Calvinism vs Provisionism | Redeemed Zoomer | Leighton Flowers | Soteriology 101
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 чер 2024
- Dr. Leighton Flowers introduces Richard, the Redeemed Zoomer, by walking through one of his videos on Calvinism (seen here: • Predestination - Maste... ) in order to prepare the audience for a discussion LIVE on Trinity Radio immediately following, which can be found HERE: • The Calvinism DEBATE: ...
To get your copy of Dr. Flowers new book, Drawn By Jesus, go here: a.co/d/6s767Ey
To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: soteriology101.com/support/
Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...
Dr. Flowers’ book, “The Potter’s Promise” and his book, “God’s Provision for All” can be found here: www.amazon.com/Leighton-Flowe...
DOWNLOAD OUR APP:LINK FOR ANDROIDS: play.google.com/store/apps/de...
LINK FOR APPLE: apps.apple.com/us/app/soterio...
To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip” please click here: soteriology101.com/shop/
To listen to the audio only be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or one of the other podcast players found here: soteriology101.com/home/
For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism) please visit www.soteriology101.com
To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: / 1806702782965265
For updates and news follow us at: soteriology101
Or @soteriology101 on Twitter
Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!
To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers go here: soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...
Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software developing needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101.
To become a Patreon supporter or make a one time donation: soteriology101.com/support/
Thanks for watching.
#Leighton Flowers #Predestination #Calvinism #Provisionism #Calvinist #Salvation
I learned so much from SOTERIOLOGY 101 since 2021 after finding out my wife and I had started attending a Calvinistic church. Within a year we were ridiculed and called ignorant because we didn't agree with Calvinism. Needless to say, we left brokenhearted because we believed these 'believers' really loved us! We can no longer associate with these people who aren't sure God loves everyone and died for everyone. The whole thing is deceptive and wicked. I pray for them, but no longer consider them brothers/sisters. "You will know them by their fruit!" This doctrine is a rotten apple tree. It destroys the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross for the whole world ...John 3:16-17.
DW: It sounds like you experienced what one would experience with Jehovah's Witnesses. They come on very warm and kind and friendly - in order to get people secured into the grips of their social structure. But then if one does not accept the doctrine they treat that one the same way you were treated by the Calvinists.
Classic cult tactic: Love-bomb people into emotional bondage and only then reveal to them the true beliefs and doctrines.
Pr 29:5: ⁵ A man who flatters his neighbor Spreads a net for his feet.
@@Drspeiserive never thought of that proverb in that example before. Makes alot of sense though 😊
Became Catholic thanks to this channel. Now I go to Society St Pius X, to the Traditional Latin Mass.
@@marce.goodnews DW: Were you Calvinist before you switched to Catholic?
I no longer hold to Calvinism because of all of the logical and biblical problems I see with it. Once I started seeing things differently, I have had several “brothers” disassociate with me, call me a heretic, and they won’t even speak to me. It blows my mind how hateful Calvinist can be.
I honestly feel as though rudeness and condescension actually ARE doctrinal distinctives of Calvinism. My experience confirms the inevitable fruit of this pernicious theology.
This has been my experience also. The condescending attitude displayed was sickening! @@keelyemerine-mix1051
We should keep in mind who is the author of false gospels. 👿 comes to steal, kill & destroy, to sow divisive seeds among the Brethren.
@@kgar5String I say it’s 70/30 , more Calvinists than other side in my experience
I disagree. I find Calvinists more hateful.
Caught this on RZ's channel. I like Zoomer, but agree with Leighton 100% on free will and the soteriological implications of our moral agency. Wonderful discussion, thanks.
I happen to think the Luke Skywalker analogy is a perfect fit, because applying EDD to reality creates a story full of fictional characters. It's incredibly apt for a system that doesn't fit reality to be communicated by an analogy in which fictional characters who are arguing over whether they have free will are doing so solely because they were caused to do so by the author. That's EXACTLY the kind of world we'd be living in if EDD was true.
Congratulations Leighton. You did a fantastic job in this debate. God bless you.
Praise God for this ministry!
So God despises sin so much that it requires his eternal wrath that he predestined all of humanity to be sinful and in turn deserve his wrath?
What DOES it say?…
Became Catholic thanks to this channel. Now I go to Society St Pius X, to the Traditional Latin Mass.
Two of my favorite channels meet head to head, can't wait to watch!
It is not the "who" that was predestined, God predestined the "what" - He prescribed how we will be saved, not who will be saved.
John 14:6 says, “...I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” According to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will, God chose believers in Christ to be pre-pathed (the way...through me [John 14:6]) to life (redeemed bodies through adoption to sonship) so they can come to the Father holy and blameless in his sight to the praise of His glory!
