The Calvinism DEBATE: Redeemed Zoomer vs Leighton Flowers

calvinism is unbiblical. (yt)
sinning against the Holy Spirit means if anyone say that the works of Holy Spirit is from demons. And you say that the works of demons are from God, meaning if rape, murder, child molesting/trafficking all evil that devil does you calvinist say God did
Lord Jesus died for the World
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
1 John 2:2
2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
John 6:51 notice world not just elect
God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth.
1 Timothy 2:3-4
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.
Acts 17:30
Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent
Psalm 145:9 The Lord is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men,
Romans 11:32 so that God may show mercy to all.
- God doesn't want anyone to perish but for all to come to repentance
2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
John 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”
Matthew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish
1john2:16 lust is not from God
1 tim 1:19 once can reject Salvation
-GOSPEL for all nations Luke 24:47
47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
-Faith comes then we are saved not saved first that's why we believe
Romans 10:17
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Notice how it's say when someone COMES to God, he must BELIEVE that He exists. IMPOSSIBLE to please God without FAITH. We must Have Faith to Please God. We must First Believe that God exist. Also notice James in his letter says you believe in God? good. Demons also believes and tremble. But the difference between our belief and demons is that we ALSO believe that God rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. demons diligently do not seek HIM
2 thess 1:8 says "vengeance on those who don't know God and those who don't obey Gospel of Lord Jesus Christ" doens't say "who God doesn't make Himself known"
John 6:53 unless you eat Lord' supper you don't have life. calvinism reverse it, that you were born with life that's why you eat Supper
John 6:40 that whosoever believes have eternal life. Meaning belief came first then life.
Heb7:25 saves those who come to God through Jesus( notice first we have to come then we get saved)
Rom 10:14 how will they believe if they HAVE NOT HEARD, how will they hear without a preacher.
Romans 10:9-10, John 3:16, 3:36, 1john etc
Draw near to God and He will draw near to you James 4:8
- God doesn't make tempt anyone James 1:13.
- sin if from world not God. men love darkness more than light because of their evil deeds, not because of God. (John 3:9)
For all that is in the world the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life-is not of the Father but is of the world. 1john 2:16
John 8:44 when satan lies, he lies from his own, God doesn't make him lie
- Free will
Jeremiah 19:5
5 (they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind). Notice the evil people did was not decided by God
Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not WILLING! (As you can see they are not willing, it not that God is not making them "not willing"
1 cor 9:17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship.
John 5:40 But you are NOT WILLING TO COME to Me that you may have life
John 7:17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine
2 Chronicles 30:9 For if you return to the Lord, your brethren and your children will be treated with compassion by those who lead them captive, so that they may come back to this land; for the Lord your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn His face from you if you return to Him.”
Joshua 24:15 "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve"
Israelites didn't had life because they were not WILLING to follow Jesus. John 5:40
Isaiah 30:15
1 Peter 5:2
Heb 2:1
Philemon 1:14
Luke 15:10
Heb 3:14-15
14 For we have become partakers of Christ IF WE HOLD THE BEGINNING OF OUR CONFIDENCE STEADFAST TO THE END
15 while it is said:
“Today, if you will hear His voice,
DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS as in the rebellion.”
- One can repent. Matt 21:28-32. The other son didn't go and sinned
Resistible Grace
Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
James 5:19-20 one can lose Salvation with free will and choice
Nehemiah 9:30 God drawn them, but they have not listenend
Jeremiah 32:33 God had taught them yet they turned their back and didn't listened to God
- God regretted
Genesis 6:6-7
6 And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.”
1 Samuel 15:11, 35
11 “I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.” And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the Lord all night.
35 And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.
_
Lord Jesus Christ died for everyone not only the elect
Romans 10:13
13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Romans 1:16
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
John 1:29
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
John 3:15-17
1 John 2:2
2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world
God is impartial Romans 2:11, Gal 2:6, Eph 6:9
_
A listener pointed out another example in scripture where being called “dead” doesn’t mean that the person cannot respond positively. Abimelech is called “a dead man” but still given an opportunity to change course so as to live (Genesis 20:3,7)
_
Sabbath day (full defence)
1) God Rested on the Sabbath day (genisis 2:3, Exodus 20:11)
2) God Sanctified the Sabbath day (genisis 2:3)
3) God Blessed the Sabbath day (exodus 20:11)
4) Lord called Sabbath His Holy day. It's the Lord's Day (Isaiah 58:13)
5) Holy Day (Isaiah 58:13).
God didn't rested on sunday, He rested on Sabbath Day (Saturday). You can't push God to rest on sunday, you can't change God's resting Day in Genisis.
Now circumcision was for the Jews, who were under the promise given to Abraham. Where as Sabbath was for man(mark 2:27) not just for Jews, Sabbath was even before fall of Adam and Eve. God Blessed the Sabbath Day in genisis 2:3. CIRCUMCISION CAME WITH Abraham, SABBATH CAME BEFORE THE FALL OF ADAM AND EVE. SABBATH came before there was sin in the World.
You follow your sabbath and I'll follow THE LORD'S SABBATH.
Teaching on Sabbath is permissible
Luke 13:10-13
10 Now He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath.
Luke 4:16
16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read.
Mark 1:21
21 Then they went into Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and taught.
Acts 15:21
21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
Acts 17:2
2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Acts 20:7 (notice how the First day of the week is called the "first day of the week" rather than Sabbath Day.)
Acts 13:14-15
Acts 13:42-44
Acts 13:27
__
SABBATH day is Saturday proof
Mark 16:1-2
Notice how Bible says that Sabbath was over and than next day mary went to anoint Lord Jesus Christ. Bible says FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK which is sunday. And also we know that Lord was risen from death on sunday not monday. We also find the same in
Matthew 28:1 ( Notice who Bible says it was the First day of the week). Luke and John says the same thing "On the first day of the week".
Acts 20:7 (notice how the First day of the week is called the "first day of the week" rather than Sabbath Day.)
Acts 13:27
(Notice how even after Resurrection of Lord Sabbath is still reffered to as Sabbath. And it is not changed in New Testament rather Sabbath is the same as Old Testament)
_
Genesis 2:2-3
Exodus 20:11. .
...
Ues

