It was a friendly discussion but it did seem like Dr Flowers kept making solid points and then they would move on without a serious rebuttal. After just an hour it’s happened about 3 times already. The host was polite but I hope he takes seriously researching and thinking through what Dr Flowers shared.
@TwitchyTheologian your response on teleological causes vs causal is silly. If God determined people to act in a way, he is the cause. This is where courses in logic are so important.
@@jwatson181Provisionist, Calvinist, or Arminian.. none of us can run away from God being the ultimate cause of all things. Whether you believe God is directly causing every action, every event, and every choice that His creatures make, or God knowing that so much evil will happen and many living precious souls will perish as a result of Gods choice to create man with a free will. God caused it all to happen! If I was an omniscient eternal being and if I knew all the trouble these free will creatures would cause including killing my son.. I would never allow such evil to to happen because if I do then they would make me evil! Atheist honestly have a good point when they bring the theodicy argument. But only in Calvinism it can be explained how evil can exist with an all knowing all powerful good loving creator.
@@maxmateush7090Ultimate cause is not the same as meticulous determinism, where God specifically determines every evil action, which is the problem with Augustinian Calvinism.
@@maxmateush7090 Ultimate, or distal, cause, does not equal determiner. For example: if I throw a rock at a window because I was drunk, and I got drunk because my wife yelled at me, even though I only threw the rock at the window because she yelled at me--at least in an ultimate sense, that doesn't mean that my wife's yelling at me determined that I would throw a rock through the window. So it is with God. God gives man freedom to choose, and man chooses that which he does. Just because God set up all the world such that those things would come to take place, that doesn't mean that He determined them. This is what is known as the distinction between "Strong Actualization" and "Weak Actualization" in theology. God, only weakly actualizes these things, by setting up circumstances such that they will happen, but does not strongly actualize them which would be directly determining that they will happen.
@TwitchyTheologian Agreed. I thank you for not only sharing your views but also doing it with a character of respect and grace. I have seen way too many of these discussions that have been a disgrace rather than God-honoring.
@@jwatson181even a Provisionist cannot run away from the theodicy argument. Can you explain how a all knowing, all powerful, loving, good God would create a creature with free will to cause so much evil and go to hell eternally, when God could’ve saved everyone including himself all the trouble by continuing in eternity as before.
Glad Twitchy and Flowers got to talk. I really pray this helps lead many out of Calvinism. I was a Calvinist for 20 years until I removed the Augustine lens I had on and searched to understand the verses in context. Praying for you brother.
@@gracemercywrath8767 I pray it leads many others out of Provisionism. lol. Appreciate you watching and I am grateful for your prayers. I will pray for you as well
@@KnightFel Provisionism does make sense. It actually shows the Loving God of the scriptures who desires all to be saved. Which Augustine do you refer to early Augustine or older Augustine. I would recommend checking out Idol Killers work on Augustine.
@@gracemercywrath8767 Idol Killer won’t debate me. He is scared of me. lol 😂. Screenshot that and send it to him lol 😂 He is a good friend of mine even if we significantly disagree
I would like to hear a definition of the word chosen or elect from Doctor flowers because according to his interpretation it seems like Paul should have left those words out. They are meaningless if you read the text with provisionist presuppositions.
No. Chosen for Leighton, I can say--since I'm a Provisionist, means that God determined before creation that whosever believes in Christ would be chosen for work and salvation, generally speaking. In Romans, he would also likely point out, elect also refers to the righteous remnant of the Jews. He would also point out that that is why it uses the language of Jacob I've loved and Esau I've hated, since that was about electing one nation for service and the other for dishonor. In other words, Leighton's definition of election is, generally speaking, Corporate Election. There is a secondary sense, however, where each individual within the corporate elect is, himself, elected. Summary: Corporate Election = Primarily Group Election and only Secondarily Individual Election; Individual Election = Primarily Individual Election and only Secondarily Group Election. Election Definition: Being chosen in Christ, not chosen to be in Christ, before creation.
@ thanks for this answer. I would at least like to hear a provisionist admit that there is a lot of work going into that presupposition when it comes to defining election. I don’t appreciate the argument by Flowers that they have the plain meaning of the text while Calvinist inject their meaning into the text. Can we not all admit that our interpretations have presuppositional biases?
@@Real_LiamOBryanright. But the text doesn’t say that. The text says that God chose the people “Us”. It doesn’t say that God chose “Whosoever would believe in Him.” I feel like Ephesians 1 was actually Leighton’s weakest area because of the clear exegetical gymnastics he had to display to make his view fit the text. He even said that the word order doesn’t matter. However, in this instance it does because the direct object of the choosing is a particular people whereas the direct object in the Provisionist view would need to be a plan. I really feel like that is the case. But hey, I’m just glad to be able to talk with you guys.
When scripture says believe, does not mean you can believe on your own. When scripture says be holy, doesn't mean you can be holy on your own. You can't be righteous on your own. No one is good, no not one. No one seeks after God. The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. You must be born again and you can't do this either. No one can be right with God. No not even you, Flowers. God impute righteousness to individual. God justifies a person. God is sovereign on who He saves by His will not man's will.
You presuppose that to believe "on our own" means a regenerative work of God on us to do so but scripture nowhere informs us that we need to be regenerated in order to believe. Also, we are able to be holy THROUGH CHRIST. Christ is provided for us and all we need to access that grace is to believe, which we can do upon hearing the Gospel. You presuppose that being dead in sin means an inability to believe but scripture nowhere informs us that dead means that. Therefore all the passages you are referencing are just prooftexts based on your faulty premise. The non-Calvinist has no problem with those texts.
@@nathanhellrung9810 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 16:15-17, NASB) 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:5-8, NASB) But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (1 Corinthians 2:14, NASB)
@@nathanhellrung9810 26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD." (1 Corinthians 1:26-31, NASB)
@@nathanhellrung9810 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48, NASB) But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:13, NASB)
I didn’t say they are born tied to the tree. They are born with an evil heart. God says come to me and they don’t. They can’t come because they won’t come (John 6:44). Then God judges them and ties them to the tree (John 12). Does that make sense? You can disagree. That is fine. I just want you to understand my argument. :)
@@TwitchyTheologian I'm enjoying this dialogue! I'm only 1:34:00 in and it's been a great discussion. I only mentioned being born tied to the tree based on the earlier part. It seemed like that's where the argument inevitably falls. As Flowers pointed out....there's really no Calvinist position that successfully addresses that issue. I look forward to hearing more!
@@TwitchyTheologian If God causally determines (ordains or decrees) all things that would include our desires. This would mean that the ultimate reason that people are born with an evil heart is because God causally determined that they would have an evil heart. People can't and won't come because God causally determined for them to be unable nor desire to come.
You must be born again. Regeneration preceeds faith. God makes you born again, gives you new heart before you can believe. Yiu cant believe on your own.
Scripture nowhere tells us that we must be born again in order to believe. It says that we must come to Christ in order to have life. That the HOW we are saved is by the washing of regeneration and that God has chosen to save (by the washing of regeneration) those who believe, belief clearly being the prerequisite.
@@nathanhellrung9810Paul clearly says those that are in the flesh (literally everyone prior to conversion) are not even able to please God. They don’t have the ability.
@TwitchyTheologian @abuelb - Ephesians 1:13, like many other passages, refutes Calvinism’s backward and unbiblical order of salvation, where supernatural regeneration must occur before a person irresistibly responds to Christ. Ephesians 1:13 lays out the correct order. "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit..."
1) “you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation” 2) “and believed in Him” 3) you “were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” This order of salvation is consistent throughout the New Testament.
John 20:30-31:
“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” Again: 1) God gives revelation through the scriptures “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” 2) A person responds “by believing…” 3) Then “…you may have life in His name.” “Life in His name” comes after hearing His truth and responding to it in faith. Jesus Himself affirms the order of salvation in John 5:39-40: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” 1) Scripture bears witness to Christ 2) We can come to Him, or refuse to 3) If we come to Him, we may have life According to Jesus Christ’s own words, we don’t get life from pre-faith regeneration, then come to Him. We hear about Christ in the scriptures, come to Him in faith, and receive regeneration and new life.
@@KnightFel Paul says that the MIND set on the flesh cannot please God. So ask yourself why those in the flesh cannot please God? Because of what they set their minds on. Even regenerated believers can set their minds on the flesh and not please God in doing so. The inability to please God has everything to do with what man sets his mind on. That is the point. Nowhere does Paul say that man is unable to change their minds.
I think in John is kind of plain for me. You must be born again, Jesus said it 3 times, how many times does it take for us to understand, and that work is done by the Spirit. Many ppl say if you hear the Gospel ppl change, but I say NO - if the heart is not open that Gospel message will not be heard.
Saying that one must be born again, which all Provisionists and Arminians agree with, doesn't preclude believing so as to be born again. The crux of the issue isn't whether or not one must be born again but, rather, whether or not one needs to be born again before one is capable of responding to Gods word in shame and humility, like the prodigal son walking home. Did you listen to the debate/discussion, because this was one of the points they tarried on for a while?
@@Real_LiamOBryanI don’t think we spent a lot of time on the subject. I should have mentioned John 1:13 which explicitly states that we aren’t born of human will. But hey, I am a rookie. lol 😂
@@Real_LiamOBryan bear in mind that Nicodemus came to Jesus believing that He was from God, and Jesus interrupted him and said you can't even see - let alone enter - the kingdom of God until after you've been born again. And being born again is strictly a work of the Holy spirit, with no involvement from the individual. Verse 8. Jesus expected Nicodemus to already know this. That whole discussion is about how being born again precedes saving faith. Saving faith doesn't come until v14 and 15.
Ephesians 1:7 explicitly states that in Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. It does not state that BEFORE you're in Him you receive forgiveness of sins via justification by faith. It is impossible to receive forgiveness of sins unless you're in Him i.e. spiritually circumcised. Therefore, justification by faith can ONLY happen IF you have already been regenerated and are in Him. Ephesians 1:7 NKJV [7] In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
This is not a solid case at all… This only makes sense if we are totally depraved in that we would never choose Christ or have the ability to… that is not biblical… Everyone has a choice, Jesus is The Way and has been revealed to all men. So once you believe the gospel that has been sent you are regenerated and found in Christ. Nowhere does it say you need to be regenerated first to come to Christ.
Romans 5:1-4 English Standard Version Peace with God Through Faith 5 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith[b] into this grace in which we stand, and we[c] rejoice[d] in hope of the glory of God. John 6 the Holy Spirit wasn't given yet not until Act 2 so the people were not regenerated to come to Christ. Romans 9 doesn't say before the foundation of the world. Its in the womb Esau will serve Jacob that's Gods election.
Awe. I'm saddened that has happened. While I would still encourage a discussion (not a rigorous debate), perhaps someone like Tim Stratton (I haven't searched your channel enough, so you may have already idk.)
Kevin Thompson has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Calling him the king of word salad is an insult to salad. Regardless of one's soteriological persuasions, I have no idea why anyone listens to his convoluted ramlings. ( one time he had a lecture on the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, and he had the terms 180° reversed. Mind-numbing. I started thinking I was going insane, so I looked it up on Wikipedia just to reassure myself that I wasn't going crazy. Sure enough - he had the terms reversed)
Dr. Flowers is correct in saying that we are not as spiritually blind as we could be, and I agree. However, we are born blind enough to be unable to see the truth. One doesn’t need to be completely blind to stumble aimlessly, unable to find the way.
Flowers cannot work through a chapter in sequence and follow the thoughts of the author. He twists and storifies everything because he hates God being sovereign. He's also likely going to become an open theist ...
Ephesians 1:13 explicitly states that in Him you ALSO trusted. We didn't trust the gospel PRIOR to being in Him. Paul is telling us that we were regenerated and additionally trusted. Thats the point of the conjuction also. Otherwise, there is no reason to have the conjuction in the verse if that's not what he means. The word trusted in verse 13 is not in Greek. However, we know it's proelpizo from verse 12 where Paul says that we who FIRST trusted in Christ. We FIRST trust in Christ after we hear the gospel. This text matches 1 Peter 1:3 that states that we are born again TO a living hope. Hope can't precede regeneration. Hope and faith must occur simultaneously in salvation because elpizo is essential to pistis Heb 11:1. You can't have faith in Jesus and not have hope. They are intrinsically linked together. Regeneration precedes hope, so it must also precede faith. Ephesians 1:13 NKJV [13] In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
@@TwitchyTheologian Not here to pick a fight but regarding Luke 15:11-32, I put that passage into a Church Father Cross reference and every reference to that passage and theological explanation connects it to someone who was in God's grace, but by major sin was lost, but via repenting was restored back to God. Of course as a Catholic those Church father interpretations are 100% consistent with Catholic soteriology. The statement above that it was not soteriology is not found in the Church Fathers.
Why can't it be about more than one thing? The context it's set in is of sinners coming to repentance AND the religious leaders issues with Christ eating with sinners.
@@nathanhellrung9810 I would have to agree. The prodigal son is the last parable of three in Luke 15 on the same subject. The Pharisees and scribes were complaining about Jesus sitting with sinners, and then Jesus gives a parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin, ending both parables by saying there is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents. Then he goes into the longer third parable of the prodigal (or lost) son. Jesus' point of all three parables is to actually shame the Pharisees and scribes over the fact that they didn't care about sinners repenting, but at the same time speaking of the need for sinners to repent, which is soteriological since it is God that grants/gives repentance to the sinner (2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 5:31 and 11:18). And notice the prodigal son parable ends this way, "It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found." Being dead and lost then alive and found is language describing a sinner's condition before and after salvation.
Titus 3:5 happens before Titus 3:7. The washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit precedes justification by Grace. If you go before a judge for a crime, and he says I am sending you to the Bahamas before he tells you that you are not guilty, then that would be him giving you grace before mercy. Likewise, if God tells you that you are going to heaven before He forgives your sins and saves you from going to hell then He would be giving you grace before mercy. Mercy must logically precede grace in salvation. God must remit your sins via washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit prior to you becoming a heir. Titus 3:5, 7 NKJV [5] not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, [7] that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Around 50 minute mark, Twitchy theologian is suggesting that regeneration gives us a sort of life prior to eternal life and prior to union with Christ. Life outside of Christ. That causes many theological problems. It is a solution invented to avoid one problem with the Scriptures, but it creates many more problems!
@@timothyklock1931 everyone agrees that faith comes by hearing. God gives faith to those who He regenerates. Those who He regenerates, He uses the word to regenerate them (James 1:18). So, we are in agreement there.
@@Real_LiamOBryanno, nothing partial about it. Union with Christ is eternal life. We have eternal life because of our union with Him. However, we must be born again in order to believe
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares Yahweh. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth And making it bear and sprout, And giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what pleases Me, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. - Isaiah 55:8-11
@@benny.patsyevans122 great point. I tried to emphasize that by going to John 8 and showing that a slave can’t repent because repentance requires humility and the opposite of humility (pride) is a sin which we are slaves to a part from regeneration
I agree with that for sure. We should all be willing to listen to what others have to say. Even when we know we are right. We need to at least learn why others think differently. Thanks for all the comments man! You are awesome!
