I'd rather err believing that God offers mercy to everyone than to err believing that He doesn't, because IMO the former is a higher view of God than the latter.
Taylor, your Calvinistic idea of justice is perverted . Instead, listen to the Bible idea of justice: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
@Taylor Judging a doctrine as unjust, and therefore unworthy of God, isn't "demanding" justice of God. It is demanding it of the _doctrine,_ before we will accept it as a doctrine that agrees with what the Bible tells us about God.. Justice is in the heart of God, taught by Him in the Bible. He hates injustice, when it is man who is being unjust.
I like AK's comments that started this thread. Still, it's not what I like or prefer... it's what scripture/God's Word, personified by Jesus being the Logos of God... that says, God loved us in this way (Greek for "so") that He gave/sent His Son to redeem, ransome, become a propitiation/atoned for any, all, everyone, whosoever will call upon Him. Therefore God has dealt to everyman the measure of faith (Romans 12:3) sent His Holy Spirit to convict the WORLD (John 16:8) draws all (John 12:32) created us in His image & likeness with free moral agency to have genuine fellowship, Koinonia, personal relationship with Him the thing He desires most (Acts 17:26-31)
@Taylor R.C. Sproul taught that no one gets injustice because he taught, as a Calvinist, that everyone is in sin and those people God elected for salvation would get mercy and all else would get justice. Superficially, that sounds right; But the problem is, people left unelected are really not getting justice if you are left without an option or the ability to believe from before the foundation of the world, before you have done anything good or bad. To me, it makes no sense and the theology conflicts with itself. God bless. 😊
I'm so thankful I found ur channel. For years I was tormented believing I could be non elect,but now I better understand after listening to so many of ur programs and hold to provisionist and full of joy.
The fortress analogy is so reasonable and simple. Most importantly, more biblically accurate while not contradicting the loving, merciful, and gracious nature and character of God, the way Calvinism does.
I think the fortress analogy is probably the best one I've heard for predestination, I think if you addeed a proclamation aspect to it , it would hit even harder.
I am so grateful for the ministry of Flowers. He has been thinking about the soteriological topics of Calvinism, and bringing many clear thinking, highly qualified guests for so long that he is able to bring piercing clarity to why Calvinism is wrong. A much needed antidote to this disease within Christendon, especially since it's roots, at least in the West, go back to the 4th century with Augustine and contain the illustrious founders of the Reformation which we, without being informed otherwise, would implicitly trust. No doubt about it, Leighton Flowers, because he has thought and talked about this topic so extensively, has become a clear thinking force Calvinists must reckoned with.
I love the illustration about the fortress. It made me think of the final plague in Egypt - if you sacrifice a lamb and put its blood on your doorpost, the firstborn males within will be spared. If you don't, they will die. Considering the Passover lamb is a prototype of Jesus, then it would make sense that only those who freely choose to put their faith in Him will be saved by His blood.
Thanks for getting us thinking about Theology! Not a Calvinist but there does seem to be passages that indicate that our will in receiving spiritual things is bound in some way (1 Cor 2:14). Also, at face value Acts 13:48 naturally reads as if we believe because God has appointed us.” Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Will have to think on it some more. This is definitely a tricky doctrine to think through. Grace and Peace!
With regard to Acts 13:48, as you said, at first glance it appears to support the calvinistic doctrine of election, however, if we're careful with the text we can see that there's no true indication in the passage itself of which came first chronologically between the two terms "appointed" and "believed." Therefore we should not assume that they were appointed before they believed *merely because one term precedes the other in the text.* That would be the logical fallacy: _post hoc ergo propter hoc._
Acts 13:48 is parallel to Acts 13:46. 13:48 "they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed" 13:46 "Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles." In v46 it is the Jews who did not consider themselves worthy of eternal life. The same in v48. It is the Gentiles who did consider themselves worthy of eternal life. In neither verse is God making the decision for the people. One group rejected the grace gospel Paul was preaching while the other group desired eternal life and accepted the gospel by believing.
