Conditional Imputation & Original Sin | Leighton Flowers | Jeff Durbin | Calvinism

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, responds to Jeff Durbin of Apologia studios.
What is the Provisionist view on Original Sin?
Check out Dr. Adam Harwood's Systematic Theology here:
a.co/d/fd4Mkfo
Check out Dr. Adam Harwood's book "The Spiritual Condition of Infants" here:
a.co/d/3ZYDxTl
To SUPPORT this broadcast, please click here: soteriology101.com/support/
Subscribe to the Soteriology 101 Newsletter here: www.soteriology101.com/newsletter
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 development 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/
#LeightonFlowers #JeffDurbin #OriginalSin

[@CynVee]

I was raised Roman Catholic, which I now believe is similar in certain theological presuppositions to Calvinism. Fast forward, I left the RC faith for Atheism. The next three years were the darkest years of my life. Blessedly, I was Born Again and attended Bible College. I was a neophyte, a milk Christian trying to understand the Bible, which I had only just begun reading (finally). I didn’t realize it at the time, but many of the required books and professors, though possibly not Calvinists, leaned into the Calvinist doctrines, i.e. Original Sin. I wasn't mature enough in my faith then to recognize and denounce it. Only now, many years later, with your help and other non-Calvinists, I am finally making sense of many of these doctrines. So, all that to say, thank you. It's a big reason I support you, that plus this is such an important topic. White and Durbin et al attempt to tear down you and your teaching because you expose their hypocrisy and manipulation of Scripture. Many are leaving the faith, not all, but many Calvinists because they cannot live with this sullied view of God. Btw, I have the Harwood Systematic and love it. Wish I'd have had it back in my Bible College days. One last thing, you look like you lost a lot of weight. Good job!

[@chaddonal4331]

Harwood’s Theology is a great read!!

[@eugenejoseph7076]

I am beginning to realize after watching these 'young & restless' reformers, that when they go out to evangelize they are being utterly and doctrinally inconsistent with their core doctrines, i.e. TULIP. Evangelism is not needed in their framework. So, why do they do it? Because they love, love, love to hear the sound of their own voices because they think the listener will be in awe of their amazing understanding of God. In real life, Calvinists couldn't care less for the lost because they don't preach the real Gospel, John 3:16-17! They go stealthily looking for weak minded people who will sign on their dotted line: I accept John Calvin as my lord and king..praise to John Calvin. What a crock.

[@chaddonal4331]

@@eugenejoseph7076 To be fair, they believe God has ordained the means for the salvation of each elect person, which still requires a faith response in time. So they share the gospel broadly with the confidence that the reprobate won’t respond and the elect will (at some point). So think of it as being on a sports team. You decide if you want to suit up, show up and play, or just watch from the bench. The game will go on with or without you, but you can choose to “play” for the coach. There is actually a side benefit for the Calvinist who evangelizes as they know they cannot convince a reprobate: the heat is off. They can share or not, no harm no foul. They can not share and still sleep at night as hell’s filling or emptying is completely out of their hands. But they can share the joy with those who respond when they do share.

[@sammartinez2545]

​@chaddonal4331 how do you tell a person that God loves them and want them to repent so they can have eternal life IF "GOD" has not elected them? To me that would not be sincere, to me that would be empty words, empty gospel, a false promise, baring false witness even if you don't know. But if God has an open door to whom ever is willing to humble themselves and follow Christ, then you can honestly tell a person that God loves them and wants them to repent so he can forgive them.

[@chaddonal4331]

@@sammartinez2545 You are highlighting the Calvinist dilemma! Because they don’t believe that God‘s electing love is for everyone, they can only offer to unbelievers the possibility of God’s electing love and only the generality of his common grace “love”, which is not enough to overturn the reprobation. So, yes, this presents Calvin us with an integrity violation. They have to find a way to present the gospel without communicating God‘s certain love for the sinner. They can offer a hypothetical love. Or they can assume perhaps wrongly, that someone is elect. But they simply cannot with full integrity offer the true love of God for every sinner. But this is also consistent with Calvinism’s diminishment of the love of God in general. They see as central to his character his holiness, his power, and his sovereignty. His love seems to be secondary at a practical level. I will hear them affirm God’s love. They may assert that it is to be balanced with his holiness. But his holiness wins out for everyone and his love only wins out for the elect, proving that they really see his holiness as a superior virtue. I think this subtly leads them to not be as concerned with evangelism. Holiness and wrath for all; love and rescuing grace for some.

[@KISStheSON...]

I gave my ears to Jeff Durbin when I first believed the gospel...Then he started saying things that made me want to vomit his sayings out so that they didn't stick inside me and form me into a Calvinist, which I believe was the power of the Holy Spirit making me nauseous...if something being said deconstructs the character of God, please don't swallow it just because the speaker is "popular".

[@johnknight3529]

Of course it could have been the Holy Spirit, but I suggest it could also have been your soul. I think people tend to forget we have one, created by God, with all this talk about things like having a "sin nature" ; )

[@KISStheSON...]

@@johnknight3529 I never forget that we are a living soul. The Holy Spirit communes with our spirit and we can listen or ignore. Our "sin nature" is of the flesh because the flesh is of the earth and craves the things thereof...what we really forget is that we also have a spiritual nature that desires the things of God above. The Calvinist fails to understand that we still have a spirit that desires the things of God but we are just alone in the world without Him. When we trust in the righteousness of Christ, we receive His Spirit and then it becomes TWO against one...His Spirit and our spirit against the flesh 🦾

[@johnknight3529]

@@KISStheSON... "Our "sin nature" is of the flesh because the flesh is of the earth and craves the things thereof.." I suggest, it is actually a very good thing that God provided flesh man with. Having what is often called a survival (or animal) instinct, it defends the body, and seeks/craves what the body needs to stay alive. Things of the earth as you said. It is very "intelligent", aware of the world around us (through the senses), and controls the muscles of the body. (Like I said, a very good thing for a fleshly creature to have ; ) But, it needs to be "tamed", shall we say. Taught what is "right and wrong" for it to do and not do, or it will cause harm to others (and sometimes the very human it is so devoted to protecting). But It does not inherently want to do either of those "sinful" things, I believe. It wants to be loved . .

[@KISStheSON...]

@@johnknight3529 ". Having what is often called a survival (or animal) instinct, it defends the body, and seeks/craves what the body needs to stay alive." I am not talking about what the body craves to sustain life. I am talking about what the body craves that leads to death and hell, and that is the wisdom of the world AKA "Sophia". Proverbs 7:27 “Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.” Proverbs 8:36 “But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.”

[@johnknight3529]

​@@KISStheSON... -"I am talking about what the body craves that leads to death and hell, and that is the wisdom of the world AKA "Sophia"." So am I. I'm merely suggesting that God did not give us a "sin nature", but rather a complex nature that results in sinning if we do not learn how to integrate it as He intended for us to, with the help of the Book, and the help of the Holy Spirit (which is to say with His help). And I suggest that failing to grasp this, is what causes Calvinsts to deconstruct the character of God, as you put, rather than confront their own responsibly to integrate the heart mind and soul, with His help. Consider, please; "And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine. But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." .

