Jesus said you did not choose me but I have chosen you. John 15:16 I cannot get around this straight forwardness the Lord makes. Some say he was talking about the disciples so would that mean they are the branches and not us? He goes to prepare a place for them only and not us?
Indeed. So many sadly cannot countenance the reality you point to. Being carnal, they will fight even the sovereignty of God Almighty, to preserve their man-made doctrine. Provisionists for example, will say that in v. 16, Jesus chose disciples to bear fruit, and not for salvation... not realizing that those who bear fruit will be saved, such that one cannot be disassociated from the other (Rom 6:22).
Because choosing refers to spreading the Gospel and service and not the doctrine for salvation. The decreed way for salvation is thru the Gospel. Romans 10:3 They have not understood the way that God accepts people. Instead, they tried to make their own way to become right with God. They refused to accept God's way that would make them right with him. Romans 10:9-10 The message is this: You must say clearly that Jesus is the Lord. Also, you must believe deep inside yourself that God raised him to life again after his death. Then God will save you. God accepts people as right with him when they believe like that, deep inside themselves. And when people say clearly that Jesus is Lord, God saves them.
Distinction without a difference: Provisionism /doesn't understand the relation of obedience to final salvation. Encourage you to watch my explainer on eternal life: ua-cam.com/video/2cuuzZp-vak/v-deo.html "But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your FRUIT to holiness, and the end, EVERLASTING LIFE." Rom 6:22 and Paul again: "that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may ATTAIN to the RESURRECTION from the dead Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I PRESS ON, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the PRIZE of the UPWARD call of God in Christ Jesus." Phil 3:10-14 and author to Hebrews: "For God is not unjust to forget your WORK and LABOR of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have MINISTERED to the saints, and do MINISTER. And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end, that you do NOT become sluggish, but imitate those who through faith and patience INHERIT the PROMISES." Heb 6:10-12
Mark 7:14 "And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:" 1. An indiscriminate call to all (without exception) to come hear what He has to say. 2. He tells them, every one of you (the entire audience within earshot) to hearken and understand. 3. Inevitable conclusion: He considers them capable of hearkening and understanding. Only a presupposition based dogmatic prejudice, such as the need for a gnostic divine download, would cause someone to "yeah, but..." and embark on a proof texting fallacy foray.
In Mark 7:16-18, which you did not quote, Jesus says: " If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear! When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also?..." So a closer look at the context shows that they did not all have ears to hear ("IF anyone has ears"). In fact even the disciples lacked understanding. So Jesus explains the saying to them privately, but He does NOT explain it to the masses. The Provisionist will say that's because they could hear but refused to learn of their free will. But Jesus said it was a question of their not possessing the faculty of hearing/understanding, which they did not have because of their wickedness. Thus, the call to everyone to hear in v. 14 is understood as going out to all in a general sense, but to only some in an effective sense. For no one will be able to gainsay God on judgment day by saying "It was not proclaimed to me". So Jesus acts righteously here, while also addressing the few who had been given ears to hear by the Father. As I quoted in the episode: "Yet the LORD has NOT GIVEN you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day." Deut 29:4 and "To whom shall I speak and give warning, That they may hear? Indeed their ear is uncircumcised, And they CANNOT give heed." (Jer 6:10) So the only proof-texting here is a half quote of Mark 7:14 while ignoring the plain contextual relevance of Is 50:4, 53:1, and 55:10-11 to Jesus's quote of Is 54:13 in John 6:45...
At the beginning, this man you said James and Leighton both missed something, but throughout the video, it was all a defense of Calvinistic presupposition
White did not recognize the contextual importance of Isaiah 50:4, 53:1 and 55:10 to the right interpretation of 54:13, which is the very quote of Jesus in John 6:45. He failed to make that central point. Re "it was all a defense of Calvinistic presupposition": it's one thing to merely assert this, yet another to engage with the argument made... Calvinism is mistaken on limited atonement and other aspects of the faith. Over time I will be addressing that, but that wasn't the point of this episode.
Lazarus was dead. Jesus had to resurrect him before he commanded him to come forth because dead bodies cannot respond to verbal commands. I was Arminian for 40 years. I would have been at the feet of Flowers. But God opened my ears so that now I've grown sick of the sound of Flowers' voice. Because God graciously made me a Calvinist, I'm now sickened by how many are being deceived by Flowers' lies. I ask that God give another great awakening to deliver people from the disease of Arminianism.
You said, God is just and righteous to deny revelation to most BECAUSE most hate Him and ARE stiff necked. Yet, (you say) He has taught us because of His grace, NOT BECAUSE OF ANYTHING IN US. Being stiff necked is in us. Being NOT stiff necked is in us. But, you’re saying it’s by His grace, NOT because of anything in us? Wouldn’t, therefore, His grace teach those who are stiff necked, since~~ it’s NOT because of anything in us? This is contradicting.
Hi Krissy, thanks for your comment. Your major premise is mistaken, "Being NOT stiff necked is in us". That's precisely what is denied by the Scripture presented in this episode. God has mercy/compassion upon whom He has mercy/compassion and yet without loss of justice/righteousness. One has to reckon with the force His own words, speaking of His Word sent forth: "It shall accomplish WHAT I PLEASE", not what you or I think ought to be. So there is an asymmetry in the execution of the righteousness of God. Salvation is purely of grace to the undeserving, and judgment is according to works. Both are true and abundantly evident in Scripture.
God has mercy on whom God will have mercy you read that as a limiting statement because of your presuppositions. God was telling the jews He will show mercy because of who He is not because of who the Jews were. The jews believed they were going to be shown mercy because God was obligated to them because of their heritage and relationship to God being His chosen people. God show's mercy because he is merciful. Jonah knew God's Character jonha knew God would show mercy to the ninevites not because God was obligated to show mercy but because God is merciful. Your systematic besmirches God's Character. We should all be like Jonah knowing God's propensity to show mercy. Yet we have people claiming to know God people claiming to have been showed mercy themselves yet say there is a group of people God hates and willnever show mercy to.
Strawman re "because of who the Jews were", that's #1. #2, yes, God shows mercy because He's merciful, but that's neither here nor there. The point of Ex 33:19 is that God has mercy UPON WHOM HE WILLS. By definition, that is a selective decision, and not a general one. #3, God's mercy towards Nineveh upholds point 2 above. Don't forget that God contrariwise did not show mercy to Tyre and Sidon, for example. And Jesus said that had great miracles been done there, they would have repented. And yet God did not send them a prophet, like He sent Jonah to Nineveh. So the question to you is: why did God show mercy to Nineveh and yet not to Tyre and Sidon? Nineveh just like Tyre or Sidon, was a wicked city (Jonah 1:1). God sent Christ to die for the entire world, not just the elect, contra calvinists, who are mistaken on limited atonement. And yet, "...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18). As such, God is righteous and just to deny them mercy.
Did not the Lord say that Judas was an exception? "...Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled" (John 17:12)
Judas was chosen as the son of perdition. He was not one of the elect. Btw, there is much more to this topic concerning the elect that I have not revealed yet, so would encourage you to subscribe to the channel...
I don’t understand why John6:44 gets all the focus on this matter.. John 6:65 is MUCH more explicit and convincing. Why doesn’t that verse get more attention??
John 6:65 is another way of stating the contents of John 6:44-45. It fits especially well with the important backdrop of Isaiah 50:4, which I explain in the video...