They want you to ignore the text for what it actually reads. The words "appointed TO eternal life believed" show a clear order. What is the purpose of the word TO? It is a preposition indicating a directional movement. I am in Mexico going TO the north pole. Would you ignore the word TO? Of course not. In 2 Thessalonians 2 13-14, the order is stated from being chosen for(to) salvation ->> to which ->> He called you by the gospel. Chosen ->> Then ->> called. Chosen before believing. But I had someone tell me that the order was not stated there. He said the word aforementioned tells us that being called is referring to being chosen and your chosen once you believe. So his interpretation was that when you're called by the gospel, then you believe through the sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. Do you see how distorted that interpretation is? According to his interpretation, the text should read. He called you by the gospel and then sanctified you by the Spirit upon belief. While it's true we are sanctified by faith, those words are not in the text. Furthermore, the word "beginning" is there. The beginning of what? It can't be justification because our election is in accordance with God the Father's foreknowledge.
Never considered myself a Calvinist or Arminian because I saw theological error in both, so I’ve always just said “idk in somewhere in between.” I tend to agree with this provisionism soteriology, but struggle with labels like that because it doesn’t leave room for minor disagreements. So far, I haven’t found anything I necessarily disagree with in Provisionism, but still studying.
I have sir. Maybe u can help me. I tend to side with Proviaionist. But if someone ask, Does God really know specific person who will go to hell or heaven before they even born?
Can anyone explan this verse for me (Matthew 11:22)? If God love all and choose all in christ from the foundation of the world, why did he rejected them even He Himself knew that they will repent and be save if He send a messanger to work of a miracle. Man's free will can not be save themself if God is not willing to save them. ❤
Believe in Jesus, and be saved! (Acts 16:30-31) I find Romans 3:23, 6:23, 10:9-11, John 3:16, 14:6, and 1st John 5:9-13 to be very helpful in explaining who Christ is, what He did, our sin problem, and the solution to this problem that is found in Christ alone.
Very good video/teaching. I agree with LF's definition of "Provisionist", however I don't refer to myself as such. I find it unnecessary, limiting & complicates simple bible faith in "Jesus Saves". It was never used by Matthew Henry, Tozer or C.S. Lewis, yet you knew these men believed & taught anyone could/can be saved by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone. I try not to call/refer myself to a "Dispensationalist" although I definitely see that a High Priest no longer has to go into the Holy of Holies on Yam Kippur to cover my sins for another year. These terms get conflated & morphed by so many.
No, but we have a High Priest in heaven who stands for his people in judment with the Father, and that judment is at the Mercyseat of Christ in the Holy of Holies in the heavenly temple.
@@larrybedouin2921 Amen! So thankful for the new covenant. A favorite passage of mine is John 6:28-29. The Scribes & Pharisees had the people thinking attaining Godliness/Salvation was a "Works/Performance" thing
So, is it better to represent GOD as what scripture tells us is good in error, or to misrepresent HIM as what scripture tells us is evil in error . No one is ever misrepresenting GOD when they portray HIM as the highest example of good WHO isn't a hypocrite that breaks HIS OWN rules and laws as calvinism portrays HIM to . GOD bless yaw brothers
Ultimately, there's absolutely no difference between single predestination and double predestination. If God doesn't elect some people to salvation, even if He doesn't _actively_ elect them to damnation but "merely" passes over them, then the end result is the same as double predestination: they're damned to Hell. I don't know why Calvinists debate amongst themselves about this issue. It's not a dilemma or a conundrum at all. They're _functionally_ different, but _consequentially_ identical.
I think it is incorrect to say that God is choosing who will believe on Christ, rather Calvinism teaches that God created two distinct groups of people and no one in either group can cross over, or leave their group. Choosing implies a selection process, but Calvinism teaches that God created people with predetermined roles. So, all reference to being chosen in the New Testament actually disproves the TULIP doctrine. This is an area that Dr. Flowers seems to be giving points to the determinists rather than pointing out yet another fallacy in their system. If I am missing something, I don't know what it is.