[@jeffdevries8538]

Time to look into holy Orthodoxy ! There is ancestral sin, but the consequences is death NOT guilt. We now have the proclivity to sin but we are NOT guilty of Adam’s sin. We sin well enough on our own. The consequence is death. Through Adam all men inherit death. It’s really not complicated. Which is why through Christ ALL men are raised to life. NOT universalism, we will be held accountable for our choices, we have free will.

[@thepickinpreacher]

IM just glad people are confronting all of these folks finally. BIG NAMES AT THAT! Lots of us small folks used to but the main guys now! SO BLESSED TO SEE THIS

[@Taterg1689]

How would you explain Psalm 58

[@merrickc1876]

@@Taterg1689 its called hyperbole. you cant honestly think that a newly born is capable of lies when he cannot talk? besides the context are the rulers and judges during the time of david not all babies. no one denies sin Nature, its guilty by birth instead of guilty by sin is the thing being refuted.

[@thepickinpreacher]

@@merrickc1876 exactly

[@Taterg1689]

@@merrickc1876 Harwood in his book born guilty says they are sin stained and the atonement is applied to the infants they affirm penal substitutionary atonement if the infant is Innocent why then does the atonement need to be applied and how would we come to know it's hyperbole and expressing the nature of man how do we know it's hyperbole

[@merrickc1876]

@@Taterg1689 because its out of the actual context of the passage if we apply it to actual newborns if does not fit. 1. the subject passage is the Judges who unlawfully judged David to exile 2. the judges are actual adults at the time of the psalm even if they are actually sinful from birth we are applying a special circumstance to all instead of just the subject of the psalm. we cannot take it out of context and force an application that is just not even related or talked about in the passage. I would also say the bible is more authoritative than Dr. Harwoods book. The keyword in the Penal Substitutionary Atonement is “Atonement” we have to know what the newborn is atoning for. If its by the sin of Adam then we have to justify that the “guilt” is applied instead of the “nature” which i believe guilt applied is not biblical base on scripture. edit: BTW Dr. Harwoods book is still a good read especially if you want to understand the contrary view. i just do not agree with it.

[@Myrdden71]

You're much more generous than I, Dr. Flowers. I believe that some of these leading Calvinists are just plain dishonest. I've even heard Calvinists I know say that it's okay to lie to non-believers, as it's not really a lie, because they aren't owed the truth. I think some of these Calvinist leaders who misrepresent what you teach actually know what you mean, but they're being deceitful on purpose. You have thicker skin than I do. God bless!

[@Lee-xn8by]

They are all dishonest, every single one of them. Listen to them long enough and you will catch them in deceit.

[@dw6528]

DW: Yes I agree - there is a certain degree of justified dishonesty within the Calvinist social structure. This is especially observable within Calvinist language Under scrutiny one will eventually observe - LIES OF OMISSION are ubiquitous within Calvinist language. Words are strategically used to produce *FALSE APPEARANCES* of things which do not exist within the doctrine In order to produce the *APPEARANCE* of things which are the opposite of what the doctrine stipulates. And that degree of dishonesty is the underlying reason for what is called STEALTH Calvinism

[@DamonNomad82]

There's a reason that some refer to Calvinism as "Trinitarian Islam". As you pointed out, Calvinism even has its own version of the Islamic concept of Taqiyya (the idea that it is acceptable to lie to unbelievers if one is doing so for "righteous" reasons).

[@leenieledejo6849]

​@@DamonNomad82 The Jesuit oath has that too...

[@Leonugent2012]

Here’s another symmetry. You have to do something to inherit unrighteousness exactly the same as you have to do something to inherit righteousness

[@dw6528]

DW: Yes - but of course - that formula is anathema in Calvinism because it allows the creature to be the DETERMINER of what it will inherit. And that threatens Calvin's conception of divine control. John Calvin -quote by the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the reason does not appear, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. - (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)

[@bass305-HCCA]

Death and sin entered the world through Adam. We aren't guilty of Adam's sin, we have a sin nature because of Adam. Babies that pass, go to heaven. Try to image the Lord throwing a baby into hell because of what Calvinists say. It's ludicrous.

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

Absolutely 💯 brother

[@johnknight3529]

"Death and sin entered the world through Adam." Only because he was the first man, I suggest,,, "..we have a sin nature because of Adam." I agree, but only because He was the first man, and we are all his decedents. As in, what you call a "sin nature", is an integral part of all humans, by design. It's an "intelligence system", that is dedicated to keeping us safe and secure. Without it, we would be sitting ducks, so to speak. (It is referred to as our heart, many times in the Book, I am very sure.) But, it can be taught/trained to avoid harming others in it's relentless pursuit of safety and security. And even taught/trained to incorporate others into it's relentless pursuit of safety and security, I am convinced. "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

[@sheilasmith7779]

bass305: please provide scripture that states or even implies our human nature is different than Adam and Eve. Not the conditions we live with compared to Eden, but our human nature. It's not there.

[@bass305-HCCA]

@@sheilasmith7779 I agree with you 100%. Maybe you should go back and re-read my comment more slowly.

[@bass305-HCCA]

@hoover8699 Sure. James White, Jeff Durban and John Calvin himself. Look up the interview with Leighton Flowers and Warren McGrew. Watch what James White says in response to Flowers and Warren's comments. Then look up what John Calvin said about it.

[@Factoreffectsmedia]

Amen brother Flowers! we need to mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which we have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

Amen

[@Tyler-er6ob]

Yes, exegete that to mean "anyone who disagrees with me is a heretic and I always espouse sound doctrine" lol

[@timkoelln3826]

Yes, if some of these internet Calvinists had power (which would undoubtedly corrupt them) over the life and death of their political and or religious opponents, some of them would absolutely imprison or even kill to maintain power. Nothing new under the sun. History doesn’t always repeat but it rhymes etc etc. No tongue in cheek or apology required. The truth can be uncomfortable but it’s still the truth.

[@sbag11]

Pretty sure John Calvin himself actually did have someone killed.

[@CClay-kn9lm]

I'm an Anabaptists and I have always believed very similar to what Dr. Flowers teaches. It's what most Christians i know believe. It's not an "out there" way of understanding scripture. It's just straightforward acceptance of what the Bible says without reading it through an ideological grid. I didn't hear about Calvinism until i was in my 40s. I had read through the Bible studying inductively eight times by then. I was determined that Calvin's systematic was not Biblical.

[@DamonNomad82]

That makes perfect sense, as the Baptist movement started out as a group of English separatists who were influenced by Anabaptists after moving to the Netherlands in the early 1600s. One group of these Baptists, the "General Baptists", taught Provisionism, though they didn't call it that (Leighton Flowers coined the term a few years ago because it was easier to say than "traditional General Baptist soteriology"). The other group, the "Particular Baptists" were influenced by the Anabaptists only in their views on baptism, and were Calvinist in their soteriology. 19th Century preacher Charles Spurgeon is probably the most famous of these "Particular Baptists".

