Calvinism, Arminianism, & Provisionism Defined w/
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 бер 2022
- Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, compares and contrasts #Calvinism, #Arminianism, & #Provisionism during a recent interview on @SlaveckMoraru's podcast.
To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: soteriology101.com/support/
Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...
DOWNLOAD OUR APP:
LINK FOR ANDROIDS: play.google.com/store/apps/de...
LINK FOR APPLE: apps.apple.com/us/app/soterio...
Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software developing needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!!
To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip” please click here: soteriology101.com/shop/
To listen to the audio only be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or one of the other podcast players found here: soteriology101.com/home/
For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism) please visit www.soteriology101.com
Dr. Flowers’ book, “The Potter’s Promise” can be found here: www.amazon.com/Potters-Promis...
Dr. Flowers’ book, “God’s Provision for All” can be found here: www.amazon.com/Gods-Provision...
To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: / 1806702. .
For updates and news follow us at: www.facebook/Soteriology101
Or @soteriology101 on Twitter
Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!
To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers go here: soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...
To become a Patreon supporter or make a one time donation: soteriology101.com/support/
Thank you so much for coming on the podcast. I had numerous people that told me about how blessed they were by your answers and how it brought so much clarity. blessings to you and your ministry.
I'm not a Calvinist, nor a classical Arminian, nor a provisionist, but I appreciate how provisionists are providing a fresh perspective in soteriology, even if I don't agree with them on a lot of things. Leighton Flowers is a humble and kind man. I don't know how he's able to deal with so much slander, mockery, and hatred. God bless him.
Do you hold to molinism or welsyan?
Thank you, Flowers! This was really good. I have been watching your videos for some time now, and I have now become a Provisionist. I graduated from Houston Christian University last year with my MA in Christian Leadership & Philosophical Apologetics, and videos like this helped me clarify how I view soteriology. Keep up the excellent work, my brother!
Reformed Arminian here. Excellent video. In our Free Will Baptist tradition, we believe that prevenient grace (Titus 2:11) makes us capable of believing in Christ by pulling us out of our total depravity. We do believe that someone can become regenerate by grace thru faith in Christ and that here is great hope in the saints persevering till the end. But we also believe the Scriptures warn that a true follower can later apostatize and make shipwreck their faith. (1 Timothy 1:19).
What's the Reformed part about Arminianism?
@savedby_grace6110
Thank you for that question, brother. We are Reformed in that we affirm the 5 Solas: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria. We hold to the Reformed views on the fall of man, original sin, and total depravity. I also think it's important to note that prior to the Synod of Dort, views similar to Classical Arminianism were common in Reformed Churches. In fact, Arminius was aquitted of any charges of heresy by the magistrates, but he died before the Synod of Dort, I think of TB. Further, Arminius was a student of Beza, Calvin's successor, so well within the general Reformed tradition. Love and prayers 🙏
Amen brother. I grow up at Sunshine FreeWill Baptist and spent 10 years as a youth pastor at Spring Valley FreeWill Baptist before moving to Ormond Beach Florida
Regarding knowing if you’re elect (in Calvinistic terms), at about the 10 minute mark, Leighton comments that Calvinists would say that the fact that you “want to come” is proof that (to a Calvinist) you are elect… that is a “fruit” of God’s irresistible grace to you. However, in the Westminster Confession is states, “Others, not elect, may be called by the ministry of the word, and the Spirit may work in them in some of the same ways he works in the elect. However, they never truly come to Christ and therefore cannot be saved.” In light of this (ie, what the Westminster Confession says), it would seem that the Calvinist view is that some who think they are saved (because they have responded to the “ministry of the word” and who “the Spirit may work in” may indeed not be saved. Thus, this seems to indicate that Calvinism teaches we really can’t know one way or the other if we’re saved. Troublesome to say the least.
Thank you for these succinct definitions. I knew what I believe did not fit either Calvinism or Arminianism, but nice to know there is an “ism” where I can fit. 😊
Amen. John 3:18.
well said! This is a good summary of those three beliefs within christendom! awesome! thanks be to God: )I think there was a lot of nuances left out here but overall an awesome video! Btw. I am a provisionist :)
May God bless y'all weekend in Christ Jesus our Lord!
Excellent vlog. It was as very good educational experience for me as I’m very interested in this subject! Thanks very much!! 👏👏👏
It blows my mind that after centuries of studying and interpreting the scriptures, people still argue over these doctrines. For me it all comes down to trusting in almighty God, through Christ, to save me. After 50 years as a Christian, I realize I'm doomed without His grace.
25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Matthew 19:25-26 NKJV
So......IS IT => YOU TRUSTING ? OR GOD RECONCILING ? IF => if HE died for you and paid for your sin => WHY WOULD ANYONE SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL ? The wages of sin was what ? DEATH......OR.....all eternity tormented in hell ?
@@13kimosabi13 Indeed, the wages of sin is death, eternal death. The unsaved soul is destroyed in the Lake of Fire. "This is the Second Death". But the righteous will live...by faith. Trusting in Jesus Christ makes a change in the heart, and the Holy Spirit works to sanctify our life. But even faith is a gift of God, so no one can boast in their own merits. All glory is to God through Jesus Christ!
@@lastchance8142 i used to BELIEVE the same thing => but it doesn't fit scripture. IMO ==> you need to look at the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words that were translated into our word hell.......usually it means grave. Also.....HOW MANY TIMES IN YOUR BIBLE was The Lake of Fire used ? WHEN was it first used ? I think you may have some big problems with that timeline. I agree eternal death ==> BUT JESUS CHRIST PAID FOR SIN and so now some are saved but later ALL MANKIND WILL BE SAVED.
IMO.....most seem to hold to their denomination or tradition or what they FEEL is the best interpretation.
No one but Jesus has ever lived a righteous life by faith. In the FUTURE => THE JEWS will be able to. WE CAN NOT !
