank Hanegraaff. Everybody has their own path when it comes to discovering what Orthodoxy teaches. Hank Hanegraaff seems a little strange to me because he seems to think that you can just practice some kind of ecumenism, mixing Protestantism with Orthodoxy. If you understand Orthodoxy there is no way you can mix Protestantism with Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is difficult to communicate to people with a Western mindset. That's because a lot of theological and philosophical Concepts have been lost in the West. Since the West is so focused on human reason it doesn't put any emphasis on metaphysics. Orthodoxy it's filled with metaphysics. The biggest problem with Protestants is that most of them don't even know what they believe.
Randy Churchill --- I agree with your last comment. I have to admit I am 100% committed to human reason as the only means of comprehending reality, but its also the only means to comprehending metaphysics, which I have no problem with as long as it isn't a topic on George Nory's CoasttoCoast show. lol! There used to be several Orthodox commenters in here, I haven't seen them lately. Can you recommend a 1-4 good books that would further our investigation and understanding of Orthodoxy as you see it and outlined it in your commentary above? Thanks,
Hey Randy, Your right about the fact that Protestantism can't really make sense of church history because it is trying to interpret history and judge what was believed in the past by it's own standards which are ahistorical. This discussion about Augustine is a good example. Protestants like to mine the church fathers kind of like Jew's mine the Talmud. But Protestants seem to always miss the major points that would expose their heresies. I think your reference to the idea of absolute divine simplicity is something that was completely missed by Dr Wilson. Augustine was not really a Protestant in any way. The Reformers cherry picked Augustine but they rejected much of what Augustine believed and practiced. Orthodoxy has a stream of history back to the apostles. In that sense they are at a supreme advantage when it comes to who judges who.
@@JohnQPublic11 Your statement that you are 100% committed to human reason is the philosophy that flows through all western thought since the Enlightenment. The emphasis on human reason leads to empiricism, materialism, and atheism in the West. As to your question regarding where you go for more information and books to help you understand Orthodoxy I would point you here:
Jay Dyer is one of the best places to go to understand the contrast between the East and the West. He has over 900 UA-cam videos on a broad range of subjects. He has a web page Jaysanalysis dot com which will give you suggested reading on Orthodoxy and other subjects. He charges 4.95 a month to access his member's archive which has tons of articles that he has written over many years. On UA-cam, you will find lectures on many of the subjects I referenced including the concept of Absolute Divine Simplicity which is essential to understand when contrasting the East vs the West. Here are some links to key videos on Protestantism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and philosophy.
Search on UA-cam the following video titles:
Popes, Protestants, Palamas & Philosophy: Jay Dyer on GlobalStoryline.
This video is good because it is an interview where Jay lays out the central points in history where the West goes away from Orthodoxy and all the errors that occur in Protestantism as a result of these heresies.
Protestantism & Evangelicalism Refuted - Jay Dyer
This video is excellent. It blows Protestantism away. If you want to listen to the second half of this lecture you will have to subscribe to Jay's web page. On most of Jay's videos, he gives a recommended reading list of the subject he is lecturing on. He also gives a recommended reading list on his web page.
Debating Roman Catholic Absolute Simplicity & Aquinas: Jay Dyer Vs. Dr. Francis Feingold
Eastern & Latin Theology & The Essence - Energy Distinction - Jay Dyer
Jay Dyer Debates Nick Fuentes of America First Media - Roman Catholicism Vs Orthodoxy
The Bible Alone? Debate - Jay Dyer Vs RC Apologist
This should get you started. If you search on Jay's UA-cam channel you will find many lectures on Roman Catholicism which is helpful because the Reformers will bring a lot of heretical ideas from Catholicism into their Protestantism. Hope this is helpful.
I don't think I've ever heard an interviewer talk as much as Leighton!
I should have enrolled in Grace Theological Seminary!
