@@eremiasranwolf3513 it does profess Christ as savior so in that sense it is “Christian”, but He’s made to be a limited savior who only picks and choose instead of being available for everyone.
Here is my opinion. I call it a dangerous doctrine. I can understand how they get there Biblically. But you must assume certain thing. Does the Father draw all or just the elect? Does all the world simply mean every tribe, tongue and nation or every individual? I think Biblically you can conclude Calvinism and Provisionism. Once I realized this, I quickly jumped to Provisionism! There is much more logic and less mystery. My main problem is how God can punish people born in a condition that condemns them!
I Agree. It distorts what really happened at the cross and the extent of the blood atonement, and perverts the character and nature of God Himself! It's deadly serious. ☝️. Follow up stating it is heresy by stating that there are many believers deceived by it, fine. That is true. But that does not change the fact that the teaching of Calvinism is heresy. ☝️
I do not think Calvinism is heresy. But Matt Slick did once say on his radio show: "If there are babies that die in infancy that go to hell, they deserve it.."
@@markshaneh In my experience, "he" is anti-emotion! And it is now true that most of them dismiss the Holy Spirit except as a remote formality in the pre-faith regeneration story, and they regard any belief that we have an experience of God as emotionalism, too. Quote Jesus on our "hearing His voice" (John 5:24-25; John 10; Revelation 3) or God "revealing" Himself to us, and they express disgust and condemn us for indulging in the "man-centered" "emotionalism". Did they hear? Doesn't it matter that we're quoting Jesus, passing on His words? It doesnt appear to. Whenthey deny that the conviction of the Holy Spirit is any kind of experience. and that, and the comfort of the Comforter and the experience of "Abba, Father": why woukd they want to deny that? Draw near to God and He will draw near to you; why wouldn't they want to experience that? When they reduce the Holy Spirit's work in us to "mere emotionalism", it sounds like "having a form of godliness" and "denying the power thereof".
I once had a Lutheran Pastor tell me if our son was not baptised & died he would go to hell. The service for the baptism was 3 weeks away. I said baptise him in the kitchen sink now as he might die of cot death. The Pastor replied God knows your intentions. From that time on I realised that baby baptism was ridiculous.
@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 Yes; but I do not like the term "sovereignty". It is not a good translation of anything found in scripture. The late medieval and reformation period notion of what a sovereign is or ought to be was simply projected onto God by Luther and Calvin, and other protestants and Catholics. Its an early modern category. God is almighty and king; but these categories are shaped around the life and death of Christ, which completely inverts our notions of almightiness and kinghood. Christ is victorious _on the cross_ . Calvin took a notion of power derived from the sovereigns he was aware of and then magnified it, projecting it onto Christ.
Dr. Flowers, are you familiar with the spirit of narcissism prevalent in our society, today? It's been around since the beginning but today, I'm convinced it's everywhere. After listening to you and James White over the past year, I'd suggest looking at him from a narcissistic vantage point and it will become clear what's really going on here.
James white has always given me the impression that he so caught up on his ability that the cockyness just pours out of him ( oh the pride in this guy )
For most people, even if they believed in infant damnation, they would struggle being a pastor and telling a grieving parent their baby very well might be in hell. But some Calvinists are so calloused to the idea of God predestining his hatred of human beings that it seems to barely concern them with the horrors of their position.
I don't think White is a liar nor deceiver. I think he is more interested in biblical consistency than biblical accuracy. And more interested theological comfort and security, than biblical scholarship. He assumes his theology to be true, then emphasizes the scriptures to maintain that assumption.
@@manager0175 I agree with this statement! Just to clarify, I’m not saying he is being a deceiver and a liar on purpose… what I’m saying is that consistent inconsistency ultimately makes him a deceiver and a liar…
Yeah, Calvigod changes his mind when he rejects a reprobate and then a human also rejects the baby before they are born. Its like “you don’t get to reject people, only I do!” Either that or the only reprobates are the ones who get to grow up.
I was happy to see the emphasis on the reputation of God at the beginning of the video. That’s a fundamental approach one should take when trying to understand doctrine: What does this say about God? True doctrine will always present God in a positive way, which aligns with the character and teachings of Jesus Christ who said “When you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father.”
Total Depravity is taught in the Bible, I like how those in your weird and new theological camp blaspheme God and hate the Bible as fast as you can get to a comment section. One of these movements are growing fast and one is dying guess which one: Reformed Theology "Traditionalism"
There is something i do not understand about John calvin's idea of God selecting those who will go to heaven and those who will not. This same man made this statement "No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief" How does that make sense. ether he has no idea of what he's talking about or he was deranged. don't get it.
Confusing, huh. The whole systematic is so complex and makes no sense with scripture. The gospel is easy enough for a child to understand, not Calvinism. ☝️
I pray that James never gets a hospital chaplain job!! How much hurt that would put on parents that are already in such a hurt position!! I am blessed to have my daughter but have been pregnant 6 times with my one and only miracle and I believe I will one day get to meet my sweet children that died before meeting them!!
2 Samuel 12:23 - But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. Matthew 18:10 - Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
Have to add that to the list of "Monumentally Bad Career Choices". Pablo Picasso: Police Sketch Artist e.e. cummings: NEWSPAPER HEADLINE WRITER Edward Scissorhands: Massage Therapist James White: Hospital Chaplain
I'm OFFICIALLY DONE with this ridiculous and obviously endless debate because it's NEVER going to end! James Smarmy White will NEVER listen to any voice but his own, and since I can no longer tolerate even the sound of his nasal mouth farts, I respectfully bow out! I suspect even he knows he's wrong, but like others of his ilk, he's simply too far gone to even consider the possibility that his entire theology supports a monster as its god. Why ANYONE could believe it is simply beyond me!
This debate will never end because the issue is seen to be supported by Scripture in both sides. The solution to this issue is a personal choice that comes from studying the character of God. In the meantime the debates may be encouraging some to study the Scriptures and to a deeper walk with our Savior and Lord.
James White is not an idiot. I think he has backed himself into a corner with his philosophy, soteriology, theology and when pushed to frank discussion of what he has said that "supports" his belief, he has no option but to be defiant. He has made a reputation of arguing for "hardcore Calvinism and determination" and now he is has to die on that hill, His career depends on it now. Otherwise, his past 30 years of 'credibility' is shot.
“Who focuses on the creature? God does.” I immediately thought of Psalm 8! Well said, Leighton! May God continue blessing your ministry, it is reaching so many with the love of Christ!
The fact that James White thinks you're an open theist if you affirm that Judas had a REAL choice only serves to evince that he conflates certainty with necessity.
Its nice to see you on fire over this subject, Leighton! I cant see how any sound Christian, who loves the revelation of God as shown in the Scriptures, could remain emotionally detatched from such a horrendous charachature of God as presented by James White! But ,of course,Calvinists love to say" oh,your just being emotional but have no substance to your argument!"
Leighton mentioned how many comments or emails he gets from former Calvinist thanking him for his stand and ministry........But I thank him because those of us who have an Arminian foundation from our new birth and yet who have added to our stance a Provisional viewpoint. I thank Leighton because we needed a powerful Voice to back us. In other words, a qualified (Dr) to trumpet God's truth for us lesser known folks who have been arguing these points with Calvinist for years with great frustration and red faces.
I am watching this after your debate with James White and I found it interesting that he refused to engage with you on that topic and cried to the moderator an even with that part aside you definitely came out on top in that debate great job
The Bible is crystal clear that babies are innocent. I believe this is one of the problems that the doctrine of original sin caused. If Calvinists believe that God ordains everything that comes to pass, when they get upset about sin and bad things that happen, aren't they fighting against God's will? Oh wait, God must be ordaining them to do that. Such obvious incoherent nonsense.
I keep saying this how could any Calvinist have children knowing that they might end up in hell if not elected?!!! If you believe that your child may end up being unelected, and you still bring this child into the world, it's just monstrous. But then so is the god of Calvinism!!!
@@Steve-og4ii Not sure how “consistent” he is with his Calvinism. A consistent Calvinist would take the stand that JW takes. (Elect babies go to heaven non-elect go to the bad place) Basically to be consistent in your Calvinism you would tell a grieving mother “you got about a 10% chance they were elect.”
@@Steve-og4ii If he believes a baby is a viper in a diaper then I’m pretty sure he does. Do you believe an infant is a viper? I believe babies are born innocent and sinless, who will inherit heaven if they were to die for any reason. 🙏🙏🙏
Notice how White said people are shallow in their reading when he’s the one who admits he doesn’t even read all or watch all the things that refute his point of view?! Kinda narcissistic? It makes me sad for him. We’re told to reprove, rebuke, hold each other accountable and that’s been missing for so long that so many can’t handle it with grace when we are told we’re wrong. No it’s not fun but Proverbs says a wise man receives reproof and is grateful. Don’t remember the exact words. But I WISH I had someone who would lovingly call me out and put the time in, maybe things would be different? I’d like to think I’d have listened. Need to pray for him.
Imagine a Montel Williams episode where James White has his own statements quoted to him without identifying their source and he must respond to them. He spends the entire episode saying this person isn't a Calvinist, is flattening it out, doesn't understand, etc. etc. until the big reveal at the end: "Who is the author of these quotes? The author is.... [long, dramatic pause] YOU! [oohs and ahs from the crowd]"
In other words a modern version of 2 Samuel 12:1-15, with James White in the role of David and Montel Williams in the role of Nathan the Prophet? I'm all for it! Edited to add: I must say though, I have my doubts as to whether James White's response to that would be the right response, as David's was...
According to the Bible, A) my faith has CAUSED me to be born again B) God the Father has CAUSED me to be born again --->>> TO --->>> a living faith Which is true according to the Bible?
@@AndrewKeifer 1 Peter 1:3 NASB2020 [3] Blessed be the *God and Father* of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy *has caused us to be born again to a living hope* through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Wrong.