If faith is given by GOD (and i agree it is) then you are somewhat CLOSE TO BEING A CALVINIST.
It's just that BOTH SIDES say 97% of mankind will go to HELL/LOF ==> and only 3% go to Heaven.
Not sure how satan isn't the winner either way if that's true.
My Bible says GOD LOVED THE WHOLE WORLD. That Jesus paid for ALL SIN. That Jesus reconciled US ALL. That WE COULD DO NOTHING.
It's NOT YOUR WILL OR YOUR CHOICE THAT SAVE YOU ==> it's GOD's.
Saul's WILL, was to persecute believers and he was on the Damascus ROAD to do that exact thing. Did his will occur ?
Or did GOD's will ? Saul's will and personal choice was NOT TO BELIEVE. He was NOT TRUSTING IN JESUS. He BELIEVED he was following GOD.
Same with Doubting Thomas. Jesus had told him about the RESURRECTION. Thomas had been with Jesus for years and watched many miracles. But what did he say ? I WILL NOT BELIEVE => unless X, Y Z. Doesn't sound like your idea of faith.
@@13kimosabi13 I too would like to believe in universalism , but it makes God a liar. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. 3000 years of scripture testify that God is perfectly just, and thus MUST execute judgement on each and every sinner. His explicit penalty is death. "Fear not them which can kill the body. Rather fear Him...who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna" (The lake of fire). This is the Second Death. (The death of the soul). The proponents of ECT have to REDEFINE death in order to justify that dogma. But universal salvation must also redefine death to believe the Lake of Fire is a "refining" fire. Best to take God at His word. The penalty for sin is death. But God, by His amazing grace, has created a way to satisfy His perfect justice and perfect mercy through the substitutionary death of our LORD Jesus Christ. There is no other way! Preach Christ, and Him crucified!
Exactly what I was looking for, thanks guys.
Well explained Dr. Flowers. Very enlightening. Thank you.
Thank You brother for this video
One of the best explanations defining the differences. All Christians should use this as a true basis of defining each other’s theology. Why wouldn’t one agree with provisionism after listening to this? I don’t like labels, but God provided. That’s what I believe because that is what the Bible says. It’s a free gift that is offered, but can be rejected John 3:36
John 1:12 Believe and receive, then God gives the power/right to become a child of God.
This was an interesting study. Thanks
I find it very deceptive of Calvinists to declare anyone who doesn't follow John Calvin to be an Arminian.
Typical false dichotomy. 🙄
Bifurcation ("either/or") fallacies are one of Calvinists' favorite tactics. Simple logic devastates them.
Yeshu'a: I agree. The calvinists argue against our beliefs by claiming," You're wrong because, you're an Arminian."
Giving me a tribal label, ( Arminian) is an ad hominem argument, therefore no sound argument at all.
We should be discussing beliefs, not group labels.
Amen to the truth of God.
@@jessethomas3979 Here's the difference you conveniently over look.
When a name is used like calvinist, a specific belief must be presented to support that label, otherwise it is just an hominen argument.
There is a difference between using a name to identify or define something, and presenting the name ( calvinist) as though that IS the evidence.
@@jessethomas3979 By the way, Jesse, grow up. Have debates or discussions like an adult instead of an adolescent with the 😄 haha nonsense.
Christians ought to be able to conduct themselves online in a manner better than the atheist trolls.
Super helpful, thanks!!
I really need to understand WHY Calvinism is NOT "another gospel" when it paints a different picture of God's character. I'm struggling with this. Can you explain this to me because this is weighing heavily on me?
I agree with you
Sam
@@jillianmathews3749 yeah well, I'm hoping it somehow isn't to the extent that all Calvinists end up hearing "I never knew you."
The gospel in an of itself sounds the same in that whosever believes...etc..does the will of my father..."
It's that Calvinists believe all of the right thing except that they also believe God indiscriminately chooses for no particular reason who will believe and be saved. This distorts the true view of God's character in that He describes himself as loving and merciful. And I understand that one's point of view doesn't matter. The actual meaning that is true matters. This leaves me with the dilemma that, even though their gospel sounds the same, this very flawed view of who God is puts their view of the gospel in the lap of another god.
This I find very troubling. It literally makes my stomach in knots thinking about it. And I'm hoping someone can show me that somehow God, in his mercy, still accepts their (Calvinist's) gospel.
@@skokenos
You don’t have to understand God correctly in everything He has revealed in order to have a relationship with Him. However, one does have to accept the truth once recognized and understood.
@@skokenos I agree with you Sam . I am praying for the Calvinists to see the truth in God’s Word on this.
Awesome brother
Leighton, you hit the nail on the head. We are responders to the revelation of God. Or to be more specific, as Christ is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, we are drawn and called to respond to the good news of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. First the revelation of Him who is full of grace and truth, then the response of faith by the responders. We respond in love to Him because He first loved us. There is no place for boasting by the responders in themselves, only in the Lord. We are the sinners in need and Jesus is the only Savior who can save sinners.
You don't really think EVERYONE has heard about Jesus Christ and Him Crucified, right ? Doubting Thomas DID NOT respond appropriately to the good news of Jesus Christ and HIM crucified, correct ? Jesus had told Thomas but he said => I WILL NOT BELIEVE. It's in your Bible. That's why we call him DOUBTING THOMAS.
Saul/Paul had heard ALL ABOUT Jesus Christ and Him crucified but he DID NOT RESPOND appropriately. His will => was to persecute BELIVERS and KILL THEM. It wasn't his will nor his response => it was GOD's WILL THAT he BE OUR APOSTLE.
You need to be TRUE to the scriptures. Not your feelings, nor denomination, nor traditions, nor UA-cam Podcasters. GOD's WORD.
PS Jesus being crucified doesn't say all that much.......lots of people have been crucified ==> it's about the RESURRECTION !!!