Grace and Peace to you. Would you like to be included in our Theology Group chat on a Different platform for further discussion? The group an assortment of people with various theological beliefs and backgrounds. What we all have in common is a desire to discuss the bible, Religion and Christianity. It's a good opportunity to witness to non-believers and fellowship with believers.
While I agree that God has provided what is necessary for salvation for all, regarding the fortress illustration, we have to be able to reconcile the verses that say that some have been chosen to be the "firstfruits" to enter the fortress (2 Thes 2:13); some have been "appointed" to enter the fortress (Acts 13:48); some have been divinely enabled to receive/understand the warning of the coming storm (1 Thes 1:4-5), etc. These, I propose, were the elect.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 Note that in 2 Thes 2:13 it's the SALVATION that was "through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth", not the choosing. It seems there WERE people who were "randomly" chosen as the "firstfruits to be saved". I just don't think that's a reference to "us", contemporary Christians, but a work unique to the early church.
Gods Time Clock that he created for us in the first few chapters of Genesis is indeed where the answers can be found regarding soterological issues. Remember that Time is for our use on Earth, in some sense it does not exist in the Big picture. God is always in “The Now” , not tommarro, not yesterday. Think about that when trying to determine Gods Omniscience,. The Time Clock renders our understanding somewhat helpless. I simply trust that of all of Gods Attributes Love is the Apex, all others feed from its well. Hence I find Calvinism contrary to His Character
And they [Jews] also, *if they abide not still in unbelief* shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in *again* {Romans 11:23} So we see that the.Jews were/are not individually chosen to be the elect of God, and also they can lose their salvation due to unbelief. God does not have one set of standards for to judge the Jew, and another for the Gentiles.
Grace and Peace to you. Would you like to be included in our Theology Group chat on a Different platform for further discussion? The group an assortment of people with various theological beliefs and backgrounds. What we all have in common is a desire to discuss the bible, Religion and Christianity. It's a good opportunity to witness to non-believers and fellowship with believers.
The analogy is like Noahs arc.or moses maybe ,his mother belived or maybe even saw the young baby boys being killed and put moses in the basket for him to be saved ,there is hearing the message beliveing and action taken which lead to the ultimate salvation of the nation .in a same way christ obidence on behalf of mankind our faith in him causes us to ge saved when we hear and belive the good news calling on jesus name .
For the wages of sin is death; (not hell;) but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. {Romans 6:23} Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such *the second death* hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. {Revelation 20:6} And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. *This is the second death* And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. {Revelation 20:14-15}
Grace and Peace to you. Would you like to be included in our Theology Group chat on a Different platform for further discussion? The group an assortment of people with various theological beliefs and backgrounds. What we all have in common is a desire to discuss the bible, Religion and Christianity. It's a good opportunity to witness to non-believers and fellowship with believers.
So when God creates someone who eventually dies and rejects the gospel, did he know thats what they would choose? If so why did he create that individual, if the thing he wants more than anything else is for everyone to accept him as their savior?
Question: Is the concept of sin primarily objective in nature or primarily subjective in nature? Your answer will determine your theoligical position and how that impacts your concept of God and therefore why you believe what you believe.
I dont folllow Calvinistis or Armenians mumbo jumbo . Its all relgion not a relationship wirh the Lord Jesus Christ . The Lord works through His Marvelous Word..Bottom line do not follow men but God.
If God is just, God is Love, God knows all things. Then surely we can't begrudge His choice. He predestined 4 parties to the crucifixion of His Son. (Acts 4 v 28). Judas to betray, John 6 record of those who could not believe, the Potter, etc. Surely unless God does as He wills , its a "roll the dice, and let it pan out".
yep I agree with James White. Flowers' predestination of anyone who believes is just an impersonal plan. God doesn't know who are the specific individuals (believers) in his plan prior to creation. Perfectly consistent with open theism
He does not believe that God does not know who will, he believes that God not create some for the purpose of salvation and some for the purpose of damnation.
