Wow Dr. Flowers great reminder of who's misrepresenting and slandering whom. All I kept thinking was that there was a time you followed and admired Sproul unconditionally. Being cleansed of Calvinism and its adherents is so freeing. Many are exhaling and knowing the love of God for all who believe and not just the select elect thanks to you and others. Good work sir.
Gods love was apparent in the days of Noah,it repented God that he made man. Yet he gave 120 yrs of warnings,so God is just he fulfilled his honour of divine judgement.
@@RenardGarzaro DW: The irony about the subject of opposition to Calvinism is - since *NOTHING* can happen unless Calvin's god decrees it - any opposition to Calvinism represents the *CONTENT* of the decree. So any Calvinist criticism of any opposition equates to criticizing that which Calvin's god has decreed. So when the Calvinist says "who are you oh man to criticize god" he is talking to himself - looking in a mirror! :-]
:) Aye. They hate the sovereignty of God in salvation... until grace changes that disposition of their wills and blindness... May they humble themselves and may God grant them genuine repentance and humility!
@@koraegis DW: In Calvinism - the only way a "HATE" Impulse - or a "Humble" impulse can come to pass within a human brain - is if Calvin's god decrees that impulse And an infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees. Thus NO ALTERNATIVE impulse is granted existence within the brain - from that impulse which was decreed. John Calvin explains -quote The creatures...are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3) Man is granted NO CHOICE in the matter - simply because NO ALTERNATIVE exists to choose.
@@koraegis DW: In Calvinism - the creature is not granted any SAY in the matter of what has been infallibly decreed it will be or do at any nano-second in time. The doctrine of decrees stipulates *NOTHING* can come to pass within creation - unless it is decreed. Thus the only impulses granted existence within the human brain - are impulses which have been decreed to infallibly exist within that brain. And man is granted NO SAY in the matter.
Hello from the Philippines, Dr. Flowers! I would like you to know how great a blessing you are, along with everyone over at Soteriology 101 for me and for those who continually uphold to the doctrine of Free Grace. I agree with you that the main problem we encounter is the lack for both resources and teachers/preachers that support our view, compared to the numerous and should i say popular proponents of Calvinism. I am saddened by the "conversion" of many of my contemporaries within the Fundamental Baptist circles who by now have become loud and proud calvinists WHILE still pastors of those fundamental churches - which when unchecked, will result to the "conversion" of those churches to reformed theology. Thank you for what you are doing, I have been using your resources and videos as I now myself embark on a LOTUS presentation to the three churches that I'm currently pastoring, and hopefully to others who would like to listen in the future. God bless you!
@@Morethangood. The Augustinian Calvinism doctrines that RC Sproul proclaimed was and is a misrepresentation of the gospel of Christ. The apostles and early church for the first 400 years after the resurrection of Jesus did not believe in, nor preach, such nonsense. But I realize that most are unwilling to even study the early church and thus have just blindly followed Protestant theologians without questioning such things as “good Bereans” should. ☦️🙏🏼🍞🍷
@@Morethangood. DW: The vast majority of Calvinists are going to say Calvinism is the essence of the TRUE gospel. And any deviation from Calvinism is thus going to be a deviation from the TRUE gospel. For example - it is not uncommon for Calvinists to deliberate over whether NON-Calvinists are saved. If a Calvinist does not see a NON-Calvinist as saved - that Calvinist is certainly not going see the NON-Calvinist as having the *SAME* gospel. Calvinists obviously see their gospel as different from others.
Romans 9 should NOT be treated independently from the rest of the chapters, yet there is more books written in just Romans 9 than any other chapter of any book in the Bible. Just reading chapter 9 will lead a person to come up with all sorts of issues I’m convinced that that’s Calvinism
Thanks Leighton. You're one of the major reasons I'm still a Christian. Pls I made a short from one of your videos you should definitely add to your UA-cam shorts. I posted it on Twitter but it seemed you missed it.
A double minded God, who cannot make perfect determinatios, who determined all to go to hell. Then later changed his mind and decided to save some from his original determination.
@@kenbeach5021 Never been a Calvinist. Was heading towards a humanistic interpretation of some verses in the Bible. This would have spiraled into rejecting biblical inerrancy.
@@Vae07It's wrong, really wrong to attempt to paint someone's words in a bad light or ridicule them especially when it comes to matters of salvation. If you think it's funny, know that it's not.
Dr. Flowers, an important addition to your main talking points is that creation was made FOR THE SON (Col 1:16). Why ? Because of the love of the Father for the Son, who will lay down his life for his sheep, and then, after all things have been placed into submission to him, will place everything in submission to the Father.
That's a great point I wish proponents of Divine Simplicity would get. It is Jesus presiding over this creation, not some amorphous BLOB/MEGAMIND, without parts, as they describe Him. And Jesus will reign until the last enemy is put under His feet. At which time He will hand the kingdom over to His Father. (Read Daniel to find out what the Father looks like) Scripture itself has all the answers we need - if we'll just read it.
Calvinism in a nutshell: Far worse than God being the author of all things (and not merely "permitting" in freedom and love - and ultimately identifying with us by the incarnation) but "determining" the fall and everything connected with it, and picking some individuals for glory and not others... is us having the audacity to believe there's such a thing as free will! Go figure?
I hear you take issue with the representation of "non-calvinist", however, I did not hear your explanation of a more accurate representation. For example. You said Sprouls' explanation of corporate election was incorrect, yet I did not hear (I rewound the video to confirm) him use those actual words. Then you did not respond with the more accurate or correct view of corporate election. One could argue that you would be misrepresenting Sprouls simply based on how you approached this video. Even in your contention with his paraphrasing of what you referred to as corporate election I heard no distinction in the spirit of the explanation, only in what you later referred to as vernacular. If someone is misrepresenting your position then you should reiterate your position to prove the distinction, not simple say that he's wrong.
Thou shalt not bear false witness! I'm writing a book on defeating Calvinism using some arguments I have never seen used. I wonder how I'll be misrepresented.
@@RenardGarzaro There you go again, treating your own beliefs as if they were false! You really are a 1-string guitar. If God decreed that the book will be written, it will be written, no matter what you are decreed to try to do or say against it. If God decreed that the book will not be written, it will not be written, no matter what you are decreed to try to do or say against it!
@@RenardGarzaro so does Dr. Flowers and so many other Christians, people just dont take one verse out if its context and claim my position is true. we need to examine its context, culture etc. to get to the context of scripture. claiming "We just read the Bible" is a terrible way to treat brothers in Christ. We need to glorify God by representing him accurately in scripture. if a character or attribute is not in scripture it is not glorifying God even if we think it is.
DW: If you are writing a book on that subject - you might find a small booklet on Amazon of interest. The title of the booklet is: Understanding Calvinism: Examining Calvinism’s Thinking, Behavior, and Language
@@RenardGarzaroIf Calvinism/determinism is true then there is nothing special about the Bible because all books are Exhaustively and Divinely Determined by God. If you read the Bible and think it’s inerrant that’s because God predetermined you to if you don’t that’s because God predetermined you to…..
@@RenardGarzaroIf Calvinism/determinism is true then there is nothing special about the Bible because all books are Exhaustively and Divinely Determined by God. If you read the Bible and think it’s inerrant that’s because God predetermined you to if you don’t that’s because God predetermined you to…..
The heat of this debate is what amazes me. I know the arguments from both sides and usually when I'm asked a question about how to interpret a verse I just ask, "do you believe in free will or not?". Then I'll give them the response and then they ask me, "well what's the other view? and I tell them and then they ask "well what do you believe?". And I'll say "based on what, science or the bible or philosophy or all the above?". Then they are like "huh?". And I'll say "you have to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling but I'll point you to the information, let's not make this a one time conversation because this debate has carried on for nearly 2000 years".