1Corinthians 2:14 For context, Paul wrote 1Corinthians in response to hearing of the division among the believers in Corinth from Chloe (1Corinthians 1:11), as well as to answer the letter filled with questions that they were dividing over (1Corinthians 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12), so he is urging them to be united. The first issue that the Corinthians were dividing over was pride and authority based upon whom they followed or who immersed them (1Corinthians 1:12; 3:21; 4:6). The first reason for their pride was because they misunderstood the Gospel message--we are ALL equal and we are all saved by grace through faith (1Corinthians 1:18-31). THIS is why Paul speaks of LOST people, as he is demonstrating that all lost people, Gentile OR Jew, are saved the same way. It is NOT a comparison between saved and lost. The foolish who were chosen by God are the Gentiles who did not KNOW Him to be included in the New Covenant of God’s grace (1Corinthians 1:18-31). This is what the Jews who had not accepted the Messiah were objecting to in Romans 9. They were foolish of God’s Word, of His Covenant law revealed through Moses. This was a shame to the Jews who were given the law, but still did not believe it. Christ condemned them for this saying that if they believed Moses, they WOULD believe Him, because Moses wrote ABOUT Him. God is saving and blessing the foolish and base Gentiles in order to HUMBLE the Jews (1Corinthians 1:27) and to prove to them that what they hold to is futile (1Corinthians 1:28), just as Paul later said that he wins Gentiles for Christ in hopes of making his fellow Jews JEALOUS of God’s blessings (Romans 11:11-14) that they might then repent (Romans 11:20, 23, 30-31), which is also God’s plan (Deuteronomy 32:21; Romans 10:19) and His WISDOM (Romans 11:33). God’s plan was not only to bless the Gentiles by including them in the New Covenant, but also to make His people JEALOUS by them (Deuteronomy 32:21; Romans 10:19; see also Romans 11:11-14), that they might turn and repent (Romans 11:20, 23, 30-31) when He was through temporarily hardening them (Romans 11:25), which was for the purpose of crucifying Christ for us (1Corinthians 2:8-9; Mark 4:11-12) AND so that the Apostles would turn to the Gentiles with the Gospel (Romans 11:15, 19-20, 25, 30). THIS is the “Wisdom of God” (Romans 11:33; 1Corinthians 1:21, 24, 30; 2:7-8). Therefore, ONLY those who HUMBLE themselves and repent are “called” (1Corinthians 1:24), or rather “NAMED,” as in they are now called “His People” (who were originally NOT His people). Only a few of the WISE Jews are now “His People,” because only a few repented and believed. ALL are elect now in that both Jews corporately AND gentiles corporately can be saved by grace through faith, and anyone who hears the Gospel is called (1Corinthians 1:24). Paul continues his argument that we are all equal by pointing out that it was not through worldly wisdom that his preaching to them won them to Christ, but by the POWER/ABILITY of the Holy Spirit (1Corinthians 2:1-5). Paul goes further to say that he DOES teach wisdom, which is the deeper truths or the “solid food” (1Corinthians 3:2), of God's Word (1Corinthians 2:6-13), but THIS is only for believers who are MATURE (1Corinthians 2:14-16) and the believers in Corinth were NOT (1Corinthians 3:1-3) BECUASE of their PRIDE (1Corinthians 3:4), so they could only take the “milk” (1Corinthians 3:2). Paul later specifies that “milk” is the “elementary” (Hebrews 5:12; 6:1) and “foundational” teachings of “repentance from dead works and of faith toward God” (Hebrews 6:1), the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment (Hebrews 6:2), as opposed to “solid food” (Hebrews 5:12, 14), which includes things such as typology of the Old Testament pointing to Christ (Hebrews 5:9-11). Therefore, Paul is not saying that unregenerate men are unable to understand the Gospel or to repent and have faith because they are natural and not spiritual, men of the flesh (1Corinthians 2:14). In fact, Paul wasn’t even referring to lost, unregenerate people (1Corinthians 2:14). Rather, he was actually writing about the Corinthians, who were SAVED and therefore REGENERATE (1Corinthians 1:2, 6-8), but who were STILL “natural men” and “men of the flesh” (1Corinthians 3:1-4), and therefore IMMATURE believers who could not understand the DEEPER things of God, so Paul could only give them Spiritual MILK (1Corinthians 3:2), which implies that people who ARE natural CAN understand and receive the basic truths which are considered the milk of God’s Word. 1Corinthians 2:14-3:4 (literal translation) 14 But a NATURAL/PHYSICAL/WORLDLY (ψυχικός) man does not receive/accept the things of the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him; and he is not enabled (or does not enable himself, middle or passive voice) to understand, because he [is] spiritually questioning/judging/discerning. 15 Now the spiritual [man] questions/examines all, but he himself is questioned/examined by no one. 16 “For who has known a mind/thought of [the] Master, who has proven/advised Him?” (quoting Isaiah 40:13). But we have a mind/thought of Christ. 1 And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual men but as to FLESHLY MEN, as to INFANTS/CHILDREN IN CHRIST. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not food. For YOU WERE NOT YET ABLE. Yet now you are STILL NOT ABLE, 3 for you ARE STILL FLESHLY MEN. For since among you jealousy/envy and rivalry/strife/discord, are you not FLESHLY MEN walking around (idiom meaning “living” down from/among people/humans? 4 For whenever anyone says, “I,” on the one hand, “I am with Paul,” and another, “I with Apollos,” are you not [like] people/humans? Note that Paul doesn’t use the word φύσις (phusis), which means nature (i.e. Ephesians 2:3), but he uses ψυχικὸς (psukikos), which means worldly (1Corinthians 2:14). This isn’t referring to how someone is born, but how they are CURRENTLY behaving or living. The natural man has a “natural body” (1Corinthians 15:44), which is the flesh. Paul spoke of still being in his “flesh” in his epistle to Rome (Romans 7:14-25). Even though we have been set free (Romans 8:2) and we live according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4) and not in the flesh (Romans 8:9), our body is still “dead because of sin” (Romans 8:10-11). We must put the “body of flesh” to death daily (Romans 8:11-14), and it must ultimately be removed by Christ (Colossians 2:11). So, just as believers, who ARE regenerate, can act like worldly men (1Corinthians 2:14-3:4) and can still be influenced by the flesh at times (Romans 7:14-25); lost people can make spiritual decisions by the grace of God and under the influence of the Holy Spirit, which is done by and through His WORD. And this is demonstrated in Scripture. Paul explicitly states that Gentiles without the law “DO THINGS of the law by NATURE” (Romans 2:14). He also said that the Romans OBEYED God from the heart WHILE they were still slaves to sin (Romans 6:17). Romans 2:14 (literal translation) “For whenever Gentiles not having the law by NATURE DO the things of the law, these not having the law to themselves ARE a law.” David speaks of the ungodly who have CEASED doing good (Psalm 36:1-3), which means they formerly DID. Lost people are said to FEAR God (Acts 13:43) BEFORE they believed the Gospel (Acts 13:48). Lydia was a WORSHIPER of God BEFORE God opened her heart to respond (Acts 16:14) and BEFORE she was saved (Acts 16:15). Similarly, Cornelius feared God (Acts 10:2, 22, 35), prayed continually (Acts 10:2), and was even called a RIGHTEOUS man (Acts 10:22) who did what was right (Acts 10:35) all BEFORE He was born again and indwelt with the Spirit (Acts 11:13-14). Note also that Cornelius was portrayed as an “unclean beast” in a vision given to Peter (Acts 10:9-16). Context always kills Calvinist proof texts... you guys see these things because you presume Calvinism, then read these passages and do not even QUESTION your presuppositions or if the passage could be saying anything else.
Re: "IMMATURE believers who could not understand the DEEPER things of God, so Paul could only give them Spiritual MILK (1Corinthians 3:2), which implies that people who ARE natural CAN understand and receive the basic truths which are considered the milk of God’s Word." You are claiming that the natural man of 1 Cor 2:14 only refers to a carnal believer. But the verse does not restrict the scope of the things of God to the _deeper_ things... What the verse says plainly is this: "For the natural man does not receive the THINGS [a general marker of all things, not only the deep things] of the Spirit of God..." What the natural man *cannot* (speaks to ability, not choice) receive (1 Cor 2:14c) is the things of the Spirit of God, which Paul says are *foolishness* to him. But this foolishness, read in context, also refers to the CROSS, which is the basic truth of the Gospel: "For the message of the cross is FOOLISHNESS to those who are perishing" in 1 Cor 1:18. Those who are perishing are carnal men too, who live according to the flesh..they cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God which includes the CROSS, first and foremost. So you commit the exegetical fallacy of semantic disjunction and restriction here. That's #1. Re: "Paul goes further to say that he DOES teach wisdom, which is the deeper truths or the “solid food” (1Corinthians 3:2), of God's Word, (1Corinthians 2:6-13), but THIS is only for believers who are MATURE (1Corinthians 2:14-16) and the believers in Corinth were NOT (1Corinthians 3:1-3) BECUASE of their PRIDE (1Corinthians 3:4), so they could only take the “milk” (1Corinthians 3:2). " This is an interpolation/addition to Scripture: Paul doesn't speak of wisdom in 1 Cor 3:2, let alone redefine wisdom as you do, to be only equated with the "deeper truths" or "solid food". What he says instead is this: "I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able" (1 Cor 3:2) The verses where he DOES define wisdom, on the other hand, are 1 Cor 1:21-24: "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through the wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the MESSAGE PREACHED to save those who believe... but we preach Christ crucified.. Christ the WISDOM of God." So the wisdom of God chiefly consists in the preaching of Christ crucified. And this wisdom is also described as DEEP in Rom 11:33 "Oh, the DEPTH of the riches both of the WISDOM...and knowledge of God". (Rom 11:33). Thus, you have essentially conflated a number of concepts here... That's #2 Coming back to that first quote of yours above: "which implies that people who ARE natural CAN understand and receive the basic truths which are considered the milk of God’s Word." You flat out deny Scripture here which says the opposite. First, the natural man in the immediate context is better interpreted as also meaning the sensual man beyond the sense of a natural body, i.e., the carnal man. In other words, your distinction between psychikos and sarkikos is a one without a difference. For the sensual man IS the carnal man: "Are you not carnal and behaving like MERE MEN"?, i.e., unbelievers. So you cannot restrict the scope of 1 Cor 2:14 to believers, the Word forbids you. Thats's #3. 3 strikes and you're out. (there's so much more I could say but won't for time)
And that's precisely why God teaches effectively as per Isaiah 50:4, an effective teaching reflected in Is 53:1 and Is 55:10-11, even if it is for the few and not the many.
You cannot read vs 44 And 45 And ignore vs 47. So who does God raise? Those not only who are drawn, hear And taught but only those who "believe". Leighton is right. The jews were drawn, they heard And they were taught. But did they believe? A person can be drawn, hear And be taught but they need to " Believe". To Believe is the heart of the drawing, hearing And teaching.
First, you conflate drawing and believing. While they are related concepts, they are not equivalent. Second, this is the logical fallacy of begging the question, since it _assumes_ that a person can be drawn, i.e., hear and taught, but not believe. That needs to be demonstrated by the Provisionist camp, not assumed. In the video I go over the contextual background of Is 50:4, 53:1, 55:10-11: that's the key to understanding Jesus' quote of is 54:13 in John 6:45. Hope you won't ignore that.