W/O that => NONE OF US ARE SAVED ! WITH IT ==> WE ALL WILL BE !!
Improve your belief/understanding paradigm ===> because it currently leaks like a sieve.
@@13kimosabi13
You must not understand what the expression “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” means, nor what it means to have a revelation of Christ. And as only “the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him” can shine the light on your darkened understanding, I won’t waste any more of my time or yours on this matter.
While I think that pretty much everything said by the reformers is a western misreading of scripture, addressing 14th century questions with 16th century eyes (instead of 1st century Jewish eyes)... this is an interesting interaction with those ultimately and fundamentally flawed theologies.
Thanks!
Arminianism holds that salvation is all of grace, in that every movement of the soul toward God is initiated by divine grace; but it recognizes also in a true sense, the co-operation of the human will, because in the last stage, it remains with the free agent, as to whether the grace thus proffered is accepted or rejected.
Prevenient Grace and Human Agency. The relation of free grace to personal agency demands a further analysis. This relation may be briefly summed up in the following propositions: (1) Prevenient grace is exercised upon the natural man, or man in his condition subsequent to the fall, This grace is exercised upon his entire being, and not upon any particular element or power of his being. Pelagianism regards grace as acting solely upon the understanding, while Augustinianism falls into. the opposite error of supposing that grace determines the will through effectual calling. Arminianism holds to a truer psychology. It insists that grace does not operate merely upon the intellect, the feelings or the will, but upon the person or central being which is beneath and behind all affections and attributes. It thus preserves a belief in the unity of personality. (2) Prevenient grace has to do with man as a free and responsible agent. The fall did not efface the natural image of God in man, nor destroy any of the powers of his being. It did not destroy the power of thought which belongs to the intellect, nor the power of affection which pertains to the feelings. So, also, it did not destroy the power of volition which belongs to the will. (3) Prevenient grace has to do further, with the person as enslaved by sin. Not only is the natural heart depraved, God does not compel man by a mechanical force, but draws him on and moves him by the moral power of His love. Nowhere does either Scripture or the Church teach that the sinner is entirely passive at the commencement of his repentance. The voice which cries awake! comes not to corpses, but to the spiritually dead, in whom a capacity for life remained, a receptivity, even where we cannot think of any spontaneity without the influence of the preparing grace of God. The grace of God leads the sinner to faith, but always in such wise, that the latter’s believing surrender to Christ is his own personal act. I believe that there are many people today who think they know what Arminianism teaches and they are wrong about it.
So what were the main differences between arminianism and provisionism? I couldn't figure that one out, provisionism just sounded like a version of arminianism
If one is spiritually dead that they cannot respond to the preached message of salvation, then repentance is impossible, and yet that was the cry of both John the Baptist, Jesus and even the OT prophets. Why make a request that is impossible to act upon?
Actually brother, in Scripture there is what is refered to as an effectual call (different to the "gospel call"... you may want to do some research to see if it is correct!) that those who have been regenerated by God, enabled by the Spirit will respond to, they will repent. See an example in Ephesians 2 below (asterisks mine to highlight):
"All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. ***But because of his great love for us, *God*, who is rich in mercy, *made us alive* with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-it is by grace you have been saved.***
Ephesians 2:3-5 NIV
"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."
Romans 8:29-30 NIV
This passage in Romans follows after:
The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
Romans 8:7-8 NIV
- regeneration therefore preceeds faith.
Or the many places in John 6 (read all of John 6), for example:
“But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” (John 6:26-27)
Bless you brother as you look into this to see if this is true to Scripture! :)
Jesus' sheep after all: hear his voice and follow him.
Have you not read, ""? God is a God of means, and He has ordained that He will build his church through the preaching of His Word through human instruments.
Jesus also said, "." So you are right in your initial understanding. The fact is, we are all spiritually dead. Through Adam's disobedience, death came to all men. This is biblically doctrinal and the very reason we need God to regenerate our hearts and call us, just like He did Lazarus. We are dead in trespasses and sin, so if we are to believe and repent, God must first give life. Read John 6:36-39 & 44. Jesus didn't say, "No one may come to me..." He said, "No one come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Can deals with ability, not potential.
@@justinhornsby6742 The Bible also says that God will draw all men to Himself.
I found this hard to follow. I was expecting you to say, and list out what each belief system meant or is. Instead, it sort of blended into telling us mostly all that Calvinism is and how it’s wrong. I’m not a Calvinist. I’m at Molinist. But I’m trying to figure out the difference between Arminian and provision
Election is working out your faith with fear and trembling. We are not totally secure until redemption. Yes Christ ransomed us, but we need to walk the narrow path. God didn’t die for us to continue in sin. You will go to hell thinking that way and counting God’s gift as something cheap. We all need to stay vigilant seeking God. Till Christ be formed in you. A good steward of God’s word and work. Stay thirsty friends of God.
Weirdo you have no idea what you are talking about
In practice Arminians do have an argument, the proclamation of the Gospel needs to be accompanied by the actual power (‘anointing’ ) of His Spirit. (Isaiah 10:27). Because of the restraining of Gods Spirit through defined baptist theology, the working of Gods Spirit is often being limited to a hypothetical assumption.
Can you expound this a little?
@@DrGero15 Baptists are many times, intellectual orientated, in itself nothing wrong with that, because their theology ( cessation) does not give so much space for Gods Spirit. Non believers are often restrained by 'spiritual strongholds', which needs Gods Spirit to be broken. ('spiritual warfare'). In this sense your theology can be a limiting spiritual factor.
If Calvinism were true, then wouldn't the Prodigal Son's father have had to go bring him back home, not just stand there on the porch waiting and watching?
Not only would the Father have had to go to the distant land to go get his wayward son, he would have had to drag him back by force!
@@jessethomas3979 It is likewise completely ignorant to not openly acknowledge the fact that the triad of the parables clearly speaks within a broader salvific framework.