DW: Creaturely freedom (aka freewill) in Calvinism is as follows: 1) Creation is granted FREEDOM to be/do *ONLY* that which has been decreed 2) Creation is NOT granted FREEDOM to be/do *OTHERWISE* Thus - it is decreed that you will perform SIN_X at TIME-T You are NOT FREE to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T Simply because creation is not granted FREEDOM to countervail an infallible decree. And you are not granted CHOICE in the matter - simply because the option to be/do *OTHERWISE* does not exist for you to choose.
Calvinism is relatively easy to get out of... if you can read and understand the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. This will seperate your identity from truth and allow truth to be walked around , examined and pondered without prejudice. The argument is very simple if you avoid the cliché and the false arguments. Calvinism requires God to hate most.... but Love you....with yourself being the proof. Men cannot testify or witness for themselves. Not Calvinism requires God to Love everyone......and you know or prove you are loved by God's love of your neighbor. This is what it means to love your neighbor as yourself. God's love of everyone else is your proof of being loved by God. Calvinism is neighbor hating or a weaponized God.
According the Calvinism's doctrine - it is totally impossible to "get out of it" since the doctrine stipulates - every impulse that comes to pass within every human brain - is 100% meticulously predestined - and no impulse within the human brain is granted existence - except that impulses which are infallibly decreed.
That's right! He's probably the most popular of the Dead Calvinists on Pedestals who was around within the last few years, as opposed to being long gone like Spurgeon or Edwards.
DW: Its hilarious that any Calvinist would object to anything that anyone does Because their doctrine stipulates - every impulse that comes to pass within every human brain - cannot be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be - and man is granted NO SAY and NO CHOICE in the matter. The Calvinist who objects to anything that comes to pass is objecting to what his god decreed! They are totally DOUBLE-MINDED! :-D
If calvinism were true, and we have no free will, the God is throwing people into hell that perfectly followed His will. That is NOT just, nor merciful.
I have learned to not engage with a Calvinist. But this issue of not being able to disagree with the brethren without all kinds of ridiculous assumptions made. I dont belong yo either camp. I prefer to be with Jesus outside the camp 😊
Honestly, I try not to engage with strangers I disagree with no matter what their position is. The only way to win such a discussion online or even people you just met are not to engage. A lot of people are looking for a prideful "win" and not going to listen to facts. I find it best to focus on those that I agree with, and any who seem to be willing to listen and learn...which you are usually not going to find in online arguments.
Jesus' camp is predestinate to sonship. Epehesians 1:5 says so. I mean the verse literally reads that we are predestined TO adoption AS SONS(not the redemption of our bodies) BY JESUS CHRIST, not by our faith, but BY Jesus Christ, according to His will(not our will). But provisionist will still tell you that predestination starts after believing. Truth is right there in front of your eyeballs 👀 Ephesians 1:5 NKJV [5] having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
@@JesusIsLord777-lz7mg DW: The critical differentiation is CHOICE In Calvinism - humans are not granted CHOICE in the matter of anything for two reasons 1) An infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees. Thus ALTERNATIVES do not exist for humans to choose 2) Even if ALTERNATIVES did exist for humans to choose (which is impossible) humans are not granted any CONTROL over any impulse that will come to pass within their brains. Thus the CONTROL necessary for that human brain to make a CHOICE does nit exist.
@@JesusIsLord777-lz7mg DW: Every Christian acknowledges there are certain things which are out of human control - having been divinely determined. The day of your birth. The color of your eyes etc. Calvinism - however takes Determinism to the extreme. Every impulse that will come to pass within your brain - is determined by antecedent factors (infallible decree) totally outside of your brain's control. Thus in Calvinism - you have NO SAY and NO CONTROL over any impulse that will come to pass within your brain. And since NO ALTERNATIVE exists from that which is decreed - it follows - ALTERNATIVES do not exist for you to choose. And those two facts alone - are sufficient to establish - in Calvinism - per the doctrine - humans are not granted CHOICE in the matter of anything.
Exactly! It's named after a lifelong Calvinist and is the moderate wing of Calvinism, which was disowned by the extremist ("TULIP") wing at the Synod of Dort when they doubled down on the teachings Arminius was trying to reform out of the movement.
On the number 3 excuse, on Calvinism, the foreknowledge of the sovereign Calvinist potter Baal God does not look down the corridors of time, no, his foreknowledge is solely based upon the fact that he is the planner, author, ordainer, decreer and predestiner, i.e. the *CAUSER* of, the circumstances, thoughts, beliefs and actions of men.
Dr Flowers, you have my book Jacob and Esau Two nations and the Inheritance. I believe strongly that the corporate election view is incorrect so I present in the book what I believe to be the correct view. Please read the book and I guarantee you will want to have me on afterwards
DW: The foundational core of Calvinism ( and thus what R.C. Sproul believed) is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvinism's doctrine of decrees. John Calvin -quote The creatures...are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3) A primary problem for Calvinism is the degree to which it is a doctrine of divine malevolence towards mankind.. All Calvinist teachers - including R.C. Sproul are forced to *OBFUSCATE* this aspect of the doctrine - in order to prevent people from rejecting it. That is why the typical NON-Calvinist can say they enjoyed Sproul's teachings - while also saying they don't exactly know what he believes. If Sproul were to TELL THE TRUTH about the doctrine - the average Christian would have the opposite reaction.
DW: The problem with Chris - is that his arguments don't tend to hold water. For example - he has argued against the use of the word "CAUSE" in reference to decrees being the CAUSE of whatsoever comes to pass. Calvin himself - consistently argues the opposite. So Chris ends up arguing against what he claims to represent. This tells us - his arguments are not very well thought out. There is a difference between a LOGICAL argument vs a SEMANTIC argument. A LOGICAL argument - would be like the following 2x3 = 6 therefore it follows 6 / 3 = 2 A SEMANTIC argument - would be like the following I (biological man) say I am a female - therefore I am a woman. Chris's arguments tend to be SEMANTIC in form.
@@abuelbbefore the foundation he predestined those IN CHRIST to be conformed to His image. It isnt arbitrary, and it is not predestination to SALVATION it is predestination of those WHO ARE SAVED to be like Jesus. READ THE PASSAGE.
I would go to Archbishop Dmitri Royster's Pastoral Letters on Romans if I wanted to hash through Romans 9 again. He parses through all of the arcane tenses in the original in order to get to the Truth.,
sharing Highlighted reply @roguecalvinist 4 hours ago (edited) I'm good with you having conversations here Don but you're not allowed to just lie. You're a regular commenter and you've shown yourself willing to lie and sow discord. It stops now or I remove you like your friends. Ask questions to whoever you want, lie again or insult anyone - I'm on a banning spree again
I'm glad Leighton is discussing the "corridors of time" matter, because it is nonsensical to me, on total Predestination in particular. Because God would "see" what He Himself Predestined to happen, of course, on total Predestination. And I suggest there is a logical reason God favored Jacob over Esau that has nothing to do with peering into the future, but simply with Him being able to peer into the present in ways that are made perfectly clear throughout the Book. I'm not saying it must be why He favored one over the other, I am just a fallible human after all, but I'm simply pointing out that this would explain His favoritism. Esau might not have been "of the seed" of Isaac. And God would have surely known that if true.
@@frederickanderson1860 - "we are created finite creatures we expect God to be same." I suggest you (and whoever else is in the "we" you spoke of), snap out of it! .... ; ) But seriously, He provided us with a rather lengthy "communication", which He clearly intended for us non-infinites to consider carefully, it seems to me finite me, so one presumes He took into account our predicament. So, I suggest that Book IS at least potentially comprehendible to us finite ones . .
@@johnknight3529 imagination is our inbuilt reaction to a God we can't see or read in the bible that fires it more. Read any books and our imagination is stirred especially with the characters in fictional genres.