Drawing is the action/work of the Father upon the given that effectively leads them to faith. My explanation for why this is effective is in the video. Maybe an example will help, Paul's conversion: when the Father drew him to the Son, was that drawing effective? I think you would say: "Yes it was for Paul, but it isn't necessarily effective for all, for all do not believe", right? That's what Leighton would say. But what you miss is that in 2 Cor 4:6, Paul likens every believer's conversion to his own conversion, by analogy to the light that shone in the darkness at creation: "For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in *our* hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." At creation, the darkness could not have resisted the light. And that same light is what shone in our hearts, Paul says. Therefore, the drawing is effective to bring every believer to faith in Christ.
@@gracefortheprize in the context of John 6, Jesus is already in conversation with his listeners ie the Jews. So isn't that "drawing"? Secondly they were hearing as jesus was talking with them. Thirdly they were learning ie analysing what jesus was telling them. But did they believe?
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him..." In context, it is the FATHER who does the drawing... As in the example I gave you above, 2 Cor 4:6, where there too, is the Father/God who shone the light in OUR hearts, Paul says. But you are quiet about that...
It's only debatable to you because of your Provisionist presuppositions. Why is it debatable? Where is your reasoning? It is precisely because Is 50:4 references Jesus and Isaiah that it is applicable to every believer. If He needed revelation/teaching from God as a human, then how much more does any believer do, as we see in Peter's case, where Jesus tells him that it is *NOT* his own flesh and blood (which includes his own will) that revealed the truth of the Gospel to him (Matt 16:15-17). Same with Paul, Nathanael, Lydia and every other believer.
Isaiah 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; and 52:13-53:12. Are the 4 servant songs of Isaiah. So verse 50:4 is about Christ not us. Verse 5 really does it in if you want to apply that to believers 5 The Lord God has opened my ear, and I was not rebellious; I turned not backward. 6 I gave my back to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard; I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting. He seems to say he wasn't rebellious or turned his back which would mean he could have done otherwise so it still doesn't support Calvinism.
Non sequitur. As I said in the episode, by a fortiori, if it applied to Isaiah and Christ, it does apply to every one who believes as well. And re verse 5: "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Matt 5:39. Do you deny that?
I guess I would say I'm a 4 point calvinist. I don't believe that there is or was a limited atonement. I do believe that man is totally depraved and can't choose salvation without the Holy Spirit. Just as Jesus told Nicodemus that the Holy Spirit moves as He wishes, and that real Christians were picked before the foundation of the world 🌎 . ALL who the Father chose for Jesus to have a people will believe. The one critique of Calvinism is that supposedly they don't want to evangelize is ridiculous. No one knows who the elect are until AFTER a person believes. And after you believe you can study Scripture and see that you were chosen. God OPENED up Lydia's heart to receive the Gospel. The centurion was chosen for Peter to tell the Gospel to so that he was made a believer. Who the Father chose and draws for Jesus will come to Him. That is irresistible grace. Grace and faith are a gift from God so as for us to even Believe so that there can be no boasting. ALL are under the grip of Satan, dead in there trespasses and sin. No one would choose Christ without election and the faith given from God. If Jesus is truly your Lord and Savior a Christian will automatically persevere to the end. God's Word does not return void. God is Sovereign, period. Not man. Everything God does is for His glory, not man's.
Good for you re limited atonement, Moses Amyraut had something important to contribute indeed. That said, I'd encourage you to subscribe to the channel. There's much more to the greatest story ever told than what's been handed down to us... start here: ua-cam.com/video/2cuuzZp-vak/v-deo.html. Blessings.
The semi-pelagian and provisionist Flowers typically asserts his man-centered interpretation of scripture. I have watched countless Soteriology 101 vids and I find them lacking in correct exegesis of biblical verses. James White, on the other hand is far more correct in exegesis but he at times does not insist on his biblical position when debating. So we have a provisionist who fails to understand Spiritual revelation, because of his man-centered interpretation of scripture, and a Calvinist who struggles at times to communicate basic biblical text. White wins. Class dismissed.
Limited Atonement, definition of regeneration, the WCF's definition of faith (covered that in episode 7).. there's more, but not a trivial thing to unpack. Subscribe if you are interested and will reveal over time, God willing...
Is this free grace carbage ? When you lift up one single attribute, you get unbalanced theology. I read The defence of free grace theology book. Not biblical stuff.
See my other episodes, especially episode 8 "Strive for the Narrow Gate" where I debunk the gist of the free grace view: ua-cam.com/video/EMBmTuYU__A/v-deo.html
@@gracefortheprize What is your theological position ? My grounds are something like Adam Harwood, Ben Witherington and John M.G. Barclay kind of theology. Blessings from Finland.
Well, I'm gradually revealing it here on the channel, as time allows/God willing. Have only just begun... Encourage you to subscribe if you haven't yet. John Barclay has something very important to say that the church has not reckoned with: I reference him in this episode: ua-cam.com/video/aJBm58KXVho/v-deo.html As Barclay has astutely brought out, grace is circular! Not non-circular as Luther and the free grace movement teaches...
Sounds like you’re saying “irresistible Grace” without trying to say it or maybe “prevenient Grace” At the end of the day, the point is “are those not being effectually taught/drawn, do they have an excuse for their unbelief?
That's the million dollar question that causes most students of the Bible some serious internal debate. For God to save some is fine if your one of those. But it's those that never seem to show any indication for anything God that you know are headed to eternal destruction that makes you question weather there ever had the ability to say yes or no.. That's where I just put it back on the shelf to contemplate another day.
Ability to say "yes or no" to Christ is inherently tied to the fundamental disposition of man, which is a fallen one. A fallen human cannot say yes because they are blinded by pride and trust in self. It takes a work of God to reverse... so those of us who received this grace should be doubly careful not to trample upon it.
@@gracefortheprize I've seen/heard this response several times, but it's incomplete. You say people disbelieve because of their sin, but *why do they sin?* If their "fundamental disposition" is to sin and thence to disbelieve, is *that* not a _stone-clad_ excuse for sin and unbelief? (Not to mention the Immutable Decree). By the way, since "fundamental" means "basic" or "at the bottom", "fundamental disposition" sounds like man was _formed_ "fallen" in Genesis 2, rather than "very good" until falling in chapter 3. I get what you _do_ mean by it (I assume), but I humbly suggest dropping that word to avoid misrepresenting yourself. EDIT: Maybe you'd prefer the more accurate adjective "irresistible" or "undefiable".
"And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men *LOVED* darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil *HATES* the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed" Jn 3:19-20 "“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have *NO EXCUSE* for their sin." Jn 15:22 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are *WITHOUT EXCUSE* " Rom 1:20 There is no stone-clad anything... Fundamental disposition is a reference to man's fallen state, as per Romans 5:19, which Provisionism egregiously denies: "For as by one man’s disobedience many *were MADE sinners* ..."
I would argue against Isiah 53:1, this is a clearly rhetorical question, It implies that the power and authority of God, symbolized by His "arm," are not always recognized or acknowledged by humanity. Which later sets the stage in that passage about Jesus. It is not meant to mean that God reveals the truth to some people and not all. Also "God doesn't reveal truth to every man" is in direct contradiction to "All shall be taught by God" Why teach them all but not all of them will gain salvation if his word is efficacious for Salvation as you say? Therefore, only those who have heard and learned from the Father come to Jesus, not all of those who were taught. Taught does not mean learning. John 6:45 Contains a clear reference to Isaish 54:13 "All your children shall be taught by the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children." So once again, if ALL are taught, and God's word is always efficacious for salvation, then how come all aren't saved? This idea is logically inconsistent. You would also have to explain Jeremiah 31:34 "No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." THEY here is referring to the people of Israel from verse 33. The idea that only some people will be selected by God to know him, or be taught by him, runs in direct contrast to these verse. The all that are taught is quite clear. They only way you can reconcile John 6:45, Isaish 54:13. and Jeremiah 31:34 is the idea of free will response to Grace. They MUST hear and learn in response to being taught, since all are taught.
That’s not an argument against my use of Isaiah 53:1, it’s mere assertion. To reveal something is for person A to make known what was previously unknown to person B. You on the other hand redefine the meaning of "reveal" to "recognize", which is a lexical error. The context of Isaiah 53 makes it clear that this is indeed a revelation to some and not to all of Israel, because the Arm is “despised and rejected by men” (v. 3). That’s why Isaiah begins with “Who has believed our report? And TO WHOM [particular] has the arm of the Lord been revealed”. This is not empty rhetoric, it is actually conveying the reality that 1) most have NOT believed, and 2) via the “AND” in the middle of v.1, that the believing among the few cannot be disassociated from the revelation that precedes it. That’s why Jesus said to Peter, an example of a particular/chosen Israelite, “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven” in Matt 16:15-17. This is integral to how the Father teaches as seen in Isaiah 50:4, where He awakens the ear unto knowledge, i.e., gives effective understanding. So you completely missed the point...that’s #1. #2: Your assertion that “taught does not mean learning” flies in the face of Isaiah 50:4, which you and Provisionists have not engaged with at all. #3: Isaiah 54:13 needs to be read in the context of Isaiah 50:4 and 55:10-11, and not isolated/out of context as you do. It points to the children of the promise within Israel (more on that below), and not all of Israel. Not all of Israel is true Israel as the fuller context of Isaiah shows: “Hear, you DEAF… Who is blind but my servant? Or DEAF, as my messenger?...opening the ears, but he does not hear.” (Isaiah 42:18-20). So there’s no inconsistency here. #4: You’ve again taken a verse out of its context… Jer. 31 begins with those who have “found grace in the wilderness, Israel, when I went to give him rest”, i.e., a remnant that survived destruction only by the mercy of God and that received the writing/law of God on their minds and in their hearts, by HIS initiative, and not theirs in Jer. 31:31-33. This but a repeat of what was said earlier in Jer. 24:7: “And I will GIVE them a heart to know me” and Jer. 32:39-40: “…then I will GIVE them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever…I will PUT My fear in their hearts”. Leighton does not understand that Scripture speaks of two types of teaching: a general teaching that goes out to all Israel via His prophets (to the children of God and those who are not, such as in Jer 32:33 which Leighton brought up in the debate) and a specific effective teaching that goes out to the elect via revelation (as seen in Is 50:4, 53:1, 54:13, 55:10-11). Only Provisionism’s presuppositions would turn these verses in Jeremiah 24:7, 31:31-33 and 32:39-40 and in Isaiah 50:4, 53:1, 54:1, 55-10-11 as ‘Israel choosing to listen’ as Flowers would say… which completely reverses the priority of God’s agency in giving the new heart. For it is WITH the heart that one believes (Rom 10:10). And the context of Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel and of every prophet is unanimous: God had to reveal truth to His children for them to believe Him. As such, this is Provisionism’s greatest error: it denies the grace of God in revelation and teaches that one can believe with a heart of stone.