[@Americanwoman74]

Well I'm just a plain ol Bible believing Christian. Y'all can keep your worthless titles

[@Yaas_ok123]

Thank you from Finland. Waiting for your new book to come available here, already have previous one's 😊

[@ellisrowe363]

I have no idea as to why people want to promote a systematic that is not found in the 1st century church. The Apostles were alive and were guided by the Holy Spirit (Jn 14 and 16) surely, they would have addressed determinism as taught by Calvinists/Augustinians if it had been a problem.

[@nazinas21]

They actually did

[@michaelhalpert5518]

@@nazinas21That’s awesome! Where did they do it?

[@thepickinpreacher]

aa local reformed baptist church here had the same exact wording in their statement of faith as us on man becomes a sinner and held guilty when we sin.. However they told me I was a heretic for having that in our statement of faith! They told their church they have to mark our church.. Funny thing is a deacon from the church brought the statement of faith to me and was confused because we held the same view as they WROTE DOWN.. Yet they refused to be honest about it and told anyone that didnt mark us they would be questioned of membership.. So needlesss to say we lost LOOOOTTTSSS of friends...

[@dw6528]

DW: For TRUE Calvinism - the creature cannot be the DETERMINER of what it will be held accountable for. The decree is what DETERMINES everything And the decree is not based on the creature or the condition thereof It is solely within himself - according to his good pleasure. So Calvin's god can hold a baby born today - accountable for whatever is his good pleasure That baby was simply created and designed for the lake of fire John Calvin -quote by the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the reason does not appear, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. - (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)

[@thepickinpreacher]

@@dw6528 exactly

[@filmscorelife4225]

Thank you!!! Sin nature does NOT earn you a death penalty....Committing sin does!

[@vincentkvincentkyolsonop9152]

Doesn’t sin nature make it impossible to not sin?

[@filmscorelife4225]

@vincentkvincentkyolsonop9152 Impossible...no...improbable yes. I don't believe anyone other than Christ can live a sinless life, however, the Bible also says God always provides a way of escape. So that maybe makes it 99.99999999 percent probable for sin.

[@jzlove5088]

Little baby Hitler was innocent? If he died at birth he would have deserved eternal life and access to paradise? Little baby Nero was innocent? God would have forgiven him if he died at birth? Little baby Stalin too? Wouldn’t that mean we could save humanity ourselves by taking the lives of ALL unborn babies? We could populate heaven ourselves! Just think about it if we stop the rest of the unborn from being born, we can save people like Hitler from ever existing, and we could have also saved his soul! All we had to do was take his life as an infant. And then little baby Hitler would be with Jesus and WWI would also have never happened! Also what’s so bad about abortion if it literally sends babies to paradise and keeps them from ever rejecting Christ?

[@filmscorelife4225]

@jzlove5088 Yes, every person with no knowledge of sin is not accountable by God. Yes, babies dying means they go to Heaven, but God tells us not to murder so......... Nice beard though!

[@jzlove5088]

@@filmscorelife4225I reject and rebuke your dangerous view. And I hope you didn’t bring a child into this existence. That would be much more horrible than murder.

[@sheilasmith7779]

Where did Adam and Eves capacity to sin come from? How were they able to choose sin? How is our capacity to sin different from Adam and Eve? We share the same nature as Adam and Eve.

[@jamesroberts6018]

Just trying to understand… are you saying that Adam and Eve were created with a sin nature?

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

We share the same nature of being human and subject to the same mortality as Adam and Eve. And up to around the age of seven or so (the innate age of responsibility), we seem to share the same innocence Adam and Eve once had. Right and wrong was there, they just didn't understand it, nor make choices toward it...yet. Sidestory: I remember at that age experiencing the transformation, when I realized what wrong was and the acts that came from wrong, which I later understood as Sin. The Bible clearly states that sin is disobedience and that sin is not counted when there is no law. Yet, death (spiritual darkness) still reigns and mortal death still exists. Spiritual Darkness is the kingdom to which we humans are born. Christ brings us out of the dark kingdom into the Kingdom of Light and Life. Since sin is disobedience, I think a more basic question is "Are humans born evil, with only the capacity for evil?", this is the claim that Calvinism makes. This is why some Calvinists call infants "Vipers in diapers". But God says the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to those who are like children. If children are vipers and completely evil, what does that say about the kingdom of heaven?

[@sheilasmith7779]

@jamesroberts6018 Adam and Eve were created by God (as we are) They, we are incapable of acting or behaving in ANY manner that is NOT in their design capability. No "thing," human or non-human, can be more (greater) than its capabilities. Humans were created with certain capabilities and with choice to act within those capabilities. Judas shared the same human nature as Moses, Noah or Abraham. They each freely made different choices.

[@pitoshighlights2443]

@@jamesroberts6018 Well, they sinned. They had the ability to choose between good and evil and so they did. Don't we all have the same ability?

[@jamesroberts6018]

@@pitoshighlights2443 it sure feels like I am choosing things 👍

[@LawlessNate]

Can I run this theological idea by someone? I've been reading the passages concerning conditional imputation / original sin / etc. Clearly the text isn't suggesting inherited guilt from Adam. However, it seems to me as if the text isn't suggesting that we inherited a sinful nature from Adam (to be clear I'm NOT suggesting we don't have a sinful nature or that we didn't inherit something relating to sin from Adam). Here is an idea I think actually fits with the text better than conditional imputation, although it's similar. Human nature didn't change from before Adam ate of the fruit in the garden to after, so technically we didn't inherit a sinful nature from Adam; that was already present within humanity. Instead, the only thing that changed is that Adam received the knowledge necessary to know good from evil and therefore be held morally accountable. This knowledge, and therefore moral accountability, spread to all humanity via Adam. This makes sense of the tree being the the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This makes sense of Adam and Eve being naked and ignorant prior to eating the fruit, and afterwards they recognize that nakedness isn't good. Also, I can't remember specifically which passage it is, although I think it's in either John or Romans, where there's a verse that seems to explicitly say that it's the knowledge we inherited from Adam that caused humanity to become dead in sin. To anyone reading this, what do you think? Are there any passages of scripture you can think of off the top of your head that would invalidate this interpretation? Edit: I found the verse that seems to suggest this view. It's Romans 5:12-13 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned- 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not counted against anyone when there is no law. Specifically verse 13. "...for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not counted against anyone when there is no law." I don't think Law in this context would make sense to refer to the Mosaic law, because if it did then this verse would be suggesting that prior to the Mosaic law sin wasn't counted against anyone. Instead, I think this refers to the law that is written on our hearts. Just assume that Law in this context means the law written on our hearts and re-read verse 13. "...for until the Law SIN WAS IN THE WORLD..." So sin was already present. "...but SIN IS NOT COUNTED against anyone WHEN THERE IS NO LAW." So prior to the law being written on our hearts, people were not held accountable for their sin. Doesn't that make better sense of this passage as well as the whole thing with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Genesis?