Sinners being found equals salvation. As does being dead becoming alive. Which you chose to completely ignore. Obviously.
That joy should be found in someone's salvation... equally obvious and undeniably a no brainer.
It is ridiculous to want to empty the most explicit salvific parable of it's implications just because it doesn't fit one's own systematic preferences.
@@jessethomas3979 My comment wasn't ignorant. You simply dismiss it as such because you don't like the fact that it points out how inconsistent Calvinism is with Scripture.
@@jessethomas3979 It's easy to simply dismiss those who disagree with you as "ignorant", but that itself is an ignorant thing to do. I am not misrepresenting Calvinism in the slightest; merely shining light on aspects of it that are less attractive. The Fourth Point of Calvinism (the "I" in "TULIP") is "Irresistible Grace". This teaches that "the Elect cannot refuse their salvation. God sovereignly and unchangeably predestined them before the foundation of the world to be saved, and mere human will cannot frustrate His divine decrees." While Calvinists try to sugarcoat this teaching with high-sounding words and phrases, it ultimately boils down to God's will being forced on humanity, either in the form of salvation for the Elect or condemnation for the Reprobate.
@@jessethomas3979 not try to debate here but the point is that neither the reprobate or the elect have a choice which camp God put them in. They are put there by God, not by anything they do but by God's unchangeable decree.
How about the sending of the Spirit by way of the blood of Jesus to sanctify you? ...truth...
Watch you from Ukraine.
Keep fighting the good fight.
What's the truth in this war of disinformation?
What are your thoughts about Russia’s invasion?
@@contemplate-Matt.G civilians are dying... killed by Russians bombs... many many many many many of them... Cost we pay for our freedome.
:...nation shall not lift the sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." Isaiah 2:4. I pray this day comes in our lifetime.
Malachi 3:16
Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.
Daniel 4:37
Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.
Habakkuk 2:1
I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved.
Luke 24:47
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Hebrews 2:3
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
Titus 1:4
To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
2 Peter 3:18
But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Why is eternal security true, if God warns us numerously about falling away (John 15 - cut off, Hebrew 10:29 - those who were sanctified by the blood of the covenant).
If Adam and Eve were created for perfection, they could NOT have sin, as nothing can be or act outside of its created nature. Adam and Eve were created with the capacity to
DESIRE, and it was their desire for something more than God, that caused their downfall.
We too, were designed with desires. It is the desire we choose ( God or the material world) that determines the outcome of our souls.
Agreed. So true. Thank you for sharing Sheila.
@@jessethomas3979 I reject your attack here. I've seen your other posts here and you views and comments sound calvinistic and heretical.
@@jessethomas3979 You are in no position to speak for Leighton Flowers, or anyone, but can speak only for yourself.
@@LindsayJackel if you've witnessed or been a partaker in any of Jesse's discussions on this forum, you know that his arguments are often rather clumsy, and a tad bit off kilter.
@@LindsayJackel Makes one question how much scripture Jesse's actually read.
Jesse's logic is faulty as well.
God gave humans a brain, but never forced anyone to use it.
Augustine's initial question he wanted an answer to was, where did "evil," come from?
He was not seeking an answer to evil human deeds, but to what he felt were "evil, " occurances, like earth quakes,
disease, afflictions, general human suffering not caused by humans. He was a gnostic before he was a Christian, and the gnostics had a view of god or supreme being, and of suffering that Augustine adopted and never completely abandoned.
And doesn't the question of both the source and existence of " evil," remain at the heart of most Christian debate, even today?
We want to know the culprit of all our suffering.
When Adam and Eve rebelled, sinned, what changed?
Adam and Eve' nature did not change after they were removed from the garden of Eden, but their circumstance changed. The perfect conditions of health, weather, harmony with nature, and daily communion with God was lost to them. Adam and Eve, and all their decendants kept the same nature but lived in a very different world, an imperfect world, a world in which we must seek God.
Some call that world "evil."
Some times I think we over complicate things we don't like. We do suffer the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin. I don't blame God.
And Adam and Eve are long dead.
Thank you Leighton for being such a strong voice for the Provisionist view.
I've notice a sort of gatekeeping in Calvinism and Arminianism.
"You're not allowed to be regenerate so as to believe unless God has decreed."
"You're not allowed to believe unless God has elected you."
"Jesus didn't die for you unless you're on his list."
"You're not allowed to resist or reject his grace....people do though, but it's still irresistible if you're elect! Just trust us on this one! Mystery!"
"You will persevere, or else!" (Last one's kind of tongue in cheek.)
But still, it raises red flags for me when you start telling me who Jesus is allowed to die for or not.
Who are you to tell Jesus who He is allowed to offer His salvation to?
I'm so glad to hear that Dr. Flowers believes in eternal security. There was a question in my mind and that cleared it up.
Can a true believer become an apostate?
@@chucktc8032 Are you truly seeking an answer or is this a setup, lol
@@PhilGeissler Haha.. No I'm genuinely interested to hear your thoughts. I grew up a Baptist which generally hold to eternal security, but I've never heard a clear interpretation of the following passages:
Hebrews 6:4-6
Hebrews 10:26-28
2 Peter 2:20-22
People always use the eternal life passages or Jude 1:24.. but they can't provide a clear consistent exegesis of these passages.
@@chucktc8032
Can a true apostate be a false believer?
@@chucktc8032 I think you can find a video on this channel in which Leighton is joined by Dr. Allen and they defend eternal security. Perhaps they can offer a better interpretation of those passages, I must admit that I have not watched it. I too was raised Baptist (Free Will Baptist), OSAS or ISAS has never sat right with me and like you, I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for those same verses.
First, I'm not a Calvinist or Arminian.
I'm looking constantly for Leighton, or any believer, to give scripture from the New Testament Epistles specifically giving instructions to the Body of Christ, under the New Covenant, concerning how the unsaved person is saved where that person is to first, "Admit" he is a sinner.