@@jayrodriguez84 you should've included option C: God caused me to be born again when I trusted in Christ. God didn't cause me to trust in Christ, which is what your option B _seems to imply._
Calvinists: God doesn't send babies to hell because they do not possess the moral capacity to know right from wrong Also Calvinists: God sends others not classified as babies to hell who also do not possess the moral capacity to know right from wrong
My severely retarded neighbor probably didn't have much capacity to understand the gospel, but maybe God showed him a little, after he started going to that church. I still believe that, even in his 50s, God would have kept him in the category of the babies who can't yet understand the gospel.
Of course in Calvinism - the divine decree is what determines which individuals within the total human population will be created specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure. . John Calvin -quote By the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the *REASON DOES NOT APPEAR* they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. - (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121) . And the Calvinist confession states -quote Although god knows whatsoever *CAN* or *MAY* come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he *NOT* decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. So the decree which creates babies for eternal torment has nothing to do with anything having to do with that baby. It is - quote "Solely within himself"
@@dw6528 The heart of Calvinism is blasphemy, just like it is in the gnosticism it came from. It is serious slander against God to say these things against Him, and even "for" Him; we ought to come to know that it isn't worthy of Him
@@lindajohnson4204 DW: I would definitely agree it is a slander against the God of scripture. I don't see Calvin's god as the God of scripture. You are correct to identify Gnosticism. A primary characteristic of Gnosticism is DUALISM in which for example "Good" and "Evil" are Co-Equal, Co-Complimentary, and Co-Necessary. One of the characteristics of Calvinism which has perennially been a point of contention is its embrace of DUALISM Calvinists today are extremely uncomfortable with that aspect of their doctrine - and they spend a great deal of time trying hide its components of divine evil. The topic of creating babies specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire - for Calvin's god's good pleasure - is an example. Notice how James White is working very hard to *OBFUSCATE* the divine evil and make it *APPEAR* laudable. He calls Warren "sick" and "deplorable" for shining a spotlight on an evil component of his doctrine.
@@dw6528 Praise God that Calvinists such as James White, Jeff Durbin and Joel Webbon etc are not in positions of powerlr. Else Warren and Leighton would surely be in the same trouble as the Apostles were with the Pharisees, the early Christians with Rome preAD325, and the Anabaptists with the Catholic Church and the Magisterial Reformers.
If Augustine taught that non baptized infants are damned, than how does that square with election being unconditional? Sounds like baptism is a condition to me. also sounds like anyone can be saved, since he (and the Catholic Church) required ALL infants to be baptized. It also sounds like Pelagianism, since man is "cooperating" with God. So if that was his view, then a person's salvation is dependent on what another person does for them!
DW: Augustine reasoned - those infants who were not baptized - was because they were created for eternal torment. Also - Calvinism's "Unconditional" election argument is duplicitous. In Calvinism - election is both "Conditional" and "Unconditional" 1) It is "Conditioned" upon an infallible decree 2) it is NOT "Conditioned" upon anything having to do with the creature. But that is simply because EVERYTHING within creation is "Conditioned" upon and infallible decree and NOT "Conditioned" upon anything having to do with the creature. The Calvinist OBFUSCATES these facts because he does not want to acknowledge - that Damnation (including infant damnation) is "Conditioned' upon an infallible decree - and NOT "Conditioned" upon anything having to do with the creature.
@@dw6528 very true. no calvinist can answer the question "why did God choose those that he saves? it is IMPOSSIBLE to be uncondition. a sovereign God MUST have a reason for EVERYTHING he does. so there are only 3 choices. 1) he draws names from a hat 2) he chooses based on good works 3) he chooses those who willingly trust him. there are NO other choices for God to base his decision on. thus, salvation, even for the calvinist, MUST be conditioned on something!
@@caman171 DW: Yes! Great points! Calvin himself - and the classic Calvinist confession however reject options (2&3) which you provided. In Calvinism - the decree which determines everything - also determines who will be created elect and who will not be created as elect. And concerning the decree - the confession states: -quote Although god knoweth whatsoever *MAY* or *CAN* come to pass upon all supposed conditions. Yet hath He NOT decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which *WOULD* come to pass upon such conditions." The decree is not based upon the creature or the condition thereof. It is solely within himself. And Calvin states -quote "The reason does not appear" So the Calvinist concludes there is a reason - but that reason is a divine secret which only Calvin's god knows. So as far as we humans are concerned - it could easily be the case that souls are picked from a hat. Additionally - no Calvinist is granted CERTAINTY that he is elect - because that is also a divine secret which only Calvin's god knows. Every Calvinist has a statistical probability of being created for the lake of fire simply because THE MANY (including within the believing population) are specifically created for that end - for his good pleasure. Blessings!
@@dw6528 ah yes u are describing that Reformed doctrine of "evanescent grace" it teaches that God "illuminates" many who are NOT elect, even producing many good works in them, only to damn them at the end! in other words, God gets his kicks from deceiving people! wish idol killer and leighton flowers would do videos on this doctrine! its just as nasty as infant damnation.
Leighton, you might wanna start toning all this down. The more you confront James, and the more he keeps breaking down the way he is, the closer you get to pushing him over the edge to where he cancels the upcoming debate last minute. James White is cowering more and more to put it bluntly, and as such, he will run eventually, which will probably manifest in him bailing out of the debate. So please, for us (who wanna see you flabbergast James in the debate), tone it down for the sake of the debate happening. Then, afterwards, keep cornering and confronting his rotten fruits. 🙃
I don’t think anyone can claim now that James White is an honest interlocutor! #1 He never honestly addresses the REAL topic #2 His only response is personal attacks #3 He rattles on and on talking about unrelated issues #4 He blatantly state’s DISHONEST things
Tommy, exactly. If calvinist believe that God determines or assigns every soul before birth to either heaven or hell, then that includes everyone, unborn and born. Accountability? How is that consistent with determinism? Rejecting truth? How does human choice to reject truth, John MacArthur, factor into God detertermining everything? There are only a limited number number of times that you can patch the tire that your own belief slashed, before it's too ruined to use.
@tommycapps9903 I do not understand any Christian listening to and following a Christian leader who continually acts poorly toward other Christians....no matter what that leader believes. Why not find another teacher/preacher that shares your beliefs but ALSO behaves toward others with respect and integrity? Your assessment of White is correct. Nothing more than ego driven misbehavior.
Any claim or accusation requires EVIDENCE to support it. Leighton is right, we must insist that the claimant produce specific evidence to support their claim. No moving forward in the debate until this accusation is settled, one way or another. Proof.
I'm convinced that Augustine has done more damage to the Church's theology than all the heresies that the Church had to defend against. I hope James White is ready to go back to seminary, cuz Leighton, you are going to be schooling him in March! The Lord be with you brother! Thank you for being such an excellent example of brotherly love and grace.
Amen! I refer to Augustine as the "Dire Wolf" of false teachers and consider him to be the greatest flesh-and-blood enemy Christianity has had to date. His twisting of Scriptures and Christian doctrines to blend them with aspects of his old Manichean Gnostic religion and the resulting corruption of Western Christianity from within have damaged the Church not only more than all other heresies, but more than all persecutions, from the stoning of Stephen to the vicious anti-Christian purges of Communism, combined.
No, Leighton thinks that when babies die they stay babies for eternity. His entire Westboro Baptist shock value rhetoric only works on those who can’t think for themselves.
James white is gaslighting and dismissing and canceling Warren and you also Leighton to dismiss your debate or to voice his disdain for Warren as a reason to decline debating him!!
DW: Correct! Good observations! The reason for this has to do with the fact that Calvinists care more about how Calvinism *APPEARS* to people than they do about telling people the truth. As you point out - James is TAP-DANCING around this subject and evading telling the truth - because everyone will realize the Calvinist claim their doctrine is a "Doctrine of Grace" is a lie
I saw you and your bros in that recent James White debate video.., also noticed most of the remarks were trash talking James. I remarked positively about James and got blocked. Now I know why the perspective in the comments was so skewed.
We believe that the Glory of GOD is self evident, not something we have to be told is Glorious though it contradicts the goodness of God as we understand it from the scriptures
He is just. It’s not just to condemn a baby for something someone did 6,000 years ago. Instead of saying he’s protecting the freedom of God he should protect the character of God.
Told my friend of 34 years he has a different god due to his belief in infant damnation. Pressed him for weeks to divulge his stance . I’ve not heard back from Him in several years. One hell of a cult these calvinists/ reformers.
According to the Bible, A) my faith has CAUSED me to be born again B) God the Father has CAUSED me to be born again --->>> TO --->>> a living faith Which is true according to the Bible?
@@jayrodriguez84 God the Father brings you the Truth, you humble yourself and believe Him, and that faith is righteous. Jesus, because His righteousness is the only righteousness that saves, His blood is applied towards your debt. This is justification by FAITH.
@filmscorelife4225 Justification is not the same as regeneration. Regeneration is the new birth. Justification is being declared not guilty. Perfectly just. Perfectly righteous. By saying that, you can't believe that faith precedes regeneration. You believe they happen simultaneously. That isn't Leighton's belief. He believes you have faith(at which point you are justified) and then you are born again.
I apologize, I should have been patient. The podcast got much better when it pivoted to the discussion of prophecy and foretelling (omniscience) versus causation. Thankyou and sorry again.
How can God ordain abortion when He condemns it? Jesus calls us to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. That would mean we both must condemn and must support abortion.
When facing an obvious contradiction in one's beliefs, make up a "work around," explanation. At least White is consistent on his belief that all humans are determined to heaven or hell before and after they are born. He's wrong of course, but he is consistent with the Cavinist belief in detetminism.
About 1:56 minutes in... it makes sense that calvinism would hold to the idea of God condemning infants to eternal hell, when some calvinists teach that God killed Jesus, rather than man.
Humans have always used eisegesis to take God’s truth and pull it into legalism or licentiousness. Reformed vs Free Grace, Pentecostalism vs Secessionism…
38:31 Just realized, God covered the shame of Adam and Eve with an animal sacrifice he *provided* (Jehovah Jireh) and slew Himself, which of course was a _type_ of Christ, like the ram in the thicket Abraham sacrificed to God in place of Isaac, having passed the test. So, why would their children inherit their guilt? Edit: Remember, sin nature is irrelevant in this discussion, unless you disagree that infants/aborted babies don't have any opportunity to commit sin.