@@gracefortheprize 1.) I am redefining believing to recognizing not revealed. The revelation taking place here is Jesus himself, his miracles, ministry. You could even argue the prophecies themselves are part of the revelation with the prophecy of him. This is available to all, yet it is still God's own revelation and does not require specific and divine revelation. Since you mentioned lexical errors, why don't you bring up the lexical errors that you are saying "taught = learned + heard" that is a lexical error on your part as well. So if you are going to argue lexical errors, why don't you argue that one as well. Seems to me like learned and heard, were not the same as taught. 2.) I don't think it flies in the face of Isaiah 50:4 at all. This says that God "awakens" the speaker, making them receptive. The speaker actively listens "as those who are taught," suggesting a commitment to learning and understanding. 3.) Isaiah 50:4 and 55:10-11 don't necessarily limit the scope of "all your children". Acknowledging that some Israelites may be spiritually deaf or blind does not contradict the universal invitation taught by God in 54:13. 4.) Jeremiah 31:1 starts with "at that time delcares the Lord I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they will be my people. I would argue that simply cherry picking verse 2 doesn't preclude the scope of "all" and that you are the one removing context. To argue two types of teaching is not a scriptual idea. I would argue it even flies in the face of the idea of the effectiveness of Gods words. Romans 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." Directly calling the Gospel the power of God for the salvation of everyone. I argue that 1 Timothy 2:4, and 2 peter 3:9 indicate the desire for universal salvation and Romans 1:19-20 indicates universal invitation. While it is clear that all will not be saved, it does not mean that it is not offered and that it could be rejected. I am glad you mentioned hearts of stone. Matthew 13:15: "For the hearts of this people have grown dull, and with their ears they have heard very poorly, and they have shut their eyes; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their hearts, and should turn, and I would heal them.” Looks like Jesus is saying the have some responsibility here. Thank you for your response, God bless you and have a wonderful day.
Is 53:1 is a prophetic statement about Israel’s rejection of their Messiah. “Who has believed our report and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” implies a pessimistic answer, as Paul states in Rom 10:16: “But they have not all obeyed the Gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report”. As such, the revelation here cannot be restricted, as you restrict it, to Jesus himself or his miracles and ministry. If the revelation was merely the latter, then the answer to the question would have been “everyone or nearly everyone in Israel” knew of Jesus and His miracles. But Scripture stands in the way of that. You are sorely mistaken. In the context of Is 50:4, which is the background to John 6:44-45, together with Is 53, 54 and 55, being taught does indeed involve learning and hearing: your interpretation of Is 50:4 involves the exegetical fallacy of semantic restriction again: “He awakens my ear to hear AS THE LEARNED “ cannot be reduced to a making receptive only: because the verse speaks of effective hearing, the kind of which *the learned/or the wise have* God GIVES this hearing/understanding, so He is the originator of it, as the Teacher, and this giving is effective unto knowledge, as in “that I should KNOW how to speak”. Is 50:4 and 55:10-11 do indeed address the true scope of “all your children”, because they both inherently are entirely successful interventions against the backdrop of the rejection of the Gospel by most of Israel. Take some time to think through this... Re your response to Jer 31:1 this is baseless: in response to your interpretation of Jer 31:34, I quoted Jer 31:1, Jer 31:31-33, Jer 32:39-30, Jer 32:33. You call that cherry picking? Ironically, what is cherry picking is your isolated quote of Jer 31:34 without regard for Jer 32:39-40 and Jer 31:31-33, which speak of God’s initiative in giving a new heart to some in Israel/the remnant. Re Rom 1:16, yes the Gospel is the power of God for everyone who BELIEVES. But revelation precedes faith: God must reveal the truth, as He did with Peter, where Jesus expressly said it was not his flesh and blood (i.e., his own will) that did accomplished that. It was the Father who revealed this to him. Same with Paul, he was not even receptive to the Gospel. But when the Light shone in his heart, it was effective in revelation. Re 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9: God desires the salvation of all. In this, Calvinism is mistaken. And yes, salvation is offered to all. But it is also true that God does not commit Himself to most, because He knows what is in the heart of men, and who will reject Him (John 2:25, 6:64). “ *For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men* ,who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18) I am glad that you mentioned Mt 13:15, because it uncovers the irrationality of Provisionism: what you are essentially claiming, is that hearts of stone can believe, which is an inherent contrariety in terms. A stone is unresponsive to a human voice. How much more are hearts of stone unresponsive to the Divine voice! That is the plain implication of the analogy. If there ever was a simple reason to reject the systematic out of Dallas, it is this… And Mt 13:15 is a quote of Is 6:10. CONTEXT reveals that the statement “lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears” is figure of speech and idiomatic, because in the preceding verse 9, God says “Go and tell this people, keep on hearing, but DO NOT UNDERSTAND …” Their judgment was already sealed (see Is 6:11-13). You also *contradicted* yourself by admitting earlier that Israel was deaf and blind (Is 42:18-20), while also now claiming via your misquote of Mt 13:15 that the same deaf people could have repented. So again Ian, you are sorely mistaken. Highly recommend you take the time to really re-think your approach to the Scriptures. Provisionism is a case study in logical contradictions, semantic restrictions, non-sequiturs, and all manner of other exegetical fallacies...
I don't understand how you can think James White is missing something? How about you call him up and ask to do a debate with him on a subject. Let's see how that goes. I'm sure he would love for you to enlighten him on whatever subject you choose.
Obviously not. No human is infallible. But if you think James White is in error. I will do everything in my power to get a debate between you and him organized. You can choose the topic (scripture).
I've had a brief exchange or two with James on Twitter. It seemed from his replies that he only engages with "large followings", so to speak... Also, do "debates" honor Christ or do they fulfill the flesh/ego? I'm not saying there's an easy answer to that. I realize that from the days of Luther vs cardinal Cajetan things have been done this way, but is there a better way to engage? Time constraints are needed of course, but it's more about the mindset: do we start with an a priori pre-commitment to our theological tradition or are we truly open to wherever the text leads, no matter how heavy the implications? Do we come in with goodwill and the love of Christ or sacrifice that on the altar of being right? I respect the work James has done and love him as a brother, even though I don't always agree with his pushback on his opponents. Maybe Lord willing one day we'll have an opportunity to build a friendship and eventually have a talk that will edify and benefit others.
James gets frustrated with his opponents because they do not stay on topic and they do not interpret the text being debated in a consistent hermeneutical process.
I had actually mentioned to him that it probably wouldn't be a good idea to do the LF debate... At any rate, the path that Jesus calls us to is a difficult one...to be longsuffering, to turn the other cheek, to not revile when reviled: these are all as important if not more important than one's hermeneutical process. Scholasticism in the West for centuries has cut truth asunder from right praxis, but they were meant to go together...We will have to give account one soon coming day for every word we have spoken. But yes, the interpretation of Jn 6:44-45 is intrinsically linked to vv. 37-40 as James correctly pointed out to LF, and it's unfortunate that LF could not make the connection there, instead deflecting to other passages. It's ok to go other passages, but one has to deal with the primary text first, indeed. I understand James' frustration. That aside, in my episode/response I purposely left out something that is a massive importance to John 6...but in due time, God willing, I will reveal it, will change EVERYTHING... can't say much more for now.
Wonderfully stated, thank you, and praise God that He raises even us into new life!
What a blessing it is that in order to be an actual Christian you can enjoy life independent from any kind of so called ‘systematic theology’.
Jesus said you did not choose me but I have chosen you. John 15:16 I cannot get around this straight forwardness the Lord makes. Some say he was talking about the disciples so would that mean they are the branches and not us? He goes to prepare a place for them only and not us?
Indeed. So many sadly cannot countenance the reality you point to. Being carnal, they will fight even the sovereignty of God Almighty, to preserve their man-made doctrine.
Provisionists for example, will say that in v. 16, Jesus chose disciples to bear fruit, and not for salvation... not realizing that those who bear fruit will be saved, such that one cannot be disassociated from the other (Rom 6:22).