Did Peter forget to instruct Cornelius and friends and family that they must, before or after, hearing the Gospel of their salvation "Admit" they are sinners? They didn't instruct them.
Did Paul forget to instruct the Ephesians in Ephesians 1:13 that before they believe the Gospel of their salvation and be sealed by the Holy Spirit they were first to "Admit" they are sinners? He didn't instruct them.
Did Paul in Acts 16 forget to instruct the Jailer that belief in Jesus Christ must follow "admitting he is a sinner"? No, he did not.
Did Paul forget to remind the Galatians in 3:2, asking the question about how they received the Holy Spirit, whether they observed the works of the law or that they first admitted that they were sinners and also heard with faith? He did not.
Many Pastors and scholars and ordinary conservative believers are teaching that the unsaved person must first humbly "admit" being a sinner and every instance of persons being saved completely contradict that postulate, or claim.
1 Corinthians 15 "tells" the unsaved person he or she is a sinner - "Christ died for our sins..." just saw it tells him that he was buried and that he was raised (from the dead) on the third day and that there were many hundreds of witnesses.
Nowhere in the New Covenant, Acts or Epistles, is it taught to the body of Christ that unsaved people are supposed to admit to anything, the Gospel tells them they are a sinner.
God tells them, he doesn't ask them.
Nowhere under the New, and entirely different covenant is the unsaved person instructed to or required, first or lastly, before or after, to admit being a sinner along with hearing and believing the Gospel of his or her salvation, as the above Scriptures demonstrate.
They received the Holy Spirit while hearing the Gospel of their salvation in Acts 10. Galatians 3:2, same thing. Ephesians 1:13, the same.
Every single unsaved person has the ability to choose whether to believe in Jesus Christ by hearing the Gospel, or not believe upon Jesus. And there is no way those in Acts 10 are saved according to Leighton or any other person who teaches the ABCs, beginning with "Admit..." being a sinner. They admitted nothing. Cornelius, although prior to and after the crucifixion of Christ, was a devout man of God, but was not saved. They were to hear Peter, how to be saved. Being devout they had to be told he died for their sins just like any unsaved person today. This instance correlates directly with Ephesians 1:13 and Galatians 3:2 and Acts 16. This agrees exactly with Romans 1:16, 3:21-26, etc
Still waiting on that scripture from the Epistles.
Isaiah 45:22
Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
Joel 2:28
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Luke Chapter 13
1There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
1 Corinthians Chapter 15
1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1 Peter 5:12
By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.
Revelation 6:8
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
Jude 1:3
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
I don’t believe “original sin” means born with the guilt of Adam. It’s born affected by the “original sin” Adam committed. Sin always affects others. The sin of our first father (whether figurative or literal “first man”) explains how we are born with a sin nature. Not perfect. Needing God’s grace.
It seems to me, that our nature is NO different than Adam. Adam and Eve had a choice; they rebelled. How are we any different? We are not.
What did humans lose as a result of the fall? Immortality, wellness/ health, stability of earth conditions ( weather, social cooperation, cohesion).
What did not change is our nature to obey or rebel.
All of us can choose a relationship with God or not.
Any teaching that says otherwise is not scriptural, and therefore false.
@@jessethomas3979 True.
However we have evidence of humans acting heroic as well, indicating we humans have the desires for both right and wrong, good and bad within us.
@@jessethomas3979 Where do you think conscience came from? It was created by God.
Define "know.".........God.
@@jessethomas3979 define "bad conditions". All of us are born into a sinful world, and we do not have the advantage Adam and Eve had where God interacted much more overtly with them. The Bible says he has given the world over to man, and when born we have to rely upon people who have already sinned to bring us up in the way we should go. This could also be why Christ is so adamant that one who misleads/harms a child, will suffer greatly. It is no surprise then, that when surrounded by sinners and sin in a sin fallen world people do in fact end up sinning. It seems superfluous to suggest God imputed Adam guilt, or inflicted us with a sinful nature when we can sin just fine by ourselves just as Adam and Eve did. If you think about it, this is absurd as the idea God "blinds" reprobates . . . when on Calvinism they are supposedly already born dead and unable to see in the first place. It just adds extra layers to our ontology that are not necessary and muddy the waters. Btw it would a little weird for God to tell Israel he will not punish them for their ancestors sin, but that they nonetheless are affected by it. Then to turn around and tell the world (including israel) "hey, your ancestor messed up so you're all from birth in danger of my wrath for something he did!"
Then that's not original sin :v That meant you believed in ancestral sin instead, an eastern/greek christian doctrine.
"No one can come to me [Jesus] unless the Father who sent me draws him" John 6.44
If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me . Dosnt mean all men will respond .
Is Dr barnett a calvisist dtbm
How about those who never get to hear about Jesus? Will God saved them without Christ, as God provides for everybody? This has mission implication would you say?
“Free-will doctrine-what does it? It magnifies man into God. It declares God’s purposes a nullity, since they cannot be carried out unless men are willing. It makes God’s will a waiting servant to the will of man, and the whole covenant of grace dependent on human action. Denying election on the ground of injustice, it holds God to be a debtor to sinners.” Charles Spurgeon
I mean, Jesus literally says at one point that He desired to gather Israel together as a mother hen does her chicks, but they were unwilling. Matt 23:37
@@losnfjslefn8857 - according to that passage WHO was unwilling? (ie. Who is the "they" in the passage, who is Jesus' condemnation directed toward?). Reading this passage correctly and in context makes a big difference.
@@daveyo8221 Who was unwilling?
@@losnfjslefn8857 - I want you to answer that my friend, you do the work on the passage! Have a close look at the passage, have a think about the various options (you gave me one: "you" = the people/Israel), think about who is being refered to in the rest of the passage and you could checkout the Greek (or an interlinear if you are only a novice with Greek like me).
@@daveyo8221 Well, he's talking to the people who kill the prophets.