I love Redeemed Zoomer, he's contributed a TON to and for the Church.
Thanks for breaking this one down Leighton. I will have to check out the debate!
I just have not been able to see a sustainable consistency in Calvinism's system. A foundation firmly grounded in an upside down philosophy.
I wonder if we'll ever find a Calvinist who talks to you but is humble and willing to examine their own thinking and assumptions.
And I pray that we increase our humility as well. We can never be too humble (although we can have a fake humility). God is the only one who knows everything and is always right. The only thing we can be absolutely sure of is His word. We need to always hold our interpretations more loosely and always be open to questioning them and checking again what scripture actually says and be open to the possibility we misunderstood it. It is guaranteed that we have things that are wrong in our beliefs.
The ficticious character, despite being controlled by the author, is held accountable, but only in a ficticious manner, within that ficticious world.
That analogy quickly falls apart, and it's strange that it's spread by so many.
It is a totally flawed analogy. Whenever someone tries it on me and asks me, is Tolkien to blame for Sauron’s sins? I respond, absolutely, Tolkien is clearly responsible for the actions of the fictitious character he wrote into his book. It’s not like Sauron had a choice in the matter.
So calvinists admit man doesn't exist.
@@TheRomans9Guy
If the characters in Lord of the Rings were real Tolkien would be responsible for the sins of Sauron.
@@whattheheckification exactly right
The world is a stage, and the people are marionettes on a string supposedly.
Mark Hamill instead of Luke Skywalker would instantly clarify the issues with the analogy : ). Can you imagine George Lucas controlling Mark Hamill's decisions outside of Star Wars? That would be a funny movie.
DW: Determining every impulse that comes to pass within his brain!
That is the case for the Calvinist
Every impulse that comes to pass within his brain - is determined by antecedent factors (infallible decree) totally outside of the Calvinist's brains control.
Thus the Calvinist is granted NO SAY and NO CHOICE in the matter of any impulse within his brain.
Calvinists are so blessed to have that!! :-D
I lost all respect for Mark Hamill after he called Joe Biden "Joebi wan Kenobi" biden stinks
It was obvious the Force turned him into a Farce.
Confused Calvinist: "I used to believe in free-will, but then I changed my mind."
@@kgar5String because the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak
@kgar5String by that logic, it sounds like you are saying when one receives a new heart, They can stop sinning. So why haven't every believer stopped sinning when they recieve a new heart?
@@kgar5String Sorry my comment annoyed you. It's supposed to be funny.
@@kgar5String I will delete my comment, if you accept my apologies and these friendly emoji flowers that took me a while to find online💐💐💐(I am not being sarcastic).
Exactly
Oh this got good !!
As a Trekkie I've always explained the two kinds of predestination as God using the transporter to beam up individuals vs God sending down a shuttle craft for people to get on.
After watching the debate Zoomer defeats his own point about Adam. Because here he said he DID have free will, but then said his choice was also determined in the debate. Gotta love inconsistent Calvinists.
I actually like Redeemed Zoomer a lot, as he does a lot of videos on different denominations and theology topics, and promotes most any main church the viewer may choose. He does have an open bias for Presbyterianism but he's seems pretty open and respectful to any Catholics, and non-redeemed people out there. He's even responded positively to my comments on his channel, even those I respectfully point out I am not Calvinist. Can't wait to see his debate...though really I have seen him debate before an issue I do agree with him on, but he is not the best debater. :/ Hopefully he does better this time, as I like to see the best and brightest air it out, and see who can make the best points, he may get me to rethink things.
Redeemed Zoomer is the best!! Whooooo!!! Way to go Redeemed Zoomer , you keep it up!
You’re awesome!
"Redeemed Zoomer" is incorrect. The Catholic Church does not and has not for 2,000 years taught "Double Predestination." (Thank God).
If God or determines who will be saved why would he even require belief?
I just recently came back to my First love. Life has been more enjoyable, and my moments of prayer are happy. Tonight I decided to count how many times the names of Augustine and Jesus are mentioned in the Calvin Institutes of Christian Religion. It’s interesting
Saw a good video the other day where a guy broke down the favorite Calvinist words like predestination and elect and compared how those words were used by contemporary Greek speakers and they don’t even mean what Calvinists say. They line up with what Dr Flowers has been trying to say. Theres so many examples of how Calvinism isn’t correct add that one to the list.
Can you the link please?
@8909807
Probably talking about Joel Krotyko.
@@kgar5StringI mean that’s the point. Because those words were translated from Ancient Greek into ancient Latin then ancient English and language has drifted you get people believing weird things like double predestination and determinism
@@djohnson3093 yes it was on his channel.