Because choosing refers to spreading the Gospel and service and not the doctrine for salvation. The decreed way for salvation is thru the Gospel.
Romans 10:3
They have not understood the way that God accepts people. Instead, they tried to make their own way to become right with God. They refused to accept God's way that would make them right with him.
Romans 10:9-10
The message is this: You must say clearly that Jesus is the Lord. Also, you must believe deep inside yourself that God raised him to life again after his death. Then God will save you. God accepts people as right with him when they believe like that, deep inside themselves. And when people say clearly that Jesus is Lord, God saves them.
Distinction without a difference: Provisionism /doesn't understand the relation of obedience to final salvation. Encourage you to watch my explainer on eternal life: ua-cam.com/video/2cuuzZp-vak/v-deo.html
"But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your FRUIT to holiness, and the end, EVERLASTING LIFE." Rom 6:22
and Paul again:
"that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may ATTAIN to the RESURRECTION from the dead Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I PRESS ON, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the PRIZE of the UPWARD call of God in Christ Jesus." Phil 3:10-14
and author to Hebrews:
"For God is not unjust to forget your WORK and LABOR of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have MINISTERED to the saints, and do MINISTER. And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end, that you do NOT become sluggish, but imitate those who through faith and patience INHERIT the PROMISES." Heb 6:10-12
For those who from their own will and strength... go on boasting ... see what it gets you ...
Mark 7:14 "And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:"
1. An indiscriminate call to all (without exception) to come hear what He has to say.
2. He tells them, every one of you (the entire audience within earshot) to hearken and understand.
3. Inevitable conclusion: He considers them capable of hearkening and understanding.
Only a presupposition based dogmatic prejudice, such as the need for a gnostic divine download, would cause someone to "yeah, but..." and embark on a proof texting fallacy foray.
In Mark 7:16-18, which you did not quote, Jesus says: " If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear! When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also?..."
So a closer look at the context shows that they did not all have ears to hear ("IF anyone has ears"). In fact even the disciples lacked understanding. So Jesus explains the saying to them privately, but He does NOT explain it to the masses.
The Provisionist will say that's because they could hear but refused to learn of their free will. But Jesus said it was a question of their not possessing the faculty of hearing/understanding, which they did not have because of their wickedness.
Thus, the call to everyone to hear in v. 14 is understood as going out to all in a general sense, but to only some in an effective sense. For no one will be able to gainsay God on judgment day by saying "It was not proclaimed to me". So Jesus acts righteously here, while also addressing the few who had been given ears to hear by the Father. As I quoted in the episode:
"Yet the LORD has NOT GIVEN you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day." Deut 29:4
and "To whom shall I speak and give warning,
That they may hear?
Indeed their ear is uncircumcised,
And they CANNOT give heed." (Jer 6:10)
So the only proof-texting here is a half quote of Mark 7:14 while ignoring the plain contextual relevance of Is 50:4, 53:1, and 55:10-11 to Jesus's quote of Is 54:13 in John 6:45...
At the beginning, this man you said James and Leighton both missed something, but throughout the video, it was all a defense of Calvinistic presupposition
White did not recognize the contextual importance of Isaiah 50:4, 53:1 and 55:10 to the right interpretation of 54:13, which is the very quote of Jesus in John 6:45. He failed to make that central point.
Re "it was all a defense of Calvinistic presupposition": it's one thing to merely assert this, yet another to engage with the argument made...
Calvinism is mistaken on limited atonement and other aspects of the faith. Over time I will be addressing that, but that wasn't the point of this episode.
Lazarus was dead. Jesus had to resurrect him before he commanded him to come forth because dead bodies cannot respond to verbal commands. I was Arminian for 40 years. I would have been at the feet of Flowers. But God opened my ears so that now I've grown sick of the sound of Flowers' voice. Because God graciously made me a Calvinist, I'm now sickened by how many are being deceived by Flowers' lies. I ask that God give another great awakening to deliver people from the disease of Arminianism.
You said, God is just and righteous to deny revelation to most BECAUSE most hate Him and ARE stiff necked. Yet, (you say) He has taught us because of His grace, NOT BECAUSE OF ANYTHING IN US.
Being stiff necked is in us. Being NOT stiff necked is in us. But, you’re saying it’s by His grace, NOT because of anything in us?
Wouldn’t, therefore, His grace teach those who are stiff necked, since~~ it’s NOT because of anything in us?
This is contradicting.
Hi Krissy, thanks for your comment. Your major premise is mistaken, "Being NOT stiff necked is in us". That's precisely what is denied by the Scripture presented in this episode.
God has mercy/compassion upon whom He has mercy/compassion and yet without loss of justice/righteousness. One has to reckon with the force His own words, speaking of His Word sent forth: "It shall accomplish WHAT I PLEASE", not what you or I think ought to be.
So there is an asymmetry in the execution of the righteousness of God. Salvation is purely of grace to the undeserving, and judgment is according to works. Both are true and abundantly evident in Scripture.
God has mercy on whom God will have mercy you read that as a limiting statement because of your presuppositions. God was telling the jews He will show mercy because of who He is not because of who the Jews were. The jews believed they were going to be shown mercy because God was obligated to them because of their heritage and relationship to God being His chosen people. God show's mercy because he is merciful. Jonah knew God's Character jonha knew God would show mercy to the ninevites not because God was obligated to show mercy but because God is merciful. Your systematic besmirches God's Character. We should all be like Jonah knowing God's propensity to show mercy. Yet we have people claiming to know God people claiming to have been showed mercy themselves yet say there is a group of people God hates and willnever show mercy to.
Strawman re "because of who the Jews were", that's #1. #2, yes, God shows mercy because He's merciful, but that's neither here nor there. The point of Ex 33:19 is that God has mercy UPON WHOM HE WILLS. By definition, that is a selective decision, and not a general one.
#3, God's mercy towards Nineveh upholds point 2 above. Don't forget that God contrariwise did not show mercy to Tyre and Sidon, for example. And Jesus said that had great miracles been done there, they would have repented. And yet God did not send them a prophet, like He sent Jonah to Nineveh.
So the question to you is: why did God show mercy to Nineveh and yet not to Tyre and Sidon? Nineveh just like Tyre or Sidon, was a wicked city (Jonah 1:1).
God sent Christ to die for the entire world, not just the elect, contra calvinists, who are mistaken on limited atonement. And yet, "...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18). As such, God is righteous and just to deny them mercy.
Did not the Lord say that Judas was an exception?
"...Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled" (John 17:12)
Judas was chosen as the son of perdition. He was not one of the elect.
Btw, there is much more to this topic concerning the elect that I have not revealed yet, so would encourage you to subscribe to the channel...
I don’t understand why John6:44 gets all the focus on this matter.. John 6:65 is MUCH more explicit and convincing. Why doesn’t that verse get more attention??
John 6:65 is another way of stating the contents of John 6:44-45. It fits especially well with the important backdrop of Isaiah 50:4, which I explain in the video...
1Corinthians 2:14
For context, Paul wrote 1Corinthians in response to hearing of the division among the believers in Corinth from Chloe (1Corinthians 1:11), as well as to answer the letter filled with questions that they were dividing over (1Corinthians 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12), so he is urging them to be united. The first issue that the Corinthians were dividing over was pride and authority based upon whom they followed or who immersed them (1Corinthians 1:12; 3:21; 4:6).
The first reason for their pride was because they misunderstood the Gospel message--we are ALL equal and we are all saved by grace through faith (1Corinthians 1:18-31). THIS is why Paul speaks of LOST people, as he is demonstrating that all lost people, Gentile OR Jew, are saved the same way. It is NOT a comparison between saved and lost.
The foolish who were chosen by God are the Gentiles who did not KNOW Him to be included in the New Covenant of God’s grace (1Corinthians 1:18-31). This is what the Jews who had not accepted the Messiah were objecting to in Romans 9. They were foolish of God’s Word, of His Covenant law revealed through Moses. This was a shame to the Jews who were given the law, but still did not believe it. Christ condemned them for this saying that if they believed Moses, they WOULD believe Him, because Moses wrote ABOUT Him.
God is saving and blessing the foolish and base Gentiles in order to HUMBLE the Jews (1Corinthians 1:27) and to prove to them that what they hold to is futile (1Corinthians 1:28), just as Paul later said that he wins Gentiles for Christ in hopes of making his fellow Jews JEALOUS of God’s blessings (Romans 11:11-14) that they might then repent (Romans 11:20, 23, 30-31), which is also God’s plan (Deuteronomy 32:21; Romans 10:19) and His WISDOM (Romans 11:33).
God’s plan was not only to bless the Gentiles by including them in the New Covenant, but also to make His people JEALOUS by them (Deuteronomy 32:21; Romans 10:19; see also Romans 11:11-14), that they might turn and repent (Romans 11:20, 23, 30-31) when He was through temporarily hardening them (Romans 11:25), which was for the purpose of crucifying Christ for us (1Corinthians 2:8-9; Mark 4:11-12) AND so that the Apostles would turn to the Gentiles with the Gospel (Romans 11:15, 19-20, 25, 30). THIS is the “Wisdom of God” (Romans 11:33; 1Corinthians 1:21, 24, 30; 2:7-8).
Therefore, ONLY those who HUMBLE themselves and repent are “called” (1Corinthians 1:24), or rather “NAMED,” as in they are now called “His People” (who were originally NOT His people). Only a few of the WISE Jews are now “His People,” because only a few repented and believed.