Yes, because Leighton Flowers had no one to keep him from continuing to talk. This felt more like a Leighton Flowers interview and his opinions.

I think so too. The only problem is that sometimes Bible word definitions are made that assume certain things without explanations. But there just isn't enough time. That's why post rebuttles or explanations made more clear. Because the main object isn't to win a debate, but come to the correct understanding of the truth in Scripture.

@@mynameis......23your opinion is irrelevant. you came in to reply to @chaos_to_new8657 and attempt to stir up strife and be purposely off topic. you should be a outcast from all sides for acting like a petulant child. No one even knows why. and we don't care.

@@TheLanceAdams That is merely your interpretation and it is far more true that no one cares about that than the Scripture citations that you defame as petulant.

still has a bowtie 😂

​@@StoneysWorkshopLOL good catch

And yet Flowers STILL has flawed theology 😏

How so?

​@freegracecalvinisteven worse is "free grace theology"

That's the problem "differing viewpoints" we are supposed to have the same view of christ.

NOT ALL ARE TRUE CHRISTIANS JOHN CH 3 VS 16 OSAS THE DNA OF JESUS CHRIST MY PERSONAL REDEEMER

@@theeternalslayer True, but differing views are not the deciding factor of whether we are saved or not. There’s only one absolute. Do you fully trust that our God came into this world as a man named Jesus and sacrificed Himself on the cross to pay for your sin? Do you trust that Jesus is the only reason you’re going to heaven? Is this belief truly honest? Yes = Christian. No = not a Christian.

@artax7664 its actually this
Jesus christ the true son of God, begotten of his father, born of the spirit and the virgin mary, assumed human nature, did many signs and wonders. He came to fulfill the old covanent law, he took all sin upon himself, was crucifed and died on the cross, spent 3 days in hades to preach the gosepl to the dead, was resurrected on the 3rd day, and opened the gates of paradise so we can have peace and reconciliation with God.
The wrong teaching can teach a jesus that didn't die for anyone.

@@theeternalslayer I think maybe you missed the point? If I lived on a desert island and never read the Bible, and Jesus appeared to me and told me “I’m God, I sacrificed myself for your sin. Your debt to God is paid in full if you trust me” And I said and believed “yes I trust you” then I’m saved. No context necessary. This is why “Protestants” of most denominations consider whoever believes this simple truth to be part of the church. We don’t see dividing lines between, let’s say a Baptist and a Calvinist. It’s good to get to know God better, but if you think you’ve got it all figured out, that might be a sign you need to humble yourself. Getting to know God and how He does things is profitable, but if we let those things get in the way of the bigger picture, then we are operating outside of God’s will for us. Knowing the mechanics of how salvation happens is just not necessary, only that we trust God’s faithfulness to keep His promises, no matter how He chooses to keep them.
Maybe I’d agree with you if you were to show me how, let’s say that if I had no clue that Jesus went and preached in in the land of the dead for 3 days, how that, or anything else you said is essential, could possibly keep me from trusting that God saved me from my inescapable danger of judgment?

That's a paradox

Redeem Zoomer knows many important facts but does not reason well, as most Calvinists. Mainly they limit God’s Word based on their limited understanding. They are similar to atheists, “If I don’t understand how God does something, then that must not be true”

@@Solideogloria00 Yeah typically Calvinism doesn't like NOT filing in the blanks when it comes to things the bible isn't completely clear on. They like to have a definitive answer for literally question regardless of it's relevance, and I'm not too sure that's even possible for our earthly brains. Some of the questions he'd ask Dr Flowers reminded me of being on the playground back in the day where other kids would ask me the popular "can God make a rock so big that even he can't lift it?" Still I loved the discussion. Both did great in bringing their viewpoints.