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

I would say, that the moral injunction of "That tree - bad" was already present in Adam's mind, making him morally culpable prior to receiving the knowledge. Btw: "Evil" in the statement: "the knowledge of good and evil", has a meaning implied as "wretchedness" I'd say wretchedness is a great descriptor of what befell humanity in that single act. There were a lot of great points you made.

[@dw6528]

DW: This does not answer your question. But if we are talking about Calvinism- the whole business of inherited nature is a denial of their own doctrine. In Calvinism - the state of man's nature - at every nano-second in time - is 100% meticulously predestined. And at any nano-second in time - cannot possibly be other than what it was decreed to infallibly be. Nature does not have the power to make anything come to pass infallibly including itself. So in Calvinism - nature is not the DETERMINING FACTOR of what its state will be. For a Calvinist to attribute any sin to man's nature - is to deny his own doctrine

[@LawlessNate]

@@dw6528 If a Calvinist is consistent with their theology then they will believe in, although probably not describe it as, meticulous determinism. The issue is that many Calvinists are not consistent with their theology, so many deny it.

[@dw6528]

@@LawlessNate DW: Very insightful! Yes! The actual reason for the inconsistency has to do with the fact that the foundational core of Calvinism is Determinism. And Determinism is such a radical belief system that it is humanly impossible for a person to live logically coherent with it - and at the same time retain a sense of human normalcy. Here are a few quotes on that subject Sean Carroll (Theoretical physicist - Atheist Determinist) -quote Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people *AS-IF* they make decisions. What Sean is saying - is that as a Determinist he understands that Determinism entails the thesis that ALTERNATIVES required for human CHOICE making do not exist. So the believer of Determinism is forced to live *AS-IF* Determinism is FALSE. Dr. William Lane Craig -quote Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself. Every determinist recognizes he has to act *AS-IF* he has option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take….. (Determinism is unlivable) John Calvin -quote “Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.” (Concerning the eternal predestination of god)

[@jamesbarksdale978]

I'm liking this. I have Harwood's Christian Theology. Will have read his comments more carefully. The SBC is the largest Protestant denomination in the world? I don't think so. Maybe in the US, but not the world. Anglicans have about 80 million, and Lutherans are right behind them.

[@kolynborah2577]

Hey, I have a question. I’ve read stuff about Wesley (I think John), and he held to a doctrine called sinless perfectionism. Where would you stand on this?

[@jonaubuchon1040]

I am not sure why twitter kicked you off their platform! Is it because J.D. complained?

[@BlantonSF]

So would you agree that we are sinful at birth but aren’t held accountable until we “knowingly” sin.

[@RReed-pk6rt]

Thank you Dr Flowers. I’ve been listening to a lot of podcasts about Progressive Christianity. Some of the strongest teachers on this are reformed. They get so confused when they talk about original sin. Was Jesus wholly man? Did he inherit sin?

[@enriquedez]

Serious question from someone who liens more reformed. If original sin is not imputed to the next person born of man's seed. Why (besides it being prophesied) did Jesus have to be born of a woman if original sin can't be passed on or imputed unless the condition of sin is met? Again this is a serious question just wanna learn God bless you and your ministry Dr. Flowers

[@DamonNomad82]

From a non-Augustinian perspective, the Virgin Birth was very real, but its sole true significance was that it was one of the miraculous signs that Jesus was, in fact, the Messiah as prophesied by Isaiah a millennium before. It wasn't necessary for any other reason and didn't have anything to do with Jesus' nature being different. The ideas attributing such additional features to the Virgin Birth were absent from Christianity until Augustine introduced aspects of his former pagan religion into Christianity in the early 5th Century. The difference in Jesus' nature from that of the rest of humanity is NOT that He was "human-minus", as Augustinianism mistakenly assumes ("human minus transmitted guilt" or "human minus sinful nature"). Instead, the difference was that He was "human-plus" ("human plus God the Son"). Had Jesus been born without any aspect that makes one human, He would have lacked a truly human nature and thus could never have redeemed humanity. The same is true if Jesus had ever had any sin in Him at any point in His life. Thus, humanity has no "sin nature" in the sense of being guilty at birth, or at any point before having the knowledge of good and evil and willfully committing a sin. What humanity, and all other living creations, do have is a strong self-preservation instinct. Because the Curse made humanity mortal, that instinct has to be much more powerful than it was before the Fall, because life is now mortal. That urge to self-preservation isn't itself sinful, as non-human life his it, and Jesus as well (as proven by His prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane just before His arrest. What makes it functionally impossible for humanity, other than Jesus, to resist committing sins is when that self-preservation instinct is combined with the knowledge of good and evil. Jesus, being truly and fully God as well as truly and fully human, had the strength to reject every temptation every time throughout His entire life, the aspect of His nature that the rest of humanity lacks. Jesus was tempted in every way, but without sin. Ezekiel Chapter 18 directly contradicts the idea that any descendant can inherit guilt from any ancestor, though the consequences for an ancestor's sin can profoundly harm the descendants of the sinner for many generations.

[@sbag11]

Our sin nature (bent toward sin) is inherited. Guilt, however, is not. We are not judged for Adam's sin, but our own.

[@strattgatt5303]

Its crazy how many lies come from Calvin and Catholics in general. I was just noticing the extreme importance placed on Jesus being both man and God. 100% man and 100% God they say. And yet, it doesnt say that. It says born in the likeness of sinful flesh.... For instance, if i die, i would not cease to be a man just because i dont have a body. Neither does God become a man by taking on flesh. So why the extreme emphasis? That's what i have yet to figure out. I noticed Imputation was junk theology the other day as well. Its crazy!

[@angelmoncada382]

I understand the basic argument here but what I don't understand is why Dr. Flowers denies that we inherit Adam's guilt, while also affirming our inheriting of Adam's sinful proclivity. My understanding is that the latter was a result of the former. Adam didn't have a sin nature until he sinned. Therefore, how is it possible, or even fair (by Flowers' own logic), that at birth, each individual inherit the result of Adam's sin, without having sinned themselves? It strikes me as a catch-22. Unless the position is that theoretically, someone other than Jesus can lead a fully sinless life?

[@barnabasalbonetti2536]

Leighton, from looking at everything the Calvinist teach, it boils down to, that God is only a child playing a game of chess with himself and saying, hey look everyone, I won! He is not playing both sides. If he was, he would play unbiased and it would end in a stalemate! God is not a ying and yang. He is light and separated from darkness! There is an enemy of God making his own moves. God just knows the moves he will make!

[@FBCTrona]

I do love my Calvinist and reformed brother. They are good men, but I will be honest I have heard them and seen their writings among each other where they have wished that they could stone those that did not align with them like they used to. I have had the opportunity to confront some of these men who tried to deny it until I showed them their own words on Facebook.