Really? I suppose you've never read the Bible, because throughout The Old Testament God uses anthropopathisms to make himself comprehensible to creatures made in His Image. And in The New Testament, we find that God has become Incarnate. C.S. Lewis nailed Calvinism: if it's true, our white is God's black, and His white is our black. Yet, again, we are made in His Image.
The core of the Gospel: The core message of the Gospel is that Jesus Christ died on the cross to redeem humanity from sin, and anyone who believes in Him can be saved.
It is more annoying that in Ephesians flowers reads and stares directly at the definition of faith and then uses it incorrectly and fails and understanding what the word means!
@@jamesgrosso4372praise God! That is the greatest compliment I could receive. Thanks for watching. Please check out my stuff on cults. I think my video: Is Jesus Jehovah/YHWH is helpful for people of all soteriological persuasions.
I'm about halfway through but I'm very impressed with your demeanor and the content of the debate you're putting forth. Personally, I find Leighton Flowers to be quite annoying, and sometimes very cocky when he is on his own channel. Looks like you have kind of disarmed him. I still think he twists what Calvinism teaches and his arguments against it are very shallow and carnal.
Right. Good point. That’s what we all do from birth. We hide our sin and try to cover it up with fig leaves. Only when God seeks us and calls out to us (effectually) will we respond.
Bible says that people have to choose, and that choices have consequences: Moses 3:17: "Thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee" Deuteronomy 30:19: "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life that you may live" Joshua 24:15: "Choose for yourself today whom you will serve" 1 Corinthians 10:13: "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear" Psalm 32:9: God gave us free will as a gift and wants us to use it
@@TwitchyTheologian It's the grace of God that he only created so many special people and will torture the rest of the people for eternity for doing what He made them will to do? Also, how is it grace to just create someone to do something? Even the evildoer does what he was created to do on Calvinism. This doesn't make any sense. Grace is unearned blessing. Blessing implies a Libertarianly-Free creature, for what sort of grace does the rock have that it was created to do nothing but sit until shattered or worn away?
@@Real_LiamOBryan you are once again accusing the decree and man’s free will of bumping “Doing what he created them to do.” You are not interacting with the Calvinist position which believes that God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom are compatible.
@@jwatson181 so, you didn’t read my response? You seem very unsure of your position to make such argumentation. I know when people are not comfortable in their position and are unsure of them self when they result to tactics like you are displaying 😂
@@fredmiller6166 I mean I’m just a layman off the street who reads a lot. I appreciate being exalted to high priest though. Whatever that position is lol 😂
Twitchy. I said in the live stream comments earlier. You inspire me brother. You were very humble and super kind. It was cool you hearing his point of view. I’ll be honest when I debate others. I have a mindset when I’m like I’m right and this person is wrong and I noticed as you were debating him you never had that mindset. You helped me in a major way to debate people more humbly and to hear thier point of view. Love you so much brother. I’m very grateful I found your channel. Soli Deo Gloria 🙏🙏🌷🌷. Love you dude!!
@@Cdubs24 praise God! That’s what love to hear! We can be right and still be humble and kind. Let the Calvinism flow through you and u can’t help but be kind lol.
@@TwitchyTheologianyes! I have a book called humble Calvinism. It’s a book about on how to Be more gracious when people disagree with us and to be more humble with the doctrines of grace! I would recommend reading!
while predestination is a theological concept found in the Bible, it is not considered the central message of the Gospel, which primarily focuses on Jesus Christ's sacrifice for humanity and the call to personal faith and repentance for salvation.
It depends if you are assuming determinism is true. If you do then they can’t decide to believe it unless God decrees them to. If you are asking assuming it could or could not be true then they probably say they could choose to believe it. Warren would say he used to choose to believe it.
Neither one of these folks knows what Regeneration is. Regeneration is the act of being Born Again when one received the Holy Spirit and becomes a New Creation IN Christ.
Leighton has a premise and all his interpretations must fit the premise. His premise cannot yield to plain meaning of scripture. But, scripture is unfalsifiable.
@@artistart55 I’d be glad to respond, but I need to understand what you are saying. Can you possibly reword it and try to be grammatically correct? That will help me comprehend what is being said :). Thanks
@TwitchyTheologian John 4:10 In the Bible, John 4:10 says, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water". John 4:14-16 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” 15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.” 16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” My question to you is what do you think living water is ? John 7:37-38 Here jesus explains living water as the holy spirit.. If living water is the Holy Spirit, would it be fair to say?That when jesus baptizes you with the holy spirit. And you are born again
@@artistart55 okay. I see the problem here. No, we (Calvinists) believe that regeneration and indwelling are distinct. You are regenerated (given a new heart) (John 1:13, 1John 5:1)then you believe and are indwelt (Galatians 3:14).
@TwitchyTheologian Galatians 3:26-27 says, "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ". You MUST understand water baptism was only for john the baptist.. JOHN 1:31-34 JOHN 1:6-7 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS WAS FOR JOHN THE BAPTIST TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY acts 1:4-5 the REAL GREAT COMMISSION ! But the baptism of the holy spirit is what saves you.. Because you have been clothed with christ with a baptism of repentance.. and JESUS WILL BAPTISIZE WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT... and you will drink the LIVING WATER....
@@artistart55right. I believe that you are baptized with the Spirit after you believe. You believe bc the Spirit regenerates you before that. It’s not a contradiction.
Leighton interprets each passage in context with its chapter and the entire Bible. Calvinism is a human philosophical system that was introduced centuries after Christ, requiring taking passages out of context to support itself.
Yep. And, it's funny, Calvinists always say that about non-Calvinist theology, even though Augustine was basically the first Calvinist over 300 years after the Church began.
Can you give an example of one verse that I took out of context? Actually, if you look at our discussion on John 15:16 and Ephesians 1 it is abundantly clear that I stayed in the context and made my arguments from the immediate context.
23:13:18 It seems sad that you would need to even say this. Hopefully you can influence your friend Scott, as he calls everyone who thoughtfully rejects Calvinism unsaved.
@TwitchyTheologian What He gave us is What Chosen means. It doesn't mean whom He chose because He liked you. Let's get that simple thinking out of your mind
While I do not agree with Provisionism because of it's tendencies to minimize the sin nature, Calvinism is also quite bad. Here I will explain why. *Why Calvinism is a bad thing and I reject it as false.* I reject Calvinism for a lot of sound reasons (that I explain later on below), but I found many people gravitate towards the wrong reasons for rejecting Calvinism where in fact the Calvinist is actually more correct than they are; this muddies the waters, because then it becomes a partial confused truth, and one error trying to correct another. So first are the 2 reasons I do NOT reject Calvinism, followed by the 5 reasons I DO. _1. Calvinism is not wrong because God does not have the right to do with his creation whatever he wants._ God is the ground and source of all being, and as such he legitimately has the official and moral right to do whatever he wants with his creation. God is not in a democracy, his people are not Americans who fight for their civil liberties to the death in the grand republic. God is a complete and unilateral monarchy, and denying him his right to do whatever he wants with no restrictions, is placing an external constraint upon God that doesn't come from himself, and so boils down to idolatry. Thankfully our God is maximally loving, unlike the Calvinist God, and we can rest in relief that he has revealed himself as so. But never and not because he owes it to us-God does not owe us his love. This puts the obligation and demand on God from the value of creation itself, reversing the roles of Creator and created, and belittling the value of God by transferring that value into his creation itself, whereupon God becomes beholden and indebted to his creation's value: idolatry. _2. Calvinism is not wrong because God would be unloving to allow any person into hell for a reason other than their direct free will choice._ This is a powerful motivation for many false doctrines, the demand that God meet our own sense of morality. The demand that God give us the purity and capacity to know him in and of ourselves, can only logically reduce to pride and independence from God. For any obligation placed upon God logically equates to something else being more valuable than God, and putting a moral obligation upon him. Behind the scenes of what looks like care for the lost, is really a root of rebellion and pride. It is the reason for this that people feel God owes us. And to demand a reason from God-this is the entire plot of the book of Job, and the lesson it teaches us. To demand a reason from God, an explanation, for something we personally dislike, find distasteful, or outright immoral, is to put ourselves on the throne and God as our subject. This whole line of argument that "God is a monster if he allows X, he is evil and mean and cruel and unworthy of any worship": it boils down to rebellion. So, we have a maximally loving God who has yet, in his sovereignty, allowed us to be born with a sin nature that does not naturally like his ways. This is the path of humility-accepting what God tells us, instead of figuring out if we like it enough and think it's okay for God to do, or makes sense. And here, in fact, is a simple path of just accepting propositions we cannot logically harmonize and do not emotionally prefer. Christ told us to come this way: deny self, be simple as a child. ... to be continued ...
... continuation .. Now on to the reasons I DO reject Calvinism. I used to be very intimidated by the idea of Calvinism because underneath I didn't feel 100% sure it couldn't possibly be true. This made me in practice scared of God-scared of whether I was made for his wrath. I was willing to accept God however he revealed himself, and give him the right to be whoever he wanted. But over years of prayer and study I have grown in my confidence that I no longer consider Calvinism accurately reflects election. Here are the 5 main reasons why: _1. It makes God less loving than he is._ Just as God is completely holy, completely just and completely powerful, so God is completely loving. The argument comes that God allowing a person to be lost that he could have theoretically saved, makes God less loving than he could be. But this is a wrong definition of love. Love does not mean that God does not have any other reasons or motives for doing something that might be stronger or more important to him than the love he holds for the lost. So whatever mysterious reasons God had for allowing people to be lost, does not override the truth that God genuinely loved those lost people; and to genuinely love is defined as genuinely desiring the well-being, which cannot be true of something you create for the intent and purpose to destroy. The character of God as revealed in Scripture is meant to help us determine things that might be harder to understand, and God is love and his tender mercies over all his works. _2. It makes God less good than he is._ Underneath all the secondary decrees and compatibilistic philoso-double speak Calvinism employs, is the unalterable logic God decrees all things. This means that however many "degrees of separation" you want to create in between the ultimate decree of God that something would be, and the enactment through external means to get to that decree, there is still underneath a chain from the decree of God to the fulfillment of God's decree that cannot logically be broken. This would indeed make God his own enemy and the author of all evil, purely by logic. Scripture tells us “the devil sows the tares," and "an enemy has done this," yet God would be the one essentially sowing the tares if Calvinism were true, the devil becoming merely God's agent. If God is any ANY way desiring ANY evil to ACTUALIZE rather than be a potential, evil is then God's primary desire, rather than secondary, and the devil is just doing God’s will, rather than being his enemy, with an opposing will. It is not being argued that God is morally obligated to be maximally good, rather by definition, God has self-defined as perfect in all his ways, and freely chosen to be maximally good, and thus, although God decreeing evil might be theoretically just and a measure of good, it cannot, by definition, be maximally good. I believe we can make a strong cumulative logical argument from the attributes of God. I don't think any Bible-believing Christian can honestly say "God is partially X" for any other attribute and not feel a twinge of blasphemy inside-because God is perfect in all his ways, and whatever God is, is a good thing, it inevitably follows that for God to be perfect he must be each good thing to the greatest amount. Is God maximally or partially righteous? ...partially just? ...partially powerful? ...partially holy? ...partially pure? ...partially beautiful? ...partially worthy? ...partially omnipresent? ...partially self-sufficient? ...partially transcendent? ...partially infinite? ...partially faithful? ...partially perfect? Yet some don't blink an eye to claim God is not maximally loving or maximally good. _3. It takes away all sense of true responsibility._ Now one could argue that God never meant creatures to have any responsibility, and that would be logically coherent, however Scripture clearly implies to us actual and real choices we can make, and the responsibility that befalls them. If everything I do is decreed by God before I am born, then my will cannot ever in any case be the deciding or effectual agent of my sin. This is not to argue or imply that all sin is done through the will of a human, since many sins we cannot help; but it is also to support that there is indeed some sin that is done through the will of a human, deliberate sins, and most importantly the sin that rejects the grace of God that is freely offered and well meant. Preceding grace is taught in both Calvinism and Arminianism, the difference is only whether it is “resistible,” and everywhere we see grace being resisted in Scripture. We could theoretically accept the mere bare culpability for what is decreed through secondary means, but again this is just philoso-double speak obscuring the fact it is in the end decreed by God, and not any real or true responsibility that is born by humans. So through God's preceding grace, we can still be totally sinful, unable and depraved, and yet still affect things with free will choices as God enables us, when that grace reaches us. _4. It is a sinful solution to the problem of evil_ It comforts me in a selfish way if God just slots everyone for salvation or damnation and I don’t have to worry about the problem of victimization or my own need to be responsible for my choices. Instead of harmonizing love with suffering, now I just backtrack evil into the character of God so I feel better about the evil he allowed since I can selfishly rest in the fact I am unconditionally chosen. I don’t have to “feel bad” about people who never hear the Gospel since God just made them all to be trash anyway, and now I never have to worry that my sinful choices might lose my salvation since I was made “as a sheep.” But Scripture does not teach that, since by nature we are children of wrath, says Paul-and we all have to come to the same Cross as the goats we have been until Christ enables us to be a sheep. It is sinful to find our security in attempting to formulate a doctrine that disallows God to sacrifice our personal security for God's own holiness. We can rest in grace and find our security in God's promise, without needing the false security of God desiring and decreeing all evil things and lost souls. Many Calvinists defend these things with doublespeak, saying two contradicting statements, people choose freely, and God decides for them, and use a fancy word "Compatibilism." I urge them to just be logically consistent, and admit that God does not decree free will choices. Calvinism appeals to sinful desires we have for a false selfish reasons for security and an evil resolution to the problem of evil. We would rather God deliberately plan and enact evil, than that he passively allowed it to happen creating real victims, because the alternative offends us and makes us feel insecure, but if we can find more comfort in God being evil, then our sin nature will embrace it. The other sinful alternative error for dealing with this problem of delegation, is to put self-righteous goodness inside of man and insist that delegation created no real victims. This is erring on the ditch on the other side of the road, which most Calvinists call "Pelagian," but would be better described as denying the effects of original sin and promoting inherent goodness. _5. It brings presuppositions to the Bible while denying it does._ Granted, we all have to bring presuppositions logically, but many people try to deny that fact and claim they just “believe the Bible for what it says.” All statements from the Calvinist like "free will isn't in the Bible" and "you didn't use enough Scripture verses" are just pious rhetoric assuming what the objector sets out to prove by preloading the terms free will and exegesis to be deterministic friendly; that is unless you say the Bible verses mean a certain thing you are "eisegeting" and "rationalizing," merely because you don't agree with deterministic presuppositions brought to the Scripture. Calvinism is not the only doctrine or group that does this-almost every false doctrine utilizes this bias to look pious, and you know true humility by the acknowledgement of our need for reliance on God instead of intellect, and acknowledging our capacity for self-deception. Calvinism has a lot of good emphases, the sinfulness of man, the greatness of God's holiness, and the need and power of Christ's atonement. Where Calvinism makes a wrong turn, is deciding how God should run his world, and that it is offensive for God to put his holiness and glory above the well-being of God's creation. Ironically, this is what the Calvinists generally accuse others of doing, of being "man-centered," and making doctrines around preferences. But the truth is, Calvinism sacrifices the love of God and the holiness of God, to collapse all that God allows into God's primary desire, for the sole intent purpose of resolving offense and finding security in removing all free will. The fact that God's holiness is more important than my own personal security, and whether God makes sure I'm not a lost person but guarantees everything I selfishly want in salvation, is something my sin nature will never like or agree to. And for the reasons above I do consider Calvinism to be clouding the Gospel, although by the mercies of God their doctrinal sin can be forgiven, as in most cases.