Dear Bro. Leighton: for transparency, i am a pentecostal so most definitely NOT calvinist...there seems to be an inconsistency within calvinism concerning infants that i don't think i have ever heard you speak of...if an infant, because of his innocence, is considered to be elect by God, doesn't that also mean that once the infant reaches accountability, should he NOT be of those predestined to election, that God has to UN-elect that person? in other words, it is as though God says "I elected you while you were an infant BUT ONLY for that time. I did not choose you to be elected beyond that point!" am i wrong to state that makes God to be an infinitely horribly capricious deity?! Your thoughts, sir
They can collapse person into nature all they want (original sin = original guilt). But unless they have an ego the size of the sun wrapped in an equally large dissonant blankie, they chicken out at the logical conclusions of that stupid idea.
John Calvin said: “Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed except those which the Lord had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death.” - John Calvin, Commentary on Deuteronomy, 13:15. Calvin said that all infants are reprobate. Saying that all infants are reprobates or that all infants are saved both seem inconsistent with the idea that some are elect before birth and most are not. Calvin seemed to be of the opinion that reprobates would be clustered in infants who die. Mr Johnson’s statement that it’s a “different kind of innocent” is nonsensical. The Reformed point to Romans 9:11-13 constantly as a proof text that the decision for the twins Jacob and Esau was made “before they had done anything good or bad.” This is one of their MAIN PROOF TEXTS! “Innocent” by whatever definition they make up today, is irrelevant in their system.
DW: Yes that is correct. In Calvinism - the decree which determines whether an individual will be created for eternal torment for Calvin's god's good pleasure - is NOT based upon anything having to do with the creature or the condition thereof . It is solely within himself. So as James White pointed out in this video - babies are created for eternal torment no differently than adults. The PRIMARY provision for mankind is for the MANY - eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure The SECONDARY provision for mankind is to save a FEW from his PRIMARY provision. So accordingly - MANY babies are created for eternal torment - and FEW babies are not.
Leighton, a Calvin-leaning friend of mine sent me an article by Mohler about how they reconcile inherited guilt with the impossible notion that God would damn a baby. Not sure if you've read it. "The Salvation of the Little Ones." Basically, a lot of insertion into Scripture to explain that Christ has "removed the stain of original sin from those who die in infancy" somehow. If you could address such a Calvinist-framework "reconciliation" at some point, that would be helpful.
Is it so hard for Calvinists to cite Hebrews 5:2 "He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray (out of the way), since he himself is subject to weakness." Or Romans 5:20 "Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more." And conclude that there is enough "compassion" (Hebrews 5:2) and "abounding grace" (Romans 5:20) to cause all babies that die in infancy and miscarriages to carried into heaven? On his radio show Matt Slick once said "If there are babies that die in infancy that go to hell, they deserve it.."
I sure wish Leighton would do more than just say things like "according to the text" when he claims various things. Like here he once again said (I've heard him claim this exact thing several times) God creates something from nothing. Where does it say that? I can't find it. Can someone, anyone, please direct me to the text which says/implies/hints at that?
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi - - Thanks, but that doesn't say He made those things He made, from nothing, and indeed implies, to me, that there was "something" (not some thing, mind you) that was not made. Perhaps energy, which is what scientific investigation has rather persuasively indicated every thing is actually composed of, in hyper compact and orderly forms. And that fits rather nicely with the all-powerful God verbiage used elsewhere (as well as the apparent need for Him to avoid exposing Himself as He really is, to us mere flammable critters ; )
Also…..Colossians 1:16-17 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
@@R2J23 - I'm not questioning that He created all things, I'm questioning the assertion that He created them "from nothing". I'm rather sure the author knew how to say "from nothing", but he didn't say it. And if you look at what is listed there- "whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him." they're rather sophisticated things being discussed, it's not elemental/metaphysical type stuff. My concern is not that Leighton thinks/gets the impression from Scripture, that God Created everything from nothing, it's that he says he knows it, but that of course he doesn't know how He created everything from nothing (that last part's a given, as the logicians say ; ) This, offered as a sort of parallel to how he knows God sees into the future , but that of course he just doesn't know how. Again, God surely knows how to tell us He sees into the future (magic crystal ball style), but He never tells us that, either. I suggest He's got plenty of ways to deal with us pipsqueaks, and prevent us from screwing up His Plans, which He does tell us about. (Including the aforementioned thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities He created ; ) So there's really no need to get into Calvinistic style appeals to mystery.
@@johnknight3529 You have an error in your logic regarding your response to John 1:3. The error you make in regards to that, is that there was a positive assertion and you inserted a negative supposition. Positive assertion: "All things were made by [God]" Negative supposition: "Does not say 'from nothing.'" The problem is that the positive assertion has already dismissed your counterclaim that the specific phrase "from nothing" is not there. Logically, the two assertions cannot coexist and since the positive assertion comes from the agreed upon objective authority, your claim doesn't hold up. If a question makes it easier, then I shall present this one: How can God create "all things" if he *didn't* create them from nothing? Now, to take care of potential counterclaims: Anything apart from God would be "something." If there were "something" apart from God, then John 1:3 could not be true. Second, if we are to suggest that God created of himself - that is, he used his substance rather than his power - then God would no longer be entirely holy. His holiness includes being "apart" from creation, and that is a definitive term from the use of the language. If God were the creation, then he would not be separate from creation and therefore would not be holy. In short, I do not see how one could logically state that God created "all things" WITHOUT coming to the conclusion that God created from "no things."
I am fascinated by Spurgeon's comment at (about 52:44). If we are all "elect" from conception until sometime we become something else (thus causing all infant deaths and miscarriages to be redeemed). Is there a process of becoming "un-elect"? Is there a time frame where the clearly "universal fetus elected-ness" comes to an end?
This has become a middle school playground fight now. I wish both men would show some maturity rather than making the same tit-for-tat response videos.
A consistent Calvinist would say there are elect infants and non elect infants. Since they believe they have the same ability as an adult reprobate. A Provisionist who believes in the age of accountability would also be consistent since God judges people justly.
I think Calvinists could easily hold to that infants and mentally unable by saying it is grace. And God chooses whom he will save. Just as He chooses all who will be saved. Under Calvinism he could just choose all infants and incapable people as well. They do believe God can do as he please. I am not justifying Calvinism just an observation. But I do agree that White is the more logical approach based on the claims of Calvinism.
To be fair Leighton, God also didn't tell Adam and Eve their children would inherit a fallen nature that impelled them to sin. Just because he mentioned some of the consequences of their actions doesn't mean there aren't others. As another example, he didn't say anything about illness or birth defects. (I'm in no way defending Calvinism. Calvinism is a wicked, satanic lie. I'm just pointing out a weak point in Leighton's argument so he can make it better.)
Why do babies go to Heaven and not to hell? 1. They are ignorant in unbelief by murdering them. 2. Man prohibits babies from coming to Jesus. 3. God is Just! 4. Because to enter into the Kingdom we have to be as one of these children.
I love White's logic. "They reject Reformed Theology CLEARLY because they don't understand it!" Yeah, totally not because we saw how horrifying it makes God and how it gives humanity a perfect excuse to do what it wants.
No matter what the human's human-influenced point of view/belief is, it is God who decides who goes to Heaven or Hell at the end of it all - not humans and what they have decided who they think God's rules are for who goes to Heaven or Hell.
Leighton, I think your philosophical position is actually the wisest one: I can’t know and I don’t need to know HOW God knows all these things. We ought to just stick to what the Bible says: God doesn’t cause moral evil and he knows the future. Thats all we need to hang our hat on
I wonder if a calvinist would still hold to their belief that God is glorified when he sends the un-elect to hell, if they were to find themselves in hell!
I would like for you to do a podcast on all the people who are deconversioning from Christianity being interviewed by Tim Mills of Harmonic Atheists. Many of them were deep into Christianity, even long time pastors. They believe the Bible to be full of lies and myths borrowed fromother sources.
Jesus always uses a path like the atonement. Saying that Jesus loves children is not a path like the atonement, its just a statement of facts. Infants are covered under the Law that Jesus fulfilled They can't hear about the atonement so it has to revert back to the law BEING BORN doesn't violate the Law. So God's grace and the law cover infants who can't see the wonder of creation or act that people can when they are older and it's supported by Revelation 20:13. At the GWT Judgement, the dead judged for their deeds a baby has no deeds.
If 99% of listeners interpret what was said the same, why do we clarify or qualify what was said in response to the 1%? We must stop doing that. Advocate those 1% of individuals listen or read carefully AGAIN what was written or said that the 1% are claiming. Warren, DO NOT explain what was written or spoken, by you. Demand that their claim is supported by what you said....specifically. Once you establish a defense of a false claim made against you, you are implicitly agreeing that a claim has some validity. "OH, my statements were misunderstood, so I better explain myself." No! The response to the 1% should be, go read or listen again to what I said. Then leave the subject/claim and move on.
Not just Augustine's "Confessions" or Calvin's "Institutes", but the writings of their whole pantheon of what they call "Giants of the Faith" and what I call "Dead Calvinists on Pedestals/DCPs", whom they regard as superior to Scripture (though most of them would deny it even to themselves if/when accused of it) and subject all interpretation of Scripture to. Then they hypocritically refer to non-Calvinists as "man-centered"...