Is that “spontaneous” discussion available on this channel or elsewhere?
The irony of your comment that you don't want to be a false deceiver is that, if Calvinistic determinism is true, God determined that you not want to be a false deceiver while simultaneously determining that you be one. Exhaustive divine determinism is so self-refuting, it is mystifying how anyone takes it seriously. It perverts the character of God while undermining rationality.
Does anyone know Dr Flowers eschatological position-curious if he’s a Dispensationalist or not.
EVERY false teaching can be found in BITS and PIECES of scripture. The question becomes, how many passages to you have to avoid or turn ups aide down to keep a teaching alive? Look up ALL passages on the following and see which position really makes sense
-Faith
-Seek
-Blind/Deaf
One position takes a few ambiguous passages from each, forces a position from them, and then completely steamrolls the 95% of the passages that in no way fit.
Can someone explain what the word Reformed means? Does it mean a believer in tulip calvinism? Or not a Catholic? Was Arminius reformed? Thanks.
Jacob Arminius was not only "reformed", he was also a Calvinist his entire life! Much like Luther with Roman Catholicism a few decades earlier, Arminius was a leading Calvinist theologian who tried to reform Calvinism from within. He had serious problems with the view of God that dominated the Calvinist movement then and now. About a decade after Arminius' death, the Calvinist leaders met at the Synod of Dort, in the Netherlands, to officially address the internal differences between the doctrines being taught by most of the leadership and those being taught by the more moderate wing of Calvinism, called the Remonstrants, who followed Arminius' teachings. The Synod chose to "double down" on the harsher, more extreme aspects of Calvinism and to "expel" the moderate Remonstrants/Arminians from Calvinism. Their statements against Arminianism, called the "Canons of Dort", are the basis of the teachings that were popularized by the "TULIP" acronym centuries later.
As for the term "Reformed", if you use the original definition of the term, it means the same thing as "Protestant" and would thus apply to anyone from Calvinists and Arminians to Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans. In the more modern usage of the word, it usually refers to some flavor of Calvinism.
@DamonNomad82 Thank you! If someone says "reformers of the faith", does that mean Protestant leaders then?
It is so easy to get lost in all of this. As far as God making the sovereign decision to give us the choice, I just believe it is true that that is an important part of what He is doing. Yes, the Lamb is worthy. I believe God wants people to have the free choice to make that determination for themselves as that is the only way it would be uncoerced and true. I am no scholar.
God is worthy! When we choose to disregard that, we turn to idolatry and sin. When we recognize and acknowledge our sin and turn to God in helplessness and recognize and receive the provision He has made for us, we are willingly and dependently according Him His true value and Glory. We are on the path of loving God with all our hearts and souls and minds. Concurrently, we are to love our neighbors as ourselves.
Agreed, original guilt and total inability are the foundations of calvinism. Therefore they need to be dealt with first.
DW: I would disagree that total inability is foundational in Calvinism. That is actually what Calvinists want people to see while obfuscating what they don't want people to see - which is the doctrine of decrees.
The "T" in Calvinism's TULIP functions as a lie of omission.
A lie of omission - is communication designed to mislead - by the strategy of omitting critical facts - which if NOT omitted would not mislead.
In this case - the critical fact that is strategically *OBFUSCATED* is the doctrine which stipulates - the state of nature - including every man's nature - at every nano-second in time - is 100% predestined by infallible decree - and at any instance in time - cannot be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be.
The Calvinist uses the "T" in the TULIP to FALSELY attribute man's abilities/inabilities - and from that man's eternal destiny - to the state of his nature. When the TRUTH is - both the state of man's nature - at every nano-second in time - and man's destiny are both *INFALLIBLY FIXED* and man is granted NO SAY and NO CHOICE in the matter of anything.
Once we understand this - it becomes obvious why the Calvinist will *OBFUSCATE* their doctrine of decrees and produce the *FALSE APPEARANCE* that man's destiny is determined by man's nature.
I disagree. I think Limited Atonement should be dealt with first. Not because it is foundational to Calvinism, but because it is by far the most damaging to the church. It's straight up heresy.
And if you debunk Limited Atonement the rest falls easy anyway.
@@dw6528
I concede to your point. The doctrine of decrees is the overarching foundation that logically must come before.
Thanks for pointing that out.
@@kgar5String DW: Calvinism's perseverance of the saints is a little misleading.
The doctrine stipulates - nothing happens unless it is decreed to happen - by a decree that is infallible.
So it is the decree which actually "Perseveres"
For example - right now a comet is "Persevering" through space by virtue of an infallible decree.