ALL are elect now in that both Jews corporately AND gentiles corporately can be saved by grace through faith, and anyone who hears the Gospel is called (1Corinthians 1:24).
Paul continues his argument that we are all equal by pointing out that it was not through worldly wisdom that his preaching to them won them to Christ, but by the POWER/ABILITY of the Holy Spirit (1Corinthians 2:1-5).
Paul goes further to say that he DOES teach wisdom, which is the deeper truths or the “solid food” (1Corinthians 3:2), of God's Word (1Corinthians 2:6-13), but THIS is only for believers who are MATURE (1Corinthians 2:14-16) and the believers in Corinth were NOT (1Corinthians 3:1-3) BECUASE of their PRIDE (1Corinthians 3:4), so they could only take the “milk” (1Corinthians 3:2).
Paul later specifies that “milk” is the “elementary” (Hebrews 5:12; 6:1) and “foundational” teachings of “repentance from dead works and of faith toward God” (Hebrews 6:1), the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment (Hebrews 6:2), as opposed to “solid food” (Hebrews 5:12, 14), which includes things such as typology of the Old Testament pointing to Christ (Hebrews 5:9-11).
Therefore, Paul is not saying that unregenerate men are unable to understand the Gospel or to repent and have faith because they are natural and not spiritual, men of the flesh (1Corinthians 2:14).
In fact, Paul wasn’t even referring to lost, unregenerate people (1Corinthians 2:14).
Rather, he was actually writing about the Corinthians, who were SAVED and therefore REGENERATE (1Corinthians 1:2, 6-8), but who were STILL “natural men” and “men of the flesh” (1Corinthians 3:1-4), and therefore IMMATURE believers who could not understand the DEEPER things of God, so Paul could only give them Spiritual MILK (1Corinthians 3:2), which implies that people who ARE natural CAN understand and receive the basic truths which are considered the milk of God’s Word.
1Corinthians 2:14-3:4 (literal translation)
14 But a NATURAL/PHYSICAL/WORLDLY (ψυχικός) man does not receive/accept the things of the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him; and he is not enabled (or does not enable himself, middle or passive voice) to understand, because he [is] spiritually questioning/judging/discerning.
15 Now the spiritual [man] questions/examines all, but he himself is questioned/examined by no one.
16 “For who has known a mind/thought of [the] Master, who has proven/advised Him?” (quoting Isaiah 40:13). But we have a mind/thought of Christ.
1 And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual men but as to FLESHLY MEN, as to INFANTS/CHILDREN IN CHRIST.
2 I gave you milk to drink, not food. For YOU WERE NOT YET ABLE. Yet now you are STILL NOT ABLE,
3 for you ARE STILL FLESHLY MEN. For since among you jealousy/envy and rivalry/strife/discord, are you not FLESHLY MEN walking around (idiom meaning “living” down from/among people/humans?
4 For whenever anyone says, “I,” on the one hand, “I am with Paul,” and another, “I with Apollos,” are you not [like] people/humans?
Note that Paul doesn’t use the word φύσις (phusis), which means nature (i.e. Ephesians 2:3), but he uses ψυχικὸς (psukikos), which means worldly (1Corinthians 2:14). This isn’t referring to how someone is born, but how they are CURRENTLY behaving or living.
The natural man has a “natural body” (1Corinthians 15:44), which is the flesh. Paul spoke of still being in his “flesh” in his epistle to Rome (Romans 7:14-25).
Even though we have been set free (Romans 8:2) and we live according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4) and not in the flesh (Romans 8:9), our body is still “dead because of sin” (Romans 8:10-11). We must put the “body of flesh” to death daily (Romans 8:11-14), and it must ultimately be removed by Christ (Colossians 2:11).
So, just as believers, who ARE regenerate, can act like worldly men (1Corinthians 2:14-3:4) and can still be influenced by the flesh at times (Romans 7:14-25); lost people can make spiritual decisions by the grace of God and under the influence of the Holy Spirit, which is done by and through His WORD.
And this is demonstrated in Scripture. Paul explicitly states that Gentiles without the law “DO THINGS of the law by NATURE” (Romans 2:14). He also said that the Romans OBEYED God from the heart WHILE they were still slaves to sin (Romans 6:17).
Romans 2:14 (literal translation) “For whenever Gentiles not having the law by NATURE DO the things of the law, these not having the law to themselves ARE a law.”
David speaks of the ungodly who have CEASED doing good (Psalm 36:1-3), which means they formerly DID.
Lost people are said to FEAR God (Acts 13:43) BEFORE they believed the Gospel (Acts 13:48).
Lydia was a WORSHIPER of God BEFORE God opened her heart to respond (Acts 16:14) and BEFORE she was saved (Acts 16:15).
Similarly, Cornelius feared God (Acts 10:2, 22, 35), prayed continually (Acts 10:2), and was even called a RIGHTEOUS man (Acts 10:22) who did what was right (Acts 10:35) all BEFORE He was born again and indwelt with the Spirit (Acts 11:13-14). Note also that Cornelius was portrayed as an “unclean beast” in a vision given to Peter (Acts 10:9-16).
Context always kills Calvinist proof texts... you guys see these things because you presume Calvinism, then read these passages and do not even QUESTION your presuppositions or if the passage could be saying anything else.
Re: "IMMATURE believers who could not understand the DEEPER things of God, so Paul could only give them Spiritual MILK (1Corinthians 3:2), which implies that people who ARE natural CAN understand and receive the basic truths which are considered the milk of God’s Word."
You are claiming that the natural man of 1 Cor 2:14 only refers to a carnal believer. But the verse does not restrict the scope of the things of God to the _deeper_ things...
What the verse says plainly is this:
"For the natural man does not receive the THINGS [a general marker of all things, not only the deep things] of the Spirit of God..."
What the natural man *cannot* (speaks to ability, not choice) receive (1 Cor 2:14c) is the things of the Spirit of God, which Paul says are *foolishness* to him. But this foolishness, read in context, also refers to the CROSS, which is the basic truth of the Gospel: "For the message of the cross is FOOLISHNESS to those who are perishing" in 1 Cor 1:18. Those who are perishing are carnal men too, who live according to the flesh..they cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God which includes the CROSS, first and foremost.
So you commit the exegetical fallacy of semantic disjunction and restriction here.
That's #1.
Re: "Paul goes further to say that he DOES teach wisdom, which is the deeper truths or the “solid food” (1Corinthians 3:2), of God's Word, (1Corinthians 2:6-13), but THIS is only for believers who are MATURE (1Corinthians 2:14-16) and the believers in Corinth were NOT (1Corinthians 3:1-3) BECUASE of their PRIDE (1Corinthians 3:4), so they could only take the “milk” (1Corinthians 3:2). "
This is an interpolation/addition to Scripture: Paul doesn't speak of wisdom in 1 Cor 3:2, let alone redefine wisdom as you do, to be only equated with the "deeper truths" or "solid food". What he says instead is this:
"I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able" (1 Cor 3:2)
The verses where he DOES define wisdom, on the other hand, are 1 Cor 1:21-24:
"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through the wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the MESSAGE PREACHED to save those who believe... but we preach Christ crucified.. Christ the WISDOM of God."
So the wisdom of God chiefly consists in the preaching of Christ crucified. And this wisdom is also described as DEEP in Rom 11:33 "Oh, the DEPTH of the riches both of the WISDOM...and knowledge of God". (Rom 11:33).
Thus, you have essentially conflated a number of concepts here...
That's #2
Coming back to that first quote of yours above: "which implies that people who ARE natural CAN understand and receive the basic truths which are considered the milk of God’s Word."
You flat out deny Scripture here which says the opposite. First, the natural man in the immediate context is better interpreted as also meaning the sensual man beyond the sense of a natural body, i.e., the carnal man. In other words, your distinction between psychikos and sarkikos is a one without a difference. For the sensual man IS the carnal man:
"Are you not carnal and behaving like MERE MEN"?, i.e., unbelievers. So you cannot restrict the scope of 1 Cor 2:14 to believers, the Word forbids you.
Thats's #3.
3 strikes and you're out.
(there's so much more I could say but won't for time)
8:20 Is.50:6 and following show that Israel to a great degree rejected the Gospel and John's Gospel also has that as a major theme.
And that's precisely why God teaches effectively as per Isaiah 50:4, an effective teaching reflected in Is 53:1 and Is 55:10-11, even if it is for the few and not the many.
You cannot read vs 44 And 45 And ignore vs 47.
So who does God raise? Those not only who are drawn, hear And taught but only those who "believe". Leighton is right.
The jews were drawn, they heard And they were taught. But did they believe? A person can be drawn, hear And be taught but they need to " Believe". To Believe is the heart of the drawing, hearing And teaching.
First, you conflate drawing and believing. While they are related concepts, they are not equivalent.
Second, this is the logical fallacy of begging the question, since it _assumes_ that a person can be drawn, i.e., hear and taught, but not believe. That needs to be demonstrated by the Provisionist camp, not assumed. In the video I go over the contextual background of Is 50:4, 53:1, 55:10-11: that's the key to understanding Jesus' quote of is 54:13 in John 6:45. Hope you won't ignore that.
@@gracefortheprize you've only made statements but not explained what they are Or what you mean.
Drawing is the action/work of the Father upon the given that effectively leads them to faith. My explanation for why this is effective is in the video.
Maybe an example will help, Paul's conversion: when the Father drew him to the Son, was that drawing effective? I think you would say: "Yes it was for Paul, but it isn't necessarily effective for all, for all do not believe", right? That's what Leighton would say.