Leighton keeps using emotional manipulation saying “the babies” “the babies” He thinks it’s unfair to send them to hell. Or they don’t have a chance to get saved because God hasn’t decreed it.
i have had the same question. essentially, free grace is correct in that it teaches you only have to trust and believe in Christ for salvation. some people misinterpret their position as "easy believism" cause anyone who "goes to church" "believes in Jesus". satan believes in Jesus. so theyre accused of teaching that as long as u believe, u can do whatever u want, no problem. again, technically thats true if u believe in eternal security. it is the power of God that keeps us saved, not our own power. when u dig deeper into what they say, they do affirm that u must see ur sin as it really is and how it separates u from God. they also teach that it is rewards and position in the kingdom that is lost by our sin after we are saved, rather than salvation itself. again, this must be true if eternal security is true. so basically they are sound in their theology, they just need to talk a bit more about the consequences of sin in the believer. they go a little overboard because they are (rightly so) going against the arminian position which states that if u dont produce enough good works, u lose ur salvation, AND against the calvinist position of perseverance of the saints, which teaches that a believer MUST constantly produce good works, or they are not among the elect. in both arminianism and reformed calvinism, u can never be 100% certain u are elect, so they torture themselves mentally trying to do good works to convince themselves that they are saved. in both systems, they are "working" for their salvation. anyways, thats my 2 cents worth from i hear the free gracers saying. hope that helps u a little
@@caman171 Thanks for your view. This is tricky to me. If i now would leave my wife & kids and start to live, till the end, in homosexual relationship. How i could be eternally secured and "ok to God" believer ?? Till now i(provisionist) have believed as Ben Witherington says: "You are not eternally secured until you are secured in eternity."
DW: It depends on what one means by "Free Grace". Remember - in Calvinism - man is not granted a CHOICE in the matter. A necessary condition for a CHOICE is the existence and availability of more than one option - in order to constitute having a CHOICE So in the case of salvation - the NON-Calvinist has a CHOICE between believing upon Jesus and NOT believing. The Calvinist does not have a CHOICE because only one option exists for him. That option was FATED at the foundation of the world And the man is not granted a CHOICE in the matter of that which is FATED So if "Free Grace" is defined as having a CHOICE - then any NON-Calvinist would probably agree with it.
Soundwave, greetings to you. I am free grace and can correctly represent the free grace position. I would be delighted to answer any questions you may have about free grace theology. Blessings, Grizz
@@dw6528 My problem is free grace THEOLOGY-part. My sence is that in their theology you can keep sinning after you became believer. Ofcourse they teach, that you should live holy life, but i can just ignore that and keep sinning. I think that is against Jesus's own teaching.
If church doctrines depend on whether people like them, what's the point of even having a Bible and claiming it's the word of God? Either the doctrine is correct or it isn't. In the case of whether a particular person is elect, we just don't know. It's all guesswork and wishful thinking.
DW: That is correct. We can see there are numerous theologies - each reading the Bible in their own way. And concerning election - it can be argued that the Calvinist conception of election evolved through Gnosticism. The Calvinist conception of election is essentially a Gnostic conception.
@@lightofathousand DW: Some people lean towards rational thinking. Other people lean towards emotional thinking. I tend to be the former. And over many years of dialog with many Calvinists - I find they tend to be the later. I hope your confusion and despair are temporary! Best wishes to you!
@@lightofathousand These symptoms you describe are normally associated with “ Calvin’ itist “ The only way to recover from it is to reject anything that has traces of “ Augustinian/Calvinist “ thought behind it. Hope you get a full recovery ✌️
Question for Mr. White how did God know two things it’s either in first or second kings that did not happen when king Saul was after David, David asked God one, will king Saul come to the city God said yes then David asked will the city turn me and my men over to him God said yes, so David left and those two things God knew did not happen. Has it occurred to Him God knows EVERY outcome of EVERY situation?! Yes, He’s that powerful! To say otherwise is just insulting. I pray he can grasp that and stop limiting him to man’s ways of thinking. Just my opinion, I’m by far no scholar or I wouldn’t be the mess that is me. 😉 Second question for Leighton Flowers Hebrews six has always bothered me not just that but Jacob I loved Esau I have hated can you please explain that in full can we mess up so badly that there is no return? Lainey
Please pray for understanding of what theses scriptures teach! Salvation is of the Lord, yes we believe, but that is because of Gods grace and work in the elect. “For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” Romans 9:15-16 KJV “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” Ephesians 2:8-10 KJV “For by grace are ye saved through faith; by believing: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” Ephesians 2:8-10 A seemingly minor word change corrupts and perverts the scripture. Most “believers” interrupt this verse as belief originating from their decision.
We will pray what God has determined us to pray for, knowing that our prayer in no way has any actual effect because God has already determined our prayer and His response. God bless
If your are praying correctly , according to His Will being led by the Spirit , the prayer will be needed and effectual to accomplish His Will. The spirit makes intercession according to the Will of God,
”What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.“ Romans 9:22-24 It does word for word no way around it
Quote mining scripture isn't an argument. I can take lots of single verses and make very unbiblical claims. Ignoring the context and what the writer is trying to convey, is very unhelpful.
@@daltonbrasier5491 it’s not quote mining when the scripture word for word in context says exactly what disproves your point and then verse 24 says the context is not for just the Jews but also from among the gentiles explicitly stating the application for verse 22 and 23 is for everybody with God doing it for the purpose of His glory. I’m not quote mining at all but what you are doing is saying that this scripture doesn’t say what it means and that it doesn’t mean what it says. So you have to do something better then just saying “nuh uh” if your going to make a claim that someone is quote mining.
@@gabrielbridges9709 This channel has produced many arguments. He has written books on it. If you are not convinced by any of that, I'm sure you won't be convinced by some random guy with a UA-cam comment. If you haven't heard those arguments, I would implore you to read his book or watch his videos on Roman's 9.
@@daltonbrasier5491 all of His arguments are based off of false presuppositions such as Roman’s 9 being in the context for only the Jewish people as a whole which verse 24 strongly disagrees with as well as the notion that Paul is writing to a predominately Jewish audience when He refers to His audience as gentiles in Roman’s 11:13 As well as ”And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another. But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.“ Romans 15:14-16 I can go on and on how Leighton sees a text that says what he doesn’t want it to say he goes to a completely different passage in a different context and then try’s to use that to explain away the clear meaning of the text.
@@jeffreybomba - "...just found a system that relies on special knowledge, or gnosis, which feeds arrogance." That's duped, to me. I spose I could have said misled or led astray or some such less harsh euphemism . . but hey, I didn't suckered ; )
DW: That would be a non-sequitur. You could just as easily argue that John Piper and John MacAuthor are duped because they take the opposite position on infant damnation that James takes. Just because a person holds to a different position - it does not follow that person is duped.
I think it is about time we call Calvinism what it truly is: a heresy, period
@@eremiasranwolf3513 it does profess Christ as savior so in that sense it is “Christian”, but He’s made to be a limited savior who only picks and choose instead of being available for everyone.
Why are people so hesitant to call it heresy? I thought it was the first time I truly understood it. It makes me sick to my stomach.
Here is my opinion. I call it a dangerous doctrine. I can understand how they get there Biblically. But you must assume certain thing. Does the Father draw all or just the elect? Does all the world simply mean every tribe, tongue and nation or every individual?
I think Biblically you can conclude Calvinism and Provisionism. Once I realized this, I quickly jumped to Provisionism! There is much more logic and less mystery. My main problem is how God can punish people born in a condition that condemns them!
I Agree. It distorts what really happened at the cross and the extent of the blood atonement, and perverts the character and nature of God Himself! It's deadly serious. ☝️.
Follow up stating it is heresy by stating that there are many believers deceived by it, fine. That is true. But that does not change the fact that the teaching of Calvinism is heresy. ☝️
I do not think Calvinism is heresy. But Matt Slick did once say on his radio show: "If there are babies that die in infancy that go to hell, they deserve it.."
Scripture never says that God is glorified by damning people to hell.
Yes, why does Jesus mourn God's supposed "pleasure"? Why is the Holy Spirit grieved by what is God's pleasure? And why does this not seem to matter?
@@lindajohnson4204
Good points.
The Calvinist god is a like a narcissistic transgendered, non binary Greek pagan god .
Very emotional and confused.
Where does scripture say god is glorified by damming people to hell ?
It sounds like a slander to God’s character. Wake up Calvinists.
@@markshaneh In my experience, "he" is anti-emotion! And it is now true that most of them dismiss the Holy Spirit except as a remote formality in the pre-faith regeneration story, and they regard any belief that we have an experience of God as emotionalism, too. Quote Jesus on our "hearing His voice" (John 5:24-25; John 10; Revelation 3) or God "revealing" Himself to us, and they express disgust and condemn us for indulging in the "man-centered" "emotionalism". Did they hear? Doesn't it matter that we're quoting Jesus, passing on His words? It doesnt appear to. Whenthey deny that the conviction of the Holy Spirit is any kind of experience. and that, and the comfort of the Comforter and the experience of "Abba, Father": why woukd they want to deny that? Draw near to God and He will draw near to you; why wouldn't they want to experience that? When they reduce the Holy Spirit's work in us to "mere emotionalism", it sounds like "having a form of godliness" and "denying the power thereof".
I once had a Lutheran Pastor tell me if our son was not baptised & died he would go to hell.
The service for the baptism was 3 weeks away. I said baptise him in the kitchen sink now as he might die of cot death.
The Pastor replied God knows your intentions.
From that time on I realised that baby baptism was ridiculous.
Of course it is . 😊
When you restrict God then you have fallen into idolatry.
@@bayreuth79 calvinism diminishes GOD and HIS sovereignty.
@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 Yes; but I do not like the term "sovereignty". It is not a good translation of anything found in scripture. The late medieval and reformation period notion of what a sovereign is or ought to be was simply projected onto God by Luther and Calvin, and other protestants and Catholics. Its an early modern category. God is almighty and king; but these categories are shaped around the life and death of Christ, which completely inverts our notions of almightiness and kinghood. Christ is victorious _on the cross_ . Calvin took a notion of power derived from the sovereigns he was aware of and then magnified it, projecting it onto Christ.
@@bayreuth79 I don't believe there's anything wrong with the term sovereign , just the misuse of it .
Dr. Flowers, are you familiar with the spirit of narcissism prevalent in our society, today? It's been around since the beginning but today, I'm convinced it's everywhere. After listening to you and James White over the past year, I'd suggest looking at him from a narcissistic vantage point and it will become clear what's really going on here.