It does not minimize thr sin nature. At all in any way. . It. Magnifies it. HUGELY! By not blaming God for our sins. But instead blaming the sinner for his own sin.
@@Dizerneryea. We can talk about these things on my channel sometime. I’m not writing a theological treatise in the comment section though 😂. I’ll publish my book eventually. Well, Lord Willing lol 😂
@@Tigerex966 Making humanity good people that do bad things, is re-writing Scripture. Jesus said people were evil, and did good things-other way around.
@@TwitchyTheologian This is for people who want to see that Calvinism is false. If you reject that, you are simply rejecting the witness of truth, and there is nothing to talk about anymore. You have the free will to resist the Holy Spirit, contrary to the bogus claims of Calvinism. Peace and respect in Christ.
@TwitchyTheologian 😁. If you are interested where Calvin and many reformers got their ideas, check Ali Bonner interview with Soteriology101. Augustine had huge influence to many people...good and bad....
If Jesus were a Calvinist, why does He have the weird conversation with Nathanael about his profession that Jesus is the Son of God and King of Israel? "Do you believe just because I told you I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these." (John 1:50) Why does Jesus pretend like Nathanael's belief was based on something he heard? Isn't Nathanael's belief simply proof that he has already been born again? (Even before the Holy Spirit has been given.) I've heard Calvinists use Jesus' acknowledgement of Peter's confession as a proof text but what about Nathanael's?
@@mrgrossism great question. So, God causes people to be born again through revelation (James 1:18). So, Nathanael’s belief is in some sense based on what he heard bc God used it to regenerate him. As for the comment about the Spirit not being given. First, I’d point out that regeneration and indwelling are separate works. Second, I’d point out that the Spirit worked in the OT quite often. There are even places where the Spirit is IN people (I’d have to find the texts). So, while I appreciate your questions, they don’t pose a significant threat to the Calvinistic system.
@TwitchyTheologian So Jesus is surprised at the smallness of the Revelation that brought Nathanael's regeneration and said there's even greater Revelation coming? Seems to make a real mess of the plain reading of Jesus's interaction with Nathanael.
Leighton Flowers thinks that Jesus loved Hitler. Wow, that's a strange one there. I suppose He also loved Judas Iscariot too? Maybe He loved all those people He destroyed in the flood in Noah's day too... Or Esau? Or Ananias and Saphira? Or all the false prophets and Pharisees? C'mon man.
Strip yourself of self righteousness and you to would understand your righteousness is closer to Hitler and judas then it is to Jesus Christ himself... why should God love you???? Okay place your reasons now... show everyone why God should love you and not hate you... please show your work..thanks
Bs , I had a decent comment that didn't post... but yet youtube still thought it cool to tell me when someone else posted on this comment... hi dizerner...don't know if this will post either...but whatever
@@adamguy33 Your comment went through. YT comments are extremely buggy and censored. If you sort the comments by "newest first" you can still see your original comment, which was: _@adamguy33_ "Strip yourself of self righteousness and you to would understand your righteousness is closer to Hitler and judas then it is to Jesus Christ himself... why should God love you??? Okay place your reasons now... show everyone why God should love you and not hate you... please show your work..thanks "
In the acts passage, what does Flowers think can get these men to open their eyes and ears. He agrees that they got into that position both by their own sin and Gods judgement. I think this shows the Calvinist view. Only God can open up their eyes. They are spiritually dead. Flowers seems to use the why did you make me this way argument that Paul had to respond to.
I think Ephesians 1 is more evidently speaking about glorification when it says the faithful will be holy and blameless before Him. Seems to suggest before the throne in heaven or else why say before Him generally that would be redundant because everything is before Him. Plus we will only be truly holy and blameless(unable to sin) in heaven. You interpreted adoption in the Galatians sense over the Romans sense but I would favor the Romans sense based on the other evidence I presented
This is the kind of reasonable dialogue that I can get down with. I think you have a fair point. However, Romans 8 says adoption of the body. The phrase of the body isn’t mentioned in Ephesians. As for the Holy and blameless before him being glorification, that can still work with the Calvinistic view. God chose x to go to Heaven. The key is that God chooses though. If Leighton is right then the text should read I chose God. That’s my immediate thoughts at least. I appreciate your willingness to dialogue brother.
@ I wasn’t commenting on if it’s Calvinistic or not just that it seems to be speaking about God’s ultimate end for His elect. Like before the foundation of the world He saw the end goal. I don’t think “of the body” needs to be there if His readers assume Paul’s talking about standing before God in heaven but I see your point!
Nice discussion. Love you brother. 1:14:44 your comment about Gingerbread man, "he loves Jesus, I love Jesus, we just disagree"... points out the problem. Be assured, in my opinion, as a non-Calvinist, a person's salvation is not in question because they affirm TULIP. However, it must be pointed out, as you admit, you only confess Christ and affirm Calvinism because God 'EFFECTUALLY' caused it. It has literally nothing to do with you, it's 'all God'. But, because of the possibility of Evanescent Grace, which is the only possible explanation for apostasy in Calvinism, God deceives some into living and believing they are loved when they are actually destined to destruction, for his glory. AND, because no one is guarantee the necessary Gift of Perseverance, and no one can know if they have 'it' or will get 'it' in this life... there is no actual assurance of personal salvation afforded in Calvinism. Calvinist are told to examine their lives for Christian thoughts, desires, and actions... but these are no less decreed than the faith already in question. And these cannot be considered "evidence" of salvation, only a manifestation of God's decree...for the moment. Whether it will last is yet to be seen, but supposedly already determined. Ultimately, whether or not they realize it, or will admit it, Calvinists worship a God their own doctrine describes as 'untrustworthy' on a personal level. And, they invite other believers to join them. We all know that apostasy is not unique to Calvinism. BUT, in Calvinism apostasy is as much the effectual act of God as any profession of faith in Christ. Apostasy is a manifestation of his perfect will, (secret or otherwise). If Calvinism is true, God causes some to experience temporary faith, and believe the lie that they are truly 'loved' by God when they are not. And this for no other reason than is to increase his own glory. So, Calvinism establishes God is lying to some people who profess Christ and live as Christians, but who? No one knows, and no one can ever know. That is the fly in Calvinists ointment. Sometimes, it's even those in positions of spiritual leadership for decades who leave the faith, by God's effectual decree. But, if Calvinism is not true, we actually DO have, (as you say), believers, like you and Gingerbread Man or Leighton, who are genuinely loved by God, but simply have a difference of opinion about how to interpret a handful of scriptures. BUT... MORE IMPORTANTLY,, God's trustworthiness and character remain in tact and are never in question. Calvinism cannot avoid bringing into question the character and trustworthiness of God. It contains the seed of doubt that God cannot be trusted. Who is it that wants people not to trust God or to doubt his love for them? It's not God.. Examined carefully, it's the same issue as the Serpents lie to Eve.
Wow. That was really hard to read through. Calvinism never accuses God of deception. That is a misrepresentation. If you would listen to what I said in this video, you would realize that such an argument doesn’t work against true Calvinistic doctrine.
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT you said “Apostasy is just as much an act of God as a profession of faith.” I’m sorry but that is patently false. It ignores the passive and active distinction that is within the decrees. It ignores that God can ordain free events. It ignores the fact that God has to work to free a man from sin but He has to do nothing in order for a man to stay in sin. I’m sorry but your argument shows that you don’t fully grasp what true Calvinists (and not internet Calvinists who are mostly clueless) have said about these things. I’m willing to have a reasonable discussion with you but please represent my system fairly.
@@TwitchyTheologian No offense, I believe you earnestly seek the truth. It seems to me you haven't thought this through. If Augustinian Total Depravity is true... apostasy is also God's decree. There is no other possibility. It's not unique to Calvinism, but the recent Calvinist apostates previously maintained their profession as much as anyone, even you, perhaps even more considering their positions. Calvin wrote; “Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption .... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith .... Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent .... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” (3.2.11, Institutes) ** Evanescent Grace is indistinguishable from genuine grace/faith... until it isn't. Calvin continues; “Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, 3.24.8) HERE, It must be noted their "ungratefulness" is also by God's decree. God forsakes them for doing what he ordained. And they do not have any option available. Calvin is also clear about the absence of personal 'assurance of one's salvation, "election" as he defines it.; “We cannot imagine any certainty that is not tinged with doubt, or any assurance that is not assailed by some anxiety. . . . Believers are in perpetual conflict with their own unbelief” (Calvin, Institutes, 3.2.18). No one thought more about the consequences of his doctrine than John Calvin. And he realized he was worshiping a God he was describing as untrustworthy. Calvin had painted himself into a corner from which he could not escape. Hence, the claim of "mystery". One which brings into question the character of God. If Calvinism is true, 'genuine' faith is indistinguishable by anyone from “Evanescent, 'fake/temporary” faith. And both kinds of ‘faith’ are the ‘gift’ of God. One given to a man chosen for salvation, the other given to mock a man destined for eternal damnation, for God’s own pleasure. Neither having anything to do with their actual choices. In Calvinism, necessary gift of "P"erseverance which TULP requires is guaranteed no one. And no one can ever know for certain what the ultimate truth is about the 'faith' they are experiencing before they die. Properly understood, a Calvinist cannot trust the faith they think they have any more than the God the think gave it to them.
@@TwitchyTheologian I appreciate your intent, I do not question your motives. But even in this conversation Dr. Flowers you admitted you cannot articulate what you believe, yet you believe it anyway. The claim is that "A does not equal A". The 'unfalsifiable' invention of the two wills of God and suggesting that God "ordains" the actions of men and yet claiming they are "free" is just an attempt to hide the inherent inconsistency within the doctrine. It is necessary to defend God from its unavoidable claims which question his character. The idea of "passive" and "active" decrees is just another example. The man tied to the ant hill died, but it was the fault of the ants and not the man who tied the knots.🤔 In Calvinism all men are 'born' with the nature which God decreed them to have before they were even conceived. And they are bound by the consequences of it unless and until God intervenes... But, it is still God who stacked that deck and dealt the cards. No disrespect, it seems you're in 'good' company, it's the same "mystery" which John Calvin faced. He couldn't explain it either. John Calvin writes: “But now, removing from God all proximate causation of the act, I at the same time remove from Him all guilt and leave man alone liable. It is therefore wicked and calumnious to say that I make the fall of man one of the works of God. But how it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.123-124, emphasis mine) Calvin claimed God is good.. .he must be... But, within the parameters of this doctrine, we just can't explain or understand how. If you're not really 'picked' nothing can be done other than to go a long and hope for the best. If one claims 'personal assurance' they are whistling past the graveyard. I'm not posting to argue, or take the conversation further. I hope you will my comments up for others to consider. If Calvinism is true, I'm predestined no to believe it. If it is not true, there is hope for all who think it is.
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT with respect, this sort of long winded rant doesn’t make for a good discussion. I’ll leave your comment up but I simply don’t have time to address where I feel like you are mistaken. If you wanna come on the channel and have a live discussion sometime just know that I am willing.
Apparently lol Seriously, I think he understands it, at least in part. I just think he operates from a place of carnal reasoning rather than being Holy Spirit taught.
@@ip7101 Compatibilism means that God's complete sovereignty & predestination can coexist with human freedom of choice, meaning that even though God determines all things, humans can still make meaningful decisions and be held morally responsible for their actions. Essentially, it argues that determinism and free will are compatible concepts when properly understood. Compatibilism attempts to bridge the apparent tension between the idea that God has complete control over all events and the idea that humans have the ability to make choices. Hope that helps.
@ChristOrChaos2025 not really, because that's a simplistic answer. Although correctly stated, we need to understand that we don't actually mean to bridge a gap and make His sovereignty friends with our will and volition. We are trying to state that the two are not at odds and that both truths are real in their own perspective. I used to be a ligonier hyper calvinist when I first started to understand calvinism. As I read more and studied, it became very evident that way too many people make too much of the school of thought when the bible actually speaks so little of it. It seems to me that calvinism is more dear to some than God Himself, and that forced me away. The problem is that I can not intellectually be honest and agree with Leighton. So, I sought out the reformers and puritans and modern-day reformed teachers such as Sinclair Ferguson. Although I dislike a majority of "calvinists", I very much agree with reformed theology. It pleases me to say that every time I have coffee with a brother and are given the chance to explain my view and elaborate on the system of understanding, all find that they mostly agree with what I have to say. I get the notion that some are trying to "defend God", but why? When He tells us in scripture He doesn't need it, why? Worse, He takes responsibility for more than we sometimes would comfortably admit. A lot of that comes by way of silence in the face of accusations. Who are you, oh man?
@ip7101 again, the decree means that it is only allowed to happen with His permission. The decree is not causal. I don't understand how you can't understand. He brought the assyrians as a rod of punishment, YET they acted on their evil intentions. The "free" choices of men do NOT hinder His plans. Actually, they accomplish His purposes; Judas.
The Bible portrays God as giving Adam and Eve the freedom to choose, and their decision to eat from the forbidden tree was their own choice, not a predetermined act by God
Why can’t it be both? Why can’t it be free and predetermined? God predetermined the cross (Acts 2 and 4). Therefore, the fall was necessary. Yet, I agree they fell freely.
@@TwitchyTheologianif it's predetermined by definition it is not their choice but God's choice which means it can't be both. Man has his own will and God has His will. Mans will is throughout scripture. To claim man has a predetermined will then it is God's will and not mans will because God is the one choosing. No you can't have both. Mans will is mans choice which is why he is responsible for his choice. God does not force people to choose.
@@timothyklock1931well, Calvinism teaches both are true. So, in order to critique my position fairly, you have to interact with that position. Second, God predestined the cross right? That means the cross was guaranteed for all eternity. So, what is the prerequisite to the cross? Sin. You must have sin in order for Jesus to have to go to the cross. So, if the cross is necessary, then sin must equally be necessary. If the cross is determined then the fall is equally determined. I mean, Isaiah even says that God declares the end from the beginning saying Gods counsel shall stand and He shall accomplish all His purpose. Everything in time is determined but man is also free. They are both true.
@@TwitchyTheologian Why can't it be the choice of a robot to do something that you programmed it to do? And, no, I'm not saying that Calvinists believe God created humans as moist robots. I'm just showing that determining what one will do, and them lacking Libertarian Freedom of the Will, precludes their freely deciding. One can say that they mysteriously work together all they want, as in Compatibilism, but that has to be demonstrated, not just claimed.