Sinful evil impulses are "Persevering" within human brains - by virtue of an infallible decree
The majority of the total human population are created specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for Calvin's god's good pleasure - will "Persevere" throughout eternity - by virtue of that decree.
The *OBJECT* of the decree is powerless to effect that which has been decreed.
So Calvinists who are ELECT can sin as much as they want to - because their ELECTION is infallible.
@@kgar5String DW: You are probably not aware of the large numbers of Calvinists who come here trying to convince people (and probably trying to convince themselves ) they are not following Calvin. :-]
The fact that they recite all of Calvinism's talking-points........and the fact that they read scripture the way Calvinism reads it........serve as *DEAD-GIVEAWAYS* :-]
I was expecting a discussion between the two. Title and thumbnail was so misleading.
Johnny Mac sounds like a Provisionist here, "God’s Word is essential to the new birth. Peter said, “You have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God.-This is the word which was preached to you” (1 Pet. 1:23, 25). The Holy Spirit works through the Word to activate faith, which results in the new birth (Rom. 10:17)." I rest my case.....
John MacArthur F., Jr., Our Sufficiency in Christ, Electronic ed. (Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1991), 47.
I am a big fan of RZ.
Sorry to hear that
What kind of satisfaction would God even get out of choosing certain people to force into a relationship with Him? There’s no real relationship there if you just re-program them to “love” you. Nobody would be okay with a robot spouse (well maybe some weirdos would be), but basically nobody would look at this as love yet we are supposed to believe that God operates outside of what love actually is and then says He is a God of love? Is everything we as humans know about love a lie or something?
Quick question, please can you give a non Calvinistic interpretation of , no one comes to me unless the father draws them? That verse has always been difficult for me to interpret in a non Calvinistic way.
The non-Calvinistic interpretation of John 6:44 simply requires discarding Calvinistic presuppositions about the statement that many people hold without even realizing it. The Calvinist assumes that "drawing" is only applied to certain individuals whom God pre-selects to the neglect of everyone else and that any individual who is "drawn" will be completely unable to resist that "drawing". There is absolutely nothing in the Bible itself that implies that is the case! To the contrary, later in the same account, in John 12:32, we find Jesus, days before His crucifixion, proclaiming "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” This demonstrates that the drawing is universal, not limited. While the drawing is an essential part of coming to Jesus, it is not, in itself a guarantee that one will come to Him. The fact that the drawing is universal shows that it can be, and often is, resisted by those who are drawn, as many people reject it and are lost.
@@DamonNomad82 thank you very much
Another way is to not read us, as new covenant members of the Body of Christ, into the text.
Jesus' audience were Jews and He was refering to believeing Jews. It would be the ones who already knew the Father and He would be drawing them to Jesus during His earthly ministry.
Post death, burial and ressurection it is the gospel according to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that draws people. And if read with the words of Jesus in mind about Him drawing when He is lifted up, it makes perfect sense.
Jesus is not talking to or about the Body of Christ or the dispensation of grace in John 6 as it was yet a mystery waiting to be revealed.
I have to say this is the UA-cam cross over I didn’t see coming
If you’re once saved always saved. Did you lose your freewill after your born again? Salvation is conditional contingent on faith alone so. You must remain faithful John 15. (Freewill is what we received as an instrument of the curse from the fall Gen 2---revelation
God determined to save what was lost.
Notice he starts out by saying that man had free will before the fall, but then ends up saying it is logically impossible for God to create a free willed creature. This is the true nature of Calvinism. It starts out with the proof of man being in bondage to sin as the evidence for a lack of free will, which is somewhat true, because man is bound to sin eventually due to the nature of sin and death since Adam's fall, but then proceeds to its true source, which is that God cannot create a free willed creature.
Calvinism is not about limitations on man's ability. It is about limitations on God's ability. This is because their God is the unchangable Monad of the Pythagorean system, which has its true roots in fatalism, as supported by astrology and numerology. Pythagoras was literally dedicated to Apollos, who is the same as Apollyon, the spirit behind the Antichrist. Practically speaking, the Calvinist Monad is no different then the Islamic Allah, with the exception of a mysterious trinitarian doctrine, which is little more than a charade, since everything the Logos/Son and Wisdom/Spirit do to interact with man is not a true interaction, but a manifestation of a foregone conclusion, whcih they hold as unchangably predestined. It's a convoluted ideology, but put bluntly, it is another God, and another religion altogether. Come out of her my people, says the Lord.
I always find it interesting when I come across a calvinist, who believes in the age of accountability.
God best describes what Calvinism and Reformed theology is really about in Jeremiah 7!!!!
The notion that sinful human beings can contribute anything to their salvation is unbiblical.