It appears to me that Calvanism has psychopathic tendencies, or at least a hardening of the heart.
I have noticed the same thing.
**Gasp** **Spitsnout drink** W-WHAT? NO WAY. What on earth makes you think THAT????
Very true
James white has always given me the impression that he so caught up on his ability that the cockyness just pours out of him ( oh the pride in this guy )
For most people, even if they believed in infant damnation, they would struggle being a pastor and telling a grieving parent their baby very well might be in hell. But some Calvinists are so calloused to the idea of God predestining his hatred of human beings that it seems to barely concern them with the horrors of their position.
James White = Inconsistently consistent = Deceiver = Liar… 🤔
That’s how it logically always works.
Inconsistency mixed with gaslighting is the surest sign of a deceiver.
White is a pseudo-scholar, a vulgar apologist for evil theologies.
I don't think White is a liar nor deceiver. I think he is more interested in biblical consistency than biblical accuracy. And more interested theological comfort and security, than biblical scholarship. He assumes his theology to be true, then emphasizes the scriptures to maintain that assumption.
@@manager0175
I agree with this statement! Just to clarify, I’m not saying he is being a deceiver and a liar on purpose… what I’m saying is that consistent inconsistency ultimately makes him a deceiver and a liar…
Calvinists: “election” is unconditional
Also Calvinists : Except the condition of dying in infancy.
You’re exactly right.
Leyton: So Grace is unconditional?
MacArthur: it’s conditional based on your age
@@kevinjypiter6445
Based on what macarthur decides .
Smoking weed while watching JohnnieMac leads to misquoting him, and looking stupid!@@kevinjypiter6445
Yeah, Calvigod changes his mind when he rejects a reprobate and then a human also rejects the baby before they are born. Its like “you don’t get to reject people, only I do!”
Either that or the only reprobates are the ones who get to grow up.
@@jayrodriguez84 Neither.
I was happy to see the emphasis on the reputation of God at the beginning of the video. That’s a fundamental approach one should take when trying to understand doctrine: What does this say about God? True doctrine will always present God in a positive way, which aligns with the character and teachings of Jesus Christ who said “When you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father.”
Love the intro music.❤
It's beyond "rude," it's disrespectful to the perspective of other Christians.
Once you start with a bad premise ( total depravity). Then you must also build a monster on top of it doctrinally.
Total Depravity is taught in the Bible, I like how those in your weird and new theological camp blaspheme God and hate the Bible as fast as you can get to a comment section. One of these movements are growing fast and one is dying guess which one:
Reformed Theology
"Traditionalism"
James White just doesn’t to admit he is wrong. Its simple as that.
There is something i do not understand about John calvin's idea of God selecting those who will go to heaven and those who will not. This same man made this statement "No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief" How does that make sense. ether he has no idea of what he's talking about or he was deranged. don't get it.
Confusing, huh. The whole systematic is so complex and makes no sense with scripture. The gospel is easy enough for a child to understand, not Calvinism. ☝️
So after being raised by hypocritical "Do as I say not as I do" parents, we have to graduate to a "do as I say not as I do" God?
I pray that James never gets a hospital chaplain job!! How much hurt that would put on parents that are already in such a hurt position!! I am blessed to have my daughter but have been pregnant 6 times with my one and only miracle and I believe I will one day get to meet my sweet children that died before meeting them!!
2 Samuel 12:23 - But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
Matthew 18:10 - Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
Sadly, James WAS a hospital chaplain 😮
Have to add that to the list of "Monumentally Bad Career Choices".
Pablo Picasso: Police Sketch Artist
e.e. cummings: NEWSPAPER HEADLINE WRITER
Edward Scissorhands: Massage Therapist
James White: Hospital Chaplain
@DamonNomad82 You forgot one..
U.S. President Joe Biden
@@DamonNomad82 Or President Joe Biden
I'm OFFICIALLY DONE with this ridiculous and obviously endless debate because it's NEVER going to end! James Smarmy White will NEVER listen to any voice but his own, and since I can no longer tolerate even the sound of his nasal mouth farts, I respectfully bow out! I suspect even he knows he's wrong, but like others of his ilk, he's simply too far gone to even consider the possibility that his entire theology supports a monster as its god. Why ANYONE could believe it is simply beyond me!
@@jameswillison1527 "This is about so much more than a debate with White." This is worthy of repeating!!!!
This debate will never end because the issue is seen to be supported by Scripture in both sides. The solution to this issue is a personal choice that comes from studying the character of God. In the meantime the debates may be encouraging some to study the Scriptures and to a deeper walk with our Savior and Lord.
Believing “choice meats” is utterly ridiculous
James White is not an idiot. I think he has backed himself into a corner with his philosophy, soteriology, theology and when pushed to frank discussion of what he has said that "supports" his belief, he has no option but to be defiant. He has made a reputation of arguing for "hardcore Calvinism and determination" and now he is has to die on that hill, His career depends on it now. Otherwise, his past 30 years of 'credibility' is shot.
Leighton, you’re fighting the good fight.
Keep doing what you are doing. We should not allow the teachings of the Calvinists be more louder than what the Bible is truly teaching.
“Who focuses on the creature? God does.” I immediately thought of Psalm 8! Well said, Leighton! May God continue blessing your ministry, it is reaching so many with the love of Christ!
The fact that James White thinks you're an open theist if you affirm that Judas had a REAL choice only serves to evince that he conflates certainty with necessity.
Its nice to see you on fire over this subject, Leighton! I cant see how any sound Christian, who loves the revelation of God as shown in the Scriptures, could remain emotionally detatched from such a horrendous charachature of God as presented by James White! But ,of course,Calvinists love to say" oh,your just being emotional but have no substance to your argument!"
Leighton mentioned how many comments or emails he gets from former Calvinist thanking him for his stand and ministry........But I thank him because those of us who have an Arminian foundation from our new birth and yet who have added to our stance a Provisional viewpoint. I thank Leighton because we needed a powerful Voice to back us. In other words, a qualified (Dr) to trumpet God's truth for us lesser known folks who have been arguing these points with Calvinist for years with great frustration and red faces.
It baffles me how Machuthur holds on to that view and Calvinism at the same time
I am watching this after your debate with James White and I found it interesting that he refused to engage with you on that topic and cried to the moderator an even with that part aside you definitely came out on top in that debate great job
The Bible is crystal clear that babies are innocent. I believe this is one of the problems that the doctrine of original sin caused.
If Calvinists believe that God ordains everything that comes to pass, when they get upset about sin and bad things that happen, aren't they fighting against God's will? Oh wait, God must be ordaining them to do that. Such obvious incoherent nonsense.
If predeterminism were true, no believer would have babies! I sure wouldn't have!
I keep saying this how could any Calvinist have children knowing that they might end up in hell if not elected?!!! If you believe that your child may end up being unelected, and you still bring this child into the world, it's just monstrous. But then so is the god of Calvinism!!!
Voddie = Viper in a diaper = Infant Damnation Preacher… 🤦🏽🤦🏽🤦🏽
Yes you are correct, how could God allow babies into heaven if they are vipers or in the words of R.C “worse than rats”. ?
Voddie teaches infant damnation?
@@Steve-og4ii Not sure how “consistent” he is with his Calvinism. A consistent Calvinist would take the stand that JW takes. (Elect babies go to heaven non-elect go to the bad place) Basically to be consistent in your Calvinism you would tell a grieving mother “you got about a 10% chance they were elect.”
@@Steve-og4ii
If he believes a baby is a viper in a diaper then I’m pretty sure he does.
Do you believe an infant is a viper?
I believe babies are born innocent and sinless, who will inherit heaven if they were to die for any reason.
🙏🙏🙏
@@kevinkleinhenz6511
Infant damnation is probably the worst twisted scripture of all time. Even worst than universalism doctrine. 🤦🏽
Notice how White said people are shallow in their reading when he’s the one who admits he doesn’t even read all or watch all the things that refute his point of view?! Kinda narcissistic? It makes me sad for him. We’re told to reprove, rebuke, hold each other accountable and that’s been missing for so long that so many can’t handle it with grace when we are told we’re wrong. No it’s not fun but Proverbs says a wise man receives reproof and is grateful. Don’t remember the exact words. But I WISH I had someone who would lovingly call me out and put the time in, maybe things would be different? I’d like to think I’d have listened. Need to pray for him.
So to entertain this doctrine , my twin that died after birth could be in hell . Heartbreaking and implausable.
Also unbiblical
Imagine a Montel Williams episode where James White has his own statements quoted to him without identifying their source and he must respond to them. He spends the entire episode saying this person isn't a Calvinist, is flattening it out, doesn't understand, etc. etc. until the big reveal at the end: "Who is the author of these quotes? The author is.... [long, dramatic pause] YOU! [oohs and ahs from the crowd]"
In other words a modern version of 2 Samuel 12:1-15, with James White in the role of David and Montel Williams in the role of Nathan the Prophet? I'm all for it!
Edited to add: I must say though, I have my doubts as to whether James White's response to that would be the right response, as David's was...
According to the Bible,
A) my faith has CAUSED me to be born again
B) God the Father has CAUSED me to be born again --->>> TO --->>> a living faith
Which is true according to the Bible?
@@jayrodriguez84 neither.
@@AndrewKeifer 1 Peter 1:3 NASB2020
[3] Blessed be the *God and Father* of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy *has caused us to be born again to a living hope* through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Wrong.
@@jayrodriguez84 you should've included option C: God caused me to be born again when I trusted in Christ. God didn't cause me to trust in Christ, which is what your option B _seems to imply._
Calvinists: God doesn't send babies to hell because they do not possess the moral capacity to know right from wrong
Also Calvinists: God sends others not classified as babies to hell who also do not possess the moral capacity to know right from wrong
My severely retarded neighbor probably didn't have much capacity to understand the gospel, but maybe God showed him a little, after he started going to that church. I still believe that, even in his 50s, God would have kept him in the category of the babies who can't yet understand the gospel.
Of course in Calvinism - the divine decree is what determines which individuals within the total human population will be created specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure.