This video perfectly captures the point where all the differences the non Calvinist Christian and the Calvinist begin. It seems like the Calvinists inability to see that Gods knowledge of the future doesn’t determine the future and that freewill doesn’t undermine Gods ability to know the future is where all the differences start. If I tell the Calvinist that God died for all men then they believe that must mean that all must be saved because God can’t desire something without it coming to pass. They think if it didn’t come to pass then God failed in some way. The obvious problem is that God desires for all PEOPLE to repent which requires them to FREELY choose to repent. It’s not as if God is saying HE desires to make people repentant by using His power over them. That would be a failure if it didn’t come to pass but clearly that’s not what is being said. God decreed that believers will be saved. God didn’t decree the belief of believers. Again this is just an error by adding something to the text by using a deterministic presupposition. It’s not as if the text says that but if the presupposition of determinism is true then the text must infer all the baggage the Calvinist attributes to it. Baggage like the context God loving the world is God loving the elect. So somehow the world means the elect not everyone. Than the context of God desiring all people to repent becomes God only desires the ones who will repent to repent. It makes you wonder why God desires anything when the Calvinist says He determines all He desires. Another words what’s the hold up? The equate believing in Christ with the ability to save yourself when the only ones saying that is the Calvinists themselves. They agree faith is not a work but then turn around and attribute ones free choices to believe is what partially saves them? If salvation is the work of God (we all agree it is) and faith is not a work then faith doesn’t save. It’s a failure of logic to say faith isn’t a work and then say it is when you are freely put your faith in Christ. It can’t be both. I just would appreciate that the Calvinist be consistent or it becomes pointless to have a fruitful conversation to really explain why we disagree. God bless
Pretty much everything you said is a "straw man" argument. Calvinists don't say what you claim they do.
For example, you say, "If I tell the Calvinist that God died for all men then they believe that must mean that all must be saved because God can’t desire something without it coming to pass." This is plainly false. All Calvinists believe that the Law is the expression of God's will ("the will of his precept"), that is, his "desire" that all men should obey. And all Calvinists recognize that all men do not obey the Law. Nevertheless, no Calvinist I've ever known or heard has said that God desiring men to obey determines that they will obey. That is utter nonsense. It is a caricature of Calvinism. You would do better sticking to explaining what you yourself believe, rather than trying to tell us what Calvinists believe.
Let me ask you this, based upon your same statement: do you believe that Jesus Christ actually put away the sins of all men, so that full payment was made, and God's wrath was thereby eternally averted? Or do you believe that Christ only potentially put away the sins of all men, so that God's wrath is only potentially averted, full payment was only potentially made, and they could potentially still suffer in hell for their sins?
Well said.
@@michaelpfleegor6453 I appreciate the example of Calvinists being inconsistent. I’ll use that in next interaction about Calvinism and see if helps. God desires mankind to follow the law. Mankind doesn’t follow the law. Therefore God failed! Don’t you see that as inconsistent with the Calvinist argument that if God died for the sins of everyone and all aren’t saved then I believe that God failed? I don’t believe that obviously and that makes it really ridiculous argument about something I don’t believe but if the Calvinist makes the argument then am I wrong to believe they believe what they are arguing? I couldn’t tell you how many times I have heard that. Well I guess it’s more of an accusation than an argument but obviously they must believe it or that’s completely dishonest. I never had to attribute dishonesty to a Calvinist but if you are saying that Calvinists don’t believe that strawman they are accusing the non Calvinist of then I’ll make sure to let the Calvinists who use it know that that has nothing to do with Calvinism nor do I believe that so stop being dishonest. I really do appreciate that. What about faith being a work that “partially saves you?” I get this one almost every time. “You think you can decide whether or God saved you!” Or “You think you can thwart Gods plans of salvation “. Yes I commonly get this when I argue that Calvinism is false. I’ll just give the other two I get just so you can tell me if all of these accusations are dishonest from Calvinists. “You just don’t like Gods sovereignty” and “you have a man centered theology”. The last one I agree with but they are thinking different than I. I do have a man centered theology. The man Christ Jesus is the center of my theology. It just happens HE is also God but I guess they forgot. Oh forgot one more I’m sorry. “What makes you better than the unbeliever?” I don’t think I’m better. I think everyone needs Jesus and I realize questions aren’t arguments but I’m not exaggerating that I could almost guarantee to hear at least two of these “arguments”. You would be the first Calvinist I ever heard outright reject these accusations from the Calvinist view. James White uses them all the time. Maybe I just get the unfortunate people that believe him. I don’t know but I really can’t wait for your response.