But what you miss is that in 2 Cor 4:6, Paul likens every believer's conversion to his own conversion, by analogy to the light that shone in the darkness at creation:
"For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in *our* hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."
At creation, the darkness could not have resisted the light. And that same light is what shone in our hearts, Paul says. Therefore, the drawing is effective to bring every believer to faith in Christ.
@@gracefortheprize in the context of John 6, Jesus is already in conversation with his listeners ie the Jews. So isn't that "drawing"? Secondly they were hearing as jesus was talking with them. Thirdly they were learning ie analysing what jesus was telling them. But did they believe?
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him..." In context, it is the FATHER who does the drawing... As in the example I gave you above, 2 Cor 4:6, where there too, is the Father/God who shone the light in OUR hearts, Paul says. But you are quiet about that...
6:31 It is debatable whether Jesus was going back to Is.50 where the passage you quote is talking about himself and not Israel.
It's only debatable to you because of your Provisionist presuppositions. Why is it debatable? Where is your reasoning?
It is precisely because Is 50:4 references Jesus and Isaiah that it is applicable to every believer. If He needed revelation/teaching from God as a human, then how much more does any believer do, as we see in Peter's case, where Jesus tells him that it is *NOT* his own flesh and blood (which includes his own will) that revealed the truth of the Gospel to him (Matt 16:15-17). Same with Paul, Nathanael, Lydia and every other believer.
6:10 "God's teaching is not like ours"-That's your Calvinist presupposition.
Mere assertion... I go on in the video to explain why this is true.
are you ready for that 20 episodes (each 3 hours) of replies to this 14 min video?
Good insight btw.
Brevity is the soul of revelation...
Isaiah 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; and 52:13-53:12. Are the 4 servant songs of Isaiah. So verse 50:4 is about Christ not us.
Verse 5 really does it in if you want to apply that to believers
5 The Lord God has opened my ear,
and I was not rebellious;
I turned not backward.
6 I gave my back to those who strike,
and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard;
I hid not my face
from disgrace and spitting.
He seems to say he wasn't rebellious or turned his back which would mean he could have done otherwise so it still doesn't support Calvinism.
Non sequitur. As I said in the episode, by a fortiori, if it applied to Isaiah and Christ, it does apply to every one who believes as well. And re verse 5:
"But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Matt 5:39.
Do you deny that?
I guess I would say I'm a 4 point calvinist. I don't believe that there is or was a limited atonement. I do believe that man is totally depraved and can't choose salvation without the Holy Spirit. Just as Jesus told Nicodemus that the Holy Spirit moves as He wishes, and that real Christians were picked before the foundation of the world 🌎 . ALL who the Father chose for Jesus to have a people will believe. The one critique of Calvinism is that supposedly they don't want to evangelize is ridiculous. No one knows who the elect are until AFTER a person believes. And after you believe you can study Scripture and see that you were chosen. God OPENED up Lydia's heart to receive the Gospel. The centurion was chosen for Peter to tell the Gospel to so that he was made a believer. Who the Father chose and draws for Jesus will come to Him. That is irresistible grace. Grace and faith are a gift from God so as for us to even Believe so that there can be no boasting. ALL are under the grip of Satan, dead in there trespasses and sin. No one would choose Christ without election and the faith given from God. If Jesus is truly your Lord and Savior a Christian will automatically persevere to the end. God's Word does not return void. God is Sovereign, period. Not man. Everything God does is for His glory, not man's.
Good for you re limited atonement, Moses Amyraut had something important to contribute indeed. That said, I'd encourage you to subscribe to the channel. There's much more to the greatest story ever told than what's been handed down to us... start here: ua-cam.com/video/2cuuzZp-vak/v-deo.html. Blessings.
The semi-pelagian and provisionist Flowers typically asserts his man-centered interpretation of scripture.
I have watched countless Soteriology 101 vids and I find them lacking in correct exegesis of biblical verses.
James White, on the other hand is far more correct in exegesis but he at times does not insist on his biblical position when debating.
So we have a provisionist who fails to understand Spiritual revelation, because of his man-centered interpretation of scripture, and a Calvinist who struggles at times to communicate basic biblical text.
White wins. Class dismissed.
You say, you are not a Calvinist, I wonder what would you disagree with them
Limited Atonement, definition of regeneration, the WCF's definition of faith (covered that in episode 7).. there's more, but not a trivial thing to unpack. Subscribe if you are interested and will reveal over time, God willing...
Is this free grace carbage ? When you lift up one single attribute, you get unbalanced theology. I read The defence of free grace theology book. Not biblical stuff.
See my other episodes, especially episode 8 "Strive for the Narrow Gate" where I debunk the gist of the free grace view: ua-cam.com/video/EMBmTuYU__A/v-deo.html
@@gracefortheprize What is your theological position ? My grounds are something like Adam Harwood, Ben Witherington and John M.G. Barclay kind of theology. Blessings from Finland.
Well, I'm gradually revealing it here on the channel, as time allows/God willing. Have only just begun... Encourage you to subscribe if you haven't yet. John Barclay has something very important to say that the church has not reckoned with: I reference him in this episode: ua-cam.com/video/aJBm58KXVho/v-deo.html
As Barclay has astutely brought out, grace is circular! Not non-circular as Luther and the free grace movement teaches...
What part of grace being a gift are you having a hard time understanding. Ephesians 2:8-10
None. See my episode on eternal life: ua-cam.com/video/2cuuzZp-vak/v-deo.html
Sounds like you’re saying “irresistible Grace” without trying to say it or maybe “prevenient Grace”
At the end of the day, the point is “are those not being effectually taught/drawn, do they have an excuse for their unbelief?
No, they don't have an excuse for their unbelief because their unbelief is rooted in sin and the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).
That's the million dollar question that causes most students of the Bible some serious internal debate. For God to save some is fine if your one of those. But it's those that never seem to show any indication for anything God that you know are headed to eternal destruction that makes you question weather there ever had the ability to say yes or no.. That's where I just put it back on the shelf to contemplate another day.
Ability to say "yes or no" to Christ is inherently tied to the fundamental disposition of man, which is a fallen one. A fallen human cannot say yes because they are blinded by pride and trust in self. It takes a work of God to reverse... so those of us who received this grace should be doubly careful not to trample upon it.
@@gracefortheprize I've seen/heard this response several times, but it's incomplete. You say people disbelieve because of their sin, but *why do they sin?* If their "fundamental disposition" is to sin and thence to disbelieve, is *that* not a _stone-clad_ excuse for sin and unbelief? (Not to mention the Immutable Decree).
By the way, since "fundamental" means "basic" or "at the bottom", "fundamental disposition" sounds like man was _formed_ "fallen" in Genesis 2, rather than "very good" until falling in chapter 3. I get what you _do_ mean by it (I assume), but I humbly suggest dropping that word to avoid misrepresenting yourself. EDIT: Maybe you'd prefer the more accurate adjective "irresistible" or "undefiable".
"And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men *LOVED* darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil *HATES* the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed" Jn 3:19-20
"“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have *NO EXCUSE* for their sin." Jn 15:22
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are *WITHOUT EXCUSE* " Rom 1:20
There is no stone-clad anything...
Fundamental disposition is a reference to man's fallen state, as per Romans 5:19, which Provisionism egregiously denies:
"For as by one man’s disobedience many *were MADE sinners*
..."
I would argue against Isiah 53:1, this is a clearly rhetorical question, It implies that the power and authority of God, symbolized by His "arm," are not always recognized or acknowledged by humanity. Which later sets the stage in that passage about Jesus. It is not meant to mean that God reveals the truth to some people and not all.
Also "God doesn't reveal truth to every man" is in direct contradiction to "All shall be taught by God" Why teach them all but not all of them will gain salvation if his word is efficacious for Salvation as you say? Therefore, only those who have heard and learned from the Father come to Jesus, not all of those who were taught. Taught does not mean learning.
John 6:45 Contains a clear reference to Isaish 54:13 "All your children shall be taught by the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children." So once again, if ALL are taught, and God's word is always efficacious for salvation, then how come all aren't saved? This idea is logically inconsistent.
You would also have to explain Jeremiah 31:34 "No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." THEY here is referring to the people of Israel from verse 33. The idea that only some people will be selected by God to know him, or be taught by him, runs in direct contrast to these verse.
The all that are taught is quite clear. They only way you can reconcile John 6:45, Isaish 54:13. and Jeremiah 31:34 is the idea of free will response to Grace. They MUST hear and learn in response to being taught, since all are taught.
That’s not an argument against my use of Isaiah 53:1, it’s mere assertion. To reveal something is for person A to make known what was previously unknown to person B. You on the other hand redefine the meaning of "reveal" to "recognize", which is a lexical error.
The context of Isaiah 53 makes it clear that this is indeed a revelation to some and not to all of Israel, because the Arm is “despised and rejected by men” (v. 3). That’s why Isaiah begins with “Who has believed our report? And TO WHOM [particular] has the arm of the Lord been revealed”.
This is not empty rhetoric, it is actually conveying the reality that 1) most have NOT believed, and 2) via the “AND” in the middle of v.1, that the believing among the few cannot be disassociated from the revelation that precedes it. That’s why Jesus said to Peter, an example of a particular/chosen Israelite, “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven” in Matt 16:15-17. This is integral to how the Father teaches as seen in Isaiah 50:4, where He awakens the ear unto knowledge, i.e., gives effective understanding. So you completely missed the point...that’s #1.