.
John Calvin
-quote
By the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the *REASON DOES NOT APPEAR* they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. - (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
And the Calvinist confession states
-quote
Although god knows whatsoever *CAN* or *MAY* come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he *NOT* decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
So the decree which creates babies for eternal torment has nothing to do with anything having to do with that baby.
It is - quote "Solely within himself"
@@dw6528 The heart of Calvinism is blasphemy, just like it is in the gnosticism it came from. It is serious slander against God to say these things against Him, and even "for" Him; we ought to come to know that it isn't worthy of Him
@@lindajohnson4204 DW: I would definitely agree it is a slander against the God of scripture. I don't see Calvin's god as the God of scripture.
You are correct to identify Gnosticism.
A primary characteristic of Gnosticism is DUALISM in which for example "Good" and "Evil" are Co-Equal, Co-Complimentary, and Co-Necessary.
One of the characteristics of Calvinism which has perennially been a point of contention is its embrace of DUALISM
Calvinists today are extremely uncomfortable with that aspect of their doctrine - and they spend a great deal of time trying hide its components of divine evil.
The topic of creating babies specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire - for Calvin's god's good pleasure - is an example.
Notice how James White is working very hard to *OBFUSCATE* the divine evil and make it *APPEAR* laudable.
He calls Warren "sick" and "deplorable" for shining a spotlight on an evil component of his doctrine.
@@dw6528
Praise God that Calvinists such as James White, Jeff Durbin and Joel Webbon etc are not in positions of powerlr.
Else Warren and Leighton would surely be in the same trouble as the Apostles were with the Pharisees, the early Christians with Rome preAD325, and the Anabaptists with the Catholic Church and the Magisterial Reformers.
Great video for the truth of the Gospel vs the error of Calvinism.
If Augustine taught that non baptized infants are damned, than how does that square with election being unconditional? Sounds like baptism is a condition to me. also sounds like anyone can be saved, since he (and the Catholic Church) required ALL infants to be baptized. It also sounds like Pelagianism, since man is "cooperating" with God. So if that was his view, then a person's salvation is dependent on what another person does for them!
DW: Augustine reasoned - those infants who were not baptized - was because they were created for eternal torment.
Also - Calvinism's "Unconditional" election argument is duplicitous.
In Calvinism - election is both "Conditional" and "Unconditional"
1) It is "Conditioned" upon an infallible decree
2) it is NOT "Conditioned" upon anything having to do with the creature.
But that is simply because EVERYTHING within creation is "Conditioned" upon and infallible decree and NOT "Conditioned" upon anything having to do with the creature.
The Calvinist OBFUSCATES these facts because he does not want to acknowledge - that Damnation (including infant damnation) is "Conditioned' upon an infallible decree - and NOT "Conditioned" upon anything having to do with the creature.
@@dw6528 very true. no calvinist can answer the question "why did God choose those that he saves? it is IMPOSSIBLE to be uncondition. a sovereign God MUST have a reason for EVERYTHING he does. so there are only 3 choices. 1) he draws names from a hat 2) he chooses based on good works 3) he chooses those who willingly trust him. there are NO other choices for God to base his decision on. thus, salvation, even for the calvinist, MUST be conditioned on something!
@@caman171 DW: Yes! Great points!
Calvin himself - and the classic Calvinist confession however reject options (2&3) which you provided.
In Calvinism - the decree which determines everything - also determines who will be created elect and who will not be created as elect.
And concerning the decree - the confession states:
-quote
Although god knoweth whatsoever *MAY* or *CAN* come to pass upon all supposed conditions. Yet hath He NOT decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which *WOULD* come to pass upon such conditions."
The decree is not based upon the creature or the condition thereof. It is solely within himself.
And Calvin states
-quote "The reason does not appear"
So the Calvinist concludes there is a reason - but that reason is a divine secret which only Calvin's god knows.
So as far as we humans are concerned - it could easily be the case that souls are picked from a hat.
Additionally - no Calvinist is granted CERTAINTY that he is elect - because that is also a divine secret which only Calvin's god knows.
Every Calvinist has a statistical probability of being created for the lake of fire simply because THE MANY (including within the believing population) are specifically created for that end - for his good pleasure.
Blessings!
@@dw6528 ah yes u are describing that Reformed doctrine of "evanescent grace" it teaches that God "illuminates" many who are NOT elect, even producing many good works in them, only to damn them at the end! in other words, God gets his kicks from deceiving people! wish idol killer and leighton flowers would do videos on this doctrine! its just as nasty as infant damnation.
Leighton, you might wanna start toning all this down.
The more you confront James, and the more he keeps breaking down the way he is, the closer you get to pushing him over the edge to where he cancels the upcoming debate last minute. James White is cowering more and more to put it bluntly, and as such, he will run eventually, which will probably manifest in him bailing out of the debate.
So please, for us (who wanna see you flabbergast James in the debate), tone it down for the sake of the debate happening.
Then, afterwards, keep cornering and confronting his rotten fruits. 🙃
I don’t think anyone can claim now that James White is an honest interlocutor!
#1 He never honestly addresses the REAL topic
#2 His only response is personal attacks
#3 He rattles on and on talking about unrelated issues
#4 He blatantly state’s DISHONEST things
Tommy, exactly.
If calvinist believe that God determines or assigns every soul before birth to either heaven or hell, then that includes everyone, unborn and born.
Accountability? How is that consistent with determinism? Rejecting truth? How does human choice to reject truth, John MacArthur, factor into God detertermining everything?
There are only a limited number number of times that you can patch the tire that your own belief slashed, before it's too ruined to use.
@@sheilasmith7779 - you're absolutely right. This coming from a man, James White, that famously says that inconsistency is proof of a failed argument.
@tommycapps9903 I do not understand any Christian listening to and following a Christian leader who continually acts poorly toward other Christians....no matter what that leader believes.
Why not find another teacher/preacher that shares your beliefs but ALSO behaves toward others with respect and integrity?
Your assessment of White is correct. Nothing more than ego driven misbehavior.
Any claim or accusation requires EVIDENCE to support it.
Leighton is right, we must insist that the claimant produce specific evidence to support their claim. No moving forward in the debate until this accusation is settled, one way or another.
Proof.
I'm a spotify listener and I get so sad when I don't find this content there.
I sometimes listen to your content during my walks.
I'm convinced that Augustine has done more damage to the Church's theology than all the heresies that the Church had to defend against.
I hope James White is ready to go back to seminary, cuz Leighton, you are going to be schooling him in March!
The Lord be with you brother!
Thank you for being such an excellent example of brotherly love and grace.
Amen! I refer to Augustine as the "Dire Wolf" of false teachers and consider him to be the greatest flesh-and-blood enemy Christianity has had to date. His twisting of Scriptures and Christian doctrines to blend them with aspects of his old Manichean Gnostic religion and the resulting corruption of Western Christianity from within have damaged the Church not only more than all other heresies, but more than all persecutions, from the stoning of Stephen to the vicious anti-Christian purges of Communism, combined.
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. Thank you Dr. Flowers for fighting this evil doctrine.
Leighton,
Make this the main issue on every video and you will help destroy Calvinism in America! 💪🏽
No, Leighton thinks that when babies die they stay babies for eternity. His entire Westboro Baptist shock value rhetoric only works on those who can’t think for themselves.
James Whites view is truly deplorable.
James white is gaslighting and dismissing and canceling Warren and you also Leighton to dismiss your debate or to voice his disdain for Warren as a reason to decline debating him!!
DW: Correct! Good observations!
The reason for this has to do with the fact that Calvinists care more about how Calvinism *APPEARS* to people than they do about telling people the truth. As you point out - James is TAP-DANCING around this subject and evading telling the truth - because everyone will realize the Calvinist claim their doctrine is a "Doctrine of Grace" is a lie
Please, Leighton, never sink to his level. It's one thing to defend his system but to mischaracterize his opponent the way he does is dishonest.
I saw you and your bros in that recent James White debate video.., also noticed most of the remarks were trash talking James. I remarked positively about James and got blocked. Now I know why the perspective in the comments was so skewed.
We believe that the Glory of GOD is self evident, not something we have to be told is Glorious though it contradicts the goodness of God as we understand it from the scriptures
WELL SAID!!!!
He is just. It’s not just to condemn a baby for something someone did 6,000 years ago. Instead of saying he’s protecting the freedom of God he should protect the character of God.
Told my friend of 34 years he has a different god due to his belief in infant damnation.
Pressed him for weeks to divulge his stance .
I’ve not heard back from Him in several years.
One hell of a cult these calvinists/ reformers.
The self-righteousness, pride, and arrogance that emanates from James White knows no bound!
Those who defend this will never humble themselves to admit they are wrong. This is their last stand...they will die with this lie.
According to the Bible,
A) my faith has CAUSED me to be born again
B) God the Father has CAUSED me to be born again --->>> TO --->>> a living faith
Which is true according to the Bible?
@@jayrodriguez84 God the Father brings you the Truth, you humble yourself and believe Him, and that faith is righteous. Jesus, because His righteousness is the only righteousness that saves, His blood is applied towards your debt. This is justification by FAITH.
@@filmscorelife4225 Justification by faith ✅️
Regeneration by faith ❌️
Is your answer A or B?
@jayrodriguez84 Justification is the same as regeneration. Thats instant. Sanctification is a process.
@filmscorelife4225 Justification is not the same as regeneration. Regeneration is the new birth. Justification is being declared not guilty. Perfectly just. Perfectly righteous.
By saying that, you can't believe that faith precedes regeneration. You believe they happen simultaneously. That isn't Leighton's belief. He believes you have faith(at which point you are justified) and then you are born again.
I apologize, I should have been patient. The podcast got much better when it pivoted to the discussion of prophecy and foretelling (omniscience) versus causation. Thankyou and sorry again.
The greatest intro song in Podcast history! Let’s go!
How can God ordain abortion when He condemns it? Jesus calls us to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. That would mean we both must condemn and must support abortion.
The Bible even says "God hates the shedding of innocent blood."