As for the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement, I can’t imagine how you can deny how the doctrine dictates the interpretation of scripture. “ he died for the sins of the world, especially those who believe.” That alone states He died especially for believers AND what’s the category that doesn’t include the believers? Would you argue for nonbelievers being the “elect”? Limited atonement is the most rejected doctrine of the TULIP by Calvinists. Exactly zero scriptures make anything close to supporting limited atonement. The scriptures say the opposite. Many Calvinist scholars acknowledge this. You could try to provide a scripture that makes that claim but I don’t know if any that exist. At least none in the 66 books of the Bible. Maybe you have some gnostic text or something but that ain’t scripture. So thank you for pointing out that fallacy of the one Calvinist tactic and please let me know about the others. Feel free to provide the limited atonement scriptures but don’t waste to much time because they aren’t hidden somewhere. They just don’t exist.
@@danpaulisbitski Hah! 🤣 You didn't even answer my question. Not surprised.
So when will Flowers finally accept that OSAS is also gnostic, not biblical, and also not what the Ante-Nicene Church taught either?
Also, accept what they also unanimously held, that all remarriage while previous spouses still live, is adultery, that must be forsaken in repentance. And that it is a salvation issue.
Whoa!! You're not me! ; ) One of us needs to change our name. I checked - I was here first!
Eternal security is not gnostic in its correct basis. A gnostic (or a calvinist) would say the decision has been made for you, so it is permanently decided because of that, but that is not the Biblical reason someone in Christ is eternally secure. The correct reason for security of salvation is that the same Spirit that prompts and enables one (who is lost and has not the Spirit of God) with the power of God unto salvation (which is the gospel) to turn from his carnal self and trust in Christ for salvation; the Spirit then inhabits that person and seals (preserves) the resulting relationship unto the day of redemption (when in his presence one receives glorification and the redemption process is complete).
Refer to Ephesians 4:30
Also see 1Corinthians 1:22
I know this is way to late but I didn't want someone reading the comments to be led astray.
Dr. Flowers, Please let us know when Dr. Ken Wilson's book may be available. Your work is more than critical for brothers who espouse determinism, in disregard of Scripture.
He has stuff available. See the more recent interview with Wilson discussing it.
Great study. I am really blessed
Strongly disagree that God is living in the past present and future. That would mean that Jesus is still on the cross. It would also mean that we were eternal and have always existed along with God. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know where people come up with stuff like the eternal now view. I'd like to know where that originated because it's not in the Bible. It's the philosophy of men.
There is chronos time and kairos time. Chronos time is dependent on the changing of the material world to mark its passing. That's our time as we come to perceive it, almost exclusively linearly and future-facing. God's time is kairos time, the ever present and eternal being than can interact with all past, present, and future. The sacrifice both occurred linearly as a single event in our past and is a perpetual sacrifice through kairos. The book of Revelation says that Christ is our Alpha and Omega, and yet there is no time that has ever truly existed without Him.
@@angelahull9064 Stop overthinking it.
@@bobbyadkins6983just talking as the Church Fathers would
@@angelahull9064 Show me in the Bible where it talks about the two different kinds of time instead of telling what the "church fathers" taught or believed. The earliest church fathers are the ones in the Bible and they didn't mention such a thing.
@@bobbyadkins6983 A thousand years are but a moment to God don't ring a bell? And really, do you not pay attention to all the time changes and lack of chronology in the Book of Revelation?
Superb video Leighton! Dr Wilson knowledge on this topic is amazing! I learned so much! It helped me clear some doubts that i had myself! Thank you and God bless you ALL!
“God created us without us: but He did not will to save us without us.” (St. Augustine, 169,11,13:PL 38,923)