@@frederickanderson1860 - I suggest you are including such things, in a more or less fanciful manner, since we have no way of knowing how such things might have influenced a set of writings produced by humans on their own. I have no such "option" available to me, because once upon a time (most of the way through my now long life) I asked a God I didn't believe existed (then being what we used to call a strong agnostic) to "alleviate my ignorance if that is your will". And to my utter amazement, He did. And He did so by way of a great many remarkable "coincidences", all of which were obviously related in some way to a certain Book. So my belief in God is tied directly to the Book (Bible). One could say they came together, and I am not at liberty to separate them.
DW: I wonder what is meant by "Low" in this regard? If one defines a "High" Calvinist as a Calvinist whose conscience will not allow him to mislead Calvinists with the DOUBLE-SPEAK which is prevalent within many Calvinist teachers - then R.C. could not be identified as a "High" Calvinist. R.C. For example - argued quite a bit for "Assurance" of salvation for the Calvinist His arguments were highly reliant upon playing shell games with words designed to create a *FACADE* of "Assurance" What he obfuscated is the fact that the doctrine stipulates - a large percentage of believers are created to be CHAFF believers given a FALSE ASSURANCE.
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi DW: Yes that is correct. A person who reads tea leaves - looks into the tea-cup - looking for *INDICATORS* of one's destiny. If a Calvinist is plagued with feelings of impending doom or dread or doubt - these are treated as *INDICATORS* of one's eternal destiny. Psychologists tell us UNCERTAINTY and DREAD and ANGUISH are internally experienced as a form of pain Pain avoidance then becomes a natural response for the Calvinist dealing with UNCERTAINTY. WORKS then function as a kind of anesthetic because they facilitate fighting off DREAD and also provide an artificial form of ASSURANCE
@dw6528 hello brother, it just seems to me that many of the calvinists who are regarded as not high calvinists prove themselves to be actually quite high calvinists when pressed enough n RC seemed to be one of them in my humble opinion. GOD bless
The fact that Leighton @1:42 said Sproul is an infralapsarian, and thus a low Calvinist, PROVES he has no idea what Calvinism is really about. Infralapsarianism is the majority position among the Reformed, which would be to say that a majority of Calvinists are low Calvinists... SMH
"Peering through the corridors of time" is a charicature of "Before Abraham was, I AM". There is absolutely *nothing* wrong with thinking that God's simple foreknowledge is something He employs to coordinate the things He will do in the lives of creatures with free will, based on that knowledge. Look at Jacob and Esau: whether talking about God preferring ("hated") nations represented by those men, or the actual babies by those names, either God "loved" and "hated" on the basis of knowing what they (nations or babies) would do, or else He decided to hate one and love the other arbitrarily, and made one loveable to Himself and the other hateable. The only other option is neither predestination nor foreknowledge, which is kind of hard to imagine, especially when He both has the foreknowledge, just sitting around, ready to be used, to observe, through actually being in the past, present, and future.(no dusty, old, "weak", dimly-lit "corridors" necessary), and the ability to predestinate anything He wishes, although, in the future, in His written word, He will often disavow being responsible for various sins of His people; He says that God is light, and there's no darkness in Him; and He says He tempts no one. And that He cannot lie. If I believe Him about those things He says about Himself in His word, why would I be so humiliated to believe that God really does use His foreknowledge for something besides prophecy (but that, too!) ?? You know: "Elect, according to the foreknowledge of God" ( Peter : ) ?? 1 Peter 1:2 KJV - *Elect according to the foreknowledge of God* the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
1 Peter 1:2 KJV - *Elect according to the foreknowledge of God* the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
And then... that fact that he calls RC Sprout one of Calvinism's "leading scholars" shows his shallow engagement w/ Calvinism. How about Tom Schreiner, Stephen Wellum, DA Carson, Michael Horton...I could go on and on. RC Sprout is great, but he was more of a popularizer than a scholar.
Whack a mole. He could critique direct citations of those folk and you, or some other ideologue, will complain that he didn't comment on Pink or Piper or some other false teacher.
Two things. 1. Does the end justify the means? Why not have a church that represents itself as being open to all religions and spirituality to get them in the door and then try to corral them to Jesus? What would it matter to God if He is misrepresented 90% of the time if only 10% of truth is needed to save them? 2. Why is it two missionary organizations that have missionaries to the same part part of the world and culturally similar, with differerent budgets and number of missionaries have nonlinear results? In other words, 2 missionaries working with $10,000 could have more converts per capita than 100 missionaries with a $100,000. Why is that? If I share the gospel the same way every time to 100 people and get 20 converts, then statistically there should be 40 converts for 200 people if God is hands off. Why is this not the case?
Sounds like you're being called to have an outreach to these people. I learned in church a looonng time ago, never make a ministry suggestion that you yourself aren't willing to start.
DW: Calvinism does not define "Grace" the way NORMAL people do The doctrine specifically stipulates: 1) The vast majority of individuals within the human population - are specifically created 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) 2) The doctrine also stipulates - a large percentage of believers are also created specifically for the lake of fire. These are called CHAFF believers - whom Calvin's god deceives - giving them a FALSE SENSE of salvation. John Calvin -quote But the Lord....instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11) -quote He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he....strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8) Since creating people and believers for eternal torment is a CRITICAL part of the doctrine - it follows - creating people and believers for eternal torment is a CRITICAL part of the Calvinist definition for 'Grace"
How do you know? How do you know it isn't your depraved mind telling you this? There is ZERO assurance in Calvinism. Just an, "I hope so.', right up until the day you cross over. But then it'll be to late - if you're wrong. Here's an idea. What if Jean Cauvin were a Totally Depraved reprobate? He was a bloodthirsty monster, you know? How would you, a lost sinner know the difference?
I've always wanted to ask a Calvinist this, and I'm genuinely curious, so please don't think I'm coming off as argumentative: How is your view a doctrine of grace?
@@exag0ra DW: That is an excellent question! I am not a Calvinist - but I can tell you - Calvinists do not rely on LOGICAL answers. Calvinists rely on SEMANTIC declarations - which for them function as answers. A LOGICAL statement would be: 2x3=6 therefore it follows 6/3=2 A SEMANTIC statement would be: I say I am female - therefore I am a woman. Part of the Calvinist practice is to take terms like "GRACE" and create their own AD-HOC definitions for those terms. So in Calvinism - a CRITICAL PART of the doctrine stipulates - creating the vast majority of individuals - specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire So this becomes a CRITICAL PART of the Calvinist definition for "Grace" And creating the large percentage of believers as CHAFF believers - divinely deceiving them with a FALSE SENSE of salvation - is also a CRITICAL PART of the doctrine - which make it also a CRITICAL PART of the Calvinist definition of "Grace"
I don't understand why people have a problem with a Creator who knows everything, which is why He can tell us the end from the beginning. We think too highly of ourselves and too lowly of God.
Which people are you speaking of , concerning not accepting a GOD WHO knows all my friend ? Knowing n predetermining are two completely different things.
I heed scripture above philosophy based on a premise of God's body of knowledge. He declares the end from the beginning. In between? He tells Abraham "Now I know that thou fearest God." I don't reword that to "I always knew."
DW: All Christian theologies hold to a Creator who knows everything. Its called divine omniscience. Where NON-Calvinist theologies disagree with Calvinism - is with the fact that Calvin's doctrine stipulates everything that comes to pass - including every sinful evil impulse in the human brain - is AUTHORED at the foundation of the world.
@@OneHighwayWalker DW: It is sophomoric to simply call it John Calvin's opinion. It is in fact what is stipulated within Calvinism as a theology (Reformed theology) And it is what the Calvinist (Reformed theology) reads within scripture. The fact that others do not see it within scripture - is the reason why Calvinism (Reformed theology) has perennially been so highly controversial. Take CHOICE for example. It is humanly impossible for a you to CHOOSE something which does not exist for you to CHOOSE. In Calvinism - *EVERYTHING* is pre-determined before humans are created by an infallible decree. And that infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees. Humans are not granted a CHOICE in the matter of anything - simply because NO ALTERNATIVE exists for them to CHOOSE. So in Calvinism - Adam did not have a CHOICE between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT] did not exist for him to CHOOSE. And NO ALTERNATIVE impulse was granted existence within his brain.