Hence, it is logical that everything was predestined by God and therein, for the believer, lies our comfort.
Predestination in the divine realm and free will in the earthly realm coexist spiritually, theologically and rationally.
Zoomer was an Infralapsarian in this video. He’s now a Supralapsarian.
I’m a non-lapsarian.
@@TheRomans9Guy Same
The whole, "all sinned in Adam" argument is a complete cope. This did not start with Adam, this started with God's choice before Genesis 1:1 even took place. God made his choice regarding those whom He cared about and whom He couldn't care less.
Nobody's sin matters, sin matters exactly 0% on Calvinism. If a Calvinist affirms the Westminster Confession, or London Baptist Confession of 1689 (Nearly every Calvinist church affirms one of those) they believe that God predetermined everything that comes to pass exhaustively without respect to his own foreknowledge. This would include the grape and un-aliving of children and infants. God predetermined every instance where that happens in order to bring glory and pleasure to Himself before Genesis 1:1. This is not God, "looking through His crystal ball and seeing people would sin, or that Adam would sin, and then reactively damns everyone, He MADE IT ALL HAPPEN.
He didn't have to preordain the rape and murder of children and babies, but He thought in His sovereign will, this would bring Him the most pleasure. Not only did He preordain it if you take the following verses the way that Calvinists employ them when proof texting:
Eph 1:11 ...He works ALL THINGS after the counsel of HIS OWN will... - [Meaning He causes everything that ever happens to happen according to His own will, he does not take anyone else's will into account with His decrees and working].
Phil 2:13 ...IT IS HIM WHO works within you BOTH TO WILL and TO DO FOR HIS GOOD PLEASURE... - [Meaning your will isn't real, it is God not only willing FOR you, but He himself carries out all of your actions through your body. God is punching someone, and you are the boxing glove].
Ps 115:3 ...Our God sits in the heavens and hath done all that He pleaseth... - [ God does everything for His own pleasure and glory, THEREFORE He predestined everything to come to pass, and brought them to pass by his own doing irrespective of the will of His creatures].
Is 40:13-14 ...Who can counsel or instruct Him?
If we take into account all of the instances of the "baby un-aliving/grapes" and Calvinist own interpretation of these verses, as well as their own confessions and hold them to it, they believe:
- He works all baby un-alive/grapes according to the counsel of IS OWN WILL
- God does not see the will of the grapist to grape and un-alive the baby, and then allow it to happen. It is HIM(GOD) who works within the man not only to CAUSE THE MAN'S WILL to grape and un/alive the baby, but HE(GOD) WORKS WITHIN THE MAN TO CARRY OUT the baby un-alive grape. [The man in this instance is just a condom for God's will to glorify and pleasure Himself by the grape and un-aliving of babies].
- God did not HAVE TO decree baby un-alive grapes, there is no pressing reason that they have to happen, He does ALL THAT HE PLEASES, therefore He only decrees, works within grapists to desire to grape and un-alive, and to carry out those desire BECAUSE IT PLEASES HIM. In other words, He just felt like it.
- Who can tell God what He should, shouldn't, can or can't do? Who does God receive counsel from in order to give and carry out His decrees?
Might as well worship an all powerful demon alright
WELL SAID!!
Truth! Calvinism is a very "might makes right" system, whose adherents relate to their "god" like toadies relate to a bully, or bootlickers to a tyrant, as opposed to Christians who relate to God as sinful but forgiven and beloved sons and daughters relate to a loving Father who sacrificed everything for them.
Calvinism is built on assumptions, arguments from silence, and suppositions, rather than clear Biblical text. Rather than using the clear texts to interpret the unclear, they import their theology into the unclear passages, and then interpret the clear texts based on that interpretation.
@@kgar5String I think we have to be careful not to add qualifiers to Scripture verses. When God says ‘ all men ‘ he means all men, just like Romans 3:22,23 says.’This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to ALL who believe.(doesn’t say the elect only). There is no difference, for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.’ Romans 5:12 , Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for ALL men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for ALL men. Romans 6:10 ‘ he died to sin once for ALL.’ Being drawn to Jesus is not automatically salvation. Drawn and saved are two different words with two different meanings, which is why universalism isn’t possible. If you ask people if they know who Jesus is, I bet almost all of them would say yes, because Jesus DID draw all men to himself when he was crucified. He is known throughout the world, to most people, but most people reject him as Messiah. Being drawn still requires belief. The word come also doesn’t mean save, two different words. John 6:35 Then Jesus declared, “ I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who BELIEVES in me will never be thirsty.” Jesus said ‘I have not come but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ Matt.15:24. The Gentiles were not included in the gospel outreach until Acts 13 when the Apostle Paul started his missionary journeys. We have to keep this in mind when we read accounts of Jesus’s ministry to the Jews. Anyway, the point of all of my jabber is this- Christ came to die for sinners, which we all are, thereby paying for ALL sins, and offering the free gift of salvation to all, but only applying it to those who believe.1 Cor. 1:21 ‘…God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.’ See, no universalism.Amen
Why would Jesus come to the earth as a man in order to redeem man if man is wholly as disgusting as Calvinism describes man? Also, doesn't Genesis tell us the "consequences" of their disobedience? In that we do not see any of the consequences that Calvinism describes. And then we see God talking to Cain and telling him to be a master over his sin.