Good old White Beard, constantly providing more content for non-Calvinist channels. 😂
When facing an obvious contradiction in one's beliefs, make up a "work around," explanation.
At least White is consistent on his belief that all humans are determined to heaven or hell before and after they are born.
He's wrong of course, but he is consistent with the Cavinist belief in detetminism.
About 1:56 minutes in... it makes sense that calvinism would hold to the idea of God condemning infants to eternal hell, when some calvinists teach that God killed Jesus, rather than man.
we are all sick of calvinistic theology
it represents the best of eisegesis
sad
Humans have always used eisegesis to take God’s truth and pull it into legalism or licentiousness. Reformed vs Free Grace, Pentecostalism vs Secessionism…
38:31 Just realized, God covered the shame of Adam and Eve with an animal sacrifice he *provided* (Jehovah Jireh) and slew Himself, which of course was a _type_ of Christ, like the ram in the thicket Abraham sacrificed to God in place of Isaac, having passed the test. So, why would their children inherit their guilt?
Edit: Remember, sin nature is irrelevant in this discussion, unless you disagree that infants/aborted babies don't have any opportunity to commit sin.
We should not be afraid to refute heresies.
Does anyone know which of Leighton Flowers podcasts includes discussion regarding Acts 13:48
He has a series called "De-Calvinizing" and he addresses that text specifically.
One tactic of people that can't support their argument/position is to misstate the opponent's position and THEN argue against it.
Dear Bro. Leighton: for transparency, i am a pentecostal so most definitely NOT calvinist...there seems to be an inconsistency within calvinism concerning infants that i don't think i have ever heard you speak of...if an infant, because of his innocence, is considered to be elect by God, doesn't that also mean that once the infant reaches accountability, should he NOT be of those predestined to election, that God has to UN-elect that person? in other words, it is as though God says "I elected you while you were an infant BUT ONLY for that time. I did not choose you to be elected beyond that point!" am i wrong to state that makes God to be an infinitely horribly capricious deity?! Your thoughts, sir
Evan if only elect babies go to heaven, it would still, likely be the biggest "heaven filling tool".
They can collapse person into nature all they want (original sin = original guilt). But unless they have an ego the size of the sun wrapped in an equally large dissonant blankie, they chicken out at the logical conclusions of that stupid idea.
John Calvin said: “Although we must recollect that God would never have suffered any infants to be destroyed except those which the Lord had already reprobated and condemned to eternal death.” - John Calvin, Commentary on Deuteronomy, 13:15. Calvin said that all infants are reprobate.
Saying that all infants are reprobates or that all infants are saved both seem inconsistent with the idea that some are elect before birth and most are not. Calvin seemed to be of the opinion that reprobates would be clustered in infants who die.
Mr Johnson’s statement that it’s a “different kind of innocent” is nonsensical. The Reformed point to Romans 9:11-13 constantly as a proof text that the decision for the twins Jacob and Esau was made “before they had done anything good or bad.” This is one of their MAIN PROOF TEXTS! “Innocent” by whatever definition they make up today, is irrelevant in their system.
So according to Calvin any child that God allows to be destroyed is non elect and hellbound... Very interesting 🤔
DW: Yes that is correct. In Calvinism - the decree which determines whether an individual will be created for eternal torment for Calvin's god's good pleasure - is NOT based upon anything having to do with the creature or the condition thereof . It is solely within himself.
So as James White pointed out in this video - babies are created for eternal torment no differently than adults.
The PRIMARY provision for mankind is for the MANY - eternal torment in a lake of fire for his good pleasure
The SECONDARY provision for mankind is to save a FEW from his PRIMARY provision.
So accordingly - MANY babies are created for eternal torment - and FEW babies are not.
First paragraph, last sentence should say ‘Calvin said that all infants WHO DIE are reprobate.’ Sorry.
Leighton, a Calvin-leaning friend of mine sent me an article by Mohler about how they reconcile inherited guilt with the impossible notion that God would damn a baby. Not sure if you've read it. "The Salvation of the Little Ones." Basically, a lot of insertion into Scripture to explain that Christ has "removed the stain of original sin from those who die in infancy" somehow. If you could address such a Calvinist-framework "reconciliation" at some point, that would be helpful.
Is it so hard for Calvinists to cite Hebrews 5:2 "He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray (out of the way), since he himself is subject to weakness." Or Romans 5:20 "Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more." And conclude that there is enough "compassion" (Hebrews 5:2) and "abounding grace" (Romans 5:20) to cause all babies that die in infancy and miscarriages to carried into heaven? On his radio show Matt Slick once said "If there are babies that die in infancy that go to hell, they deserve it.."
I sure wish Leighton would do more than just say things like "according to the text" when he claims various things. Like here he once again said (I've heard him claim this exact thing several times) God creates something from nothing. Where does it say that? I can't find it. Can someone, anyone, please direct me to the text which says/implies/hints at that?
John 1:3 (KJV 1900): 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi - - Thanks, but that doesn't say He made those things He made, from nothing, and indeed implies, to me, that there was "something" (not some thing, mind you) that was not made.
Perhaps energy, which is what scientific investigation has rather persuasively indicated every thing is actually composed of, in hyper compact and orderly forms. And that fits rather nicely with the all-powerful God verbiage used elsewhere (as well as the apparent need for Him to avoid exposing Himself as He really is, to us mere flammable critters ; )
Also…..Colossians 1:16-17
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
@@R2J23 - I'm not questioning that He created all things, I'm questioning the assertion that He created them "from nothing". I'm rather sure the author knew how to say "from nothing", but he didn't say it. And if you look at what is listed there- "whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him." they're rather sophisticated things being discussed, it's not elemental/metaphysical type stuff.
My concern is not that Leighton thinks/gets the impression from Scripture, that God Created everything from nothing, it's that he says he knows it, but that of course he doesn't know how He created everything from nothing (that last part's a given, as the logicians say ; )
This, offered as a sort of parallel to how he knows God sees into the future , but that of course he just doesn't know how. Again, God surely knows how to tell us He sees into the future (magic crystal ball style), but He never tells us that, either. I suggest He's got plenty of ways to deal with us pipsqueaks, and prevent us from screwing up His Plans, which He does tell us about. (Including the aforementioned thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities He created ; ) So there's really no need to get into Calvinistic style appeals to mystery.
@@johnknight3529 You have an error in your logic regarding your response to John 1:3. The error you make in regards to that, is that there was a positive assertion and you inserted a negative supposition.
Positive assertion: "All things were made by [God]"
Negative supposition: "Does not say 'from nothing.'"
The problem is that the positive assertion has already dismissed your counterclaim that the specific phrase "from nothing" is not there. Logically, the two assertions cannot coexist and since the positive assertion comes from the agreed upon objective authority, your claim doesn't hold up.
If a question makes it easier, then I shall present this one: How can God create "all things" if he *didn't* create them from nothing?
Now, to take care of potential counterclaims: Anything apart from God would be "something." If there were "something" apart from God, then John 1:3 could not be true.
Second, if we are to suggest that God created of himself - that is, he used his substance rather than his power - then God would no longer be entirely holy. His holiness includes being "apart" from creation, and that is a definitive term from the use of the language. If God were the creation, then he would not be separate from creation and therefore would not be holy.
In short, I do not see how one could logically state that God created "all things" WITHOUT coming to the conclusion that God created from "no things."
I am fascinated by Spurgeon's comment at (about 52:44). If we are all "elect" from conception until sometime we become something else (thus causing all infant deaths and miscarriages to be redeemed). Is there a process of becoming "un-elect"? Is there a time frame where the clearly "universal fetus elected-ness" comes to an end?
Thanks!
This has become a middle school playground fight now. I wish both men would show some maturity rather than making the same tit-for-tat response videos.
Leighton I want to thank you for helping us all to see thru.the worlds most obvious ridiculous teaching of brazin crazy teachers as James white
ASSP Poison? Hahahahah that’s the funniest thing I’ve seen from Leighton!!!!! Ever!!!
A consistent Calvinist would say there are elect infants and non elect infants. Since they believe they have the same ability as an adult reprobate. A Provisionist who believes in the age of accountability would also be consistent since God judges people justly.
I think Calvinists could easily hold to that infants and mentally unable by saying it is grace. And God chooses whom he will save. Just as He chooses all who will be saved.
Under Calvinism he could just choose all infants and incapable people as well.
They do believe God can do as he please.
I am not justifying Calvinism just an observation.
But I do agree that White is the more logical approach based on the claims of Calvinism.
But calvinists believe in unconditional election. Being elect because you are an infant, is a condition.
I cant hear a word this guy says without hearing “choice meats.” So funny!
Flowers loses a debate against James White. Flowers then proceeds to obsess over James White. This mans character is flawed to the extreme.
To be fair Leighton, God also didn't tell Adam and Eve their children would inherit a fallen nature that impelled them to sin.
Just because he mentioned some of the consequences of their actions doesn't mean there aren't others. As another example, he didn't say anything about illness or birth defects.
(I'm in no way defending Calvinism. Calvinism is a wicked, satanic lie. I'm just pointing out a weak point in Leighton's argument so he can make it better.)
Thank you, we should hate any bad arguments. Because bad arguments lead to bad conclusions.
Why do babies go to Heaven and not to hell?
1. They are ignorant in unbelief by murdering them.
2. Man prohibits babies from coming to Jesus.
3. God is Just!
4. Because to enter into the Kingdom we have to be as one of these children.
I love White's logic.
"They reject Reformed Theology CLEARLY because they don't understand it!"
Yeah, totally not because we saw how horrifying it makes God and how it gives humanity a perfect excuse to do what it wants.
No matter what the human's human-influenced point of view/belief is, it is God who decides who goes to Heaven or Hell at the end of it all - not humans and what they have decided who they think God's rules are for who goes to Heaven or Hell.
We would all agree with that. And we thank God for telling us who he chooses to save; any one who humbles himself and puts his faith in him.