@@abuelb It can help to go back to Exodus and read through the chapter to get a better idea of what Paul is refering to here. The pharaoh keeps hardening his own heart against God, even when his priests are totally overwhelmed and admit it is Yahweh doing it. At that point there is no going back for pharaoh, so God then starts to harden pharaoh's heart and he says why he is doing it (which is what Paul is talking about in Romans). The end result is Israel is set free and many others abandoned their old gods too, as they were shown to be completely inept against the one true God. 1 Samuel is a good book to study, to look at human free will in relation to God's plan for us. God tells King Saul after he disobeyed God, that if Saul had obeyed, that the messiah (Jesus) would have been born into his family. But now King David would be getting that honnor. So God plans for the best case scenario, where we obey everything he tells us to do. But also takes account of our failures, the times we don't listen. Of course for those in Christ, he works everything for the good of those that love him, even the bad.
@@abuelb Concerning the potter and his vessels in Romans 9:21-24 The judicially hardened Israelite, complaining of the unfairness of being set aside after all the O.T. promises, would no doubt be familiar with the potter/clay analogy of Jer 18. But in that passage which compares disobedient Israel to a marred vessel unto dishonor, the nation is told that by repenting and getting right with God they could then restore them and treat them as the potter treats a vessel unto honor. Also in 2 Tim 2:20, 21 we read of those once faithful men (verse 2) who now have gotten off track and have become vessels unto dishonor. The solution, repent so as to get right with God and be restored as a vessel unto honor. "If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour..." is the Scriptural remedy when, if one makes himself to be a vessel of dishonor by his own bad choice. Also, in Romans 9:22, even Calvinists like MacArthur own up to the use of the middle voice in "fitted to destruction" means they fitted themselves, there's personal responsibility involved. Also, as is the case with the previous verse, this Scripture uses a question and not indicative statements. The question begins with, "What if...?" One should be careful before making a doctrine based on a "What if...?" What if my investments yielded at 35,000% return? I would then purchase a villa on Lake Como. But here I am. But any citation of Romans 9 should not ignore the context of the opening verses: The context at the start of Romans 9 is Israel, the nation corporately. Paul is heartbroken about his fellow countrymen outside of Christ, Israelites of whom God is not interested in saving were Calvinism true. This makes Paul more compassionate than the Calvinistic caricature of God, calvigod. In fact, calvigod is less compassionate than I and it can be proved mathematically! This is a problem for the Calvinistic ideologue.
DW: Calvin's god creates the vast majority of individuals within the total human population - specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire - for his good pleasure. And he also creates a large percentage of believers for that end also. These are called CHAFF believers - whom he deceives - giving them a FALSE SENSE of salvation. John Calvin -quote But the Lord....instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11) -quote He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he....strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
Dr. Flowers, have you done this same kind of video but from the other side? Popular ways Non-Calvinists misrepresent Calvinists? If not, you should really consider doing that.
DW: That would be a much more difficult task - because Calvinism is a system which does not want to be correctly understood. For example - when one quotes John Calvin - or historic Calvinists - or academic Calvinists - many Calvinists today will claim those quotes misrepresent Calvinism. Many Calvinists today - have an ARMINIANIZED form of Calvinism. There are dark aspects of the doctrine - which if they were taught to the average Calvinist congregation - a large percentage of that congregation would leave - with a handful of die-hard Calvinists remaining. Calvinist teachers/ministers today - have to present a "Sugar Coated" version of the doctrine.
@@dw6528 maybe. But there are misrepresentations that are popular that span all "flavors" of calvinism. For example: "it makes humans robots", and "it makes God the author of sin". Both have been answered through the broader reformed Confessions and writings (which, granted, many calvinists and Non-Calvinists are poorly read on).
@@jordanrouden6440 DW: On the "robot" analogy. No analogy is 100% What one looks for - in the case of the "Robot" analagy - is the following facts: 1) The robot has a CPU Similarly the Calvinist has a brain 2) Within the robot's CPU - every impulse that comes to pass is predetermined by a program Similarly every impulse within the Calvinist's brain is predetermined by a program. Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin -quote "God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives and actions"(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4) And the "AUTHOR" of sin issue - the doctrine stipulates 1) Every sin that comes to pass - is FIRST CONCEIVED in the mind of Calvin's god - and *MADE* to infallibly come to pass. John Calvin -quote It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them [sins and evils], when scripture shows Him not only willing but the *AUTHOR* of them. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (pg 176) Calvinists try to evade these aspects of the doctrine by the use of SEMANTIC arguments. An example of a SEMANTIC argument would be "I identify as a woman - therefore I am female". "I SAY I am a woman - therefore I qualify for women's sports"
@jordanrouden6440 But see, the Calvinism that is taught includes both God as the author of sin, and a life for the saved which has an elect who can do and think only what they have been pre-programmed to do and think, hence they portray it as robot-like.
@@lindajohnson4204 see, that's what I'm talking about. This isn't true, and a cursory read of the major reformed confessions would demonstrate that. Each reformed confession that touches on this topic is VERY clear that God is not the author of sin. Case in point: WCF 3.1, Belgic Confession Article 13, LBCF 3.1.
Wow Dr. Flowers great reminder of who's misrepresenting and slandering whom. All I kept thinking was that there was a time you followed and admired Sproul unconditionally. Being cleansed of Calvinism and its adherents is so freeing. Many are exhaling and knowing the love of God for all who believe and not just the select elect thanks to you and others. Good work sir.
Gods love was apparent in the days of Noah,it repented God that he made man. Yet he gave 120 yrs of warnings,so God is just he fulfilled his honour of divine judgement.
I have a joke about Calvinism...
But it's not for everybody.
bada boom!
Must be only for elected !
😂
Nice.
@@RenardGarzaro looks like you've been doing a lot of monitoring of this fellow's life and observed a lot of Calvin there and not so much Jesus
Misrepresenting the opposition is the KEY to keeping your fallacies afloat.
@@RenardGarzaro DW: The irony about the subject of opposition to Calvinism is - since *NOTHING* can happen unless Calvin's god decrees it - any opposition to Calvinism represents the *CONTENT* of the decree. So any Calvinist criticism of any opposition equates to criticizing that which Calvin's god has decreed. So when the Calvinist says "who are you oh man to criticize god" he is talking to himself - looking in a mirror! :-]
:) Aye. They hate the sovereignty of God in salvation... until grace changes that disposition of their wills and blindness... May they humble themselves and may God grant them genuine repentance and humility!
@@koraegis DW: In Calvinism - the only way a "HATE" Impulse - or a "Humble" impulse can come to pass within a human brain - is if Calvin's god decrees that impulse
And an infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
Thus NO ALTERNATIVE impulse is granted existence within the brain - from that impulse which was decreed.
John Calvin explains
-quote
The creatures...are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
Man is granted NO CHOICE in the matter - simply because NO ALTERNATIVE exists to choose.
@@koraegis DW: In Calvinism - the creature is not granted any SAY in the matter of what has been infallibly decreed it will be or do at any nano-second in time.
The doctrine of decrees stipulates *NOTHING* can come to pass within creation - unless it is decreed.
Thus the only impulses granted existence within the human brain - are impulses which have been decreed to infallibly exist within that brain.
And man is granted NO SAY in the matter.
Misrepresentation, as decreed by god?