The entire argument is that because you can decide, you're responsible - and that if you weren't able to decide, you wouldn't be responsible to believe because you can't and God has to make your do it.
@@michaal105 as I said, there is no mention of sin here, and how it plays a roll in any decision we make. If we remove sin from this conversation and focus on our " decisions" then we fall into the trap of how ' man- centered ' we are in our theology.
The story of Noah's ark, disagrees with the Tower analogy, given in this video. Judgement is coming (the flood); salvation is offered (the ark); God chose who would get into the ark ( Noah and his family); all outside the ark perish (the wicked). Those outside the ark were not offered salvation. And only the people God chose were saved. (The elect) The Provisionist view of predestination and election is impersonal. It's a view that has as it's focus a plan and not a people. The biblical view of predestination and election is: God has a people He has chosen to save, and the means follow; the ark being one example of many we find thru out scripture.
In plain language: - Before Creation, God chooses Bob to exist. Before God chose Bob to exist, God already knew that Bob will reject Him and end up in Hell. Therefore, whether you’re Arminian, Provisionist, or Molinist, it all works out the same as Calvinism does. Bob can’t get saved because if he did get saved, then God would be wrong in His knowledge of Bob. All Theological Positions where God has perfect foreknowledge are Predestinarian just as Calvinism is.
Wrong, it doesn't work out even close to " the same " because calvinism claims GOD is creating people for hell fodder with no choice to do otherwise, which portrays HIM to be like allah of islam and other gnostic ideas of GOD . If you can't see the difference here, I truly feel pity for you, my friend. May GOD bless you to see the difference .
@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 If it is impossible for God to be wrong, then it logically follows that it is impossible for anyone ( including Bob ) to do anything which would cause God to be wrong. Bob getting saved would cause God to be wrong ( and again, that is impossible ). So why then, did God choose for Bob to exist ?
I dont think thats the problem, since it ignores the progress between Bob’s birth and his death. Lets set up that Bob will not accept Christ as a fact when he dies so we know he will end up in hell Calvinist says that Bob could never be saved. cause he is elected to be an object of Gods wrath. This just means he is not elect. The gospel cannot change him and he is destined to hell. While normally a Christian who does not take the tulip systematic, Bob could have been saved at any point in his life if only he repented and believed in Christ. but he did not so he is still in hell. which this is the position I hold The real contention at least between my friends is did Jesus fail in saving Bob in my view as my friend argue against me while i say is in their view i think they make light of God’s mercy and the power of the Gospel seems underestimated as it does not change anyones hearts, it just becomes a trigger to activate regeneration. we try to discuss this so much in our circle so frequently cause its fun and it actually helps us frequently study the word more. We went home late almost every Sunday reading the bible and discussing this during fellowship 😂
TheMirabilles I guess then I can disagree with your initial statements since those are never said in scripture. Where does it say God chose to individually create us, and where does it say that He knew the future decisions of humans for salvation? Some things he determined- He determined He (the son) would come as a man. He was completely determined before hand to do what he did. Every prophecy is something he determined. He says he appointed / elected or chose some people from the womb for specific purpose. I don’t know if anywhere someone/ human is chosen before creation.
I'd rather err believing that God offers mercy to everyone than to err believing that He doesn't, because IMO the former is a higher view of God than the latter.
Taylor, your Calvinistic idea of justice is perverted .
Instead, listen to the Bible idea of justice:
"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
@Taylor Judging a doctrine as unjust, and therefore unworthy of God, isn't "demanding" justice of God. It is demanding it of the _doctrine,_ before we will accept it as a doctrine that agrees with what the Bible tells us about God.. Justice is in the heart of God, taught by Him in the Bible. He hates injustice, when it is man who is being unjust.