​@@Solideogloria00, What? The reformed people have better understanding of the scriptures than any other denomination.. Your knowkedge of the scriptures is no better than your pastor Leighton Flowers who cannot understand the biblical view of Election and Predestination, He believes a non-sense view of Election and Predestination.. He believes that people who are already in Christ are those that are predestinated.. What a belief! Anyone who is Christ have already reached their ultimate destiny, where else would you better go if you are already in Christ.. And he is proud of what he believes...

​@@billylindsey3678, Your concept of the scriptures is wrong.. Everything that is written is to be understood by the readers.. The secret things of God is not written in the bible.. For example, it is written by the prophets that some of the secret mystery of God are written in the parable, like the parable of Wheat and Tares that only very few people can understand because they are brainwashed to believe the wrong doctrine.. But it is very clear that Jesus revealed in the parable of Wheat and Tares that there are only two(2) kinds of people in the world the Wheat which refers to the children of God literally and the Tares that refers to the children of the devil literally.. All the children of God are predestined to be saved and all the children of the devil are predestined to be burned in fire...

Welcome aboard, bro!

@@BraxtonHunterwhat is your salvation theology

Him and Keith Foskey are definitely in contention for that title.

He has a great channel

As a non Calvinist I respect the guy, Gavin Ortlund (Truth Unites) is also really good.

Makes sense, he’s a Presbyterian. He has no vested interest in infiltrating churches and sneakily adding Calvinistic doctrines.

You people don't understand the reformed people, they are the most likable people in the world except JW... I am not a Calvinist but I've listened a lot from different reforned preachers, RC Sproul is the best preacher of all denomination, he is a genius with a Godly heart..

The foundation of Calvinism is nonsensical so unfortunately it’s not possible for a true Calvinist to have “sensible discussion.” However they can be charitable like RZ seems to be.

​@@JohnK557the fact that many non-calvinists are former calvinists, demonstrates it's not a futile enterprise.

⁠@@JohnK557If solidly based within Scripture is ‘nonsensical’ well, have at it 🙄

@@ravissary79 I absolutely agree. I wasn’t implying that it was a “futile enterprise.” Just because a person is unwilling to believe the truth and have a rational conversation doesn’t mean the conversation shouldn’t be had in hopes that they stop suppressing the truth.

@@toolegittoquit_001 No scripture is not nonsensical Exhaustive Divine Determinisim is because it contradicts scripture. If you insist I’ll demonstrate how what you believe isn’t even “solidly based” within reality let alone scripture.

Great channel promoting s false gospel and another Jesus?

@@JohnW-cf2kw what?

@@JohnW-cf2kw please describe this “another Jesus”. Really curious on this.

@@JohnW-cf2kwI’m not Calvinist, but you can’t acuse them of having a different Jesus, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, we all confess the same God, we believe it is through him that we are saved. We confess the same creed that all Christians believe in. Even in the early church they had different views and were able to stay in communion. Calvinist, Arminians, Provisionists, Molinist, and what ever scholar systematic theology you subscribe to and live your faith we still have one God and are brothers and sisters and part of the same body of Christ, his spiritual church.
Don’t let your own believes hate other brothers and demonize them.

To bad the "lord" of Calvinism is Lucifer.

Most based theologian:

Just stick with the Bible. The council of orange was a rebuttal of false doctrine

I’m impressed with his book knowledge. He know more than many pastors I’ve talked, but sadly he cannot see the logical fallacies and huge biblical inconsistencies/gymnastics in his system. Pray for him. I’m thankful with the Lord for rescuing me from Calvinism.

@@Solideogloria00 I’m a reformed baptist, so I agree with a lot of his theology.

@@ShepherdsGracelol you agree with TULIP.
Dude I’m a Methodist, and I probably agree more with his theology (Real Presence in Communion, Baptism not just being a symbol, infant baptism, etc). This is despite the fact that I am very anti TULIP/ Wesleyan Arminian.
Don’t think that John Piper and John MacArthur represent the Reformed tradition. They don’t. They represent TULIP. Also, don’t listen to MacArthur. He’s vigorously Nestorian, and He denies the power of the blood of Jesus, which should also be considered heresy.
And in case you are wondering, Zoomer has addressed this before and would agree with me here. Calvinistic Baptists (what you really are) are only surface level Reformed.

@@dakotasmith1344 You are not going to ask my view on the sacraments/ordinances?

@@ShepherdsGrace So what are your views?
Being a Baptist almost certainly means being credobaptist, or at least I’ve never heard of a pedobaptist. Pedobaptism is bigger than you would think for someone like Zoomer.

Facts. Calvinistic churches are one of the many daughters of the whore (Roman Catholicism).

@danielcartwright8868, I was gobsmacked when he simply out it out there! I may not agree with RZ, but at least he's honest!