The title of this podcast proves that…
Man gave us religion, while God gave us His Word. When man didn’t like what He said, man changed it, then blamed it on God!
I would love to hear an explanation of Provisionism that does not mention Calvinism at all. I've listened to many many UA-cams and podcasts from Provisionists but the topic always drifts off into Calvinism Calvinism Calvinism. I want to know more about Provisionism (with no mention of Calvinism or Arminianism). I'm beginning to think it's not possible.
It's not that it isn't possible. It's more that the Calvinism defense brigade is very aggressive. Those of us who believe Calvinism isn't true have to anticipate the argument, otherwise we are misrepresented. I mean, we are anyways, but preparing a response ahead of time helps deter some of that unnecessary backlash.
The false doctrines are always the most popular on UA-cam!!!
is privisionism a new thing now?
Regeneration precedes human response. We respond in faith when God first opens our eyes to receive the Gospel. God saved me as a senior in high school at a Youth Camp of about 250 students. I was not looking for Jesus, did not go to the camp even knowing I needed Jesus, and certainly did not make the decision to follow Christ because I was smarter or more spiritual than any other lost person in that room. The camp director was teaching from John 14, and the eyes of my heart were opened. The weight of sin hit me, and before there was even a prayer or "altar" time, I knew I needed Jesus.
My experience isn't the basis, however, for my belief in God's sovereign grace in salvation. It is the Scripture. I know that's what everyone would say in support of their view, but it truly does boil down to "what saith the Scriptures." John 6:36-39 & 44, John 10:25-29, Rom 8:29-30, Rom 9:16, Acts 13:48, Eph 1:4-5 and Acts 16:14 were just a handful of the passages that very clearly solidified in my mind and heart God's sovereign work in salvation and why I, as a blind and lost sinner, responded.
1:01 the terms are irrelevant
What matters is THE WORD OF GOD and what it says
Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and He will draw night to you!
If we Could Not, why would His Word Command it!
God is interested in this kind of discussions?
One thing I do not understand about those who believe in Calvinism. Maybe you can do an episode on this. Admittedly, I could be wrong but it seems quite accurate. Why do Calvinists believe women should not speak at church? But yet then gladly hand over the teaching of Sunday school classes to age groups men usually do not want to deal with...toddlers, young children and even teens. Men usually don't want to teach those age groups. Calvinists seem to make an exception to this. Most Calvinist men are harsh on women and seem more arrogant. I don't understand this or maybe it's just the idea they are "elect" so they feel superior. But why do they seemingly treat women as almost dumb/inferior in intelligence and value in a way. It seems they tend to be more oppressive to women. I am sure not all of them but there is a general attitude of this.
Hey Blessed. This has not been my experience at all with Christian men in Reformed/Calvinistic circles. I truly mean no disrespect when I say that I think you have fallen prey to a stereotypical straw man type of understanding of Calvinism. Though I don't prefer the term "Calvinism," I do fall under that umbrella. I belong to a Reformed Baptist church. I network and learn from many men, pastors, and teachers in the Reformed tradition and not one of them has ever promoted harshness to women. That's not to say there aren't Reformed minded men who are harsh, but I've met Ariminian minded jerks, as well.
Many in the Reformed tradition have a very high view of Scripture. The Word is God-breathed and absolutely inerrant. With that said, when it comes to the role of women, we strive to be biblical in all facets. The Bible doesn't teach that women can't teach. It does clearly teach, however, that women are not to teach/exercise authority over men (1 Tim 2:12). The issue is one of authority and roles of leadership. So, biblically speaking it is not unbiblical for women to exercise their God given gifts teaching children and/or other women. This is not an indictment on women. It in no way implies women are "dumb or inferior in intelligence and value." To the contrary, God created women in His image with equal value and dignity. The roles are simply different. Jesus, as the incarnate Son of God, has a particular role within the Trinity. Does this make Him inferior or lesser? Not at all! Elders, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, children, etc. all have particular roles, and each role has its own particular calling and glory. A husband who is harsh with his wife is in sin and should be rebuked and held accountable. Husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church. The Proverbs 31 woman is to be honored and cherished.
The general attitude within the Body of Christ should be that all believers, no matter what denomination or doctrinal system they follow, strive diligently to walk in humble obedience to God and love for others. This is the way of Christ. Grace and peace be with you.
@@justinhornsby6742 I attended several calvinist churches and that is where my observations on how men treat their women. We moved a lot and so tried several churches in several states. That makes me eonder if it is a pervasive attitude. Sorry if I didn't make that clear it's kind of hard to do that on a cell phone LOL in a UA-cam comment. I am specifically referring to the scripture that says women shouldn't speak in church, the calvinist men seemed to take exception to that and say oh they can speak in church to children and toddlers and people we don't want to have to bother with. And there is a major horrible attitude by men that they do not want to bother with young children. Which I find kind of deplorable because of the in the New Testament men are the ones called to teach their children. I can't help but believe that men just don't want to bother with age groups that are more difficult and Shove It Off on women and say oh it's okay , they cannot speak in church but this way it's ok and we don't have to teach our kids regardless of what the Bible says. At least I can't help but wonder if that's the motive behind it they just want to get out of doing the work with an age group most men don't like very much.
But I also understand that the few churches I visited cannot be a full representation of all calvinistic churches. Thanks for the reply. I haven't fallen prey to any idea of Calvinism I have just started to recently study about it to see where I stood on the matter as I've never really studied it in depth before.
@@blessedbeyondmeasure8754 Your experience with these men in these churches is a great travesty. You are exactly right. Godly men should never be condescending, chauvinistic, patronizing nor demeaning. Those traits do not represent Christ, nor do they line up with the character he has called us to display. On the contrary, as you have said, God has actually instructed fathers to raise their children in the nurture and instruction of the Lord, and He has instructed husbands to wash their wives in the water of the Word. Two things which I hold as very precious and of primary importance.