Thanks for this question. The answer is that God ordains the ends (the salvation of the elect) and the means (the evangelism that must take place to save the elect). Calvinists evangelize because we have a 100 percent success ratio. We know that God is sovereign and His word won’t return void. Historically, Calvinism has driven missions. Think about Adoniram Judson and all the famous missionaries around his time were Calvinists.
@@TwitchyTheologian if you choose not to evangelize, that is just as ordained by God as if you choose to do so. But wouldn't it be a sin to not evangelize as God commanded it? So, when you choose not to do so, and in so doing sin against God, that choice, that sin, was ordained by God. Can't you see the issue here since the means are just as ordained and determined as the ends?
@@Real_LiamOBryanI appreciate that. I have made two funny videos on Leighton being a Nephilim. You should check them out. I think they are hilarious because they are so nonsensical
@@reformdestroyer lol . I just want to understand what you are trying to say and tbh it is kind of hard to do so because of the way your sentences are formatted. I mean that with all respect. I want to have a productive conversation
Rev 17:11 is biblical proof that a human made in the image of God was destined to go to hell before he was ever born. His eternal destiny was set in stone before he came out of his mother and took his first breath. Rev 20:10 reveals to us that the false prophet will be joining him. Everyones eternal destiny is determined prior to their physical appearance on earth. Revelation 17:11 NKJV [11] The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and 👉is going to perdition.👈
So you can appeal to an individual, Sam Storms but not to a group of 151 theologians who met for seven years to put together the Westminster Confession 🤣
No. You are missing his point. His point isn't that you can't appeal to a group of people ,but you can appeal to one; rather, his point was that, in appealing to Sam Storms, he was showing the even some Calvinists reject that interpretation of that passage, so it isn't a uniquely non-Calvinist position regarding that passage. In other words, by appealing to Sam Storms, Leighton was implicitly asking why one has to take Twitchy's interpretation, or the interpretation of Westminster.
@ I don’t think that’s when he claimed that his view was the “plain” reading. But regardless, my question is, can a provisionist admit that we all interpret based on our presuppositions? 😁
The Bible uses the verb "believe" (pisteuō) nearly 250 times in the New Testament, with almost 100 of those occurrences in John's gospel. Here are some Bible verses that mention believing in God: Acts 16:31: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" John 5:24: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life" Romans 10:9: "As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame”" John 6:29: "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent" John 7:38: "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them"
@@Tim.Foster123 perhaps that is true. However, I have noticed that my perspective seems to get misrepresented a lot which is unnecessary since the things that I have said are common knowledge. I appreciate you watching the video. I really do think it moves the ball down the field at least.
@TwitchyTheologian There are a number of presuppositions that Provisionalists leave unchecked and unexamined. It would be a good exercise to list them and then attack those presuppositions, instead of asking for clarification on verses ( Bill's clarifications and interpretations are always based on underlying presuppositions. On any disagreement of substance, the battle needs to be fought on the presupposition level, not on the interpretation level.) For example, if a person denies total depravity and imputed sin, a good question would be to ask why on earth would God want to destroy the entire planet of all men women and children, just because there was rampant sin? No sane human would take that approach. None of us would want to wipe out an entire Village because we saw a rampant sin there. We would bend over backwards to find some way to not kill the women, and especially not kill the children, or we would make all sorts of claims about how the destruction was just "extreme Ancient Warfare language". Anything, just so long as we don't have to be painted into a corner of believing that all men, women and children were actually killed. Yet the flood gives us no out on that. God Himself made sure that there was no out. Every man, every woman, and every child was destroyed in that flood, except for eight people. That is a scathing indictment on the extent of sin, and how it affected everyone and everything ...ergo total. If Dr flowers is the sort of person that would see a wicked family and say " let's get that kid out of that family and raise him properly", then he's not acting like God did in the flood. He's consistent in saying that sin is not imputed. So why did God destroy all those babies in the flood? We could say the same thing about Sodom and gomorrah. Remember that God said he would not destroy the city if he found 10 rights people there. That means that they were not nine babies in the town. Given a population of 20,000, that's rather hard to believe that there weren't nine kids there.
@@TwitchyTheologian That's just one example of attacking the presuppositions. Similar work could be done on any number of points held by Provisionalists.
Flowers also made an inlaid point of the hearing the gospel you Believe the word is through the preaching of the gospel is incongruous.. two failure in the first half hour. Flowers is so confused he can’t even speak intelligibly without rambling and making random analogies! He won’t stop, he can’t the argument has been made to big for him to lose! Just a little sad
I'm stopping at 2:20:04. Flowers is really grating on my nerves with all his doubletalk and rambling. Maybe I'll watch the rest tomorrow. You have done a great job trying to make sense of all his babbling!
There IS no greater doublespeak than so-called "Compatibilism." Asserting that A and NOT A can simultaneously be true shouldn't be given the time of day.
@@TwitchyTheologian So "Sovereignty" therefore does not necessarily entail a loss of creaturely freedom. What we have by many Calvinists is actually a limitation of what God's Sovereignty can do, rather than a respect for it. To quote the estimable Tozer on this: “God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.”
Does much of this debate so far (after 30 minutes in) turn on how much people are connected and guilt and inability is passed on to others because of past actions? If guilt and inability can be passed down due to the sin of others then that would seem to ruin Flower's point. Then man's guilt and inability would be man's fault and no one could say that it was God's fault or God doing it.
Flowers it is not your job to defend the blameworthiness of sinners and you never have to defend God’s character! Talk about going from bad to worse.. not a good motivation.😮
He's never been good at debates. His niche is making videos without the opposing view, instead he will strawman the opposing view himself with worn out talking points that have been debunked or explained correctly a thousand times. When he gets into an actual debate he can't do that, and ultimately he doesn't do very well. Imagine that.
When Paul discussing being like one to win one was to show and admit his willingness to go where God sent him so that they might hear the gospel.. straightforward!
The defeated to the flowers invalid judicial argument is simple:: the judicial act God took was in the garden when God said you will surely die. That was the judicial assignment of guilt to all man. In Adam we all have sinned! Flowers it’s over bud.
Who will say to the partner why did you move this vessel this way and mold this other vessel that way why have you not molded the vessels in another way? I know who is, Flowers Flowers will gladly say to the potter. Why have you made a vessel for glorification and why have you made a vessel for refuse!!
Twitchy thanks for that exposition and exposing of Flowers. Lookie below! There are many Reformed believers and Calvinists. Amen. You and RC are doing a great job and glory to the lord for that.
I tried my best to glorify God with a good attitude and solid exposition of the Scriptures. That’s all I can do. I trust God will do the rest. Thanks for the encouragement.
Ever consider that the professing believers who believe you can lose your salvation are the ones who lose their salvation? Ever consider that professing believers who don't believe the Father chose them before the foundation of the world to give to the Son believe that because they weren't chosen? They can only believe what they believe. They can't believe otherwise. I believe I was chosen for salvation for God's glory. God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
@Dizerner It should become more obvious when He who now restrains is taken out of the way. I've been shown what's to come. II Thessalonians 2:11-12 NKJV [11] And for this reason 👉God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,👈 [12] that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
“God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.” Salvation has always been by grace through faith, based in the death and resurrection of Christ. In Christ, every sin, past, present, and future, is expiated and propitiated, leaving no barrier between God and man except the natural animosity of man’s heart. Abraham was saved through faith, by God’s grace at the cross. 🙌
@bobtaylor170 Yes. I was arminianin for 40+ years. I began to believe the scriptures I was studying and then found out it was really Calvinism and I didn't know it.
@@aletheia8054 I don’t think I fell into a trap. I am not looking to win debate points. I am looking to win people. I win people by lovingly exegeting Scripture which I did. That’s a win to me.
@ brother, you don’t need to stand in front of a liar to do that. When you stand in front of a liar, then you should be kind to them and give them what they need. That would be rebuking for the lies that they are telling. Instead, you acted nice. That is what a con man does. You won’t talk to me on your program, but you’ll go in front of a liar go figure
@@TwitchyTheologian you don’t need to stand in front of a false preacher to do that brother Rather than rebuke the false teacher, you were nice to him. Nice is not good. Kind is to give him what he needed, which is a strong rebuking. You will gladly talk to a false teacher for three hours than talk to your brother for 10 minutes Go figure
@@aletheia8054Leighton is a brother in Christ who is misled. I don’t think he is purposefully deceiving people. I think he is misled. I also think that you are misled which we have discussed previously. I think the idea of there being no such thing as water baptism is very very weird. But I still talk with you and I’m still nice to you. If I thought Leighton was a purposeful liar then I would not be as nice. I don’t think he is the big bad wolf that everyone thinks that he is.
@ he’s not a brother in Christ. Your brothers and sisters do the will of God. Yeah, and I offered to come on and talk about it. You just trying to increase your views or something? You’re not supposed to be nice. This is one of the things we should talk about. But you’re not interested. There’s nothing to gain by talking to me I guess. I don’t have a big audience that will get you attention.
I had to turn this off after the 24 minute mark, Twitchy really doesn't have a good handle on the scriptures, he is clueless about Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 2+3, Isaiah 6, Acts 28, John 12 etc. Calvinism has indoctrinated this poor man that he can't see the true understanding of the scriptures, he is a nice guy but should really take more time reading and studying the scriptures than reading calvinist literature.
Perhaps you can come on my channel and enlighten us, oh wise one. I really would be fine with that. I do ask that you at least keep listening though. It is only when you are comfortable with your own position that you can fairly hear out the other side.
It sounds like you are not comfortable with your position or you wouldn’t be so angry. I can fairly examine Provisionism bc I am comfortable where I am. It sounds like you are a little insecure in your position so you have to throw out the heresy accusation.
Merch at the link below!
amazinggraceco.printify.me/products/1
It was a friendly discussion but it did seem like Dr Flowers kept making solid points and then they would move on without a serious rebuttal. After just an hour it’s happened about 3 times already. The host was polite but I hope he takes seriously researching and thinking through what Dr Flowers shared.
@@randomname2366 do u have specific examples of where I didn’t give a serious rebuttal? I’d be glad to discuss it
@TwitchyTheologian your response on teleological causes vs causal is silly. If God determined people to act in a way, he is the cause. This is where courses in logic are so important.
@@jwatson181Provisionist, Calvinist, or Arminian.. none of us can run away from God being the ultimate cause of all things. Whether you believe God is directly causing every action, every event, and every choice that His creatures make, or God knowing that so much evil will happen and many living precious souls will perish as a result of Gods choice to create man with a free will. God caused it all to happen! If I was an omniscient eternal being and if I knew all the trouble these free will creatures would cause including killing my son.. I would never allow such evil to to happen because if I do then they would make me evil! Atheist honestly have a good point when they bring the theodicy argument.
But only in Calvinism it can be explained how evil can exist with an all knowing all powerful good loving creator.
@@maxmateush7090Ultimate cause is not the same as meticulous determinism, where God specifically determines every evil action, which is the problem with Augustinian Calvinism.
@@maxmateush7090 Ultimate, or distal, cause, does not equal determiner. For example: if I throw a rock at a window because I was drunk, and I got drunk because my wife yelled at me, even though I only threw the rock at the window because she yelled at me--at least in an ultimate sense, that doesn't mean that my wife's yelling at me determined that I would throw a rock through the window. So it is with God. God gives man freedom to choose, and man chooses that which he does. Just because God set up all the world such that those things would come to take place, that doesn't mean that He determined them. This is what is known as the distinction between "Strong Actualization" and "Weak Actualization" in theology. God, only weakly actualizes these things, by setting up circumstances such that they will happen, but does not strongly actualize them which would be directly determining that they will happen.
And again, well done Leighton.
He did do a good job as usual. I am just glad to be able to explain my view.
@TwitchyTheologian Agreed. I thank you for not only sharing your views but also doing it with a character of respect and grace.
I have seen way too many of these discussions that have been a disgrace rather than God-honoring.
@@titosantiago3694 I try my best to be cordial. I appreciate you watching the video. 😊
@@TwitchyTheologianyou views are a bit heretical but I will continue to pray for you. When did you start believing that God authored evil?
@@jwatson181even a Provisionist cannot run away from the theodicy argument. Can you explain how a all knowing, all powerful, loving, good God would create a creature with free will to cause so much evil and go to hell eternally, when God could’ve saved everyone including himself all the trouble by continuing in eternity as before.
Glad Twitchy and Flowers got to talk. I really pray this helps lead many out of Calvinism. I was a Calvinist for 20 years until I removed the Augustine lens I had on and searched to understand the verses in context. Praying for you brother.
@@gracemercywrath8767 I pray it leads many others out of Provisionism. lol. Appreciate you watching and I am grateful for your prayers. I will pray for you as well
Provisionism makes no sense. Augustine was, for the most part, right.
@@KnightFel Provisionism does make sense. It actually shows the Loving God of the scriptures who desires all to be saved. Which Augustine do you refer to early Augustine or older Augustine. I would recommend checking out Idol Killers work on Augustine.
@@gracemercywrath8767 Idol Killer won’t debate me. He is scared of me. lol 😂. Screenshot that and send it to him lol 😂
He is a good friend of mine even if we significantly disagree
@ lol yeah I saw you guys talk on his program. I’m a mod for him!
Thank you Leighton Flowers!
Yes, thank you! Dr. Flowers led me into reformed theology.
I would like to hear a definition of the word chosen or elect from Doctor flowers because according to his interpretation it seems like Paul should have left those words out. They are meaningless if you read the text with provisionist presuppositions.
No. Chosen for Leighton, I can say--since I'm a Provisionist, means that God determined before creation that whosever believes in Christ would be chosen for work and salvation, generally speaking. In Romans, he would also likely point out, elect also refers to the righteous remnant of the Jews. He would also point out that that is why it uses the language of Jacob I've loved and Esau I've hated, since that was about electing one nation for service and the other for dishonor. In other words, Leighton's definition of election is, generally speaking, Corporate Election. There is a secondary sense, however, where each individual within the corporate elect is, himself, elected.
Summary: Corporate Election = Primarily Group Election and only Secondarily Individual Election; Individual Election = Primarily Individual Election and only Secondarily Group Election. Election Definition: Being chosen in Christ, not chosen to be in Christ, before creation.
@ thanks for this answer. I would at least like to hear a provisionist admit that there is a lot of work going into that presupposition when it comes to defining election. I don’t appreciate the argument by Flowers that they have the plain meaning of the text while Calvinist inject their meaning into the text. Can we not all admit that our interpretations have presuppositional biases?
@@Real_LiamOBryanright. But the text doesn’t say that. The text says that God chose the people “Us”. It doesn’t say that God chose “Whosoever would believe in Him.” I feel like Ephesians 1 was actually Leighton’s weakest area because of the clear exegetical gymnastics he had to display to make his view fit the text. He even said that the word order doesn’t matter. However, in this instance it does because the direct object of the choosing is a particular people whereas the direct object in the Provisionist view would need to be a plan. I really feel like that is the case. But hey, I’m just glad to be able to talk with you guys.