I like AK's comments that started this thread. Still, it's not what I like or prefer... it's what scripture/God's Word, personified by Jesus being the Logos of God... that says, God loved us in this way (Greek for "so") that He gave/sent His Son to redeem, ransome, become a propitiation/atoned for any, all, everyone, whosoever will call upon Him. Therefore God has dealt to everyman the measure of faith (Romans 12:3) sent His Holy Spirit to convict the WORLD (John 16:8) draws all (John 12:32) created us in His image & likeness with free moral agency to have genuine fellowship, Koinonia, personal relationship with Him the thing He desires most (Acts 17:26-31)
@Taylor R.C. Sproul taught that no one gets injustice because he taught, as a Calvinist, that everyone is in sin and those people God elected for salvation would get mercy and all else would get justice. Superficially, that sounds right; But the problem is, people left unelected are really not getting justice if you are left without an option or the ability to believe from before the foundation of the world, before you have done anything good or bad. To me, it makes no sense and the theology conflicts with itself. God bless. 😊
@Taylor Maybe it isn't deserved. But what matters is God's character, not what we deserve. Plus, 1 John 2:2.
I'm so thankful I found ur channel. For years I was tormented believing I could be non elect,but now I better understand after listening to so many of ur programs and hold to provisionist and full of joy.
I love the fortress analogy. So easy to understand and a perfect way of explaining the Provisionist view of election. Thank you again Dr. Flowers.
The fortress analogy is so reasonable and simple. Most importantly, more biblically accurate while not contradicting the loving, merciful, and gracious nature and character of God, the way Calvinism does.
I think the fortress analogy is probably the best one I've heard for predestination, I think if you addeed a proclamation aspect to it , it would hit even harder.
I am so grateful for the ministry of Flowers. He has been thinking about the soteriological topics of Calvinism, and bringing many clear thinking, highly qualified guests for so long that he is able to bring piercing clarity to why Calvinism is wrong. A much needed antidote to this disease within Christendon, especially since it's roots, at least in the West, go back to the 4th century with Augustine and contain the illustrious founders of the Reformation which we, without being informed otherwise, would implicitly trust.
No doubt about it, Leighton Flowers, because he has thought and talked about this topic so extensively, has become a clear thinking force Calvinists must reckoned with.
God provides, just trust.
Thank you Leighton!
Amen!!!
I love the illustration about the fortress. It made me think of the final plague in Egypt - if you sacrifice a lamb and put its blood on your doorpost, the firstborn males within will be spared. If you don't, they will die. Considering the Passover lamb is a prototype of Jesus, then it would make sense that only those who freely choose to put their faith in Him will be saved by His blood.
Yeah that's good 👍
Thanks for getting us thinking about Theology! Not a Calvinist but there does seem to be passages that indicate that our will in receiving spiritual things is bound in some way (1 Cor 2:14). Also, at face value Acts 13:48 naturally reads as if we believe because God has appointed us.” Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Will have to think on it some more. This is definitely a tricky doctrine to think through. Grace and Peace!
With regard to Acts 13:48, as you said, at first glance it appears to support the calvinistic doctrine of election, however, if we're careful with the text we can see that there's no true indication in the passage itself of which came first chronologically between the two terms "appointed" and "believed." Therefore we should not assume that they were appointed before they believed *merely because one term precedes the other in the text.* That would be the logical fallacy: _post hoc ergo propter hoc._
Acts 13:48 is parallel to Acts 13:46.
13:48 "they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed"
13:46 "Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles."
In v46 it is the Jews who did not consider themselves worthy of eternal life. The same in v48. It is the Gentiles who did consider themselves worthy of eternal life. In neither verse is God making the decision for the people. One group rejected the grace gospel Paul was preaching while the other group desired eternal life and accepted the gospel by believing.
They want you to ignore the text for what it actually reads. The words "appointed TO eternal life believed" show a clear order. What is the purpose of the word TO? It is a preposition indicating a directional movement. I am in Mexico going TO the north pole. Would you ignore the word TO? Of course not. In 2 Thessalonians 2 13-14, the order is stated from being chosen for(to) salvation ->> to which ->> He called you by the gospel.