#2: Your assertion that “taught does not mean learning” flies in the face of Isaiah 50:4, which you and Provisionists have not engaged with at all.
#3: Isaiah 54:13 needs to be read in the context of Isaiah 50:4 and 55:10-11, and not isolated/out of context as you do. It points to the children of the promise within Israel (more on that below), and not all of Israel. Not all of Israel is true Israel as the fuller context of Isaiah shows: “Hear, you DEAF… Who is blind but my servant? Or DEAF, as my messenger?...opening the ears, but he does not hear.” (Isaiah 42:18-20). So there’s no inconsistency here.
#4: You’ve again taken a verse out of its context… Jer. 31 begins with those who have “found grace in the wilderness, Israel, when I went to give him rest”, i.e., a remnant that survived destruction only by the mercy of God and that received the writing/law of God on their minds and in their hearts, by HIS initiative, and not theirs in Jer. 31:31-33. This but a repeat of what was said earlier in Jer. 24:7: “And I will GIVE them a heart to know me” and Jer. 32:39-40: “…then I will GIVE them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever…I will PUT My fear in their hearts”.
Leighton does not understand that Scripture speaks of two types of teaching: a general teaching that goes out to all Israel via His prophets (to the children of God and those who are not, such as in Jer 32:33 which Leighton brought up in the debate) and a specific effective teaching that goes out to the elect via revelation (as seen in Is 50:4, 53:1, 54:13, 55:10-11).
Only Provisionism’s presuppositions would turn these verses in Jeremiah 24:7, 31:31-33 and 32:39-40 and in Isaiah 50:4, 53:1, 54:1, 55-10-11 as ‘Israel choosing to listen’ as Flowers would say… which completely reverses the priority of God’s agency in giving the new heart. For it is WITH the heart that one believes (Rom 10:10). And the context of Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel and of every prophet is unanimous: God had to reveal truth to His children for them to believe Him.
As such, this is Provisionism’s greatest error: it denies the grace of God in revelation and teaches that one can believe with a heart of stone.
@@gracefortheprize
1.) I am redefining believing to recognizing not revealed. The revelation taking place here is Jesus himself, his miracles, ministry. You could even argue the prophecies themselves are part of the revelation with the prophecy of him. This is available to all, yet it is still God's own revelation and does not require specific and divine revelation.
Since you mentioned lexical errors, why don't you bring up the lexical errors that you are saying "taught = learned + heard" that is a lexical error on your part as well. So if you are going to argue lexical errors, why don't you argue that one as well. Seems to me like learned and heard, were not the same as taught.
2.) I don't think it flies in the face of Isaiah 50:4 at all. This says that God "awakens" the speaker, making them receptive. The speaker actively listens "as those who are taught," suggesting a commitment to learning and understanding.
3.) Isaiah 50:4 and 55:10-11 don't necessarily limit the scope of "all your children". Acknowledging that some Israelites may be spiritually deaf or blind does not contradict the universal invitation taught by God in 54:13.
4.) Jeremiah 31:1 starts with "at that time delcares the Lord I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they will be my people. I would argue that simply cherry picking verse 2 doesn't preclude the scope of "all" and that you are the one removing context.
To argue two types of teaching is not a scriptual idea. I would argue it even flies in the face of the idea of the effectiveness of Gods words. Romans 1:16:
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." Directly calling the Gospel the power of God for the salvation of everyone.
I argue that 1 Timothy 2:4, and 2 peter 3:9 indicate the desire for universal salvation and Romans 1:19-20 indicates universal invitation. While it is clear that all will not be saved, it does not mean that it is not offered and that it could be rejected.
I am glad you mentioned hearts of stone. Matthew 13:15: "For the hearts of this people have grown dull, and with their ears they have heard very poorly, and they have shut their eyes; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their hearts, and should turn, and I would heal them.” Looks like Jesus is saying the have some responsibility here. Thank you for your response, God bless you and have a wonderful day.
Is 53:1 is a prophetic statement about Israel’s rejection of their Messiah. “Who has believed our report and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” implies a pessimistic answer, as Paul states in Rom 10:16: “But they have not all obeyed the Gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report”.
As such, the revelation here cannot be restricted, as you restrict it, to Jesus himself or his miracles and ministry. If the revelation was merely the latter, then the answer to the question would have been “everyone or nearly everyone in Israel” knew of Jesus and His miracles. But Scripture stands in the way of that. You are sorely mistaken.
In the context of Is 50:4, which is the background to John 6:44-45, together with Is 53, 54 and 55, being taught does indeed involve learning and hearing: your interpretation of Is 50:4 involves the exegetical fallacy of semantic restriction again: “He awakens my ear to hear AS THE LEARNED “ cannot be reduced to a making receptive only: because the verse speaks of effective hearing, the kind of which *the learned/or the wise have* God GIVES this hearing/understanding, so He is the originator of it, as the Teacher, and this giving is effective unto knowledge, as in “that I should KNOW how to speak”.
Is 50:4 and 55:10-11 do indeed address the true scope of “all your children”, because they both inherently are entirely successful interventions against the backdrop of the rejection of the Gospel by most of Israel. Take some time to think through this...
Re your response to Jer 31:1 this is baseless: in response to your interpretation of Jer 31:34, I quoted Jer 31:1, Jer 31:31-33, Jer 32:39-30, Jer 32:33. You call that cherry picking? Ironically, what is cherry picking is your isolated quote of Jer 31:34 without regard for Jer 32:39-40 and Jer 31:31-33, which speak of God’s initiative in giving a new heart to some in Israel/the remnant.
Re Rom 1:16, yes the Gospel is the power of God for everyone who BELIEVES. But revelation precedes faith: God must reveal the truth, as He did with Peter, where Jesus expressly said it was not his flesh and blood (i.e., his own will) that did accomplished that. It was the Father who revealed this to him. Same with Paul, he was not even receptive to the Gospel. But when the Light shone in his heart, it was effective in revelation.
Re 1 Tim 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9: God desires the salvation of all. In this, Calvinism is mistaken. And yes, salvation is offered to all. But it is also true that God does not commit Himself to most, because He knows what is in the heart of men, and who will reject Him (John 2:25, 6:64). “ *For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men* ,who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18)
I am glad that you mentioned Mt 13:15, because it uncovers the irrationality of Provisionism: what you are essentially claiming, is that hearts of stone can believe, which is an inherent contrariety in terms. A stone is unresponsive to a human voice. How much more are hearts of stone unresponsive to the Divine voice! That is the plain implication of the analogy. If there ever was a simple reason to reject the systematic out of Dallas, it is this…
And Mt 13:15 is a quote of Is 6:10. CONTEXT reveals that the statement “lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears” is figure of speech and idiomatic, because in the preceding verse 9, God says “Go and tell this people, keep on hearing, but DO NOT UNDERSTAND …” Their judgment was already sealed (see Is 6:11-13). You also *contradicted* yourself by admitting earlier that Israel was deaf and blind (Is 42:18-20), while also now claiming via your misquote of Mt 13:15 that the same deaf people could have repented.
So again Ian, you are sorely mistaken. Highly recommend you take the time to really re-think your approach to the Scriptures. Provisionism is a case study in logical contradictions, semantic restrictions, non-sequiturs, and all manner of other exegetical fallacies...
I don't understand how you can think James White is missing something? How about you call him up and ask to do a debate with him on a subject. Let's see how that goes. I'm sure he would love for you to enlighten him on whatever subject you choose.
Is James White infallible?
Obviously not. No human is infallible. But if you think James White is in error. I will do everything in my power to get a debate between you and him organized. You can choose the topic (scripture).
I've had a brief exchange or two with James on Twitter. It seemed from his replies that he only engages with "large followings", so to speak...
Also, do "debates" honor Christ or do they fulfill the flesh/ego? I'm not saying there's an easy answer to that. I realize that from the days of Luther vs cardinal Cajetan things have been done this way, but is there a better way to engage? Time constraints are needed of course, but it's more about the mindset: do we start with an a priori pre-commitment to our theological tradition or are we truly open to wherever the text leads, no matter how heavy the implications? Do we come in with goodwill and the love of Christ or sacrifice that on the altar of being right?
I respect the work James has done and love him as a brother, even though I don't always agree with his pushback on his opponents. Maybe Lord willing one day we'll have an opportunity to build a friendship and eventually have a talk that will edify and benefit others.
James gets frustrated with his opponents because they do not stay on topic and they do not interpret the text being debated in a consistent hermeneutical process.
I had actually mentioned to him that it probably wouldn't be a good idea to do the LF debate... At any rate, the path that Jesus calls us to is a difficult one...to be longsuffering, to turn the other cheek, to not revile when reviled: these are all as important if not more important than one's hermeneutical process. Scholasticism in the West for centuries has cut truth asunder from right praxis, but they were meant to go together...We will have to give account one soon coming day for every word we have spoken.
But yes, the interpretation of Jn 6:44-45 is intrinsically linked to vv. 37-40 as James correctly pointed out to LF, and it's unfortunate that LF could not make the connection there, instead deflecting to other passages. It's ok to go other passages, but one has to deal with the primary text first, indeed. I understand James' frustration.
That aside, in my episode/response I purposely left out something that is a massive importance to John 6...but in due time, God willing, I will reveal it, will change EVERYTHING... can't say much more for now.