Has anyone ever asked a calvinist how Calvinism furthers the kingdom of God? As far as can tell it can only hurt it and not help it. That kind of gnoses is rather pointless.
@@kgar5String
Lol
I dont think Calvinists are claiming to be healed before theg meet a healer. They are claiming a chsnge of heart as in they are being drawn near to God, to then go a pursue a relationship with him and cultivate a faith. Its not healing before meeting the healer, its the heart being changed to recognize that a healer is needed.
Who is doing the changing/healing?
Why is He changing/healing them??
Thats called a distinction without a difference
your just saying the same thing, but wording it different
1. He's changing them so they then can be changed
2. He's healing them so they can be changed
3. He's changing them so they can be healed
4. He's healing them so they can be healed
Where in the bible does it say we can't recognize the healer? Rom 1:20-21 "....So they are without excuse; for although they KNEW God they DID NOT honour Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they BECAME futile in their thinking...."
@@atyt11 I think you're narrowing the possible functions of the word change. To be changed to recognize that I need a doctor is not the same as receiving treatment.
@@friendlyolbum Where does it say that we can't recognize the need for a doctor?
So when we are told to humble ourselves and believe, is God actually lying because we can't?
@atyt11 Again, my issue with Leighton is the fact that in his view a Calvinist simply MUST be using the word "changed" to mean saved, redeemed, freed from sin, etc. He is avoiding the possibility that God has something to do with a sinner being drawn to faith. I am not necessarily a Calvinist and I'm not defending Calvinism, I'm asking for honesty in the conversation, and that we represent each others views properly.
@@friendlyolbum Got it. Sorry for any snarkyness. Not meaning it.
We all believe God draws us, we just don't believe its "irresistibly drawn" meaning no FREEwill.
Because it would mean we can't really LOVE God, because we can't NOT love him. If you can't not love, than its not love.
One of my biggest frustrations and concerns with calvinism is the need to disguise, cloud and redefine common terms and word meanings.
I'm not saying it is, but that is what cults do. ✌✌
Not to speak against the young man specifically, but anybody who usually speaks as fast as he does is actually not processing the word he is actually speaking, in my opinion.
Woah its the minecraft apologist
How do you interpret John 6/44? I am asking can anyone actually choose on their own will to come to Christ? This verse appears to say you can’t, honest question not trying to debate thank you
Brother Flowers has a video on this very verse.
It's worth a listen.
@@kgar5String great clear answer thank you!
@kennynoNope
Watch the video on Soteriology 101.
The answer that you were just given is calvinistic.
John 12:32 does not mean universalism in any way, shape, form or fashion.
Just because all are drawn, that does not mean all will come.
That explanation is how calvinists talk away the fact that their doctrine can't mean what they claim it means.
People like him say that God causes all things. So every perverse and vile and disgusting sin is Gods perfect will. That is a slander and blasphemy against God.
Good question. No.
Why is it so important for Calvinists to adhere to the views of one mortal man? Or two counting Augustin? It’s seems Pharisaical. Both men had the same moral failings as any other and were certainly sinners.
In a word, ego. While adherents to any belief can certainly fall into the snare of spiritual pride, Calvinism is tailor-made for it. Its teaching that those who follow it are part of a special group of favorites who were "elected" to the neglect of the vast majority of humanity is a powerful way to flatter its adherents and puff them up to the point they out-Pharisee the Pharisees. It also uses large and complex-sounding words and phrases to obscure its inherent, self-refuting flaws, which appeals to many academic types who can use it to dazzle the masses and appear to be much wiser than they actually are. But wait...there's more! Calvinism even has the added appeal of a theological smoke screen to hide its built in arrogance behind: its doctrine that since God is doing all the choosing of who believes, and that human beings are inherently "worthless", allows it to pretend to be "humble".
Seems problematic for a Calvinist to say Jesus chose life.