Calvin was days away from taking his vows as a Roman Catholic priest, when he became enlightened. I've wondered if he was a Jesuit in sheep's clothing on a mission to destroy Protestantism. Calvinism is a big reason why almost all denominations have signed peace agreements with Rome stating that the protest is over.

​@User_at_777 So? Luther was a Catholic priest. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you but your statement is profoundly ignorant of Protestant history. Not a single one of the magesterial reformers held to a soteriology that reflects what LF and provisonists believe. That doesn't make them right nor does it disprove LF but to then suggest that they are Jesuit plants is really goofy.

I dont think Redeemed Zoomer and James White use Catholic the same way all the time.
I think when someone like james white argues provisionism is one step towards Catholicism he is using Catholic refering to the modern Catholic church thought.
When Redeemed Zoomer refers to inherited thought from the Catholic Church, he is not alligning us with with the Modern Catholic thought, but more so saying it is a natural outflowing of historic Catholic thought. (Which i doubt james would disagree with.)
atleast that is how i would understand him.

thank you

Everyone comes to the table with presuppositions. If someone can’t admit that, they are self-deceived. The Scriptures can cut through presuppositions, if an individual is willing to let the Scriptures to speak for themselves. Everyone knows that exegesis is necessary ti understand Scripture, but not everyone is willing to exegete the Scriptures consistently.

@@JRey-re9rl The Scriptures do not read themselves and never have. To know what is contained within them requires someone to read them so they are either read in the spirit of a random individual, or the spirit of Apostolic teaching - the former leads to multiple divisions such as Modalism, Gnosticism, and Arianism, whereas the later keeps you firmly in what was taught 2000 years ago.

@@dankmartin6510 So, the most important aspect of Scripture is that it is God-breathed. They are independent of the reader and communicate God’s self-revelation to man. Now, I would agree with you that the Scriptures cannot be read and interpreted in a vacuum, because the Scriptures are rooted in history. So, I would say that the Scriptures have to be interpreted according to the historical context, the original languages, and authorial intent. And, if by apostolic teaching you mean the New Testament, then I am in agreement with you. However, if you’re rooting apostolic teaching to a church, then we are in complete disagreement.

@@dankmartin6510 And, what keeps you rooted in orthodoxy is, fidelity to the Scriptures, a faithful body of believers, and orthoproxy.

@@JRey-re9rl scripture is God-breathed and tradition is God taught -which scripture affirms. If the Bible read itself then not only would you not need holy tradition but you would also not have such extreme variations in doctrine between Protestant denominations. A human being has to read the scriptures and human beings are not given privileged understanding as individuals for interpreting scripture. The Bible itself says that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth and the church that the Lord Jesus Christ Left behind to his apostles and those apostles to their disciples will not fail.

😂😂😂😂 that's hilarious, nice one. I love that

So good!

... and it is God, who in every moment, keeps us from sinning worse then we currently are.
(And that's a fact)

@@Tim.Foster123in divine determinism God causes us to sin exactly as much as he wants us to, there’s nothing to “allow” or “hold us back”. That’s not how exhaustive decree works

Good One!!

White is just blunt and he is correct. Go watch his video where he corrects Mike Winger, he makes excellent points.
II Timothy 1:8-9 NKJV
"Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began."

There's Biblical predestination and there's Calvinistic predestination.

There's calvinism and then there's predestination

@@ayobithedark2772 There's Biblical predestination, and there's Calvinism's predestination.

@@bobbyadkins6983 oh, thanks for reiterating.

@@ayobithedark2772 What point we're you trying to make?

Many converts to the “Restoration Movement” in the United States were Presbyterians who wanted a non-Calvinist Protestant group. They sure thought that the two were connected.

@@hmv1405 of course. We agree. The original comment I replied to by @heavymetalmusichead4969 seemed to say that Presbyterians weren’t all Calvinists. My point was that to leave Calvinism is to leave Presbyterianism.

@@hmv1405 No problem.
Assuming you are a Calvinist/Presbyterian yourself (I am neither), what is your take on how to get Leighton and White to not talk past one another….I obviously have a bias toward Leighton, but I’m open to criticisms about his delivery/ideas as well.
Thanks.

Augustinians regardless of which stripe Calvinists, Thomists, etc. All rely of Greek philosophy to come to their deeply flawed conclusions. This is why I’m an open theists, which doesn’t mean God doesn’t know the future, it’s simply a rejection of classical theism and or, Greek philosophy being mixed with scripture.

@@GutsStan Quite the opposite. Deep Biblical exegetic studies always point to God's sovereignty, while Provisionists hop around the Bible with the premise that a good God would guarantee free will (which is pure philosophy and not Biblical exegesis)

No, Leighton only misinterprets the bible. The doctrines of grace come directly from the scriptures.
II Timothy 1:8-9 NKJV
"Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began."

@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 If that's your go to verse for doctrines of grace, I fear you might be trolling me.

@@Daedal71
When was God's grace given?

It doesn’t make sense. People are born with a sin nature, and then they sin. They’re judged for the sin.

God is the potter did you read romans 9?