@@TwitchyTheologian I chose a pair of shoes last week because I knew they would choose me.
@@BigPres-3POright! 😂
Was John the Baptist an age appropriate adult when he acted in faith by leaping in the womb in the presence of his Lord?
U childless?
@ no. I have children.
Are any of us John the Baptist?
When scripture says believe, does not mean you can believe on your own. When scripture says be holy, doesn't mean you can be holy on your own. You can't be righteous on your own. No one is good, no not one. No one seeks after God. The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. You must be born again and you can't do this either. No one can be right with God. No not even you, Flowers. God impute righteousness to individual. God justifies a person. God is sovereign on who He saves by His will not man's will.
@@abuelb amen
You presuppose that to believe "on our own" means a regenerative work of God on us to do so but scripture nowhere informs us that we need to be regenerated in order to believe. Also, we are able to be holy THROUGH CHRIST. Christ is provided for us and all we need to access that grace is to believe, which we can do upon hearing the Gospel. You presuppose that being dead in sin means an inability to believe but scripture nowhere informs us that dead means that. Therefore all the passages you are referencing are just prooftexts based on your faulty premise. The non-Calvinist has no problem with those texts.
@@nathanhellrung9810 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 16:15-17, NASB)
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (John 3:5-8, NASB)
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (1 Corinthians 2:14, NASB)
@@nathanhellrung9810 26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD." (1 Corinthians 1:26-31, NASB)
@@nathanhellrung9810 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48, NASB)
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:13, NASB)
Calvin himself said that men have free will (not the Libertarian version, of course). Why would Leighton say that this is recent?
Good point.
If they are born tied to the tree, I don't see their culpability. Saying there is no contradiction does not mean there is no contradiction.
I didn’t say they are born tied to the tree. They are born with an evil heart. God says come to me and they don’t. They can’t come because they won’t come (John 6:44). Then God judges them and ties them to the tree (John 12). Does that make sense? You can disagree. That is fine. I just want you to understand my argument. :)
@@TwitchyTheologian I'm enjoying this dialogue! I'm only 1:34:00 in and it's been a great discussion. I only mentioned being born tied to the tree based on the earlier part. It seemed like that's where the argument inevitably falls. As Flowers pointed out....there's really no Calvinist position that successfully addresses that issue. I look forward to hearing more!
@@filmscorelife4225 I thought that my explanation was good. Shucks. Maybe next time lol. Thanks for watching. God bless you bro
@@TwitchyTheologian God bless you!
@@TwitchyTheologian If God causally determines (ordains or decrees) all things that would include our desires. This would mean that the ultimate reason that people are born with an evil heart is because God causally determined that they would have an evil heart. People can't and won't come because God causally determined for them to be unable nor desire to come.
Good to see these conversations!
We can't understand each other if we aren't willing to chat like this.
Love ya brothers, thanks for sharing this 😊
@@AlexanderosD appreciate the encouragement. I was grateful that Dr. Flowers was willing to come on my channel to have a cordial discussion.
You must be born again. Regeneration preceeds faith. God makes you born again, gives you new heart before you can believe. Yiu cant believe on your own.
@@abuelb amen
Scripture nowhere tells us that we must be born again in order to believe. It says that we must come to Christ in order to have life. That the HOW we are saved is by the washing of regeneration and that God has chosen to save (by the washing of regeneration) those who believe, belief clearly being the prerequisite.
@@nathanhellrung9810Paul clearly says those that are in the flesh (literally everyone prior to conversion) are not even able to please God. They don’t have the ability.
@TwitchyTheologian @abuelb - Ephesians 1:13, like many other passages, refutes Calvinism’s backward and unbiblical order of salvation, where supernatural regeneration must occur before a person irresistibly responds to Christ. Ephesians 1:13 lays out the correct order. "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit..."
1) “you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation”
2) “and believed in Him”
3) you “were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit”
This order of salvation is consistent throughout the New Testament.
John 20:30-31:
“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
Again:
1) God gives revelation through the scriptures “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”
2) A person responds “by believing…”
3) Then “…you may have life in His name.”
“Life in His name” comes after hearing His truth and responding to it in faith.
Jesus Himself affirms the order of salvation in John 5:39-40:
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.”
1) Scripture bears witness to Christ
2) We can come to Him, or refuse to
3) If we come to Him, we may have life
According to Jesus Christ’s own words, we don’t get life from pre-faith regeneration, then come to Him. We hear about Christ in the scriptures, come to Him in faith, and receive regeneration and new life.
@@KnightFel Paul says that the MIND set on the flesh cannot please God. So ask yourself why those in the flesh cannot please God? Because of what they set their minds on. Even regenerated believers can set their minds on the flesh and not please God in doing so. The inability to please God has everything to do with what man sets his mind on. That is the point. Nowhere does Paul say that man is unable to change their minds.
I think in John is kind of plain for me. You must be born again, Jesus said it 3 times, how many times does it take for us to understand, and that work is done by the Spirit. Many ppl say if you hear the Gospel ppl change, but I say NO - if the heart is not open that Gospel message will not be heard.
I agree
Saying that one must be born again, which all Provisionists and Arminians agree with, doesn't preclude believing so as to be born again. The crux of the issue isn't whether or not one must be born again but, rather, whether or not one needs to be born again before one is capable of responding to Gods word in shame and humility, like the prodigal son walking home. Did you listen to the debate/discussion, because this was one of the points they tarried on for a while?
@@Real_LiamOBryanI don’t think we spent a lot of time on the subject. I should have mentioned John 1:13 which explicitly states that we aren’t born of human will. But hey, I am a rookie. lol 😂
@@Real_LiamOBryan bear in mind that Nicodemus came to Jesus believing that He was from God, and Jesus interrupted him and said you can't even see - let alone enter - the kingdom of God until after you've been born again. And being born again is strictly a work of the Holy spirit, with no involvement from the individual. Verse 8.
Jesus expected Nicodemus to already know this.
That whole discussion is about how being born again precedes saving faith. Saving faith doesn't come until v14 and 15.
Ephesians 1:7 explicitly states that in Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. It does not state that BEFORE you're in Him you receive forgiveness of sins via justification by faith. It is impossible to receive forgiveness of sins unless you're in Him i.e. spiritually circumcised. Therefore, justification by faith can ONLY happen IF you have already been regenerated and are in Him.
Ephesians 1:7 NKJV
[7] In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
BAM! Case closed. of course the 101 minions will run to another text.
This is not a solid case at all…
This only makes sense if we are totally depraved in that we would never choose Christ or have the ability to… that is not biblical…
Everyone has a choice, Jesus is The Way and has been revealed to all men.
So once you believe the gospel that has been sent you are regenerated and found in Christ.
Nowhere does it say you need to be regenerated first to come to Christ.
@@dionsanchez4478i hate it when people use other parts of the Bible. It makes me so mad.
Romans 5:1-4
English Standard Version
Peace with God Through Faith
5 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith[b] into this grace in which we stand, and we[c] rejoice[d] in hope of the glory of God.
John 6 the Holy Spirit wasn't given yet not until Act 2 so the people were not regenerated to come to Christ.
Romans 9 doesn't say before the foundation of the world. Its in the womb Esau will serve Jacob that's Gods election.
@@faithfulservantofchrist9876 Roman’s 9 is talking about nations, nothing to do with salvation…
Now that you've spoken to Leighton Flowers, you should try having Kevin Thompson from Beyond the Fundamentals.
The ultimate word salad machine.
@@ip7101 I don’t think that we be productive. I have spoken to him and he isn’t willing to have civil discourse.
Awe. I'm saddened that has happened. While I would still encourage a discussion (not a rigorous debate), perhaps someone like Tim Stratton (I haven't searched your channel enough, so you may have already idk.)
@@ip7101 I would be willing to talk to Kevin or Tim, if they were willing.
Kevin Thompson has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Calling him the king of word salad is an insult to salad.
Regardless of one's soteriological persuasions, I have no idea why anyone listens to his convoluted ramlings.
( one time he had a lecture on the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, and he had the terms 180° reversed. Mind-numbing. I started thinking I was going insane, so I looked it up on Wikipedia just to reassure myself that I wasn't going crazy. Sure enough - he had the terms reversed)
You get a like! I find Calvinism utterly incorrect, not biblical, but I can always appreciate these interactions.
I find provisionism utterly incorrect. An absolute demonic Doctrine. Not biblical. But man thnx for that encouragement. We need people like you
Define faith..
@@ip7101 thanks
@@JohnMackeyIII faith is what or who you put your trust in.
@@JohnMackeyIII Faith is trust in both thought and deed.
Dr. Flowers is correct in saying that we are not as spiritually blind as we could be, and I agree. However, we are born blind enough to be unable to see the truth. One doesn’t need to be completely blind to stumble aimlessly, unable to find the way.
Man is spiritually dead, the natural man does not accept the things of God. No one can be right with God on their own.
Flowers cannot work through a chapter in sequence and follow the thoughts of the author. He twists and storifies everything because he hates God being sovereign. He's also likely going to become an open theist ...
Ephesians 1:13 explicitly states that in Him you ALSO trusted. We didn't trust the gospel PRIOR to being in Him. Paul is telling us that we were regenerated and additionally trusted. Thats the point of the conjuction also. Otherwise, there is no reason to have the conjuction in the verse if that's not what he means.
The word trusted in verse 13 is not in Greek. However, we know it's proelpizo from verse 12 where Paul says that we who FIRST trusted in Christ. We FIRST trust in Christ after we hear the gospel.
This text matches 1 Peter 1:3 that states that we are born again TO a living hope. Hope can't precede regeneration. Hope and faith must occur simultaneously in salvation because elpizo is essential to pistis Heb 11:1. You can't have faith in Jesus and not have hope. They are intrinsically linked together. Regeneration precedes hope, so it must also precede faith.
Ephesians 1:13 NKJV
[13] In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
The prodical son is not about soteriology. It is about the Jewish leaders depicted by the older son.
Amen. I addressed that in another podcast. Also, even it was soteriological it would refer to a backslider repenting bc the son was already a son.
@@TwitchyTheologian Not here to pick a fight but regarding Luke 15:11-32, I put that passage into a Church Father Cross reference and every reference to that passage and theological explanation connects it to someone who was in God's grace, but by major sin was lost, but via repenting was restored back to God.
Of course as a Catholic those Church father interpretations are 100% consistent with Catholic soteriology. The statement above that it was not soteriology is not found in the Church Fathers.
@@TwitchyTheologianexactly!
Why can't it be about more than one thing? The context it's set in is of sinners coming to repentance AND the religious leaders issues with Christ eating with sinners.
@@nathanhellrung9810 I would have to agree. The prodigal son is the last parable of three in Luke 15 on the same subject. The Pharisees and scribes were complaining about Jesus sitting with sinners, and then Jesus gives a parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin, ending both parables by saying there is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents. Then he goes into the longer third parable of the prodigal (or lost) son. Jesus' point of all three parables is to actually shame the Pharisees and scribes over the fact that they didn't care about sinners repenting, but at the same time speaking of the need for sinners to repent, which is soteriological since it is God that grants/gives repentance to the sinner (2 Timothy 2:25, Acts 5:31 and 11:18). And notice the prodigal son parable ends this way, "It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found." Being dead and lost then alive and found is language describing a sinner's condition before and after salvation.
Titus 3:5 happens before Titus 3:7. The washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit precedes justification by Grace.
If you go before a judge for a crime, and he says I am sending you to the Bahamas before he tells you that you are not guilty, then that would be him giving you grace before mercy. Likewise, if God tells you that you are going to heaven before He forgives your sins and saves you from going to hell then He would be giving you grace before mercy. Mercy must logically precede grace in salvation. God must remit your sins via washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit prior to you becoming a heir.
Titus 3:5, 7 NKJV
[5] not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
[7] that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Around 50 minute mark, Twitchy theologian is suggesting that regeneration gives us a sort of life prior to eternal life and prior to union with Christ. Life outside of Christ. That causes many theological problems. It is a solution invented to avoid one problem with the Scriptures, but it creates many more problems!
@@Jeremyb2023 can u illustrate the problems that is caused by that? Bc I think it is clear. I’m willing to hear you out though
@@TwitchyTheologianfaith comes by hearing...
Sounds an awful lot like the version of Arminianism that I used to espouse, Partial Regeneration.
@@timothyklock1931 everyone agrees that faith comes by hearing. God gives faith to those who He regenerates. Those who He regenerates, He uses the word to regenerate them (James 1:18). So, we are in agreement there.
@@Real_LiamOBryanno, nothing partial about it. Union with Christ is eternal life. We have eternal life because of our union with Him. However, we must be born again in order to believe
God is Holy and Righteous, not fair according to human thinking.
@@benny.patsyevans122 agreed
Flowers believes that too
@@reformdestroyerbut then thinks the reformed understanding is unfair. Flowers made me reformed. Thank you Dr. Flowers!
This was a good discussion!
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares Yahweh.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it bear and sprout,
And giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what pleases Me,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.
- Isaiah 55:8-11
Leighton says the sinner can recognize he's a sinner. So? Recognizing you are a sinner doesn't save you.
@@benny.patsyevans122 great point. I tried to emphasize that by going to John 8 and showing that a slave can’t repent because repentance requires humility and the opposite of humility (pride) is a sin which we are slaves to a part from regeneration
That's correct ! That's what Flowers says
Even if you feel you've made a strong case, it's important to actively listen to opposing viewpoints and be open to the possibility of being wrong
I agree with that for sure. We should all be willing to listen to what others have to say. Even when we know we are right. We need to at least learn why others think differently. Thanks for all the comments man! You are awesome!
All analogies fall short when trying to illustrate God's doings.
Really? I suppose you've never read the Bible, because throughout The Old Testament God uses anthropopathisms to make himself comprehensible to creatures made in His Image. And in The New Testament, we find that God has become Incarnate.
C.S. Lewis nailed Calvinism: if it's true, our white is God's black, and His white is our black. Yet, again, we are made in His Image.
The core of the Gospel:
The core message of the Gospel is that Jesus Christ died on the cross to redeem humanity from sin, and anyone who believes in Him can be saved.
It is more annoying that in Ephesians flowers reads and stares directly at the definition of faith and then uses it incorrectly and fails and understanding what the word means!
Why does that bother you. Aren't you secure in the definition?
While I believe Calvinism is evil and blasphemous Twitchy is a nice man.
Lol, very based.
@@jamesgrosso4372 uhhh. Thanks, I guess lol.
You are, you were a pleasure to listen to. Christ came out in your demeanour@@TwitchyTheologian
@@jamesgrosso4372praise God! That is the greatest compliment I could receive. Thanks for watching. Please check out my stuff on cults. I think my video: Is Jesus Jehovah/YHWH is helpful for people of all soteriological persuasions.
In otherwords: Heretic thinks Christian is nice.
We are born tied to a tree and his name is Adam.