Chosen ->> Then ->> called. Chosen before believing. But I had someone tell me that the order was not stated there. He said the word aforementioned tells us that being called is referring to being chosen and your chosen once you believe. So his interpretation was that when you're called by the gospel, then you believe through the sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. Do you see how distorted that interpretation is? According to his interpretation, the text should read. He called you by the gospel and then sanctified you by the Spirit upon belief. While it's true we are sanctified by faith, those words are not in the text. Furthermore, the word "beginning" is there. The beginning of what? It can't be justification because our election is in accordance with God the Father's foreknowledge.
Never considered myself a Calvinist or Arminian because I saw theological error in both, so I’ve always just said “idk in somewhere in between.” I tend to agree with this provisionism soteriology, but struggle with labels like that because it doesn’t leave room for minor disagreements. So far, I haven’t found anything I necessarily disagree with in Provisionism, but still studying.
I have sir. Maybe u can help me. I tend to side with Proviaionist.
But if someone ask,
Does God really know specific person who will go to hell or heaven before they even born?
Is there a label for non-calvinistic churches in the SBC? Would you categorize them as Arminian?
Can anyone explan this verse for me (Matthew 11:22)? If God love all and choose all in christ from the foundation of the world, why did he rejected them even He Himself knew that they will repent and be save if He send a messanger to work of a miracle.
Man's free will can not be save themself if God is not willing to save them. ❤
If a person calls up a Calvinist and says, " I want to be a Christian. How or what do I do?" . What is the Reformed believer to answer the person?
Believe in Jesus, and be saved! (Acts 16:30-31)
I find Romans 3:23, 6:23, 10:9-11, John 3:16, 14:6, and 1st John 5:9-13 to be very helpful in explaining who Christ is, what He did, our sin problem, and the solution to this problem that is found in Christ alone.
Very good video/teaching. I agree with LF's definition of "Provisionist", however I don't refer to myself as such. I find it unnecessary, limiting & complicates simple bible faith in "Jesus Saves". It was never used by Matthew Henry, Tozer or C.S. Lewis, yet you knew these men believed & taught anyone could/can be saved by Grace alone through Faith alone in Christ alone.
I try not to call/refer myself to a "Dispensationalist" although I definitely see that a High Priest no longer has to go into the Holy of Holies on Yam Kippur to cover my sins for another year. These terms get conflated & morphed by so many.
No, but we have a High Priest in heaven who stands for his people in judment with the Father, and that judment is at the Mercyseat of Christ in the Holy of Holies in the heavenly temple.
@@larrybedouin2921 Amen! So thankful for the new covenant. A favorite passage of mine is John 6:28-29. The Scribes & Pharisees had the people thinking attaining Godliness/Salvation was a "Works/Performance" thing
So, is it better to represent GOD as what scripture tells us is good in error, or to misrepresent HIM as what scripture tells us is evil in error . No one is ever misrepresenting GOD when they portray HIM as the highest example of good WHO isn't a hypocrite that breaks HIS OWN rules and laws as calvinism portrays HIM to .
GOD bless yaw brothers
True,
Thou shalt not take the name [character] of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Why would I embrace a doctrine that is self contradictary and unjust, when there is a perfectly fine Biblical doctrine that is logical and just.
Ultimately, there's absolutely no difference between single predestination and double predestination. If God doesn't elect some people to salvation, even if He doesn't _actively_ elect them to damnation but "merely" passes over them, then the end result is the same as double predestination: they're damned to Hell. I don't know why Calvinists debate amongst themselves about this issue. It's not a dilemma or a conundrum at all. They're _functionally_ different, but _consequentially_ identical.
I think it is incorrect to say that God is choosing who will believe on Christ, rather Calvinism teaches that God created two distinct groups of people and no one in either group can cross over, or leave their group. Choosing implies a selection process, but Calvinism teaches that God created people with predetermined roles. So, all reference to being chosen in the New Testament actually disproves the TULIP doctrine. This is an area that Dr. Flowers seems to be giving points to the determinists rather than pointing out yet another fallacy in their system. If I am missing something, I don't know what it is.