Is there an example in the Bible?

No one knows who the elect are!!! So we follow Jesus and the Apostle's example. NO contradiction between the two things so I have no idea what you are going on about here.

@@SugoiEnglish1 but you still say, i think, that everyone is called to believe. If you truly believe that everyone is called to believe, that means that Jesus died for everyone. If Jesus didn't die for everyone, then not everybody is called to believe. You can't ask someone to believe something that doesn't exist.
Suppose you are evangelizing me. You don't know me. You don't know if Jesus died for me. So why would you invite me to believe Jesus died for me personnally then ?

God sent Moses to pharaoh, saying to Moses before hand that he will not let them go, because God will harden his heart. Exodus 4:21 So God is telling Pharaoh to do that which God was causing to be impossible.
In light of this very clear passage of scripture (Exodus 4:21) please explain your denial that God would or does do such things.
So when a believer offers a sinner who is incapable of receiving the gospel (non elect) the gospel because Jesus commanded us to do so, is God therefore sinning in your philosophy?

@@fuzzycounsellor9147 Asking someone to do something that he can't do, assuming that was really the case in your example, is not the same as asking someone to believe a lie, to do something that is not to be done.
Under your philosophy, regarding the general call, the problem is not only that God commands someone to do something impossible, but it's also that He commands them to believe a lie, that is to say Jesus died for them whereas He actually didn't die for them. That makes absolutely no sense. Under your philosophy, when you tell a "believe in Jesus", not only it's impossible for them, but it's not even true. It's simply not there. Jesus didn't die for them, so there's nothing for them to do because there's nothing for them to believe.
In your example of the Pharaoh, assuming that he really couldn't let the people go, at least there really was something real that had to be done. There actually was a people to let go. But in the case of asking the non-elect to "believe", it's not even there. You ask them to believe something that doesn't even exist. So the general call that calvinists talk about is even more absurd than the example of the Pharaoh that you try to use.

@@simonvallee718
So is your answer that yes God is sinning for doing such a thing, I am assuming so.
It really doesn't matter if the way God has set up salvation makes sense to us as Paul argues in Romans 9. What really matters is whether we put our logic/understanding above what God through Paul & others has said.
In my example God is asking both to do something; let His people go, or to believe. That you want to somehow make it deeper and make God a liar hmm.. If they can believe He did, If they cannot He didn't, or would you have Jesus paying for their sins & them also paying for their sins? God granting His elect the faith of course.
In my example God isn't asking as much as commanding, with punishments being doled out also as a result of Pharaoh's inability to perform said task. As is true for the reprobate.
You actually bring up a good point in that the promises in the bible aren't written for those who God has determine to not give grace. It is written for those He has determined to have mercy on.
Understand I am not saying the truths of scripture are not universal, for the warnings are quite real as are the rewards/punishments.
I have tried to make this understandable, but reason is a detriment many times for those who want everything in scripture to make sense to their human emotions/intellect. Who have preconceived notions, being entrenched in their dogmas of what is okay for God to do and what in their philosophy is not. My understanding is, if God does it it is not sin.

Not

Yes their syllogism goes: God determines some things, God determines to allow the rest, therefore God determines all things... They equivocate on what it means to "determine"

Did God know that Adam would fall from the foundation of the world? If yes, then did God know of a situation where Adam would not fall? I bet all of us would agree to yes. Then did God put Adam in the exact situation where he would fall? Well here we are so yes. If God knows all things and put Adam in a situation where he would fall and God knowing these events would take place in this specific situation, then we must say God knew the fall would happen and did not stop it because He ordained it to glorify His Son the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. If I knew someone was going to steal something from a store and I did not stop them but allowed the thief to steal, then we must say I allowed the theft. When this is pertaining to God knowing all things and controlling all things and knowing all situations from the beginning we cannot say He allowed it, but because He is sovereign He ordained it.

@@peterfox7663 Who does? GOD IS THE CAUSE OF ALL EVENTS. AND?

​@@shawnlindsey8426no God did not force Adam to sin. God does not tempt anyone. We are (Adam too) tempted when we are drawn away by our own lust! God knows what is in the heart of man. His goodness gave us His own son to redeem us. So much deception. If you knew Him, you would never say what you said! Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

​@@shawnlindsey8426 The Bible doesn't say Jesus was slain BEFORE the foundation of the earth. It says he was slain FROM the foundation.

You are completely missing the creator, creature distinction. If God was bound inside this universe and time then your statement would be true. But because he created the universe and time and is necessarily transcendent to it then he can absolutely make these statements of us being elect before we experience them in our linear time.
Hence far from hitting the nail on the head flowers displays his lack of understanding of the transcendant nature of God.
P.s it's bard

Say again? I think, from how I interpreted your comment, that the simple answer is that God is outside of time and we are bound by time (kind of how we are bound by our nature). So while God works all things out in His eternal state, we only experience those things within time; so when a rebellious heart is regenerated its safe to say that's when God's decree to elect that person touches our reality of time, God says "Here and no further".