[@fbcfnh]

You state, around 7:35, that the SBC is the largest "Protestant" denomination. As a Christian who happens to be in a Baptist Church, I take exception to that. Baptists, historically, are not part of the Protestant Reformation. Statements like this lead some who do not study Church history to believe they are part of the Protestant movement and then lean toward Calvinism/RT because of this, IMPO.

[@robertwheeler1158]

The real question is, what exactly did Paul mean when he said, "and so death spread to all men, because all sinned .. ." (Rom. 5:12).

[@Pablo9989-lj7pm]

@robert wheeler. Paul said that “death” spread to all members, Not imputed guilt. Please read Genesis 3, carefully. And then read Romans 5. Death, rather than “the tree of life” was the consequence of Adam’s sin.

[@scottwojack]

Great question and the answer is in verse 19. You have to understand in verse 12 Paul starts a simile but never finishes it and go off on several tangents. When we get to verse 19 Paul starts over with his simile but rewords it based on the tangents he just went down. Verses 12 - 18 show us his train of thought but the real simile is found in verse 19. Verse 12 is an incomplete thought and should have never been used to develop any kind of doctrine.

[@marteld2108]

God is Love. Love doesn’t damn His children from all eternity. And it follows Calvinism is false.

[@mpalmer22]

Love and hate are two sides of the same coin. To have extreme love for something, also means I have extreme hate for something else. If I love black people, I must hate slavery. If God loves the righteous, he must hate the unrighteous.

[@marteld2108]

@@mpalmer22 God loves all His children. He does not condemn anyone to Hell from all eternity.

[@mpalmer22]

@@marteld2108 Which Bible are you reading from? Why does Paul even bother pleading for his people to be saved if they are already zealous for God, but fail to see God revealed in Jesus if what you said is true? (Rom 10:13).

[@huey7437]

@@mpalmer22let's apply your clown logic... Your extreme love of your daughter NECESSITATES you also equally hate your son... You love vanilla ice cream, therefore you equally and necessarily hate ALL other flavors... You love the NY Jets, and therefore you hate the NY Mets... You hate hot dogs because you love hamburgers... See anything problematic with your love/hate coin ??? 🤡

[@marteld2108]

@@mpalmer22 Your reply makes no sense to my position.

[@folktheologytransition3756]

That’s like a shot-gun call out for reformers. “They don’t believe in original sin”. My response is, “so what?” They’re other models that are orthodox (if not more so) than original sin. Not believing in original sin doesn’t equate to heresy!

[@Rightlydividing-wx1xb]

Calvinists are teaching heresy and should receive Paul, peter, Jude, Jesus, John type sharpe rebuke, not hugs and wonderful friendship and Godly kisses.

[@RJPHorseTraining]

I'm all for it. I've wondered why Leighton doesn't explain who the unclean children on 1 Cor 7 are.

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

Clean/unclean is a concept from the Mosaic Law. It's "ceremonial". An "unclean" person could not enter the temple, nor would a "clarn" Jew eat with an unclean person - Gentiles were considered unclean. But in Christ there is now no distinction between ceremonially clean/unclean, evidenced by Peter's vision of the sheets and subsequent narrative concerning Cornelius, who was a Gentile, and his household. Not sure why Paul is communicating this in 1 Cor. - a church in a Greek city. There were other communications between Paul and this church that we do not have. Perhaps there was a Jewish believer(s) in Christ whom was now part of the Corinthian church and needed to hear this. Idk You can search this out using the internet. Most of the answers I found were unsatisfying, such as saying the children of parents where only one of them is a believer are under "the umbrella of God's blessing" Whatever that means😅 Scholars sometimes frustrated me. When there isn't a biblically contextual answer to a question, they feel they need to make one up, instead of just saying they don't have a clue and leaving it at that. Good luck with your search.

[@sammartinez2545]

I don't understand how it's possible that Calvinists can't see their contardictions, their minds are so messed up, its so clear throughout scripture that we are going to be judged according to OUR DEEDS and not because of Adam's sin, it's clear, it's so clear, it's so clear it's kind of annoying sometimes I give up, they are hard headed.

[@DamonNomad82]

When one is raised in a false belief, it can be very difficult to see the flaws and weaknesses in it. The same is true if one is tricked into embracing a false belief as an adult. As Mark Twain put it "it's easier to swindle people than it is to convince them they've been swindled." That is because once one has invested one's belief in something, that gives one an emotional attachment to it, especially if it required some sacrifice on one's part. It is also ruinous to one's pride to admit that one has been tricked.

[@michaelvolpe3454]

Leighton, you argue much better than your debating

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

Debating is an art in itself even if you have perfectly the right answers doesn't mean you're going to be a great debater.

[@guytruth4907]

24 year Pastor here, Non-Calvinist. Question....how is it that Baptist are Calvinist after you are saved...OSAS? When your saved, you lose your free will....very strange....not consistent. As the bible says, we must continue in the faith.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

Discrepancies and misreadings abound, as all of history has proven. That makes it difficult to discern an accurate reading of the truth when you are an interested inquirer into the faith, or just somebody on the outside watching the bickering. Spiritual truths need to be accurately understood by spiritual men/women and will be constantly distorted by the natural man. This is not a call to give up but rather a call to press forward. Continue to knock and the door will be opened.

[@kevinjypiter6445]

@guytruth4907 there is a reason OSAS was never taught in the church until Martin Luther and John Calvin. It was first invented by Calvinism, and it still remains to this day in several baptist churches. Yes, it denies man’s free Will. Think of the Parable of the Virgins. All 10 of them had the oil lamps (the light of Jesus) but they had the free Will to stay vigilant or fall asleep. They were only saved because of what they chose to do with their gifts (the lamps)

[@dw6528]

DW: The topic of "Free Will" in Calvinism is extremely misleading There is a *FORM* of "Free Will" in Calvinism. The classic Calvinist confession states "They come most freely" . It is critical to understand - the underlying foundation of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvin's doctrine of decrees. John Calvin explains -quote The creatures...are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3) 1) Calvin's god must grant "Freedom" to that which he decrees 2) If he does not grant "Freedom" to that which he decrees - he is a house divided against himself. 3) But there is NO "Freedom" granted to creation to *COUNTERVAIL* that which is decreed So - if it is decreed Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME_T 1) Calvinist_A is granted "Freedom" to perform SIN_X at TIME-T 2) Calvinist_A is NOT granted "Freedom" to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME_T 3) For Calvinist_A to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T would be to countervail the decree 4) And creation is NOT granted "Freedom" to countervail an infallible decree. That is how "Freewill" works in TRUE Calvinism. Many Calvinists are either dishonest or confused about this aspect of their doctrine.

[@IvanAgram]

Leighton, if you ever get to Croatia you have a drink on me.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

Zwingli referred to sin as a dissease.

[@Lanaioahu]

Zwingli himself was a disease.

[@sageart3210]

Check out Allen Parr video he did on his response to an Atheist where one of her reasons for leaving was Calvinism

[@undergroundpublishing]

If people would really sort out Calvinism to it theological roots, they would learn that the Calvinist worships a God who was angry, before their was sin. You become like the God you worship. If your God is a hammer in search of a nail, his devotees will not be able to exist without finding someone to punish for their own iniquity. "Whoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of judgement." ~ Jesus Christ.