Grace and Peace to you. Would you like to be included in our Theology Group chat on a Different platform for further discussion?
The group an assortment of people with various theological beliefs and backgrounds. What we all have in common is a desire to discuss the bible, Religion and Christianity. It's a good opportunity to witness to non-believers and fellowship with believers.
While I agree that God has provided what is necessary for salvation for all, regarding the fortress illustration, we have to be able to reconcile the verses that say that some have been chosen to be the "firstfruits" to enter the fortress (2 Thes 2:13); some have been "appointed" to enter the fortress (Acts 13:48); some have been divinely enabled to receive/understand the warning of the coming storm (1 Thes 1:4-5), etc. These, I propose, were the elect.
"God chose us"....The question is, did he choose us randomly, or through something? "Through sanctification by the Spirit and BELIEF in the truth."
@@truthtransistorradio6716 Note that in 2 Thes 2:13 it's the SALVATION that was "through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth", not the choosing. It seems there WERE people who were "randomly" chosen as the "firstfruits to be saved". I just don't think that's a reference to "us", contemporary Christians, but a work unique to the early church.
Gods Time Clock that he created for us in the first few chapters of Genesis is indeed where the answers can be found regarding soterological issues.
Remember that Time is for our use on Earth, in some sense it does not exist in the Big picture. God is always in “The Now” , not tommarro, not yesterday. Think about that when trying to determine Gods Omniscience,. The Time Clock renders our understanding somewhat helpless.
I simply trust that of all of Gods Attributes Love is the Apex, all others feed from its well.
Hence I find Calvinism contrary to His Character
And they [Jews] also, *if they abide not still in unbelief* shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in *again*
{Romans 11:23}
So we see that the.Jews were/are not individually chosen to be the elect of God, and also they can lose their salvation due to unbelief.
God does not have one set of standards for to judge the Jew, and another for the Gentiles.
Grace and Peace to you. Would you like to be included in our Theology Group chat on a Different platform for further discussion?
The group an assortment of people with various theological beliefs and backgrounds. What we all have in common is a desire to discuss the bible, Religion and Christianity. It's a good opportunity to witness to non-believers and fellowship with believers.
And by God showing that even the Jews can turn from their salvation that would further disprove the U in TULIP.
The analogy is like Noahs arc.or moses maybe ,his mother belived or maybe even saw the young baby boys being killed and put moses in the basket for him to be saved ,there is hearing the message beliveing and action taken which lead to the ultimate salvation of the nation .in a same way christ obidence on behalf of mankind our faith in him causes us to ge saved when we hear and belive the good news calling on jesus name .
For the wages of sin is death; (not hell;) but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
{Romans 6:23}
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such *the second death* hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
{Revelation 20:6}
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. *This is the second death*
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
{Revelation 20:14-15}
Grace and Peace to you. Would you like to be included in our Theology Group chat on a Different platform for further discussion?
The group an assortment of people with various theological beliefs and backgrounds. What we all have in common is a desire to discuss the bible, Religion and Christianity. It's a good opportunity to witness to non-believers and fellowship with believers.
So when God creates someone who eventually dies and rejects the gospel, did he know thats what they would choose? If so why did he create that individual, if the thing he wants more than anything else is for everyone to accept him as their savior?
Question: Is the concept of sin primarily objective in nature or primarily subjective in nature?
Your answer will determine your theoligical position and how that impacts your concept of God and therefore why you believe what you believe.
I dont folllow Calvinistis or Armenians mumbo jumbo . Its all relgion not a relationship wirh the Lord Jesus Christ . The Lord works through His Marvelous Word..Bottom line do not follow men but God.
In Him determines predestination. Election/choosing is the method of getting in Him. It's so simple even a godless calvinist can understand it
Election is not the method of getting “in Him”. Show me one single verse that says that. Ephesians does t say this. Faith is how we get “in Him”
Hannah, well said and amen.
Armenians? Wow.