@@jtbtdlkt2012 Foreknowledge is not determinism.

@@jonlambert817 Foreknowledge is not determinism.

@@filmscorelife4225 what does foreknowledge mean, in your estimation?

Do you even know what regeneration is? Another word used is "born again". How does a person who is dead in sin believe? This faith that we have is not from us, but it's a gift of God.
John 6:44
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
2 Corinthians 4:4 “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

@@thomasc9036 scripture doesn't use the terms "total depravity" or "total inability". So when a calvinist tries making this arguments I just roll my eyes.

@@Darthrocker06
“as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3‬:‭10‬-‭11‬ ‭ESV‬‬
You argue as a Muslim argues against the Trinity
The word isn’t needed
The concept it
Man was at War(think on this for a minute) with God.
Then GOD made me peace
And GOD MADE them alive
From not desiring God at all(you can’t place faith in someone you don’t desire) to desiring him and Submitting to his Lordship
So if No one can come to the father
Until they are given
And everyone that is Given comes to faith
Then what does that encode you to believe

@@elshaddiliben193 not seeking after God doesn't mean we can't. "How can they believe if they have never heard"

​@@Darthrocker06 not a Calvinist but it also doesn't use the word Trinity or many other words we have designed to explain concepts people find within. An argument would be to attack why it's not taught not just because of a lack of word

If they do, they just redefine "free will", in the same way they redefine words like "sovereignty".

@@sempelpang Correct.

Doesn't the Westminster Confession say that God decreed everything that came to pass that necessarily includes the fall of Angels in the fall of Adam
I'm not sure what the point is here

@@Tim.Foster123 Some try to say Calvinism doesn’t deny free will which is cope.

​@justchilling704 let's try this exercise, in the garden was sin part of the equation? More importantly, was Adam's will bound by anything to bend his desires one way or the other?
Here's the tricky part so don't let me lose you; when we are born are we born in this perfect neutral state or are we stained by Adam's sin nature already? Doesn't the Good book say we are slaves to sin, we're children of wrath (by nature) and that we find spiritual things to be foolish?
That is all Scripture mind you, I'm fully expecting a slew of analogies and philosophical arguments. ....dare I say, mental gymnastics.

Exactly! Also you can’t compare fiction to nonfiction in that way. It doesn’t work at all.

Another problem is that the characters in a book cannot sin against the author of the book. The separation that makes the author not guilty of sin within the fictional world also makes the fictional characters not guilty of sin in the authors world.
If the author analogy is true, no one has ever sinned against God.

@@UnderTheFloor79, true, but as an author I will say that sometimes it seems like characters decide to do their own thing. But even then, I want them to deviate from what I originally thought they would do, because it only happens with great characters (even if the character is the villain).

@@UnderTheFloor79Well said. If Calvinism/determinism is true then there is no such thing as sin. Sin is doing something against Gods will so it’s literally impossible for God to will and predetermine sin. You can’t miss the mark in Calvinism you can only do exactly what God willed and predetermined for you to do in eternity past for His own glory.

I think it falls apart at the beginning when he says from their perspective they have free will. They don't have a perspective, they don't exist.

There are limits to free will regardless of if you’re a Calvinist or not.

@@brianrich7828and a true Calvinist believes there's zero free will

@@brianrich7828Yes, like how one cannot fly or turn into a bird snd fly

@@ninjason57 wrong. Compatibilist Calvinism posits that a person is free in what they want to do, and unfree when they are externally coerced by physical or other pressure. The LBCF says "God has indued the will of man, by nature, with liberty and the power to choose and to act upon his choice. This free will is neither forced, nor destined by any necessity of nature to do good or evil."
It’s alright if you’re confusing Calvinism with a weird version of it that some have interpreted it as. There are extreme views of Calvinism just as there are with Arminianism.

@@matts.6558 exactly.

He don't.

Does he condemn the murder of the innocent? And yet, He ordained the murder of His Son. See Acts 2 and 4.

The proper Christian approach with all due respect is, IF the BIBLE teaches something, you need to bow the knee regardless of your feelings.

@@jasont5300 Jesus is God, one of the persons in the Trinity. God didn't force Jesus to die, Jesus was completely willing. Don't compare the condemnation of a wicked person with the death of the only son of God.

@@Darthrocker06Did God command the Israelites to kill men, women, and children in the Old Testament?

you went to a crappy school
ruclips.net/video/85H4Wcev03E/видео.htmlsi=bXCBiSpTwigJj7Db

Agreed. It seems like it would not even be worth it for God to create such a world.

Calvin's god is an autistic narcissist, only a few steps away from Allah

@@SilentEcho4178 can you define those terms? Predestination and election that is.

We are free to an extent. In both theological traditions man’s will is limited.

Such a bizarre line of inquiry. “If I were God, I wouldn’t do it that way…”

I noticed that - right off the bat he quotes Westminster and Augustine to bolster his argument.