[@Myrdden71]

From "On the Incarnation", by Athansias - "The Saviour is working mightily among men, every day He is invisibly persuading numbers of people all over the world, both within and beyond the Greek-speaking world, to accept His faith and be obedient to His teaching. Can anyone, in face of this, still doubt that He has risen and lives, or rather that He is Himself the Life? (61)" Apparently Athanasias wasn't a Calvinist. Jesus is 'persuading' people to 'accept' His faith. Nothing here about election, nor even sounding like it. And Calvinists love Athansias. Hmmm....

[@kevinjypiter6445]

St. Athanasius was a blessed man. His work is what promulgated the doctrine of the trinity during the time of the Arian heresy. He was also a free Will enjoyer :)

[@Sir_Howie]

I like provisionism, but how do you reject original sin and not be Pelagian?

[@DamonNomad82]

The key to understanding that is to understand what "Pelagianism" actually is. The term originated when Augustine of Hippo and a group of his sycophants made up an imaginary "heresy" and named it after a monk named Pelagius, whom Augustine hated, out of spite, even though Pelagius didn't affirm 13 of the 14 beliefs that Augustine attributed to so-called "Pelagianism". It started as a baseless, made-up insult and false accusation, and remains one to this day. While history is full of individuals calling others "Pelagian" or "semi-Pelagian", there has never been a proven case of such accusations ever being true. It's basically the equivalent of calling someone a "goblin" or a "leprechaun", but with a much more negative implication.

[@DamonNomad82]

For reference, here are the 14 Points of so-called Pelagianism (which were entirely denounced by Pelagius except for Point 7, which he only partially agreed with). There has never been a documented case of anyone affirming more than a few of the points, or even as many as half of them. 1. Adam was created mortal and would die whether he sinned or not. 2. Adam’s sin harmed only Adam, not mankind. 3. The law leads to heaven in the same way as the Gospel. 4. Newborn infants are in the same state as Adam before his sin. 5. The whole human race doesn’t die through Adam and live through Christ. 6. Even unbaptized infants possess eternal life. 7. The wealthy must renounce their possessions or they will not see the Kingdom of Heaven. 8. God’s grace and help are not given for individual actions, but consist in free will, the law and teaching. 9. God‘s grace is given in accord with our merits and is located in the human will. 10. Only those who are without sin can be called children of God. 11. Forgetfulness and ignorance are not sinful since they’re not done willingly. 12. A choice is not free if it needs God’s help. 13. Our victory is not the result of God’s help, but free will. 14. The soul can be as sinless as God.

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

Also, Augustine ceded one of Pelagius' points, that the exercising faith is a work you do. Therefore Calvinism is built on a Pelagian foundation. Ironic, right?

[@thm8521]

--- NEVER ANY CALVINIST COULD RESPOND THIS. Question for Calvinists: 1. If Adam is not in hell, then his sin was paid for. How then do other children and people pay again in hell for something that was already paid? Did Christ partially erase Adam's sin? Is a sin partially paid for? 2. How does one repent of Adam's sin that he did not commit? 3. When God has judged all things, when specifically Adam's sin was paid for, if it was paid again and again by thousands of people in hell. When specifically was sin extinguished? To be judged, a sin needs to be judged more than once (see point 1 also). It is incredible to believe that these people believe that we are guilty of an uncommitted sin and that the blood of Christ partially erases a sin (see point 1). Inconsistencies everywhere.

[@mpalmer22]

Calvinist here, Adam's sin was fully paid by Christ dying on the cross, so is everyone who repents and turns to Christ in faith.

[@thm8521]

@@mpalmer22 If Adam's sin was was fully paid by Christ dying on the cross, why then you say that there are babies going to hell paying the sin of Adam?

[@mpalmer22]

@@thm8521 My memory sucks, so can you provide the caption of me saying that, cause I don't remember saying that. I don't believe babies are going to hell, they don't even understand the concept of words, let alone sin.

[@thm8521]

@@mpalmer22 So you are not calvinist. Thats it. YOu dont even know what you system teaches.

[@patcandelora8496]

Dr Flowers I think you are closer to Eastern Orthodoxy than you may realize!

[@jacobmichaeljohnson]

Have you done a video on Adam being created with and living for a period of time in a state of innocence versus all human beings now conceived with a corrupt nature?

[@petergouvignon8048]

Adam being created with and living for a period of time in a state of innocence was he sinless ? sin was in the world . then the law came , Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

[@jacobmichaeljohnson]

Hey Pete… he (Adam) was innocent before he sinned.

[@petergouvignon8048]

@@jacobmichaeljohnson were does it say that ?

[@austinh681]

Everyone is unconditionally going to die. Everyone is conditionally going to live.

[@Dizerner]

Is it a just thing to condemn an innocent person to death though?

[@timothyfox6807]

Amen, I'm not a Calvinist and I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for that, i guess according to Calvinist God degree me to write that, plus they are to confusing and some Calvinist have horrible attitudes toward others. why would i want to be like them.

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

Durbin strawmans as usual. He's a good lil kid of James White's obviously. I used to really like Jeff, but now I only love him .

[@HeavenGuy]

Being born again from the word of God. 1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

[@mrmr5918]

Quoting others who support or deny one's position holds little weight. Should there be 10x people who....I dunno believe that red is better than blue... don't spend your time quoting those who think like you, as if the more you find in agreement makes the argument stronger. Quote the bible, as it is the strongest truest authority. Why does the Bible say that red is better than Blue (or whatever point you are trying to make)

[@ironleatherwood]

Please debate Jeff. God bless you

[@dandeliontea7]

Jeff has an open invitation to come on the show. He's a coward

[@sawyeranderson1394]

Amazing you never once cracked the spine of a bible...

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

You didn't quote any bible either. Using your logic, your comment was unacceptable as well.😅

[@sawyeranderson1394]

​​@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi I didn't make a single assertion or claim on the issue. He made dozens of assertions, claims, etc. yet provided not a single ounce of scriptural evidence.

[@AlexanderosD]

Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

Don't forget to quote the allusion to those scriptures, that is, Jesus explaining about, the splinter in your brother's eye, but the log in your own eye. Albeit, that Pauline discussion was over ego issues whereas foundational doctrinal issues and besmirching the character of God is not ego and has been heavily debated and condemned by the apostles and the future church.

[@jamesmg4694]

What I have wanted to know from Calvinists is simply this. For the reprobate what is the difference between God and the devil? From their point of view all they are going to get from both is agony!

[@jamesmg4694]

Calvinism acts like a spiritual stronghold. Once in it is difficult to even see the other side, no matter how good and repeated the explanations. They think they are following the scriptures but in reality are following a few whose meaning they have divorced from the whole context - which is the whole bible. One avenue of challenge I have used, to which I have received no replies is this. Whom am I to love? If God does not love the reprobate then I am not to love them, in fact I cannot love them with the love of Christ because He has no love for them! So can I love an unbelieving wife or child? After-all they may be the reprobate. Even if they declare they are saved, if they don't persevere then my love would have been misplaced and fake! Calvinism reduces to absurdity and impossibility.