For whatever it's worth, the overarching view I hold of humble, loving, and Christ-centered leadership, I learned from many fellow Reformed minded men. There are many pastors and mentors that have taught me and modeled this for me over the years. It is unfortunate that you have come across a much more arrogant and sinful branch of "Reformed-minded" leadership. They do not seem to be representing a biblical worldview of manhood and leadership. As such, please know, they do not represent Calvinistic theology. Thanks for responding. Grace and peace be with you.
@@justinhornsby6742 thank for the kind reply. I reread my comments and they seem to be harsh and I certainly didn't mean them that way hopefully you didn't take it that way. I am very glad to hear that it seems that it is just a limited experience. Certainly I couldn't nor wouldn't go around saying that I feel all of the churches that believe in Calvinism or that way.
The Good News is, these guys agree, all three of those isms are optional.
You can take 'em or leave 'em and nothing much is going to happen as a result.
Sorta like a Mike Lindell pillow only $29 cheaper.
Skip all three and you're $87 ahead for the day.
Can a provisionist hold to conditional security? That’s not to suggest or imply that we are saved,lost,saved,lost minute to minute based on our behavior due to our weaknesses due to sin but rather can a person that once believed turn his back on Jesus and end up in state of apostasy and thereby forfeiting salvation?
Thank the Living God that all three of these "isms" are wrong.
They are both an exclusive heretic view of Gods love, and nothing short of blasphemy, as both positions only serve to negate and disparage the mercy, love and the finished work of Christ at the cross.
The father made an amnesty with the Son, NOT MAN, least all perish.
Salvation belongeth unto the Lord
what does the good doctor believe happens to all those who didn't BELIEVE as he thinks they should have => but clearly less than 3% throughout history and dare i say NO ONE in the bible EVER DID ? Narrow indeed.
I like the BIBLE's view MUCH BETTER. GOD LOVED US. GOD PAID FOR SIN. GOD RECONCILED US. Nothing left to man to mess up.
"Define Calvinism, Arminianism, and Provisionism" - Makes an argument against Calvinism instead.
Flowers fails to distinguish between two different Calvinistic views: Supralapsian and infralapsarian. Infra says God unconditional chose to save some sinners in light of the Fall of mankind. The former says God chose before the Fall. To my mind, Provisonists should not have an issue with the infra version as it represents God doing something he doesn't have to do and demonstrates his love. Flowers is starting with a philosophical objection to God (in the Calvinistic view) not providing a means to save each and every person! But who is he to reply to God?
“Reformed theology does NOT teach that God brings the ELECT kicking and screaming, against their will, into His kingdom. It teaches that God so-works in the hearts of the Elect as to make them willing and pleased to come to Christ. They come to Christ because they want to. They want to because God has created in their hearts a desire for Christ.” R. C. Sproul
Jesus WARNS IN JOHN 8:24 “I told you that you WOULD die in your sins, IF YOU do not believe (their choice, but do you hear His warning David if they do not choose to believe?) that I am who say I am the one I claim to be, you WILL (in the future, it has not been determined YET!) die in your sins. John 8:24
These are Jesus’s words, not the words of Sproul. Jesus warns because they are in very serious error, but not without hope. Jesus does not warn those without hope. The can respond, they have response ability. Responsibility is given to all people, but so is hope. What did John the Baptist say “Look the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the Elect?” No, Jesus did not say that. He (John) said look the Lamb of God who takes way the sins of the world” that as how Jesus began his ministry. David, begin there. Not all will be saved but only…John 1:12 those that believe and then receive, THEN God gives the power/the right
Luke 13:3.5 “I tell you no. But UNLESS YOU REPENT, you to WILL ALL perish. (Unless you= your choice, you to will = future, it has not been determined yet, all = no one is elected before their birth, before they ever heard the Gospel, before they ever sinned.). And no individual unbeliever is predestined to be saved. The Bible does not say that - NOWHERE! . But what are believers predestined to? The Bible IS clear about that.
@@makedisciples8653 Thanks for sharing brother! Sadly I don't have the time to go through all those Scriptures with you in detail they deserve (I am not a very concise person) but you may want to have a look at what reformed scholars/apologists say about them. We have no issue acknowledging there are real warnings btw!
You could also look into different uses language by John (what diff uses of "world" for instance positive, negative etc). And what it means to be "elect" (see places like Ephesians), because I don't think your statements on this hold out....
If I understand you correctly I think you consider those Scriptures are an issue for those holding the reformed view... not at all! Perhaps you could check out a few scholars brother as to why!
The issues is how can sinners respond to Spiritual things. Reformed scholars believe that God's word does things, that the elect hear the warnings, hear the good news and respond (entirely due to to the enabling grace of God). eg 1 Corinthians ch1-2.
God bless you brother, hope you have a great day, last word is yours!
@@daveyo8221 I would also recommend you watch Beyond the Fundamentals video on "Election" to see a non-Calvinist view on it (and Predestination).
@@losnfjslefn8857 thanks for the recommendation - FWIW I have listened to many videos and debates over the years by those such as Sot 101 on this subject but remain unconvinced to their arguments and exegesis/handling of passages like those in Ephesians. Some - SOME - seem to have some kind of dual authority: 1.the Bible + 2.libertarian free will (which then is read back into passages where something else is being discussed). Cheers my friend, hope you have a great day!
Now I know why you live rent free in James Whites head. He knows his heresy is exposed
Here is absolute Biblical proof that God does NOT cause or determine everything; In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it."
Someone please explain how the
Armenian god is not a universalist? Doesn’t He want all men to be saved?