Hello from the Philippines, Dr. Flowers! I would like you to know how great a blessing you are, along with everyone over at Soteriology 101 for me and for those who continually uphold to the doctrine of Free Grace. I agree with you that the main problem we encounter is the lack for both resources and teachers/preachers that support our view, compared to the numerous and should i say popular proponents of Calvinism. I am saddened by the "conversion" of many of my contemporaries within the Fundamental Baptist circles who by now have become loud and proud calvinists WHILE still pastors of those fundamental churches - which when unchecked, will result to the "conversion" of those churches to reformed theology. Thank you for what you are doing, I have been using your resources and videos as I now myself embark on a LOTUS presentation to the three churches that I'm currently pastoring, and hopefully to others who would like to listen in the future. God bless you!
Would love to see you do a conference in the Philippines Dr. Flowers :)
It's like he said, they can't call me out for making a strawman argument, if I make 3 strawman arguments.
Blessings to your work from Finland.
RC Sproul gets an “F” in the “What is the gospel of Christ 101?” class.
Sproul starts with a defective Christology as evidenced by his doctrinal disregard of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
Wow. That's not even remotely close to what Dr. Flowers said.
I think this is wrong brother :(
@@Morethangood.
The Augustinian Calvinism doctrines that RC Sproul proclaimed was and is a misrepresentation of the gospel of Christ. The apostles and early church for the first 400 years after the resurrection of Jesus did not believe in, nor preach, such nonsense. But I realize that most are unwilling to even study the early church and thus have just blindly followed Protestant theologians without questioning such things as “good Bereans” should. ☦️🙏🏼🍞🍷
@@Morethangood. DW: The vast majority of Calvinists are going to say Calvinism is the essence of the TRUE gospel. And any deviation from Calvinism is thus going to be a deviation from the TRUE gospel.
For example - it is not uncommon for Calvinists to deliberate over whether NON-Calvinists are saved.
If a Calvinist does not see a NON-Calvinist as saved - that Calvinist is certainly not going see the NON-Calvinist as having the *SAME* gospel.
Calvinists obviously see their gospel as different from others.
Romans 9 should NOT be treated independently from the rest of the chapters, yet there is more books written in just Romans 9 than any other chapter of any book in the Bible. Just reading chapter 9 will lead a person to come up with all sorts of issues I’m convinced that that’s Calvinism
Thanks Leighton. You're one of the major reasons I'm still a Christian.
Pls I made a short from one of your videos you should definitely add to your UA-cam shorts. I posted it on Twitter but it seemed you missed it.
Would I be right in thinking that Calvinism in some way robbed you of a God who is loving, kind and gracious - the latter being particularly ironic?
A double minded God, who cannot make perfect determinatios, who determined all to go to hell. Then later changed his mind and decided to save some from his original determination.
@@kenbeach5021
Never been a Calvinist. Was heading towards a humanistic interpretation of some verses in the Bible.
This would have spiraled into rejecting biblical inerrancy.
So Leighton keeps you a believing Christian?😂
@@Vae07It's wrong, really wrong to attempt to paint someone's words in a bad light or ridicule them especially when it comes to matters of salvation. If you think it's funny, know that it's not.
Dr. Flowers, an important addition to your main talking points is that creation was made FOR THE SON (Col 1:16). Why ? Because of the love of the Father for the Son, who will lay down his life for his sheep, and then, after all things have been placed into submission to him, will place everything in submission to the Father.
That's a great point I wish proponents of Divine Simplicity would get.
It is Jesus presiding over this creation, not some amorphous BLOB/MEGAMIND, without parts, as they describe Him.
And Jesus will reign until the last enemy is put under His feet. At which time He will hand the kingdom over to His Father. (Read Daniel to find out what the Father looks like)
Scripture itself has all the answers we need - if we'll just read it.
Calvinism in a nutshell:
Far worse than God being the author of all things (and not merely "permitting" in freedom and love - and ultimately identifying with us by the incarnation) but "determining" the fall and everything connected with it, and picking some individuals for glory and not others...
is us having the audacity to believe there's such a thing as free will!
Go figure?
I hear you take issue with the representation of "non-calvinist", however, I did not hear your explanation of a more accurate representation. For example. You said Sprouls' explanation of corporate election was incorrect, yet I did not hear (I rewound the video to confirm) him use those actual words. Then you did not respond with the more accurate or correct view of corporate election. One could argue that you would be misrepresenting Sprouls simply based on how you approached this video. Even in your contention with his paraphrasing of what you referred to as corporate election I heard no distinction in the spirit of the explanation, only in what you later referred to as vernacular. If someone is misrepresenting your position then you should reiterate your position to prove the distinction, not simple say that he's wrong.
Thou shalt not bear false witness!
I'm writing a book on defeating Calvinism using some arguments I have never seen used. I wonder how I'll be misrepresented.
@@RenardGarzaro There you go again, treating your own beliefs as if they were false! You really are a 1-string guitar. If God decreed that the book will be written, it will be written, no matter what you are decreed to try to do or say against it. If God decreed that the book will not be written, it will not be written, no matter what you are decreed to try to do or say against it!
@@RenardGarzaro so does Dr. Flowers and so many other Christians, people just dont take one verse out if its context and claim my position is true. we need to examine its context, culture etc. to get to the context of scripture.
claiming "We just read the Bible" is a terrible way to treat brothers in Christ. We need to glorify God by representing him accurately in scripture. if a character or attribute is not in scripture it is not glorifying God even if we think it is.
DW: If you are writing a book on that subject - you might find a small booklet on Amazon of interest.
The title of the booklet is: Understanding Calvinism: Examining Calvinism’s Thinking, Behavior, and Language
@@RenardGarzaroIf Calvinism/determinism is true then there is nothing special about the Bible because all books are Exhaustively and Divinely Determined by God. If you read the Bible and think it’s inerrant that’s because God predetermined you to if you don’t that’s because God predetermined you to…..
@@RenardGarzaroIf Calvinism/determinism is true then there is nothing special about the Bible because all books are Exhaustively and Divinely Determined by God. If you read the Bible and think it’s inerrant that’s because God predetermined you to if you don’t that’s because God predetermined you to…..
The heat of this debate is what amazes me. I know the arguments from both sides and usually when I'm asked a question about how to interpret a verse I just ask, "do you believe in free will or not?". Then I'll give them the response and then they ask me, "well what's the other view? and I tell them and then they ask "well what do you believe?". And I'll say "based on what, science or the bible or philosophy or all the above?". Then they are like "huh?". And I'll say "you have to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling but I'll point you to the information, let's not make this a one time conversation because this debate has carried on for nearly 2000 years".
Only idiots deny free will. You have to deny the Bible to deny free will.
DW: Creaturely freedom (aka freewill) in Calvinism is as follows:
1) Creation is granted FREEDOM to be/do *ONLY* that which has been decreed
2) Creation is NOT granted FREEDOM to be/do *OTHERWISE*
Thus - it is decreed that you will perform SIN_X at TIME-T
You are NOT FREE to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T
Simply because creation is not granted FREEDOM to countervail an infallible decree.
And you are not granted CHOICE in the matter - simply because the option to be/do *OTHERWISE* does not exist for you to choose.
Calvin was born in 1509, so not nearly 2000 years.
@@OneHighwayWalker It didn't start with Calvin
@@James-g3w7w Then with whom? And why credit Calvin?
Calvinism is relatively easy to get out of... if you can read and understand the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. This will seperate your identity from truth and allow truth to be walked around , examined and pondered without prejudice.
The argument is very simple if you avoid the cliché and the false arguments.
Calvinism requires God to hate most.... but Love you....with yourself being the proof. Men cannot testify or witness for themselves.
Not Calvinism requires God to Love everyone......and you know or prove you are loved by God's love of your neighbor.
This is what it means to love your neighbor as yourself.
God's love of everyone else is your proof of being loved by God.
Calvinism is neighbor hating or a weaponized God.