I'm about halfway through but I'm very impressed with your demeanor and the content of the debate you're putting forth. Personally, I find Leighton Flowers to be quite annoying, and sometimes very cocky when he is on his own channel. Looks like you have kind of disarmed him. I still think he twists what Calvinism teaches and his arguments against it are very shallow and carnal.
@@ChristOrChaos2025 praise God! Thanks for the encouragement man.
Go back to the first sin:
Did not Adam hide?
Did not God seek Adam?
Right. Good point. That’s what we all do from birth. We hide our sin and try to cover it up with fig leaves. Only when God seeks us and calls out to us (effectually) will we respond.
Bible says that people have to choose, and that choices have consequences:
Moses 3:17: "Thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee"
Deuteronomy 30:19: "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life that you may live"
Joshua 24:15: "Choose for yourself today whom you will serve"
1 Corinthians 10:13: "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear"
Psalm 32:9: God gave us free will as a gift and wants us to use it
We agree with that too. The question is: why do we choose good? My answer is: The Grace of God
Calvanist don't read those parts of the Bible.
@@TwitchyTheologian It's the grace of God that he only created so many special people and will torture the rest of the people for eternity for doing what He made them will to do? Also, how is it grace to just create someone to do something? Even the evildoer does what he was created to do on Calvinism. This doesn't make any sense. Grace is unearned blessing. Blessing implies a Libertarianly-Free creature, for what sort of grace does the rock have that it was created to do nothing but sit until shattered or worn away?
@@Real_LiamOBryan you are once again accusing the decree and man’s free will of bumping “Doing what he created them to do.” You are not interacting with the Calvinist position which believes that God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom are compatible.
@@jwatson181 so, you didn’t read my response? You seem very unsure of your position to make such argumentation. I know when people are not comfortable in their position and are unsure of them self when they result to tactics like you are displaying 😂
Thanks Leighton.
It's comical that God would SOVEREIGNLY DECREE for a guy named FLOWERS to challenge the high priests of TULIP!! 😂😂
@@fredmiller6166 I mean I’m just a layman off the street who reads a lot. I appreciate being exalted to high priest though. Whatever that position is lol 😂
Twitchy. I said in the live stream comments earlier. You inspire me brother. You were very humble and super kind. It was cool you hearing his point of view. I’ll be honest when I debate others. I have a mindset when I’m like I’m right and this person is wrong and I noticed as you were debating him you never had that mindset. You helped me in a major way to debate people more humbly and to hear thier point of view. Love you so much brother. I’m very grateful I found your channel. Soli Deo Gloria 🙏🙏🌷🌷. Love you dude!!
@@Cdubs24 praise God! That’s what love to hear! We can be right and still be humble and kind. Let the Calvinism flow through you and u can’t help but be kind lol.
@@TwitchyTheologianyes! I have a book called humble Calvinism. It’s a book about on how to
Be more gracious when people disagree with us and to be more humble with the doctrines of grace! I would recommend reading!
while predestination is a theological concept found in the Bible, it is not considered the central message of the Gospel, which primarily focuses on Jesus Christ's sacrifice for humanity and the call to personal faith and repentance for salvation.
I agree with that
Being a slave to sin doesn’t keep you from believing so being a slave to Christ doesn’t keep you from rejecting?
@@BigPres-3PO according to Leighton. I tried to argue that slavery to sin makes you unable to respond positively to the Gospel.
@ but he believes in once saved always saved doesn’t he?
@@TwitchyTheologian chapter and verse?
@@BigPres-3PO he does
@@JamesS805 I am quoting from John 8.
I asked idolkiller and jpuncut if they could use their freewill to believe calvinistic determinism is true. What do you think was their answer?
Now ask me if I care though. They are both in error.
It depends if you are assuming determinism is true. If you do then they can’t decide to believe it unless God decrees them to.
If you are asking assuming it could or could not be true then they probably say they could choose to believe it. Warren would say he used to choose to believe it.
Neither one of these folks knows what Regeneration is. Regeneration is the act of being Born Again when one received the Holy Spirit and becomes a New Creation IN Christ.
@@roycevanblaricome634 you should have put a period after you said “Being born again.” Idk what theology you hold to but it certainly isn’t Reformed.
Leighton has a premise and all his interpretations must fit the premise. His premise cannot yield to plain meaning of scripture. But, scripture is unfalsifiable.
Exactly. That’s why 98% of Bible readers reject Calvinism.
You cannot drink the living water... Unless you?
Open your eyes . And open your ears... Living water equals tears of repentance..😭
@@artistart55 I’d be glad to respond, but I need to understand what you are saying. Can you possibly reword it and try to be grammatically correct? That will help me comprehend what is being said :). Thanks
@TwitchyTheologian
John 4:10
In the Bible, John 4:10 says, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, 'Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water".
John 4:14-16
14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.”
16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
My question to you is what do you think living water is ?
John 7:37-38
Here jesus explains living water as the holy spirit..
If living water is the Holy Spirit, would it be fair to say?That when jesus baptizes you with the holy spirit. And you are born again
@@artistart55 okay. I see the problem here. No, we (Calvinists) believe that regeneration and indwelling are distinct. You are regenerated (given a new heart) (John 1:13, 1John 5:1)then you believe and are indwelt (Galatians 3:14).
@TwitchyTheologian
Galatians 3:26-27 says, "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ".
You MUST understand water baptism was only for john the baptist.. JOHN 1:31-34 JOHN 1:6-7 THE BAPTISM OF JESUS WAS FOR JOHN THE BAPTIST TO COMPLETE HIS TESTIMONY
acts 1:4-5
the REAL GREAT COMMISSION !
But the baptism of the holy spirit is what saves you..
Because you have been clothed with christ with a baptism of repentance..
and JESUS WILL BAPTISIZE WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT...
and you will drink the LIVING WATER....
@@artistart55right. I believe that you are baptized with the Spirit after you believe. You believe bc the Spirit regenerates you before that. It’s not a contradiction.
Leighton interprets each passage in context with its chapter and the entire Bible. Calvinism is a human philosophical system that was introduced centuries after Christ, requiring taking passages out of context to support itself.
Yep. And, it's funny, Calvinists always say that about non-Calvinist theology, even though Augustine was basically the first Calvinist over 300 years after the Church began.
Can you give an example of one verse that I took out of context? Actually, if you look at our discussion on John 15:16 and Ephesians 1 it is abundantly clear that I stayed in the context and made my arguments from the immediate context.
Apparently Moses was a Calvinist then.
This is just a recycled anti Calvinist bot comment.
@@KnightFel I replied to Twitchy but he deleted the comment.
23:13:18 It seems sad that you would need to even say this. Hopefully you can influence your friend Scott, as he calls everyone who thoughtfully rejects Calvinism unsaved.
@@peterfox7663 we have had our discussions about it. I try to convince him to be a bit more generous to others lol
We have redemption through His Blood . We receive it or don't
Where does the text say that we receive it or we don’t?
God would give it to all if that was the case . You have to believe to receive it
@@reformdestroyer or He gave it to a particular people that He chose as verse 4 indicates. Doesn’t that make sense?
@TwitchyTheologian What He gave us is What Chosen means. It doesn't mean whom He chose because He liked you. Let's get that simple thinking out of your mind
@@reformdestroyer I’m sorry. I still can’t comprehend your arguments. Perhaps we should talk over the phone or live?
While I do not agree with Provisionism because of it's tendencies to minimize the sin nature, Calvinism is also quite bad. Here I will explain why.
*Why Calvinism is a bad thing and I reject it as false.*
I reject Calvinism for a lot of sound reasons (that I explain later on below), but I found many people gravitate towards the wrong reasons for rejecting Calvinism where in fact the Calvinist is actually more correct than they are; this muddies the waters, because then it becomes a partial confused truth, and one error trying to correct another. So first are the 2 reasons I do NOT reject Calvinism, followed by the 5 reasons I DO.
_1. Calvinism is not wrong because God does not have the right to do with his creation whatever he wants._
God is the ground and source of all being, and as such he legitimately has the official and moral right to do whatever he wants with his creation. God is not in a democracy, his people are not Americans who fight for their civil liberties to the death in the grand republic. God is a complete and unilateral monarchy, and denying him his right to do whatever he wants with no restrictions, is placing an external constraint upon God that doesn't come from himself, and so boils down to idolatry.
Thankfully our God is maximally loving, unlike the Calvinist God, and we can rest in relief that he has revealed himself as so. But never and not because he owes it to us-God does not owe us his love. This puts the obligation and demand on God from the value of creation itself, reversing the roles of Creator and created, and belittling the value of God by transferring that value into his creation itself, whereupon God becomes beholden and indebted to his creation's value: idolatry.
_2. Calvinism is not wrong because God would be unloving to allow any person into hell for a reason other than their direct free will choice._
This is a powerful motivation for many false doctrines, the demand that God meet our own sense of morality. The demand that God give us the purity and capacity to know him in and of ourselves, can only logically reduce to pride and independence from God. For any obligation placed upon God logically equates to something else being more valuable than God, and putting a moral obligation upon him. Behind the scenes of what looks like care for the lost, is really a root of rebellion and pride.
It is the reason for this that people feel God owes us. And to demand a reason from God-this is the entire plot of the book of Job, and the lesson it teaches us. To demand a reason from God, an explanation, for something we personally dislike, find distasteful, or outright immoral, is to put ourselves on the throne and God as our subject. This whole line of argument that "God is a monster if he allows X, he is evil and mean and cruel and unworthy of any worship": it boils down to rebellion.
So, we have a maximally loving God who has yet, in his sovereignty, allowed us to be born with a sin nature that does not naturally like his ways. This is the path of humility-accepting what God tells us, instead of figuring out if we like it enough and think it's okay for God to do, or makes sense. And here, in fact, is a simple path of just accepting propositions we cannot logically harmonize and do not emotionally prefer. Christ told us to come this way: deny self, be simple as a child.
... to be continued ...
... continuation ..
Now on to the reasons I DO reject Calvinism. I used to be very intimidated by the idea of Calvinism because underneath I didn't feel 100% sure it couldn't possibly be true. This made me in practice scared of God-scared of whether I was made for his wrath. I was willing to accept God however he revealed himself, and give him the right to be whoever he wanted. But over years of prayer and study I have grown in my confidence that I no longer consider Calvinism accurately reflects election. Here are the 5 main reasons why:
_1. It makes God less loving than he is._
Just as God is completely holy, completely just and completely powerful, so God is completely loving. The argument comes that God allowing a person to be lost that he could have theoretically saved, makes God less loving than he could be. But this is a wrong definition of love. Love does not mean that God does not have any other reasons or motives for doing something that might be stronger or more important to him than the love he holds for the lost. So whatever mysterious reasons God had for allowing people to be lost, does not override the truth that God genuinely loved those lost people; and to genuinely love is defined as genuinely desiring the well-being, which cannot be true of something you create for the intent and purpose to destroy. The character of God as revealed in Scripture is meant to help us determine things that might be harder to understand, and God is love and his tender mercies over all his works.
_2. It makes God less good than he is._
Underneath all the secondary decrees and compatibilistic philoso-double speak Calvinism employs, is the unalterable logic God decrees all things. This means that however many "degrees of separation" you want to create in between the ultimate decree of God that something would be, and the enactment through external means to get to that decree, there is still underneath a chain from the decree of God to the fulfillment of God's decree that cannot logically be broken. This would indeed make God his own enemy and the author of all evil, purely by logic. Scripture tells us “the devil sows the tares," and "an enemy has done this," yet God would be the one essentially sowing the tares if Calvinism were true, the devil becoming merely God's agent. If God is any ANY way desiring ANY evil to ACTUALIZE rather than be a potential, evil is then God's primary desire, rather than secondary, and the devil is just doing God’s will, rather than being his enemy, with an opposing will. It is not being argued that God is morally obligated to be maximally good, rather by definition, God has self-defined as perfect in all his ways, and freely chosen to be maximally good, and thus, although God decreeing evil might be theoretically just and a measure of good, it cannot, by definition, be maximally good.
I believe we can make a strong cumulative logical argument from the attributes of God. I don't think any Bible-believing Christian can honestly say "God is partially X" for any other attribute and not feel a twinge of blasphemy inside-because God is perfect in all his ways, and whatever God is, is a good thing, it inevitably follows that for God to be perfect he must be each good thing to the greatest amount. Is God maximally or partially righteous? ...partially just? ...partially powerful? ...partially holy? ...partially pure? ...partially beautiful? ...partially worthy? ...partially omnipresent? ...partially self-sufficient? ...partially transcendent? ...partially infinite? ...partially faithful? ...partially perfect? Yet some don't blink an eye to claim God is not maximally loving or maximally good.
_3. It takes away all sense of true responsibility._
Now one could argue that God never meant creatures to have any responsibility, and that would be logically coherent, however Scripture clearly implies to us actual and real choices we can make, and the responsibility that befalls them. If everything I do is decreed by God before I am born, then my will cannot ever in any case be the deciding or effectual agent of my sin. This is not to argue or imply that all sin is done through the will of a human, since many sins we cannot help; but it is also to support that there is indeed some sin that is done through the will of a human, deliberate sins, and most importantly the sin that rejects the grace of God that is freely offered and well meant.
Preceding grace is taught in both Calvinism and Arminianism, the difference is only whether it is “resistible,” and everywhere we see grace being resisted in Scripture. We could theoretically accept the mere bare culpability for what is decreed through secondary means, but again this is just philoso-double speak obscuring the fact it is in the end decreed by God, and not any real or true responsibility that is born by humans. So through God's preceding grace, we can still be totally sinful, unable and depraved, and yet still affect things with free will choices as God enables us, when that grace reaches us.
_4. It is a sinful solution to the problem of evil_
It comforts me in a selfish way if God just slots everyone for salvation or damnation and I don’t have to worry about the problem of victimization or my own need to be responsible for my choices. Instead of harmonizing love with suffering, now I just backtrack evil into the character of God so I feel better about the evil he allowed since I can selfishly rest in the fact I am unconditionally chosen. I don’t have to “feel bad” about people who never hear the Gospel since God just made them all to be trash anyway, and now I never have to worry that my sinful choices might lose my salvation since I was made “as a sheep.” But Scripture does not teach that, since by nature we are children of wrath, says Paul-and we all have to come to the same Cross as the goats we have been until Christ enables us to be a sheep.
It is sinful to find our security in attempting to formulate a doctrine that disallows God to sacrifice our personal security for God's own holiness. We can rest in grace and find our security in God's promise, without needing the false security of God desiring and decreeing all evil things and lost souls. Many Calvinists defend these things with doublespeak, saying two contradicting statements, people choose freely, and God decides for them, and use a fancy word "Compatibilism." I urge them to just be logically consistent, and admit that God does not decree free will choices. Calvinism appeals to sinful desires we have for a false selfish reasons for security and an evil resolution to the problem of evil. We would rather God deliberately plan and enact evil, than that he passively allowed it to happen creating real victims, because the alternative offends us and makes us feel insecure, but if we can find more comfort in God being evil, then our sin nature will embrace it. The other sinful alternative error for dealing with this problem of delegation, is to put self-righteous goodness inside of man and insist that delegation created no real victims. This is erring on the ditch on the other side of the road, which most Calvinists call "Pelagian," but would be better described as denying the effects of original sin and promoting inherent goodness.