If God is just, God is Love, God knows all things. Then surely we can't begrudge His choice. He predestined 4 parties to the crucifixion of His Son. (Acts 4 v 28). Judas to betray, John 6 record of those who could not believe, the Potter, etc. Surely unless God does as He wills , its a "roll the dice, and let it pan out".
yep I agree with James White. Flowers' predestination of anyone who believes is just an impersonal plan. God doesn't know who are the specific individuals (believers) in his plan prior to creation. Perfectly consistent with open theism
He does not believe that God does not know who will, he believes that God not create some for the purpose of salvation and some for the purpose of damnation.
@@faithnreason446AMEN‼️💯
" it's your decision "
Say no more.
No mention of sin here.
That is a real worry.
The entire argument is that because you can decide, you're responsible - and that if you weren't able to decide, you wouldn't be responsible to believe because you can't and God has to make your do it.
@@michaal105 as I said, there is no mention of sin here, and how it plays a roll in any decision we make.
If we remove sin from this conversation and focus on our " decisions" then we fall into the trap of how ' man- centered ' we are in our theology.
The story of Noah's ark, disagrees with the Tower analogy, given in this video.
Judgement is coming (the flood); salvation is offered (the ark); God chose who would get into the ark ( Noah and his family); all outside the ark perish (the wicked). Those outside the ark were not offered salvation. And only the people God chose were saved. (The elect)
The Provisionist view of predestination and election is impersonal. It's a view that has as it's focus a plan and not a people. The biblical view of predestination and election is: God has a people He has chosen to save, and the means follow; the ark being one example of many we find thru out scripture.
In plain language: - Before Creation, God chooses Bob to exist. Before God chose Bob to exist, God already knew that Bob will reject Him and end up in Hell.
Therefore, whether you’re Arminian, Provisionist, or Molinist, it all works out the same as Calvinism does. Bob can’t get saved because if he did get saved, then God would be wrong in His knowledge of Bob.
All Theological Positions where God has perfect foreknowledge are Predestinarian just as Calvinism is.
Seems to me that every analogy/discussion of God's knowledge in relation to time only adds confusion to the discussion.
Wrong, it doesn't work out even close to " the same " because calvinism claims GOD is creating people for hell fodder with no choice to do otherwise, which portrays HIM to be like allah of islam and other gnostic ideas of GOD . If you can't see the difference here, I truly feel pity for you, my friend.
May GOD bless you to see the difference .
@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 If it is impossible for God to be wrong, then it logically follows that it is impossible for anyone ( including Bob ) to do anything which would cause God to be wrong. Bob getting saved would cause God to be wrong ( and again, that is impossible ).
So why then, did God choose for Bob to exist ?
I dont think thats the problem, since it ignores the progress between Bob’s birth and his death.
Lets set up that Bob will not accept Christ as a fact when he dies so we know he will end up in hell
Calvinist says that Bob could never be saved. cause he is elected to be an object of Gods wrath. This just means he is not elect. The gospel cannot change him and he is destined to hell.
While normally a Christian who does not take the tulip systematic, Bob could have been saved at any point in his life if only he repented and believed in Christ. but he did not so he is still in hell. which this is the position I hold
The real contention at least between my friends is did Jesus fail in saving Bob in my view as my friend argue against me
while i say is in their view i think they make light of God’s mercy and the power of the Gospel seems underestimated as it does not change anyones hearts, it just becomes a trigger to activate regeneration.
we try to discuss this so much in our circle so frequently cause its fun and it actually helps us frequently study the word more. We went home late almost every Sunday reading the bible and discussing this during fellowship 😂
TheMirabilles
I guess then I can disagree with your initial statements since those are never said in scripture. Where does it say God chose to individually create us, and where does it say that He knew the future decisions of humans for salvation?
Some things he determined- He determined He (the son) would come as a man. He was completely determined before hand to do what he did. Every prophecy is something he determined.
He says he appointed / elected or chose some people from the womb for specific purpose. I don’t know if anywhere someone/ human is chosen before creation.