[@Watchmanonthewall77]

You had it right the first time, "Jeff White"😂

[@fernandosviewpoint]

With due respect I do not see this debate a cause of division. The divisive spirit is coming from some not so mature brothers who may need to take more time to meditate and study. But calvinistic doctrine must be discus openly for it's harm throughout decades. It frustrates reasoning, something we desperately need, with the idea of man's responsibility and God's sovereignty, two contradictory concepts said to be true at the same time. It is impossible to turn to the right and to the left at the same time. If we are placed in such a situation we get frustrated. The truth is one and it needs to be clearly proclaimed. Or we choos or do not choose. If we do not choose nothing happens regardless of what we think but if we do we have a responsibility before our God that must not be neglected.

[@thebark_barx6231]

Romans 5:12 we all sinned in Adam. Dr. Forlines does an excellent job on this verse in His book “the Quest for Truth”

[@VoiceUnder]

According to Calvinists, Adam was guilty of sin, being made in God's image, but everyone else is a VICTIM of sin, created in ADAM'S image

[@edmundlau2150]

Jeff Durbin is so wrong on many of his teachings, from Augustinian original sin to penal substitutionary atonement to deterministic predestination to postmillennialism. Reason? He parrots James White on every single point but presents his own more unpolished versions of these unbiblical teachings.

[@edmundlau2150]

​@@jleor5068 - I used to hold strongly to PSA as well. I'm now studying the different theories of the Atonement. PSA, like the "inherited guilt of Adam" theory of Original Sin, has been promoted as the only view of the Atonement. That may not be the case...

[@mrdandrea]

Durbin & his followers know less about the counter-arguments of Calvinism, making it easier to reject them. I have to edit short videos from your sight in order to slip in the teaching, as the Psalmist said, the entrance of Thy Word bringeth light, otherwise my Calvinist friends and family won't even study the implications of their belief system, as you spell it out. (Psalm 119:130) That's why Durbin, White, and others try to belittle you. Whereas, you are known to be a Christian by your love and compassion but continue to stand and contend fervently for the faith! There are many out here losing their sleep just to trip us up.

[@Lanaioahu]

the Calvinist "god" and Allah are the same...both are false gods.

[@DamonNomad82]

They do call Calvinism "Trinitarian Islam" in some circles...

[@jesuschristsaves9067]

Durbin is a coward. He’ll never get into the ring with a legitimate debater.

[@alreyindustries]

If everyone inherits death and other things through the fall that make it significantly more probable, if not guaranteed, that we will sin, which brings about our personal guilt, aren’t you saying almost the same thing except you get babies off the hook? If God were fair/just in your view, shouldn’t He give each of us the perfect nature and environment that Adam got? Why do babies die if they don’t have personal sin?

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

He could have made us all robots that always followed our programming, that though shown the tree not to be eaten from, the injunction would be meaningless. Apparently that's not the world He wanted, because He wanted willing obedience, which presupposes that there be the possibility of disobedience. And people forget in the discussion of this topic that Adam and Eve had a temptor and one choice. We don't just have >a< temptor. We have an entire fallen world chock full of temptations. That each of us would yield to them at some point would seem to be inevitable.

[@alreyindustries]

@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi are you responding to what I said? If so, I don’t understand what point you’re making in response. My point was that the provisionist or anyone who denies original sin, historically understood as all humans inheriting the guilt and sinful nature of Adam, in (what seems to me to be) an attempt to free babies from inherited guilt and God from some kind of injustice, do not really accomplish the second part (acquitting God of injustice). BECAUSE if everyone is born with death because of Adam and sins because of the conditions brought about by Adam, though their guilt is personal because they “choose” to sin, it is still Adam’s fault for producing such a world that would lead us into sin and therefore, using the logic of the original sin denier, God is still unjust for holding us responsible for sin which was basically caused by Adam.

[@DamonNomad82]

The answer to why babies die if they don't have personal sin is the same as the answer to why animals, plants and microbes die if they don't have personal sin. All creation suffers physical death as a result of the Curse which God placed on creation as a result of Adam's sin. While physical death is a sad reality and consequnce of sin, spiritual death and becoming a sinner can only occur when a being has the knowledge of good and evil and willfully chooses to do evil. Babies and profoundly mentally disabled people who lack the capacity to know good and evil are just as incapable of being sinners as an animal or a plant is, though they are infinitely more valuable than animals or plants due to being image-bearers of God. People without the capacity to sin still need God's grace just as much as anyone else, as their innocence is not meritorious and cannot earn them a place in heaven, but they don't need God's mercy like the rest of humanity because they have done nothing deserving of punishment.

[@alreyindustries]

@@DamonNomad82 “All creation suffers physical death as a result of the Curse which God placed on creation as a result of Adam's sin.” One of the objections to the traditional teaching of imputed sin from Adam to all humans, babies included, is that it is not JUST for God to punish - place penal consequences of a transgression or crime - on other individuals who have not committed that crime. That is what my first comment is addressing. However, physical death, spiritual death, and a cursed earth/environment are all CONSEQUENCES/“results”/penalties of one person’s sin/crime/transgression - Adam. Why is it just for those consequences to become ours if we are not guilty of sin? “While physical death is a sad reality and consequnce of sin” You are saying that all creation, including babies and the mentally disabled, suffer the CONSEQUENCE of Adam’s sin. For, Adam was the one given a command, Adam disobeyed the command, and everything since Adam has suffered the consequences of his one sin. Therefore, innocent people are suffering punishment without sin. “spiritual death and becoming a sinner can only occur when a being has the knowledge of good and evil and willfully chooses to do evil” With this comment you separate physical death as a consequence of personal sin by making a distinction between physical and spiritual death. I agree that there is a biblical distinction between physical and spiritual death, however, I disagree that you can have one without the other. What you’re saying is that people are born mortal yet with spiritual life. How is a person born spiritually alive and yet physically dead (dying)? Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” And, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John‬ ‭3‬:‭3‬, ‭5‬-‭6‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬ And Paul adds, “and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭8‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬ If we are born into death, in the flesh, how can we be innocent and spiritually alive? “They don't need God's mercy like the rest of humanity because they have done nothing deserving of punishment.” Again, if they have done nothing deserving of punishment, why are they being punished? I see the connection you want to make with animals and other parts of creation that die etc. because of the curse. That is the best part of your argument. However, when we are talking about humans and not animals I do not think the argument works. The Bible clearly says God subjected all OTHER created things to futility, “not willingly” (Romans 8:20-21). However, humans willingly rebelled against God. And the Bible says it was because of the first humans willful disobedience that all humans are sinners, not just subjects of sinners suffering the consequences of their masters. “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭5‬:‭18‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬ “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭5‬:‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

[@DamonNomad82]

@@alreyindustries Not all consequences are punishments. When a violent crime is committed and the criminal is captured, tried, convicted and sentenced, that is punishment. The victim at the receiving end of the crime, however, has committed no crime and receives no punishment, but is still subjected to the consequences of the criminal's actions, including physical and emotional trauma and possibly even loss of life, depending on the degree and type of violence inflicted on them. All living things that die without having a sense of right and wrong are in the position of the victim in the above illustration. They are victims of Adam's sin, but don't share in Adam's guilt.