_5. It brings presuppositions to the Bible while denying it does._
Granted, we all have to bring presuppositions logically, but many people try to deny that fact and claim they just “believe the Bible for what it says.” All statements from the Calvinist like "free will isn't in the Bible" and "you didn't use enough Scripture verses" are just pious rhetoric assuming what the objector sets out to prove by preloading the terms free will and exegesis to be deterministic friendly; that is unless you say the Bible verses mean a certain thing you are "eisegeting" and "rationalizing," merely because you don't agree with deterministic presuppositions brought to the Scripture. Calvinism is not the only doctrine or group that does this-almost every false doctrine utilizes this bias to look pious, and you know true humility by the acknowledgement of our need for reliance on God instead of intellect, and acknowledging our capacity for self-deception.
Calvinism has a lot of good emphases, the sinfulness of man, the greatness of God's holiness, and the need and power of Christ's atonement. Where Calvinism makes a wrong turn, is deciding how God should run his world, and that it is offensive for God to put his holiness and glory above the well-being of God's creation. Ironically, this is what the Calvinists generally accuse others of doing, of being "man-centered," and making doctrines around preferences. But the truth is, Calvinism sacrifices the love of God and the holiness of God, to collapse all that God allows into God's primary desire, for the sole intent purpose of resolving offense and finding security in removing all free will. The fact that God's holiness is more important than my own personal security, and whether God makes sure I'm not a lost person but guarantees everything I selfishly want in salvation, is something my sin nature will never like or agree to. And for the reasons above I do consider Calvinism to be clouding the Gospel, although by the mercies of God their doctrinal sin can be forgiven, as in most cases.
It does not minimize thr sin nature. At all in any way. . It. Magnifies it. HUGELY!
By not blaming God for our sins.
But instead blaming the sinner for his own sin.
@@Dizerneryea. We can talk about these things on my channel sometime. I’m not writing a theological treatise in the comment section though 😂. I’ll publish my book eventually. Well, Lord Willing lol 😂
@@Tigerex966 Making humanity good people that do bad things, is re-writing Scripture. Jesus said people were evil, and did good things-other way around.
@@TwitchyTheologian This is for people who want to see that Calvinism is false. If you reject that, you are simply rejecting the witness of truth, and there is nothing to talk about anymore. You have the free will to resist the Holy Spirit, contrary to the bogus claims of Calvinism.
Peace and respect in Christ.
Thanks from Finland !
@@Yaas_ok123 from Finland? Awesome! Thanks for watching!
@TwitchyTheologian 😁. If you are interested where Calvin and many reformers got their ideas, check Ali Bonner interview with Soteriology101. Augustine had huge influence to many people...good and bad....
Please email me the link: third1745@gmail.com
If Jesus were a Calvinist, why does He have the weird conversation with Nathanael about his profession that Jesus is the Son of God and King of Israel?
"Do you believe just because I told you I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these." (John 1:50)
Why does Jesus pretend like Nathanael's belief was based on something he heard? Isn't Nathanael's belief simply proof that he has already been born again? (Even before the Holy Spirit has been given.)
I've heard Calvinists use Jesus' acknowledgement of Peter's confession as a proof text but what about Nathanael's?
@@mrgrossism great question. So, God causes people to be born again through revelation (James 1:18). So, Nathanael’s belief is in some sense based on what he heard bc God used it to regenerate him.
As for the comment about the Spirit not being given. First, I’d point out that regeneration and indwelling are separate works. Second, I’d point out that the Spirit worked in the OT quite often. There are even places where the Spirit is IN people (I’d have to find the texts). So, while I appreciate your questions, they don’t pose a significant threat to the Calvinistic system.
@TwitchyTheologian So Jesus is surprised at the smallness of the Revelation that brought Nathanael's regeneration and said there's even greater Revelation coming? Seems to make a real mess of the plain reading of Jesus's interaction with Nathanael.
Leighton Flowers thinks that Jesus loved Hitler. Wow, that's a strange one there. I suppose He also loved Judas Iscariot too? Maybe He loved all those people He destroyed in the flood in Noah's day too... Or Esau? Or Ananias and Saphira? Or all the false prophets and Pharisees? C'mon man.
Strip yourself of self righteousness and you to would understand your righteousness is closer to Hitler and judas then it is to Jesus Christ himself... why should God love you???? Okay place your reasons now... show everyone why God should love you and not hate you... please show your work..thanks
Shoot, maybe he even loved a sinner like you. Wild.
Bs , I had a decent comment that didn't post... but yet youtube still thought it cool to tell me when someone else posted on this comment... hi dizerner...don't know if this will post either...but whatever
@@adamguy33 Your comment went through. YT comments are extremely buggy and censored. If you sort the comments by "newest first" you can still see your original comment, which was:
_@adamguy33_
"Strip yourself of self righteousness and you to would understand your righteousness is closer to Hitler and judas then it is to Jesus Christ himself... why should God love you??? Okay place your reasons now... show everyone why God should love you and not hate you... please show your work..thanks "
In the acts passage, what does Flowers think can get these men to open their eyes and ears. He agrees that they got into that position both by their own sin and Gods judgement. I think this shows the Calvinist view. Only God can open up their eyes. They are spiritually dead. Flowers seems to use the why did you make me this way argument that Paul had to respond to.
@@mattcy1052 I guess the Gospel plus their free will is what he’d say. Not sure. We should ask him
What convinces anyone of anything? Being convinced of God is no different.
I think Ephesians 1 is more evidently speaking about glorification when it says the faithful will be holy and blameless before Him. Seems to suggest before the throne in heaven or else why say before Him generally that would be redundant because everything is before Him. Plus we will only be truly holy and blameless(unable to sin) in heaven. You interpreted adoption in the Galatians sense over the Romans sense but I would favor the Romans sense based on the other evidence I presented
This is the kind of reasonable dialogue that I can get down with. I think you have a fair point. However, Romans 8 says adoption of the body. The phrase of the body isn’t mentioned in Ephesians. As for the Holy and blameless before him being glorification, that can still work with the Calvinistic view. God chose x to go to Heaven. The key is that God chooses though. If Leighton is right then the text should read I chose God. That’s my immediate thoughts at least. I appreciate your willingness to dialogue brother.
@ I wasn’t commenting on if it’s Calvinistic or not just that it seems to be speaking about God’s ultimate end for His elect. Like before the foundation of the world He saw the end goal. I don’t think “of the body” needs to be there if His readers assume Paul’s talking about standing before God in heaven but I see your point!
@@CharlesJones-p4kI appreciate your reasonable dialogue. There hasn’t been too much of that in the comments lately lol 😂
Nice discussion. Love you brother. 1:14:44 your comment about Gingerbread man, "he loves Jesus, I love Jesus, we just disagree"... points out the problem. Be assured, in my opinion, as a non-Calvinist, a person's salvation is not in question because they affirm TULIP. However, it must be pointed out, as you admit, you only confess Christ and affirm Calvinism because God 'EFFECTUALLY' caused it. It has literally nothing to do with you, it's 'all God'. But, because of the possibility of Evanescent Grace, which is the only possible explanation for apostasy in Calvinism, God deceives some into living and believing they are loved when they are actually destined to destruction, for his glory. AND, because no one is guarantee the necessary Gift of Perseverance, and no one can know if they have 'it' or will get 'it' in this life... there is no actual assurance of personal salvation afforded in Calvinism. Calvinist are told to examine their lives for Christian thoughts, desires, and actions... but these are no less decreed than the faith already in question. And these cannot be considered "evidence" of salvation, only a manifestation of God's decree...for the moment. Whether it will last is yet to be seen, but supposedly already determined.
Ultimately, whether or not they realize it, or will admit it, Calvinists worship a God their own doctrine describes as 'untrustworthy' on a personal level. And, they invite other believers to join them.
We all know that apostasy is not unique to Calvinism. BUT, in Calvinism apostasy is as much the effectual act of God as any profession of faith in Christ. Apostasy is a manifestation of his perfect will, (secret or otherwise).
If Calvinism is true, God causes some to experience temporary faith, and believe the lie that they are truly 'loved' by God when they are not. And this for no other reason than is to increase his own glory.
So, Calvinism establishes God is lying to some people who profess Christ and live as Christians, but who? No one knows, and no one can ever know. That is the fly in Calvinists ointment. Sometimes, it's even those in positions of spiritual leadership for decades who leave the faith, by God's effectual decree.
But, if Calvinism is not true, we actually DO have, (as you say), believers, like you and Gingerbread Man or Leighton, who are genuinely loved by God, but simply have a difference of opinion about how to interpret a handful of scriptures. BUT... MORE IMPORTANTLY,, God's trustworthiness and character remain in tact and are never in question.
Calvinism cannot avoid bringing into question the character and trustworthiness of God. It contains the seed of doubt that God cannot be trusted.
Who is it that wants people not to trust God or to doubt his love for them? It's not God..
Examined carefully, it's the same issue as the Serpents lie to Eve.
Wow. That was really hard to read through. Calvinism never accuses God of deception. That is a misrepresentation. If you would listen to what I said in this video, you would realize that such an argument doesn’t work against true Calvinistic doctrine.
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT you said “Apostasy is just as much an act of God as a profession of faith.” I’m sorry but that is patently false. It ignores the passive and active distinction that is within the decrees. It ignores that God can ordain free events. It ignores the fact that God has to work to free a man from sin but He has to do nothing in order for a man to stay in sin. I’m sorry but your argument shows that you don’t fully grasp what true Calvinists (and not internet Calvinists who are mostly clueless) have said about these things. I’m willing to have a reasonable discussion with you but please represent my system fairly.
@@TwitchyTheologian No offense, I believe you earnestly seek the truth. It seems to me you haven't thought this through. If Augustinian Total Depravity is true... apostasy is also God's decree. There is no other possibility. It's not unique to Calvinism, but the recent Calvinist apostates previously maintained their profession as much as anyone, even you, perhaps even more considering their positions.
Calvin wrote; “Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption .... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith .... Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent .... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” (3.2.11, Institutes)
** Evanescent Grace is indistinguishable from genuine grace/faith... until it isn't.
Calvin continues; “Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, 3.24.8)
HERE, It must be noted their "ungratefulness" is also by God's decree. God forsakes them for doing what he ordained. And they do not have any option available.
Calvin is also clear about the absence of personal 'assurance of one's salvation, "election" as he defines it.; “We cannot imagine any certainty that is not tinged with doubt, or any assurance that is not assailed by some anxiety. . . . Believers are in perpetual conflict with their own unbelief” (Calvin, Institutes, 3.2.18).
No one thought more about the consequences of his doctrine than John Calvin. And he realized he was worshiping a God he was describing as untrustworthy. Calvin had painted himself into a corner from which he could not escape. Hence, the claim of "mystery". One which brings into question the character of God. If Calvinism is true, 'genuine' faith is indistinguishable by anyone from “Evanescent, 'fake/temporary” faith. And both kinds of ‘faith’ are the ‘gift’ of God. One given to a man chosen for salvation, the other given to mock a man destined for eternal damnation, for God’s own pleasure. Neither having anything to do with their actual choices.
In Calvinism, necessary gift of "P"erseverance which TULP requires is guaranteed no one. And no one can ever know for certain what the ultimate truth is about the 'faith' they are experiencing before they die.
Properly understood, a Calvinist cannot trust the faith they think they have any more than the God the think gave it to them.
@@TwitchyTheologian I appreciate your intent, I do not question your motives. But even in this conversation Dr. Flowers you admitted you cannot articulate what you believe, yet you believe it anyway. The claim is that "A does not equal A". The 'unfalsifiable' invention of the two wills of God and suggesting that God "ordains" the actions of men and yet claiming they are "free" is just an attempt to hide the inherent inconsistency within the doctrine. It is necessary to defend God from its unavoidable claims which question his character. The idea of "passive" and "active" decrees is just another example. The man tied to the ant hill died, but it was the fault of the ants and not the man who tied the knots.🤔 In Calvinism all men are 'born' with the nature which God decreed them to have before they were even conceived. And they are bound by the consequences of it unless and until God intervenes...
But, it is still God who stacked that deck and dealt the cards.
No disrespect, it seems you're in 'good' company, it's the same "mystery" which John Calvin faced. He couldn't explain it either.
John Calvin writes: “But now, removing from God all proximate causation of the act, I at the same time remove from Him all guilt and leave man alone liable. It is therefore wicked and calumnious to say that I make the fall of man one of the works of God. But how it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.123-124, emphasis mine)
Calvin claimed God is good.. .he must be... But, within the parameters of this doctrine, we just can't explain or understand how.
If you're not really 'picked' nothing can be done other than to go a long and hope for the best.
If one claims 'personal assurance' they are whistling past the graveyard.
I'm not posting to argue, or take the conversation further. I hope you will my comments up for others to consider.
If Calvinism is true, I'm predestined no to believe it. If it is not true, there is hope for all who think it is.
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT with respect, this sort of long winded rant doesn’t make for a good discussion. I’ll leave your comment up but I simply don’t have time to address where I feel like you are mistaken. If you wanna come on the channel and have a live discussion sometime just know that I am willing.
Is Leighton just unable to understand compatobalism ?....
Apparently lol Seriously, I think he understands it, at least in part. I just think he operates from a place of carnal reasoning rather than being Holy Spirit taught.
No one can understand anything unless God decrees them to on Calvinism.
How would you define it differently than Flowers has?
@@ip7101 Compatibilism means that God's complete sovereignty & predestination can coexist with human freedom of choice, meaning that even though God determines all things, humans can still make meaningful decisions and be held morally responsible for their actions. Essentially, it argues that determinism and free will are compatible concepts when properly understood. Compatibilism attempts to bridge the apparent tension between the idea that God has complete control over all events and the idea that humans have the ability to make choices. Hope that helps.
@ChristOrChaos2025 not really, because that's a simplistic answer. Although correctly stated, we need to understand that we don't actually mean to bridge a gap and make His sovereignty friends with our will and volition. We are trying to state that the two are not at odds and that both truths are real in their own perspective. I used to be a ligonier hyper calvinist when I first started to understand calvinism. As I read more and studied, it became very evident that way too many people make too much of the school of thought when the bible actually speaks so little of it. It seems to me that calvinism is more dear to some than God Himself, and that forced me away. The problem is that I can not intellectually be honest and agree with Leighton. So, I sought out the reformers and puritans and modern-day reformed teachers such as Sinclair Ferguson. Although I dislike a majority of "calvinists", I very much agree with reformed theology. It pleases me to say that every time I have coffee with a brother and are given the chance to explain my view and elaborate on the system of understanding, all find that they mostly agree with what I have to say. I get the notion that some are trying to "defend God", but why? When He tells us in scripture He doesn't need it, why? Worse, He takes responsibility for more than we sometimes would comfortably admit. A lot of that comes by way of silence in the face of accusations. Who are you, oh man?