Can someone tell me why Provisionism is “biblical”???….i already know why Calvinism isn’t biblical but when you make the title “Calvinism vs Provisionism” it seems like your conceding that provisionism is just another place to waste away….Why not say “Calvinism vs the Bible”???…that would be more effective to the uninitiated person who’s trying to stay rooted in Christ. The typical person on the street could care less about labels but when you put the fear of God in their ears they can be set free much easier as opposed to inserting another term in their head. Just my humble opinion here.
Because everyone who claims to be a Christian of any sort believe that their beliefs are biblical. And this channel may draw some who are a "typical person on the street", but the target audience and the people who generally watch here are the "theology geek" subset of viewers. We know what we're getting into when watching the content and are here for it, not for the basics of the the faith. There are other places for that audience, but this is a place for people specifically interested in soteriology generally and the Calvinist/non-Calvinist debate specifically.
@@kgar5String that's a GROSS misrepresentation bordering on a lie. Either you have no idea what Provisionism is and holds, or you do and are fine creating a caricature of it to tear it down and/or prop up your preferred systematic. You also seem to misunderstand the old covenant if you actually believe that under that system the Jews saved themselves.
Allegiance means loyalty or commitment to someone or something. Allegiance is a work a person does after he or she is saved. Mr Flowers is adding to God's salvation plan. We are to believe/trust/have faith in and on Jesus as God and Savior for everlasting life. In the statement, I believe on Jesus as Savior for eternal life, I is the subject, believe is the verb, and Jesus is the object of the verb. The object of the verb is who saves us. God saves us then daily we should be disciples, walk by faith in Him, be loyal and committ to Him.
No, Paul didnt teach a doctrine of "Predestination" of Pre-destiny nor of pre-determination of a person to "become a believer or not"... Paul taught a doctrine of "election" (Jews, Corporate, for special purpose and use) in this world. Paul taught a doctrine of "salvation" by belief/faith.(which is by grace through faith approved with/by works given the possibility). Paul taught a doctrine of God's "foreknowledge" and having a time and place for his universal and unique will to come about. Paul taught a doctrine of "Pro-orizo" προώρισεν. That is of "for-ordination" of "boundaries and process". That an "order, a path, a boundaried reality" is set. That before the formation of the earth God had certain laws, laid. That if Adam and Eve eat the fruit they will die, not that God will smite them. If we sin we will perish. BUT if we are in Christ we will live. If we love God and believe in him and his only Son Jesus who died for our sin, we will live. We are pro-orizo to be conformed to the image of his son. Its being "for-ordained" for those in Christ to become wholly blameless and conformed to the image of his son, not being "pre-destined". For ordination is God pre-setting the beginning, the ordination of our path in Christ. Just as Acts 17:26 speaks of that God sets the times and places and families we are born into, so that we would perhaps seek him and find him. The beginning is set not the end. Lastly, Paul has a doctrine of "security" that God's love for us secures us against any enemy, and seals us in his eternal kingdom here and now and forever more. It's this sealing and security which is our confidence in our heavenly abode. Its is bc we have the spirit that we have confidence in joining him in his heavenly home. Romans 8:9-11, John 14:11-7 It is our trust in him, that is coming to him, that we have access to the father and his place prepared for us.
Those Pauline/Biblical Docterins of Election, Salvation, Foreknowledge, Pro-oizo, and Security, are all distinct.
Calvinism, Provisionism...here's a novel idea. How about we make our arguments about scripture just "Biblical" and leave the "isms" for the intellectuals in secular society.
Labels simply identify collections of how someone interprets and understand the Bible
@@peterfox7663 Let's use the labels the bible uses. Hyper intellectualizing the scriptures which were written for children, not the prudent (See Matt 11:25, Matt 18:3) only tickles the pride and ego of man (aka his flesh); it does not edify the spiritual man.
John Calvin was a full time heretic
@h2s142 would you?
I wouldn't go that far. Soteriological debates occur between Christian brothers
How can you have debates on salvation and both be saved? Calvinists think free grace is satanic how can they be saved?@@JesseOlsson-wr6lr
@@johannmeiring4208
Only if god decreed me to do that .
@h2s142 Dumb question
Richard is a smart young man who would benefit from clothing himself in humility. Too much James White influence. The universe as we’re taught isn’t true.
I don't know why there is so much debate about this issue. Calvinism is UNBIBLICAL.
Answer to the question:
Absolutely NOT
Why the problem with Adam’s sin condemning all when Christ’s righteousness (and death/resurrection) saves all? We don’t have a choice about our genetic illnesses - why is being condemned by Adam’s sin any different?
The " God " of Calvinism is a reprehensible monster, who deserves, not wirship and adoration, but the most virulent condemnation! I've said ut before, and i will say it again,i honestly believe the Calvinist believes in a different God than I do!