According the Calvinism's doctrine - it is totally impossible to "get out of it" since the doctrine stipulates - every impulse that comes to pass within every human brain - is 100% meticulously predestined - and no impulse within the human brain is granted existence - except that impulses which are infallibly decreed.
If Calvinists can even misrepresent God, who are you, O man, to be not misrepresented?! 🤦♂️
How do you respond to the charge that Arminianism, or perhaps any non-Calvinist soteriology is either Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism?
You’re gonna get in trouble, Sproul is one of the Calvinist’s idols.
That's right! He's probably the most popular of the Dead Calvinists on Pedestals who was around within the last few years, as opposed to being long gone like Spurgeon or Edwards.
DW: Its hilarious that any Calvinist would object to anything that anyone does
Because their doctrine stipulates - every impulse that comes to pass within every human brain - cannot be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be - and man is granted NO SAY and NO CHOICE in the matter.
The Calvinist who objects to anything that comes to pass is objecting to what his god decreed!
They are totally DOUBLE-MINDED! :-D
If calvinism were true, and we have no free will, the God is throwing people into hell that perfectly followed His will.
That is NOT just, nor merciful.
a nation is chosen for a purpose. a person for individual salvation. but individuals have the right to not accept it.
That is not an accurate representation of either the Gospel or Calvinism.
@@jasonweaver8492 really?
@@jasonweaver8492 it is.
I have learned to not engage with a Calvinist. But this issue of not being able to disagree with the brethren without all kinds of ridiculous assumptions made. I dont belong yo either camp. I prefer to be with Jesus outside the camp 😊
Honestly, I try not to engage with strangers I disagree with no matter what their position is. The only way to win such a discussion online or even people you just met are not to engage. A lot of people are looking for a prideful "win" and not going to listen to facts. I find it best to focus on those that I agree with, and any who seem to be willing to listen and learn...which you are usually not going to find in online arguments.
@@colmortimer1066 (and rhavenltnn), So, why are you here, and commenting?
Jesus' camp is predestinate to sonship. Epehesians 1:5 says so. I mean the verse literally reads that we are predestined TO adoption AS SONS(not the redemption of our bodies) BY JESUS CHRIST, not by our faith, but BY Jesus Christ, according to His will(not our will).
But provisionist will still tell you that predestination starts after believing.
Truth is right there in front of your eyeballs 👀
Ephesians 1:5 NKJV
[5] having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,
@@JesusIsLord777-lz7mg DW: The critical differentiation is CHOICE
In Calvinism - humans are not granted CHOICE in the matter of anything for two reasons
1) An infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
Thus ALTERNATIVES do not exist for humans to choose
2) Even if ALTERNATIVES did exist for humans to choose (which is impossible) humans are not granted any CONTROL over any impulse that will come to pass within their brains. Thus the CONTROL necessary for that human brain to make a CHOICE does nit exist.
@@JesusIsLord777-lz7mg DW: Every Christian acknowledges there are certain things which are out of human control - having been divinely determined.
The day of your birth. The color of your eyes etc.
Calvinism - however takes Determinism to the extreme.
Every impulse that will come to pass within your brain - is determined by antecedent factors (infallible decree) totally outside of your brain's control.
Thus in Calvinism - you have NO SAY and NO CONTROL over any impulse that will come to pass within your brain.
And since NO ALTERNATIVE exists from that which is decreed - it follows - ALTERNATIVES do not exist for you to choose.
And those two facts alone - are sufficient to establish - in Calvinism - per the doctrine - humans are not granted CHOICE in the matter of anything.
But Arminianism IS Calvinism….
Exactly! It's named after a lifelong Calvinist and is the moderate wing of Calvinism, which was disowned by the extremist ("TULIP") wing at the Synod of Dort when they doubled down on the teachings Arminius was trying to reform out of the movement.
@@DamonNomad82 Arminius: "Nah bro, you gone too far with it. You can miss me with dat." 😁
On the number 3 excuse, on Calvinism, the foreknowledge of the sovereign Calvinist potter Baal God does not look down the corridors of time, no, his foreknowledge is solely based upon the fact that he is the planner, author, ordainer, decreer and predestiner, i.e. the *CAUSER* of, the circumstances, thoughts, beliefs and actions of men.
The way it shakes out logically is "foreCAUSAGE."
@@AndrewKeifer --- lol! Right, all hail, or is it, ah Hell, the sovereign no free-will foreCAUSER Calvinist potter of “Totally Depraved” men Baal God.
Exactly and this is how calvinism corruptly portrays GOD and HIS righteousness.
@@AndrewKeifer DW: ForeCAUSAGE Would that be a kind of divine sausage?? :-D
@@dw6528 maybe a cross between focacia and sausage? 😀
Dr Flowers, you have my book Jacob and Esau Two nations and the Inheritance. I believe strongly that the corporate election view is incorrect so I present in the book what I believe to be the correct view. Please read the book and I guarantee you will want to have me on afterwards
I really enjoyed the teachings of R C Sproul but I didn’t fully understand all that he believed.
DW: The foundational core of Calvinism ( and thus what R.C. Sproul believed) is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvinism's doctrine of decrees.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures...are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
A primary problem for Calvinism is the degree to which it is a doctrine of divine malevolence towards mankind..
All Calvinist teachers - including R.C. Sproul are forced to *OBFUSCATE* this aspect of the doctrine - in order to prevent people from rejecting it. That is why the typical NON-Calvinist can say they enjoyed Sproul's teachings - while also saying they don't exactly know what he believes.
If Sproul were to TELL THE TRUTH about the doctrine - the average Christian would have the opposite reaction.
"CREDENTIALS" ....REALLY BRO? I DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT TO SAY!
Leighton, you should take a look at Chris Date's recent debate review for your debate with James White.
DW: The problem with Chris - is that his arguments don't tend to hold water. For example - he has argued against the use of the word "CAUSE" in reference to decrees being the CAUSE of whatsoever comes to pass.
Calvin himself - consistently argues the opposite. So Chris ends up arguing against what he claims to represent.
This tells us - his arguments are not very well thought out.
There is a difference between a LOGICAL argument vs a SEMANTIC argument.
A LOGICAL argument - would be like the following
2x3 = 6 therefore it follows 6 / 3 = 2
A SEMANTIC argument - would be like the following
I (biological man) say I am a female - therefore I am a woman.
Chris's arguments tend to be SEMANTIC in form.
@@dw6528That’s a fact. It’s all sophistry and word games with Date when it comes to determinism.
Comment for the algorithm...
he chooses those who seek him.
@@abuelbbefore the foundation he predestined those IN CHRIST to be conformed to His image. It isnt arbitrary, and it is not predestination to SALVATION it is predestination of those WHO ARE SAVED to be like Jesus.
READ THE PASSAGE.
Psalm 27:8 KJV - When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek.
@@lindajohnson4204 yes.
I would go to Archbishop Dmitri Royster's Pastoral Letters on Romans if I wanted to hash through Romans 9 again. He parses through all of the arcane tenses in the original in order to get to the Truth.,
sharing
Highlighted reply
@roguecalvinist
4 hours ago (edited)
I'm good with you having conversations here Don but you're not allowed to just lie. You're a regular commenter and you've shown yourself willing to lie and sow discord. It stops now or I remove you like your friends. Ask questions to whoever you want, lie again or insult anyone - I'm on a banning spree again
Color me NOT surprised! Rogue Calvinist is a raging ideologue with an apparently terminal case of Pharisee-itis.
I'm glad Leighton is discussing the "corridors of time" matter, because it is nonsensical to me, on total Predestination in particular. Because God would "see" what He Himself Predestined to happen, of course, on total Predestination.
And I suggest there is a logical reason God favored Jacob over Esau that has nothing to do with peering into the future, but simply with Him being able to peer into the present in ways that are made perfectly clear throughout the Book. I'm not saying it must be why He favored one over the other, I am just a fallible human after all, but I'm simply pointing out that this would explain His favoritism.