Leighton, I think your philosophical position is actually the wisest one: I can’t know and I don’t need to know HOW God knows all these things. We ought to just stick to what the Bible says: God doesn’t cause moral evil and he knows the future. Thats all we need to hang our hat on
He can't help it, he was predestined to act like that.
I wonder if a calvinist would still hold to their belief that God is glorified when he sends the un-elect to hell, if they were to find themselves in hell!
I would like for you to do a podcast on all the people who are deconversioning from Christianity being interviewed by Tim Mills of Harmonic Atheists. Many of them were deep into Christianity, even long time pastors. They believe the Bible to be full of lies and myths borrowed fromother sources.
The O.T does NOT name Judas as the one that would betray Jesus....only that someone would betray the Messiah.
Infant damnation ??,??
But you're ok with "adult" damnation ??? SICK SICK SICK
Jesus always uses a path like the atonement. Saying that Jesus loves children is not a path like the atonement, its just a statement of facts. Infants are covered under the Law that Jesus fulfilled They can't hear about the atonement so it has to revert back to the law BEING BORN doesn't violate the Law. So God's grace and the law cover infants who can't see the wonder of creation or act that people can when they are older and it's supported by Revelation 20:13. At the GWT Judgement, the dead judged for their deeds a baby has no deeds.
If 99% of listeners interpret what was said the same, why do we clarify or qualify what was said in response to the 1%?
We must stop doing that. Advocate those 1% of individuals listen or read carefully AGAIN what was written or said that the 1% are claiming.
Warren, DO NOT explain what was written or spoken, by you. Demand that their claim is supported by what you said....specifically.
Once you establish a defense of a false claim made against you, you are implicitly agreeing that a claim has some validity.
"OH, my statements were misunderstood, so I better explain myself."
No! The response to the 1% should be, go read or listen again to what I said. Then leave the subject/claim and move on.
it really seems like White an a lot of these guys go to the confessions a lot more than Scripture for the defense of their positions.
Not just Augustine's "Confessions" or Calvin's "Institutes", but the writings of their whole pantheon of what they call "Giants of the Faith" and what I call "Dead Calvinists on Pedestals/DCPs", whom they regard as superior to Scripture (though most of them would deny it even to themselves if/when accused of it) and subject all interpretation of Scripture to. Then they hypocritically refer to non-Calvinists as "man-centered"...
Leighton keeps using emotional manipulation saying “the babies” “the babies”
He thinks it’s unfair to send them to hell. Or they don’t have a chance to get saved because God hasn’t decreed it.
Help ! FREE GRACE THEOLOGY. Good or bad ???
i have had the same question. essentially, free grace is correct in that it teaches you only have to trust and believe in Christ for salvation. some people misinterpret their position as "easy believism" cause anyone who "goes to church" "believes in Jesus". satan believes in Jesus. so theyre accused of teaching that as long as u believe, u can do whatever u want, no problem. again, technically thats true if u believe in eternal security. it is the power of God that keeps us saved, not our own power. when u dig deeper into what they say, they do affirm that u must see ur sin as it really is and how it separates u from God. they also teach that it is rewards and position in the kingdom that is lost by our sin after we are saved, rather than salvation itself. again, this must be true if eternal security is true. so basically they are sound in their theology, they just need to talk a bit more about the consequences of sin in the believer. they go a little overboard because they are (rightly so) going against the arminian position which states that if u dont produce enough good works, u lose ur salvation, AND against the calvinist position of perseverance of the saints, which teaches that a believer MUST constantly produce good works, or they are not among the elect. in both arminianism and reformed calvinism, u can never be 100% certain u are elect, so they torture themselves mentally trying to do good works to convince themselves that they are saved. in both systems, they are "working" for their salvation. anyways, thats my 2 cents worth from i hear the free gracers saying. hope that helps u a little
@@caman171 Thanks for your view. This is tricky to me. If i now would leave my wife & kids and start to live, till the end, in homosexual relationship. How i could be eternally secured and "ok to God" believer ?? Till now i(provisionist) have believed as Ben Witherington says: "You are not eternally secured until you are secured in eternity."
DW: It depends on what one means by "Free Grace".
Remember - in Calvinism - man is not granted a CHOICE in the matter.
A necessary condition for a CHOICE is the existence and availability of more than one option - in order to constitute having a CHOICE
So in the case of salvation - the NON-Calvinist has a CHOICE between believing upon Jesus and NOT believing.
The Calvinist does not have a CHOICE because only one option exists for him.
That option was FATED at the foundation of the world
And the man is not granted a CHOICE in the matter of that which is FATED
So if "Free Grace" is defined as having a CHOICE - then any NON-Calvinist would probably agree with it.
Soundwave, greetings to you. I am free grace and can correctly represent the free grace position. I would be delighted to answer any questions you may have about free grace theology. Blessings, Grizz
@@dw6528 My problem is free grace THEOLOGY-part. My sence is that in their theology you can keep sinning after you became believer. Ofcourse they teach, that you should live holy life, but i can just ignore that and keep sinning. I think that is against Jesus's own teaching.
If church doctrines depend on whether people like them, what's the point of even having a Bible and claiming it's the word of God? Either the doctrine is correct or it isn't.
In the case of whether a particular person is elect, we just don't know. It's all guesswork and wishful thinking.
DW: That is correct. We can see there are numerous theologies - each reading the Bible in their own way.
And concerning election - it can be argued that the Calvinist conception of election evolved through Gnosticism.
The Calvinist conception of election is essentially a Gnostic conception.
@@dw6528 Confusion and despair are the only things I'm getting out of this conversation. Time to move on.
@@lightofathousand DW: Some people lean towards rational thinking. Other people lean towards emotional thinking.
I tend to be the former. And over many years of dialog with many Calvinists - I find they tend to be the later.
I hope your confusion and despair are temporary! Best wishes to you!
@@dw6528 Thank you.
@@lightofathousand
These symptoms you describe are normally associated with
“ Calvin’ itist “
The only way to recover from it is to reject anything that has traces of “ Augustinian/Calvinist “
thought behind it.
Hope you get a full recovery
✌️
We can not judge without all the facts. We know that God is righteous and will judge righteously and be fair.
Leave it at that .
Question for Mr. White how did God know two things it’s either in first or second kings that did not happen when king Saul was after David, David asked God one, will king Saul come to the city God said yes then David asked will the city turn me and my men over to him God said yes, so David left and those two things God knew did not happen. Has it occurred to Him God knows EVERY outcome of EVERY situation?! Yes, He’s that powerful! To say otherwise is just insulting. I pray he can grasp that and stop limiting him to man’s ways of thinking. Just my opinion, I’m by far no scholar or I wouldn’t be the mess that is me. 😉 Second question for Leighton Flowers Hebrews six has always bothered me not just that but Jacob I loved Esau I have hated can you please explain that in full can we mess up so badly that there is no return? Lainey
According to Calvinism even adults haven’t reached the age of accountability and never will…because they can’t.
Please pray for understanding of what theses scriptures teach! Salvation is of the Lord, yes we believe, but that is because of Gods grace and work in the elect.
“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”
Romans 9:15-16 KJV
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
Ephesians 2:8-10 KJV
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; by believing: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
Ephesians 2:8-10
A seemingly minor word change corrupts and perverts the scripture. Most “believers” interrupt this verse as belief originating from their decision.
We will pray what God has determined us to pray for, knowing that our prayer in no way has any actual effect because God has already determined our prayer and His response. God bless
If your are praying correctly , according to His Will being led by the Spirit , the prayer will be needed and effectual to accomplish His Will. The spirit makes intercession according to the Will of God,
”What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.“
Romans 9:22-24
It does word for word no way around it
Quote mining scripture isn't an argument. I can take lots of single verses and make very unbiblical claims. Ignoring the context and what the writer is trying to convey, is very unhelpful.
@@daltonbrasier5491 it’s not quote mining when the scripture word for word in context says exactly what disproves your point and then verse 24 says the context is not for just the Jews but also from among the gentiles explicitly stating the application for verse 22 and 23 is for everybody with God doing it for the purpose of His glory. I’m not quote mining at all but what you are doing is saying that this scripture doesn’t say what it means and that it doesn’t mean what it says. So you have to do something better then just saying “nuh uh” if your going to make a claim that someone is quote mining.
@@gabrielbridges9709 This channel has produced many arguments. He has written books on it. If you are not convinced by any of that, I'm sure you won't be convinced by some random guy with a UA-cam comment. If you haven't heard those arguments, I would implore you to read his book or watch his videos on Roman's 9.
@@daltonbrasier5491 all of His arguments are based off of false presuppositions such as Roman’s 9 being in the context for only the Jewish people as a whole which verse 24 strongly disagrees with as well as the notion that Paul is writing to a predominately Jewish audience when He refers to His audience as gentiles in Roman’s 11:13
As well as
”And concerning you, my brethren, I myself also am convinced that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able also to admonish one another. But I have written very boldly to you on some points so as to remind you again, because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.“
Romans 15:14-16
I can go on and on how Leighton sees a text that says what he doesn’t want it to say he goes to a completely different passage in a different context and then try’s to use that to explain away the clear meaning of the text.
@@gabrielbridges9709 You pray for me and I'll pray for you. If determinism is true, I truly pray that God determines for me to believe it.
Mr. Flowers, do you realize you are proposing that James White has been duped? Not just anyone, but James White himself?
No one is immune to duping. Not me, nor you, nor Flowers, nor White.
Probably not duped, just found a system that relies on special knowledge, or gnosis, which feeds arrogance.
James Infallible White cannot be duped! He's too...well, infallible. He even has a Beautiful Cereal Box Doctorate!
@@jeffreybomba - "...just found a system that relies on special knowledge, or gnosis, which feeds arrogance."
That's duped, to me. I spose I could have said misled or led astray or some such less harsh euphemism . . but hey, I didn't suckered ; )
DW: That would be a non-sequitur.
You could just as easily argue that John Piper and John MacAuthor are duped because they take the opposite position on infant damnation that James takes. Just because a person holds to a different position - it does not follow that person is duped.
I like to think that Phil Johnson is smart enough to see "things", even though his stats tell me otherwise.😮