@ip7101 again, the decree means that it is only allowed to happen with His permission. The decree is not causal. I don't understand how you can't understand. He brought the assyrians as a rod of punishment, YET they acted on their evil intentions. The "free" choices of men do NOT hinder His plans. Actually, they accomplish His purposes; Judas.
Leighton says he is defending the blameworthiness of the sinner but he is actually defending the worthiness of the sinner who has none. See Dan.4:35.
The Bible portrays God as giving Adam and Eve the freedom to choose, and their decision to eat from the forbidden tree was their own choice, not a predetermined act by God
Why can’t it be both? Why can’t it be free and predetermined? God predetermined the cross (Acts 2 and 4). Therefore, the fall was necessary. Yet, I agree they fell freely.
@@TwitchyTheologianif it's predetermined by definition it is not their choice but God's choice which means it can't be both. Man has his own will and God has His will. Mans will is throughout scripture. To claim man has a predetermined will then it is God's will and not mans will because God is the one choosing. No you can't have both. Mans will is mans choice which is why he is responsible for his choice. God does not force people to choose.
@@timothyklock1931well, Calvinism teaches both are true. So, in order to critique my position fairly, you have to interact with that position. Second, God predestined the cross right? That means the cross was guaranteed for all eternity. So, what is the prerequisite to the cross? Sin. You must have sin in order for Jesus to have to go to the cross. So, if the cross is necessary, then sin must equally be necessary. If the cross is determined then the fall is equally determined. I mean, Isaiah even says that God declares the end from the beginning saying Gods counsel shall stand and He shall accomplish all His purpose. Everything in time is determined but man is also free. They are both true.
@@TwitchyTheologian Why can't it be the choice of a robot to do something that you programmed it to do? And, no, I'm not saying that Calvinists believe God created humans as moist robots. I'm just showing that determining what one will do, and them lacking Libertarian Freedom of the Will, precludes their freely deciding. One can say that they mysteriously work together all they want, as in Compatibilism, but that has to be demonstrated, not just claimed.
If it is predetermined, why does God want us ty o pray, it will not matter, why evangalize
Thanks for this question. The answer is that God ordains the ends (the salvation of the elect) and the means (the evangelism that must take place to save the elect). Calvinists evangelize because we have a 100 percent success ratio. We know that God is sovereign and His word won’t return void. Historically, Calvinism has driven missions. Think about Adoniram Judson and all the famous missionaries around his time were Calvinists.
@@TwitchyTheologian if you choose not to evangelize, that is just as ordained by God as if you choose to do so. But wouldn't it be a sin to not evangelize as God commanded it? So, when you choose not to do so, and in so doing sin against God, that choice, that sin, was ordained by God. Can't you see the issue here since the means are just as ordained and determined as the ends?
@@nathanhellrung9810no bc sin is ordained passively and every sin is my fault not God’s
ooooh NOOOO! I just looked up Gen 6:4. Now I distrust everyone at that height! 🤐
@@BeautyfullBerserk see what I am saying? Leighton may be a Nephilim. He didn’t deny it. lol
looooool. That's was the funniest part of the video.
@@Real_LiamOBryanI appreciate that. I have made two funny videos on Leighton being a Nephilim. You should check them out. I think they are hilarious because they are so nonsensical
Being a slave to sin isnt your actions
@@reformdestroyer so being a slave to sin has nothing to do with actions? What does it mean to be a slave then? I’m confused
Yeah u are@@TwitchyTheologian
Did Christ free you from committing sin ?
@@reformdestroyer lol . I just want to understand what you are trying to say and tbh it is kind of hard to do so because of the way your sentences are formatted. I mean that with all respect. I want to have a productive conversation
@@TwitchyTheologian What does it mean to you then since we were slaves to sin and now free by the Spirit . Was our actions set free or our Spirit
Rev 17:11 is biblical proof that a human made in the image of God was destined to go to hell before he was ever born. His eternal destiny was set in stone before he came out of his mother and took his first breath. Rev 20:10 reveals to us that the false prophet will be joining him. Everyones eternal destiny is determined prior to their physical appearance on earth.
Revelation 17:11 NKJV
[11] The beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and 👉is going to perdition.👈
@@JesusIsLord777-lz7mg I think Jude 1:4 is the best argument for reprobation. Well, and Romans 9.
@TwitchyTheologian G4270 - prographō it's in the PERFECT tense.
@@JesusIsLord777-lz7mg amen. Past tense with a continual result.
So you can appeal to an individual, Sam Storms but not to a group of 151 theologians who met for seven years to put together the Westminster Confession 🤣
No. You are missing his point. His point isn't that you can't appeal to a group of people ,but you can appeal to one; rather, his point was that, in appealing to Sam Storms, he was showing the even some Calvinists reject that interpretation of that passage, so it isn't a uniquely non-Calvinist position regarding that passage. In other words, by appealing to Sam Storms, Leighton was implicitly asking why one has to take Twitchy's interpretation, or the interpretation of Westminster.
@ I don’t think that’s when he claimed that his view was the “plain” reading. But regardless, my question is, can a provisionist admit that we all interpret based on our presuppositions? 😁
@ what is that thing holding a light saber in your picture?! 🤣
@@BigPres-3PO Lol! Morn from Star Trek: DS9.
@ the merging of Star Wars and Star Trek, now that’s heresy🤣
The Bible uses the verb "believe" (pisteuō) nearly 250 times in the New Testament, with almost 100 of those occurrences in John's gospel. Here are some Bible verses that mention believing in God:
Acts 16:31: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household"
John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"
John 5:24: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life"
Romans 10:9: "As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame”"
John 6:29: "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent"
John 7:38: "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them"
Amen
I am doing a series on the proof texts of the Westminster Confession at www.youtube.com/@ExegetingCalvinism
I’ll try to check it out
A lot of the same old answers to the same old questions. ..unfortunately.
@@Tim.Foster123 perhaps that is true. However, I have noticed that my perspective seems to get misrepresented a lot which is unnecessary since the things that I have said are common knowledge. I appreciate you watching the video. I really do think it moves the ball down the field at least.
@TwitchyTheologian There are a number of presuppositions that Provisionalists leave unchecked and unexamined. It would be a good exercise to list them and then attack those presuppositions, instead of asking for clarification on verses ( Bill's clarifications and interpretations are always based on underlying presuppositions. On any disagreement of substance, the battle needs to be fought on the presupposition level, not on the interpretation level.)
For example, if a person denies total depravity and imputed sin, a good question would be to ask why on earth would God want to destroy the entire planet of all men women and children, just because there was rampant sin? No sane human would take that approach. None of us would want to wipe out an entire Village because we saw a rampant sin there. We would bend over backwards to find some way to not kill the women, and especially not kill the children, or we would make all sorts of claims about how the destruction was just "extreme Ancient Warfare language". Anything, just so long as we don't have to be painted into a corner of believing that all men, women and children were actually killed. Yet the flood gives us no out on that. God Himself made sure that there was no out. Every man, every woman, and every child was destroyed in that flood, except for eight people. That is a scathing indictment on the extent of sin, and how it affected everyone and everything ...ergo total.
If Dr flowers is the sort of person that would see a wicked family and say " let's get that kid out of that family and raise him properly", then he's not acting like God did in the flood. He's consistent in saying that sin is not imputed.
So why did God destroy all those babies in the flood?
We could say the same thing about Sodom and gomorrah. Remember that God said he would not destroy the city if he found 10 rights people there. That means that they were not nine babies in the town. Given a population of 20,000, that's rather hard to believe that there weren't nine kids there.
@@Tim.Foster123I appreciate the critique. We didn’t really touch on original sin much or I would have brought up those points.
@@TwitchyTheologian That's just one example of attacking the presuppositions.
Similar work could be done on any number of points held by Provisionalists.
Flowers also made an inlaid point of the hearing the gospel you Believe the word is through the preaching of the gospel is incongruous.. two failure in the first half hour.
Flowers is so confused he can’t even speak intelligibly without rambling and making random analogies! He won’t stop, he can’t the argument has been made to big for him to lose! Just a little sad
I will post this debate on our reform apologetics group. Blessings brother.
Sad because I was not messing with my phone and UA-cam notifications don’t call me! So gotta watch the replay! Bummer.
Easy win for Dr. Leighton Flowers. The Calvinist brought nothing coherent and non-contradictory to the table.
I realize you're one of his fanboys, but this wasn't a debate. It was only a discussion so nobody "won".
@@ChristOrChaos2025 --- That would be in the eye of the beholder wouldn't it? Care to put on your big boy pants and prove me wrong on the other OP?
This comment gave me brain cancer.
I'm stopping at 2:20:04. Flowers is really grating on my nerves with all his doubletalk and rambling. Maybe I'll watch the rest tomorrow. You have done a great job trying to make sense of all his babbling!
There IS no greater doublespeak than so-called "Compatibilism."
Asserting that A and NOT A can simultaneously be true shouldn't be given the time of day.
@@DizernerI just believe the Bible. God is sovereign and man is free (Acts 2 and 4)
@@TwitchyTheologian So "Sovereignty" therefore does not necessarily entail a loss of creaturely freedom. What we have by many Calvinists is actually a limitation of what God's Sovereignty can do, rather than a respect for it. To quote the estimable Tozer on this:
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.”
Does much of this debate so far (after 30 minutes in) turn on how much people are connected and guilt and inability is passed on to others because of past actions? If guilt and inability can be passed down due to the sin of others then that would seem to ruin Flower's point. Then man's guilt and inability would be man's fault and no one could say that it was God's fault or God doing it.
We didn’t really touch on that too much.
Flowers it is not your job to defend the blameworthiness of sinners and you never have to defend God’s character! Talk about going from bad to worse.. not a good motivation.😮
Minute 48 flowers said faith and did not define it.. is argument are all now of no value, check and mate!
He's never been good at debates. His niche is making videos without the opposing view, instead he will strawman the opposing view himself with worn out talking points that have been debunked or explained correctly a thousand times. When he gets into an actual debate he can't do that, and ultimately he doesn't do very well. Imagine that.
When Paul discussing being like one to win one was to show and admit his willingness to go where God sent him so that they might hear the gospel.. straightforward!
You cannot have the Spirit without faith and you cannot have faith without the Spirit.. and you cannot be unregenerate with the Spirit!
Ggs
The defeated to the flowers invalid judicial argument is simple:: the judicial act God took was in the garden when God said you will surely die. That was the judicial assignment of guilt to all man. In Adam we all have sinned! Flowers it’s over bud.
Nobody defeats anyone . Flowers successfully spoke the Truth and was suppressed by Twitchy
Who will say to the partner why did you move this vessel this way and mold this other vessel that way why have you not molded the vessels in another way?
I know who is, Flowers Flowers will gladly say to the potter. Why have you made a vessel for glorification and why have you made a vessel for refuse!!
Twitchy thanks for that exposition and exposing of Flowers. Lookie below! There are many Reformed believers and Calvinists. Amen. You and RC are doing a great job and glory to the lord for that.
I tried my best to glorify God with a good attitude and solid exposition of the Scriptures. That’s all I can do. I trust God will do the rest. Thanks for the encouragement.
Ever consider that the professing believers who believe you can lose your salvation are the ones who lose their salvation?
Ever consider that professing believers who don't believe the Father chose them before the foundation of the world to give to the Son believe that because they weren't chosen?
They can only believe what they believe. They can't believe otherwise.
I believe I was chosen for salvation for God's glory.
God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
Evanescent Grace much.
@Dizerner It should become more obvious when He who now restrains is taken out of the way. I've been shown what's to come.
II Thessalonians 2:11-12 NKJV
[11] And for this reason 👉God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,👈 [12] that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Leighton : "because what God did first in Christ and sending His Son"
Everyone prior to the crucifixion : " 😢 "
I guess none of them were chosen ?
“God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.”
Salvation has always been by grace through faith, based in the death and resurrection of Christ. In Christ, every sin, past, present, and future, is expiated and propitiated, leaving no barrier between God and man except the natural animosity of man’s heart. Abraham was saved through faith, by God’s grace at the cross. 🙌
@Doctrinal_Possum gee thanks. I know this, and so does Leighton. The one point he was making stood in contrast to this, and no one caught it.
Flowers you cannot qualify what being a slave to sin means… wow low that is some heretic talk there!😮
Should have been 81 I am sad I missed the live!😣
It’s all good. I just appreciate you watching it now.
Leighton is locked into provisionism.
And you're not locked into Calvinism? Leighton was a Calvinist for many years, you know. He's seen both sides from within. Have you?
@bobtaylor170 Yes. I was arminianin for 40+ years. I began to believe the scriptures I was studying and then found out it was really Calvinism and I didn't know it.
He committed the incredulity fallacy on you and you missed it
I told you he was gonna do it and you didn’t listen
You fell right into the man’s trap
@@aletheia8054 I don’t think I fell into a trap. I am not looking to win debate points. I am looking to win people. I win people by lovingly exegeting Scripture which I did. That’s a win to me.
@ brother, you don’t need to stand in front of a liar to do that. When you stand in front of a liar, then you should be kind to them and give them what they need. That would be rebuking for the lies that they are telling.
Instead, you acted nice. That is what a con man does.
You won’t talk to me on your program, but you’ll go in front of a liar
go figure
@@TwitchyTheologian you don’t need to stand in front of a false preacher to do that brother
Rather than rebuke the false teacher, you were nice to him. Nice is not good.
Kind is to give him what he needed, which is a strong rebuking.
You will gladly talk to a false teacher for three hours than talk to your brother for 10 minutes
Go figure
@@aletheia8054Leighton is a brother in Christ who is misled. I don’t think he is purposefully deceiving people. I think he is misled. I also think that you are misled which we have discussed previously. I think the idea of there being no such thing as water baptism is very very weird. But I still talk with you and I’m still nice to you. If I thought Leighton was a purposeful liar then I would not be as nice. I don’t think he is the big bad wolf that everyone thinks that he is.
@ he’s not a brother in Christ. Your brothers and sisters do the will of God.
Yeah, and I offered to come on and talk about it. You just trying to increase your views or something?
You’re not supposed to be nice. This is one of the things we should talk about.
But you’re not interested. There’s nothing to gain by talking to me I guess. I don’t have a big audience that will get you attention.
I had to turn this off after the 24 minute mark, Twitchy really doesn't have a good handle on the scriptures, he is clueless about Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 2+3, Isaiah 6, Acts 28, John 12 etc.
Calvinism has indoctrinated this poor man that he can't see the true understanding of the scriptures, he is a nice guy but should really take more time reading and studying the scriptures than reading calvinist literature.
Perhaps you can come on my channel and enlighten us, oh wise one. I really would be fine with that. I do ask that you at least keep listening though. It is only when you are comfortable with your own position that you can fairly hear out the other side.
Calvinism is outright heresy
It sounds like you are not comfortable with your position or you wouldn’t be so angry. I can fairly examine Provisionism bc I am comfortable where I am. It sounds like you are a little insecure in your position so you have to throw out the heresy accusation.