Truly. The "god" of Calvinism is morally indistinguishable from Lucifer, to the point that I have encountered some Calvinists who sincerely thought that the "god of this age" Paul mentioned in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ("But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe") was God, when the context of the Bible clearly showed it was Satan! Thus, while I still believe many "Calvinists" who have an actual relationship with Jesus and are relatively "low-info" on theology are in fact true Christians, the same cannot be said for any Calvinists who actually study their doctrines in any kind of depth and still continue to affirm them. Anyone who remains a Calvinist while knowing the implications of the teachings involved is much closer to being a Luciferian than they are to being a Christian.
*Calvinism, Provisionism, Catholicism, alcoholism any ''ism'' is something other than Christianity.*
What does the Scripture say?
Why are so many Christians playing with philosophy?
@@thevulture5750 DW Calvinism is inherently philosophical - because it evolved through Augustine who was a devout Neo-Platonist (doctrines of Plato reformed by Plotinus). Calvinism is also saturated with logical contradictions. Consequently - it is impossible to engage with Calvinism without engaging in rational reasoning.
@@dw6528 I think many would consider Augustine more of a Manichaean. Maybe Augustine's weakest point is that he didn't know Greek.
@@stephengriffin4612 DW: Yes! But we would also want to bear in mind the environment in which Augustine lives.
Augustine becomes an authority figure within the Roman Catholic system at a point in time in which the RC is in a kind of embryonic phase.
In those days - the leaders of the RC believed they would derive power from pagan deities and worship sites.
Many Monasteries were built on top of pagan worship sites - which was preserved and the pagan worship could be accessed within the lower caverns of the monastery.
RC leaders believed if they incorporated pagan deities they would derive spiritual power from them.
English historian, Theodore Maynard, in The story of American Catholicism writes: “It has often be charged... that Catholicism has been overlaid with many pagan incrustations. Catholicism is ready to accept that charge - and to make it her boast. The great god Pan is not really dead, he is baptized.”
So the pattern was to SYNCHRONIZE paganism into theology.
Augustine simply follows that pattern - and Gnosticism as well as Neo-Platonism are baptized and eventually become Calvinism.
The two primary components within Calvinism are
1) DUALISM of "Good" and "Evil" (derived from Gnosticism)
2) DETERMINISM (aka the doctrine of decrees) Derived from Neo-Platonism
Like "Scripture-doesn't-say-what-I-remember-it-saying-so-demons-must-have-rewritten-it-ism"?
Sure... Calvinism is in the Bible, but so is every possible denomination. It all depends on translation, interpretation, and man's flaws in thinking and spiritual discernment. I personally find Calvinism reprehensible.
Calvinism doesn't have the order backwards as Flowers claims. Jesus literally stated that we can't even see the kingdom of God unless we are first born again (Jhn 3:3). Don't worry if this is hard to believe because, Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, had a difficult time believing it too (Jhn 3:4).
"See" in John 3 means "get to witness or be a resident of the Kingdom of God"
Yes we must be born again to see the kingdom of heaven. That says nothing about when faith/belief comes in. It does not say being born again comes before faith or enables your faith or anything of the sort. This is a clear example of someone reading their own assumptions into the text rather than just reading what the text actually says.
@@ralfbo685 : The Greek "horaō" for "see" according to Strong's Lexicon doesn't exactly phrase it that way. But if you'd like to read it that way then it still proves my point. You can't witness or become a resident of the Kingdom of God unless you're first born again.
@@salvadaXgracia : I'm not at all reading my own assumptions into the text.The clear implication is that you won't believe in something you can't see. Jesus even elaborates on what he stated in Jhn 3:3 to reinforce the reality, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot ENTER the kingdom of God" (Jhn 3:5). John already stated in Chapter 2 that "many BELIEVED in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing" (v.23). Then he tells us that "Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man" (v.24-25). Many Christians have a fake faith. So it requires a work of the Holy Spirit to have true faith.
@@scienceandbibleresearch I don't think that's the clear implication. But minus that, I think provisionists agree with the rest of your comment.
Calvinism FTW. Thanks be to God who has chosen us from the beginning and to the Holy Spirit who regenerates us. Monergism is truly a blessing. To God be the glory!
Calvinism is pretty awful.
Please reread Ephesians 1:1-6 through the lens of a first century Greek church member.
@@shay-car are you talking to me or GreenGoblin?
@@TheRomans9Guy GG
@@shay-carhi, what's your point with the referenced verse so I understand? Thank you
Leighton has to be the worst apologist of all time 🤣
Can someone please explain to me why Zoomer is debating someone with a doctorate?