Flowers is a one-trick pony that doesn’t even know one trick …

@@toolegittoquit_001 This arrogant comment is a major reason I reject Calvinism. No substance but to try to belittle someone and try to cause people to stumble, because they do not see things as you do.
Flowers and Zoomer have both helped me grow stronger in faith, even though Zoomer's views did drive me to people like Flowers. About a year ago I was pretty much all in Presbyterian, but Calvinists pushed me away.

Excellent points. The entire reason extra biblical writings like the WMC were written is because their beliefs can’t be found in scripture. They have to chop up scripture and add a bunch of confusion to it to end up with their false beliefs.

it's almost like learning means you hear from other people...

@@tomtemple69 Instead of learning the truth from God's word, they've instead learned falsehoods from other people who are misinformed.

@@tomtemple69
Lol. Who would have thought.

I was an Arminian before I became a Calvinist. Do you disdain the non-Calvinist teachers as much as the Calvinist ones? Everyone has presuppositions, bud.

​@@BaerBerian You're missing the point. Even your presuppositions should have their foundation in scripture. If they aren't then they're purely eisegetical notions. If you presuppose eisegetical notions scripture does not teach and then use those notions to form your interpretation of scripture then you're going to walk away with a warped perspective that scripture isn't trying to teach.
Nowhere in all of scripture is a doctrine of reformed sotereology ever stated. On the other hand, there is a ton of scripture that plainly states things which contradicts reformed sotereology.
1 Timothy 2:3-4 "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance."
Ezekiel 18:23 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord God, "rather than that he would turn from his ways and live?"
Those are just a few of the verses, and those with reformed sotereology will try to explain away these many, many passages of scripture. They will do this despite not having even a single passage that ever plainly states one of the things they're presupposing about scripture. Here's a question: why presuppose something scripture doesn't state to try and explain away things scripture does plainly state? Why then not make the things scripture does plainly state to be your presuppositions?

we affirm the councils up until hiearia, we reject nicea 2

High church Protestants adhere to most councils.
Low church Protestants (mainly Baptists, and Evangelicals) have a "current generation" bias when it comes to theologians they listen to. They will completely disregard church history and fathers as just wrong because our modern theologians, scholars and themselves are more enlightened.

@@Godfrey118This is a generalization. Consider that the majority of scholars in church history and other disciplines, are Protestants. And, most Protestants aren’t high church Protestants.

Well, we need to use this concept in a biblical way and when you read the Bible is clear that humans have responsibility and make their own choices but everything happens according to God's plan and sovereignty.

@@pedroguimaraes6094 Well, that’s absolutely false and contrary to what you read in the Bible. Where are you reading that God willed and predetermined ALL evil, sin, and deception in eternity past for His own glory? Besides my point was the dishonest misuse and redefining of words like you did here with sovereignty.

One that's not how he defined it, two libertarian free will is the baby on the block, not kid, it's too new for that. Three if God knows what you are going to do perfectly, you couldn't do otherwise, ergo, no LFW.
Four, Proverbs 16:1,2,4,9, Psalm 33, Daniel 4 would like to talk to you about God's sovereignty over all things, even the wills of man.

@@Jondoe_04 One, not only is everything you said false, but if you’re a determinist which it sounds like you are you just defeated your entire position. So well done.
Those scriptures probably want to talk to you about what the word sovereignty actually means. Do you guys actually think you understand scripture when you don’t even know what sovereignty means?

@@JohnK557 great argument there. 10 out 10.

Have you ever had a time when you were troubled, going through deep grief, or a severe trial, or perhaps going through a spiritually "dry" season and you had difficulty praying? The Puritans called this the "dark night of the soul". And have you ever asked the Lord to please help you pray? If you have then that makes you a robot because you didn't need God to help you pray. You have perfect free will and can pray any time you want to no matter what is going on in your life. Also, have you ever wanted someone to be saved but they were being "stubborn" and persisted in their unbelief? Did you ask God to change their heart or give them grace to come to know Jesus? Why would you do that, because they can just choose to believe anytime they feel like it.

@@PostmillChristian92 The fact that I want to let God know my wishes and inner thoughts through prayer, does in no way negate the freedom of the ones I’m praying for, to act on their own. I can pray for a speedy recovery and hope that God will intervene and speed things up. But I don’t have to. I can simply let the medicine and doctors have their way and trust that too. The former doesn’t exclude the latter. You are reading too much into total depravity. On your view, a non-regenerate person could be the kindest human on the planet, earning a multitude of honors for their good deeds towards others; deeds they decided to conduct entirely on their own. But for that person to respond to the good news of the gospel, that is entirely impossible?

@@tommysvensson7372 What you've described is not prayer, it's simply wishful thinking. I don't read too much into total depravity, you simply deny it is a Biblical concept or at the very least do not understand the extent of what it has done to mankind. And you do not know what my view is about the unregenerate, you are assuming it. You downplay and deny the effects of sin on humanity because that's what natural men do. For you people, "sin isn't so bad and I'm actually a very good person" is the mantra. By doing so you make the grace of God not really all that special. But the Bible teaches something else entirely different. I just pray that people will one day truly understand, as my heart grieves for your souls.