Esau might not have been "of the seed" of Isaac. And God would have surely known that if true.
1:20 we are created finite creatures we expect God to be same.his ways dont conform to our preconceived ideas.
@@frederickanderson1860 - "we are created finite creatures we expect God to be same."
I suggest you (and whoever else is in the "we" you spoke of), snap out of it! .... ; )
But seriously, He provided us with a rather lengthy "communication", which He clearly intended for us non-infinites to consider carefully, it seems to me finite me, so one presumes He took into account our predicament.
So, I suggest that Book IS at least potentially comprehendible to us finite ones . .
@@johnknight3529 imagination is our inbuilt reaction to a God we can't see or read in the bible that fires it more. Read any books and our imagination is stirred especially with the characters in fictional genres.
You omit the cultural and historical background of scripture and the other beliefs that we're around at the time
@@frederickanderson1860 - I suggest you are including such things, in a more or less fanciful manner, since we have no way of knowing how such things might have influenced a set of writings produced by humans on their own.
I have no such "option" available to me, because once upon a time (most of the way through my now long life) I asked a God I didn't believe existed (then being what we used to call a strong agnostic) to "alleviate my ignorance if that is your will". And to my utter amazement, He did. And He did so by way of a great many remarkable "coincidences", all of which were obviously related in some way to a certain Book.
So my belief in God is tied directly to the Book (Bible). One could say they came together, and I am not at liberty to separate them.
R.C. was not a low calvinist and to claim he was is ridiculous brother Leighton.
DW: I wonder what is meant by "Low" in this regard?
If one defines a "High" Calvinist as a Calvinist whose conscience will not allow him to mislead Calvinists with the DOUBLE-SPEAK which is prevalent within many Calvinist teachers - then R.C. could not be identified as a "High" Calvinist.
R.C. For example - argued quite a bit for "Assurance" of salvation for the Calvinist
His arguments were highly reliant upon playing shell games with words designed to create a *FACADE* of "Assurance"
What he obfuscated is the fact that the doctrine stipulates - a large percentage of believers are created to be CHAFF believers given a FALSE ASSURANCE.
Before he died he said he didn't know if he had enough good works proving him saved.
Ooh-BOY😮
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi DW: Yes that is correct.
A person who reads tea leaves - looks into the tea-cup - looking for *INDICATORS* of one's destiny.
If a Calvinist is plagued with feelings of impending doom or dread or doubt - these are treated as *INDICATORS* of one's eternal destiny.
Psychologists tell us UNCERTAINTY and DREAD and ANGUISH are internally experienced as a form of pain
Pain avoidance then becomes a natural response for the Calvinist dealing with UNCERTAINTY.
WORKS then function as a kind of anesthetic because they facilitate fighting off DREAD and also provide an artificial form of ASSURANCE
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi exactly
@dw6528 hello brother, it just seems to me that many of the calvinists who are regarded as not high calvinists prove themselves to be actually quite high calvinists when pressed enough n RC seemed to be one of them in my humble opinion. GOD bless
The video uploader in question is extremely dishonest.
Explain yourself.
Seek first to understand... you should be able to accurately articulate what you are disagreeing with.
The fact that Leighton @1:42 said Sproul is an infralapsarian, and thus a low Calvinist, PROVES he has no idea what Calvinism is really about. Infralapsarianism is the majority position among the Reformed, which would be to say that a majority of Calvinists are low Calvinists... SMH
"Peering through the corridors of time"
is a charicature of
"Before Abraham was, I AM".
There is absolutely *nothing* wrong with thinking that God's simple foreknowledge is something He employs to coordinate the things He will do in the lives of creatures with free will, based on that knowledge. Look at Jacob and Esau: whether talking about God preferring ("hated") nations represented by those men, or the actual babies by those names, either God "loved" and "hated" on the basis of knowing what they (nations or babies) would do, or else He decided to hate one and love the other arbitrarily, and made one loveable to Himself and the other hateable. The only other option is neither predestination nor foreknowledge, which is kind of hard to imagine, especially when He both has the foreknowledge, just sitting around, ready to be used, to observe, through actually being in the past, present, and future.(no dusty, old, "weak", dimly-lit "corridors" necessary), and the ability to predestinate anything He wishes, although, in the future, in His written word, He will often disavow being responsible for various sins of His people; He says that God is light, and there's no darkness in Him; and He says He tempts no one. And that He cannot lie. If I believe Him about those things He says about Himself in His word, why would I be so humiliated to believe that God really does use His foreknowledge for something besides prophecy (but that, too!) ??
You know: "Elect, according to the foreknowledge of God" ( Peter : ) ??
1 Peter 1:2 KJV - *Elect according to the foreknowledge of God* the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
1 Peter 1:2 KJV - *Elect according to the foreknowledge of God* the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
And then... that fact that he calls RC Sprout one of Calvinism's "leading scholars" shows his shallow engagement w/ Calvinism. How about Tom Schreiner, Stephen Wellum, DA Carson, Michael Horton...I could go on and on. RC Sprout is great, but he was more of a popularizer than a scholar.
😅 So "shallow" you HAD TO comment twice😅😅😅😅
Whack a mole. He could critique direct citations of those folk and you, or some other ideologue, will complain that he didn't comment on Pink or Piper or some other false teacher.
Two things.
1. Does the end justify the means? Why not have a church that represents itself as being open to all religions and spirituality to get them in the door and then try to corral them to Jesus? What would it matter to God if He is misrepresented 90% of the time if only 10% of truth is needed to save them?
2. Why is it two missionary organizations that have missionaries to the same part part of the world and culturally similar, with differerent budgets and number of missionaries have nonlinear results? In other words, 2 missionaries working with $10,000 could have more converts per capita than 100 missionaries with a $100,000. Why is that? If I share the gospel the same way every time to 100 people and get 20 converts, then statistically there should be 40 converts for 200 people if God is hands off. Why is this not the case?
Sounds like you're being called to have an outreach to these people.
I learned in church a looonng time ago, never make a ministry suggestion that you yourself aren't willing to start.
When is God ever "hands off"?
I am a Calvinist and I believe in the doctrines of grace, by the grace of God. :)
DW: Calvinism does not define "Grace" the way NORMAL people do
The doctrine specifically stipulates:
1) The vast majority of individuals within the human population - are specifically created 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)
2) The doctrine also stipulates - a large percentage of believers are also created specifically for the lake of fire.
These are called CHAFF believers - whom Calvin's god deceives - giving them a FALSE SENSE of salvation.
John Calvin
-quote
But the Lord....instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
-quote
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he....strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
Since creating people and believers for eternal torment is a CRITICAL part of the doctrine - it follows - creating people and believers for eternal torment is a CRITICAL part of the Calvinist definition for 'Grace"
How do you know?
How do you know it isn't your depraved mind telling you this?
There is ZERO assurance in Calvinism.
Just an, "I hope so.', right up until the day you cross over.
But then it'll be to late - if you're wrong.
Here's an idea.
What if Jean Cauvin were a Totally Depraved reprobate?
He was a bloodthirsty monster, you know?
How would you, a lost sinner know the difference?
Chapter, verse for these doctrines of grace. No ad-hoc interpretation, PLAIN STATEMENTS OF GOD.
I've always wanted to ask a Calvinist this, and I'm genuinely curious, so please don't think I'm coming off as argumentative: How is your view a doctrine of grace?
@@exag0ra DW: That is an excellent question!
I am not a Calvinist - but I can tell you - Calvinists do not rely on LOGICAL answers.
Calvinists rely on SEMANTIC declarations - which for them function as answers.
A LOGICAL statement would be:
2x3=6 therefore it follows 6/3=2
A SEMANTIC statement would be:
I say I am female - therefore I am a woman.