It comes down to how many of the Five Points of 'TULIP" one accepts, and which ones. If one rejects Limited Atonement, but accepts Irresistible Grace, then one would logically have to be a universalist, as the unlimited atonement would be applied to everyone. However, Arminians (not Armenians, who are Eastern Christians whose beliefs are somewhat like, but distinct from, those of the Eastern Orthodox Church), as well as Lutherans and Provisionists, reject Irresistible Grace, along with Limited Atonement. Thus, they do not believe in universalism, despite believing in unlimited atonement. They teach that Christ's death atoned for all sins, but that each individual has to accept Christ for that atonement to be applied and save that individual. Since many individuals reject Christ, they are ultimately lost.
If it ends in "ism" it probably isn't true.
Thanks for the description. I'm a 5 point calvinist. You only will come to Christ if He calls you. If so much as one soul is lost then Christ failed on the cross if He died for all sin. He died for all kinds of sin, hence the world is all kinds of people.
Christ failing if one doesn’t accept God’s offer is a made up concept and not a biblical concept. It presupposes God wants to save irresistibly and not give people the freedom of choice. But The Bible is full of passages where God wanting to reconcile with people but people refuse that imply God wants people freely choosing not irresistibly. In John 3:16 the word world refer to a cosmic scope and doesn’t allow Calvinists interpretation of only all kinds of people or elect only when they interpret 1Tim2:4. if you have to twist the scripture a lot to maintain your view, that tells you’re contradicting scripture.
3 manmade doctrines and then there is Gods word
Your interpretation of God’s word is your man made doctrine.
The question is: who interprets the Bible correctly (who has the true belief)?
We all claim God’s word. To suggest your position’s foundation is the Word of God is question begging.
Enjoy your manmade doctrines
Any systematic that needs to be nudged in one direction or the other isn't true to God's word. Armenian, Calvinism, etc
@@JesseChasteen lol doctrines are a set of, ideally, consistent beliefs that are perceived to be in the Bible. Everyone has them. Do you not have any doctrines at all?
The salvation spoken of in the Jewish bible, had nothing to do with being saved from eternal torture in hell. Salvation means Israel's redemption from persecution or exile. Since the religion of Jesus was Judaism, he wouldn't have believed this either.
Salvation just means freedom.
Salvation in terms of New Testament is to be free from our sins.
In Israel means to be free from persecution
Sadly.......here are a few more brothers who don't RIGHTLY DIVIDE GOD's WORD !!!
This is like bozo the clown 'explaining' quantum physics. Haha.
elaborate
The greatest form of worship is believing God. We worship God for who He is and what He has done through Christ on our behalf. The Gospel saves, belief in the Death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the all sufficient sacrifice for sins which have separated us from Him IS Salvation! “ come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden…”, “ he who believes in Me has passed from death unto life…”, Roman’s 4:5 “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him…”, Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Romans 5:1. Man is separated from God by his sin but he has a free will to believe or reject God’s provision in Christ, and be declared a son and heir,Gal. 3:26-29. God bless, and choose to be thankful today!
“It is sometimes said that the doctrine of predestination exposes God to the charge of injustice. But this is hardly correct. We could speak of injustice only if man had a claim on God, and God owed man eternal salvation. But the situation is entirely different if all men have forfeited the blessings of God, as they have. No one has the right to call God to account for electing some and rejecting others. He would have been perfectly just, if He had not saved any, Matt. 20:14, 15; Rom. 9:14, 15.” Louis Berkhof
True, God would still be just, but ask yourself: is that really what God wants?
“Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?”
Ezekiel 33:11
So if man’s free will has nothing to do with his salvation, why doesn’t God just regenerate everybody so that they will turn from their evil? If God wants everybody to repent, why doesn’t He just MAKE everybody repent instead of only a few?
@@ryanmajors6582 The last number of times I have replied my replies seem to have been deleted or been blocked (or hopefully something less nefarious). Unfortunately I won't be able to retype everything I said. Those are all good questions you have, but can I suggest that actually Arminians and Augustinians/Calvinists ALL have to grapple with the different usages of God's Will in the Bible, as well as what it means for him to be Sovereign. If we confuse those different usages then we will get into all kinds of problems theologically.
"1. The three meanings of the will of God:
(a) Sovereign decretive will, the will by which God brings to pass
whatsoever He decrees. This is hidden to us until it happens.
(b) Preceptive will is God's revealed law or commandments, which we have the
power but not the right to break.
(c) Will of disposition describes God's attitude or disposition. It reveals
what is pleasing to Him.
2. God's sovereign "permission" of human sin is not His moral approval."
That Ezekiel passage deals with God's will of disposition, I'll be lazy and give you another person's comment on this Ezekiel passage too:
"God doesn’t take any pleasure in the death of the wicked. Nevertheless, though He doesn’t enjoy it, as it were, He still decrees it. And that is a point that we must remember-that even in His benevolence, God will never negotiate His righteousness or His own holiness. And He will still punish the wicked despite His being in a disposition of goodwill toward them. I like to think of it as a judge, for example, whose son is brought before him who is guilty of grand larceny, and the case is heard in the court. And the judge knows that his son is guilty, and the jury brings in the verdict of guilty. And it is left to the judge to sentence the guilty party because of what the law requires."
@David Bickerdike It still isn’t making sense to me. Yes, I know God will always uphold justice but that quote seems to imply that the cross wasn’t enough. It seems to imply that Jesus dying on the cross was only enough to cover some sinners but not others. God COULD have made the death of Christ count for everybody if He wanted to, since the blood of Christ is of infinite value.
It seems to me that definition (a) of God’s will is in conflict with definition (c) in the Calvinist view. The Ezekiel passage deals with definition (c) of God’s will - what is pleasing to Him. Well, according to Calvinism, the only way for a person to be saved is for God’s sovereign will to take over and regenerate the person - otherwise there is no chance of redemption. So what is preventing God from attaining what is pleasing to Him? If it does not please God for the wicked to perish, and it is solely dependent on God whether they perish, why doesn’t His sovereign will take over and regenerate them? Couldn’t their sins have been paid for on the cross? Do you see the problem here?