Because any Joe Schmo can make the Bible say what they want. It’s not Bible vs The Fathers. It’s the Bible according to the Fathers. (As perceived by those who use them lol). Another reason Protestantism ultimately falls short.

@@kevinmc62that’s not a failing of Protestantism, that’s a failing of humanity. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are just as capable of making the Bible say what they want it to say but they have the additional danger of claiming authority to do that when no one else does.

@@ryanwall5760 authority = additional danger? Proper authority given by Christ to Peter will heal one from his self serving individualism. Aren’t you weary from your own interpretative efforts?

@@kevinmc62 That kind of authority was not given to Peter. Catholicism does not solve that problem lol. There are just as many Catholics who have a myriad of viewpoints on all manner of subjects in Scripture. If they’re the sole guardians of the meaning of the text of Scripture, they’ve been doing a pretty poor job of it.

And no, I am not “weary” of seeking and seeking to understand God. There is but one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus- not the Papacy or Priesthood.

I would think he would not have an answer for that. Just my opinion. Rev 13 is saying that only those born again would have been written in the books of life. Rev 3 is saying that those written in the book of life would not be blotted out. I don't think it necessarily means that one could have their name blotted out in light of what Rev 13 says. Your thoughts?
I don't mean to sound like I know more than him. I'm just saying that the scripture seems to be clear as to what is being said. It would be difficult to show that these verses support free will or God choosing based upon our choices. To me the verse about us loving bc He first loved us is all I need to support that I respond to God's love and grace only bc of His actions toward me. My love for Him is a detail but not the reason that I believe. I cannot take any credit for the mercy He has extended to me. Romans 11:36 makes it pretty clear also: "Because of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all......that's from a Jewish Bible. Keeping with the context "all" refers to all ppl . He extends mercy to whom He chooses to. All ppl are for His purpose.

Sorry I misspelled zoomer and Layton. I used speech to text l o l

> new ideas and new constructs which didn't originate with God are crafted by mankind<
that's literally heresy... to say man is a creator beside God???
>This is what marks the difference between a systematic which results in God being the author of sin and one that does not<
no, it's the difference between being an open theist and a biblical Christian...
>The point of origin for sin<
First, tell me exactly what you mean by “the author of sin” and why it would be objectionable for God to be the author of sin in that sense. Second, explain how it logically follows from my position that God would be the author of sin in that objectionable sense. Until you’ve done that, there’s no argument to respond to, only a vague assertion or insinuation.

@@tomtemple69 did I say that man creates ex nihilo? If man cannot create new things out of what already exists, then your only other alternative is to say that God authors sin. And THAT is definitely heresy.

@@AndrewKeifer First, tell me exactly what you mean by “the author of sin” and why it would be objectionable for God to be the author of sin in that sense. Second, explain how it logically follows from my position that God would be the author of sin in that objectionable sense. Until you’ve done that, there’s no argument to respond to, only a vague assertion or insinuation.
this lame attempt to dismiss determinism by leveling the accusation of "you're making God the author of sin" just shows your biblical and theological illiteracy

@@tomtemple69
_"First, tell me exactly what you mean by “the author of sin” and why it would be objectionable for God to be the author of sin in that sense."_
If the idea for you to sin originates from God, then He's the author of sin. I shouldn't need to explain to you why that would be objectionable.
_"Second, explain how it logically follows from my position that God would be the author of sin in that objectionable sense."_
On determinism, since God determines all things and doesn't look forward to see what man will do (WCF 3.1-3.2) it logically follows that the idea for you to sin originated with God and not with yourself.
_"this lame attempt to dismiss determinism by leveling the accusation of "you're making God the author of sin" just shows your biblical and theological illiteracy"_
Ad hominem is not an argument.

@@AndrewKeifer >If the idea for you to sin originates from God, then He's the author of sin<
again, why would that be objectionable? are you saying God didn't know about sin until Satan committed one? you're basically professing open theism.... or a God who is not in control of His creation and you have some other ultimate cause out there
>it logically follows that the idea for you to sin originated with God and not with yourself<
again, how are u not an open theist? are you saying God thought about creating you, knew everything you'd do except for the sins?
you haven't answered the question at all, you just keep saying "that means God is author of sin"
why it would be objectionable for God to be the author of sin in that sense?
why do you keep avoiding this? you just use a dubious label

Yeah, that was an understatement

😂 Claims prove nothing. I mean, it’s not like you’ve exegeted all those chapters. I mean, it’s not like you waxed eloquently in the cultural and socio-political nuances of Romans and enthralled us with your intellect! 🤦🏾‍♂️🤣

I'll take the under on Provisionism even lasting 10 years. It's so vague in its statements of what it even believes, and is still forming it's doctrines based solely on not being Calvinistic.