Part of the Calvinist practice is to take terms like "GRACE" and create their own AD-HOC definitions for those terms.
So in Calvinism - a CRITICAL PART of the doctrine stipulates - creating the vast majority of individuals - specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire
So this becomes a CRITICAL PART of the Calvinist definition for "Grace"
And creating the large percentage of believers as CHAFF believers - divinely deceiving them with a FALSE SENSE of salvation - is also a CRITICAL PART of the doctrine - which make it also a CRITICAL PART of the Calvinist definition of "Grace"
I don't understand why people have a problem with a Creator who knows everything, which is why He can tell us the end from the beginning. We think too highly of ourselves and too lowly of God.
Which people are you speaking of , concerning not accepting a GOD WHO knows all my friend ? Knowing n predetermining are two completely different things.
I heed scripture above philosophy based on a premise of God's body of knowledge. He declares the end from the beginning. In between? He tells Abraham "Now I know that thou fearest God." I don't reword that to "I always knew."
DW: All Christian theologies hold to a Creator who knows everything. Its called divine omniscience.
Where NON-Calvinist theologies disagree with Calvinism - is with the fact that Calvin's doctrine stipulates everything that comes to pass - including every sinful evil impulse in the human brain - is AUTHORED at the foundation of the world.
@@dw6528 That's Calvin's opinion. I don't find that in Scripture. Man was perfect at creation; he chose to disobey.
@@OneHighwayWalker DW: It is sophomoric to simply call it John Calvin's opinion. It is in fact what is stipulated within Calvinism as a theology (Reformed theology)
And it is what the Calvinist (Reformed theology) reads within scripture.
The fact that others do not see it within scripture - is the reason why Calvinism (Reformed theology) has perennially been so highly controversial.
Take CHOICE for example. It is humanly impossible for a you to CHOOSE something which does not exist for you to CHOOSE. In Calvinism - *EVERYTHING* is pre-determined before humans are created by an infallible decree. And that infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
Humans are not granted a CHOICE in the matter of anything - simply because NO ALTERNATIVE exists for them to CHOOSE.
So in Calvinism - Adam did not have a CHOICE between [EAT] and [NOT EAT] because the option to [NOT EAT] did not exist for him to CHOOSE. And NO ALTERNATIVE impulse was granted existence within his brain.
so God chooses some for hell.
I'm more compassionate, and honest, than the Calvinistic caricature of God.
@@abuelb It can help to go back to Exodus and read through the chapter to get a better idea of what Paul is refering to here. The pharaoh keeps hardening his own heart against God, even when his priests are totally overwhelmed and admit it is Yahweh doing it. At that point there is no going back for pharaoh, so God then starts to harden pharaoh's heart and he says why he is doing it (which is what Paul is talking about in Romans). The end result is Israel is set free and many others abandoned their old gods too, as they were shown to be completely inept against the one true God.
1 Samuel is a good book to study, to look at human free will in relation to God's plan for us. God tells King Saul after he disobeyed God, that if Saul had obeyed, that the messiah (Jesus) would have been born into his family. But now King David would be getting that honnor. So God plans for the best case scenario, where we obey everything he tells us to do. But also takes account of our failures, the times we don't listen. Of course for those in Christ, he works everything for the good of those that love him, even the bad.
@@abuelb Concerning the potter and his vessels in Romans 9:21-24
The judicially hardened Israelite, complaining of the unfairness of being set aside after all the O.T. promises, would no doubt be familiar with the potter/clay analogy of Jer 18. But in that passage which compares disobedient Israel to a marred vessel unto dishonor, the nation is told that by repenting and getting right with God they could then restore them and treat them as the potter treats a vessel unto honor. Also in 2 Tim 2:20, 21 we read of those once faithful men (verse 2) who now have gotten off track and have become vessels unto dishonor. The solution, repent so as to get right with God and be restored as a vessel unto honor. "If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour..." is the Scriptural remedy when, if one makes himself to be a vessel of dishonor by his own bad choice.
Also, in Romans 9:22, even Calvinists like MacArthur own up to the use of the middle voice in "fitted to destruction" means they fitted themselves, there's personal responsibility involved. Also, as is the case with the previous verse, this Scripture uses a question and not indicative statements. The question begins with, "What if...?" One should be careful before making a doctrine based on a "What if...?" What if my investments yielded at 35,000% return? I would then purchase a villa on Lake Como. But here I am.
But any citation of Romans 9 should not ignore the context of the opening verses: The context at the start of Romans 9 is Israel, the nation corporately. Paul is heartbroken about his fellow countrymen outside of Christ, Israelites of whom God is not interested in saving were Calvinism true. This makes Paul more compassionate than the Calvinistic caricature of God, calvigod. In fact, calvigod is less compassionate than I and it can be proved mathematically! This is a problem for the Calvinistic ideologue.
No,actually ( according to Calvinism) , God chooses MOST for Hell!
DW: Calvin's god creates the vast majority of individuals within the total human population - specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire - for his good pleasure. And he also creates a large percentage of believers for that end also. These are called CHAFF believers - whom he deceives - giving them a FALSE SENSE of salvation.
John Calvin
-quote
But the Lord....instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
-quote
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he....strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
I’m not Calvinist but I agreed to R.C, I don’t agree to LF. I know for sure LF is wrong.
Dr. Flowers, have you done this same kind of video but from the other side? Popular ways Non-Calvinists misrepresent Calvinists? If not, you should really consider doing that.
DW: That would be a much more difficult task - because Calvinism is a system which does not want to be correctly understood. For example - when one quotes John Calvin - or historic Calvinists - or academic Calvinists - many Calvinists today will claim those quotes misrepresent Calvinism.
Many Calvinists today - have an ARMINIANIZED form of Calvinism.
There are dark aspects of the doctrine - which if they were taught to the average Calvinist congregation - a large percentage of that congregation would leave - with a handful of die-hard Calvinists remaining.
Calvinist teachers/ministers today - have to present a "Sugar Coated" version of the doctrine.
@@dw6528 maybe. But there are misrepresentations that are popular that span all "flavors" of calvinism. For example: "it makes humans robots", and "it makes God the author of sin".
Both have been answered through the broader reformed Confessions and writings (which, granted, many calvinists and Non-Calvinists are poorly read on).
@@jordanrouden6440 DW: On the "robot" analogy. No analogy is 100% What one looks for - in the case of the "Robot" analagy - is the following facts:
1) The robot has a CPU
Similarly the Calvinist has a brain
2) Within the robot's CPU - every impulse that comes to pass is predetermined by a program
Similarly every impulse within the Calvinist's brain is predetermined by a program.
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
-quote
"God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives and actions"(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)
And the "AUTHOR" of sin issue - the doctrine stipulates
1) Every sin that comes to pass - is FIRST CONCEIVED in the mind of Calvin's god - and *MADE* to infallibly come to pass.
John Calvin
-quote
It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them [sins and evils], when scripture shows Him not only willing but the *AUTHOR* of them. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (pg 176)
Calvinists try to evade these aspects of the doctrine by the use of SEMANTIC arguments.
An example of a SEMANTIC argument would be "I identify as a woman - therefore I am female". "I SAY I am a woman - therefore I qualify for women's sports"
@jordanrouden6440 But see, the Calvinism that is taught includes both God as the author of sin, and a life for the saved which has an elect who can do and think only what they have been pre-programmed to do and think, hence they portray it as robot-like.
@@lindajohnson4204 see, that's what I'm talking about. This isn't true, and a cursory read of the major reformed confessions would demonstrate that. Each reformed confession that touches on this topic is VERY clear that God is not the author of sin. Case in point: WCF 3.1, Belgic Confession Article 13, LBCF 3.1.
Prophecy is the witness of jesus Christ. God declares the end from the beginning he knows the times and peoples reactions to the times they lived in.
Provisionists (Flowerism)