[@MyRoBeRtBaKeR]

We are dead, physical and spiritual death, yet it has nothing to do with guilt. So, too, is the free gift of life, even with this you are not innocent.

[@atyt11]

It’s unlikely that you are physically dead unless your ghost is writing KZbin responses. There are far more versus saying we need a doctor than there are that say we are dead. Why do you fail to bring these into your equation? Presuppositions?

[@duffgordon9005]

THere is NO talk of original sin?? Does everyone understand that a stream is almost always purest at it's source? Why do you uphold "church Fathers" some of whom, did not "study" the entire Texts. Jesus to Nicodemus, who was confused about being born again.. "You are a teacher of the Jews and you do not know about the necessity of being born?? "If you take of the fruit YOU WILL DIE" Immediatel;y in Gen Three, God gets "proactive" about this "death situation" DEATH immediately entered the world when God slay the anim,als for garments. COME ON!! No one read those texts?

[@Zomfoo]

“Anslem”? 😬

[@BPond7]

Jeff Durbin hates God’s decree that most of us reject Calvinism.

[@rprestarri]

Slander

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

True, Who is this "Oh man?!" ....gettin' sassy with his back talk!

[@rprestarri]

@@Jamie-Russell-CME Where's your "respect and gentleness." It seems many have much hatred towards the Truth of God's holy word. I wonder if God will be glorified in the rebellion of His creatures or if they will get the final laugh. I'm disposed to think the former; for "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision."

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

​I am so gentle! I like Jeff. The issue is why do you hate what God has decreed me to believe? Either you think non Calvinsts aren't saved or you should accept God saves people who deny Calvinist I terpretatio a and stop telling us we are wrong. Godspeed us and didn't determine is to believe your terrible interpretation ​@rprestarri

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

You interpretation is wrong. And a pious fraud.

[@TwitchyThelogian]

So, you have to earn your guilt and your salvation. Sounds about right. Hebrews 7:9-10 Levi is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham because he was "In his loins." We sinned in Adam similarly. Death came into the world through one man. When that one man sinned, we all sinned. Hence, we are by nature children of wrath. ALL, yes, ALL have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. If babies aren't sinners, then why did God have Israel kill the Amalekite babies in 1 Samuel 15:3? Why do babies die if they aren't sinners? Isn't the wages of sin death? Or does God give them a punishment they don't deserve?

[@Dizerner]

Classical Arminians stand with you strong on this point against Provisionism, rest assured.

[@TwitchyThelogian]

@@Dizerner I appreciate that, brother.

[@1995dodgetruck]

The Bible DOES NOT teach we are held guilty before God because of Adam's sin. Original sin is a man made doctrine.

[@vincentkvincentkyolsonop9152]

Romans 5:18-19 18Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

[@jzlove5088]

Ephesians 2:1-3 1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience- 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. We are ALL and were always influenced by Satan, the prince of the power of the air. We all walked according to the sinful course of the world. We all fulfilled our lusts. All of us were children of wrath, that is, we were under judgment because of sin. Our nature is corrupt to the core. Scripture can’t be much more clear on the fact that humans, every single one regardless of age is wicked and evil to our very core.

[@jzlove5088]

Mark 7:20-23 20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:. 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. (This couldn’t be more clear…. Where does our sin come from? It comes out of man, it comes out of us, where does the evil come from? It comes from within us….. It is part of our nature, our sin nature.) Matthew 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? (Woah! Who is he speaking about here? Is Matt speaking about me, did he just call me evil?)

[@vincentkvincentkyolsonop9152]

@@jzlove5088 I appreciate you brother.

[@gmac6503]

None of these people will even read Mark S Smith's book including Flowers, who is a nicer guy than Durbin and White but still he is just an apologist. Apologist's are annoying and deflectors

[@joenuevo]

At 16:12 or so you talk about the political left and the word racism and compare that to Calvinism and the use of the term Pelagian. This is only one of the many ways that Calvinists are like the political left. Beyond the insults and the name calling there is the Calvinist echo chamber (they almost exclusively only quote from other Calvinists in their books for example). Redefinition of common words. The left has redefined many words, again racism is an example here: Racism = power + prejudice. The calvinist has redefined sovereignty. As you have pointed out yourself: same words, different dictionary. Both presuppose the correctness of their particular view and they appear to be absolutely baffled to the point of incoherence when presented with anything that disagrees with them. Revisionist History, as you mentioned earlier in this video (around 11:15 or so). There are so many other similarities. Without any attempt to justify them, here are others I've noted since I've started tracking this issue: Arrogance, Bullies, Cannot see the heart of the issue, Deceptive word play, Easy Out Arguments, Gaslighting, Label and Dismiss, Minority Pride, (intentionally) Misrepresenting opposing views, victim complex.

[@joenuevo]

At 17:53 you mention the echo chamber.

[@mrmr5918]

Infant death doesn't translate to infant hell. But if the wages of sin is death, (Romans 6:23) and death occurs (at any age), sin must be present. Sin is in our nature. And the very fact we die is evident of that nature.

[@Charles-rb6jr]

Jesus died. He wasn't sinful. There must be a distinction between inheriting the consequences of Adam's sin and inheriting sin. If no distinction exists then we are still dead in our sins since Jesus must have inherited sin. I think it is important to note that Adam and Eve chose to sin before they had fallen. You don't have to start in a state of fallenness to fall. Falling implies starting off not fallen. Sin and death are not synonymous, and they don't carry the exact same consequences. Remember what God said about the tree of life. He took it away so as to not allow Adam and Eve to remain alive forever in a fallen state. They were immediately sinful, but not immediately dead. I think the Bible is not as complicated as certain theology makes it out to be. If we just read the facts for ourselves in the Bible (and drop the theological baggage of man) the Bible is not that complicated. Adam and Eve could have stayed alive physically while sinful had God not taken the tree of life away. God said so Himself. He took it away and they began to die just like He told them would happen if they are from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The literal translation is "dying you shall die." Fast forward to Jesus. He was away from the tree of life and in our likeness. (In our flesh) He was wearing corruptible flesh. He faced mortality. He perished the way any human would in His situation. He never sinned. I don't claim to completely understand it all, but I think I'm off to a good start by following what I read in Genesis and not following what Augustine said. Just some of my thoughts for your consideration.

[@DamonNomad82]

Are plants "sinners"? Are animals? Microbes? All of these die, and yet there is no evidence that any of them are capable of committing any kind of sin, due to the fact that they lack the capacity to know good from evil. The same is true for infants. Spiritural death occurs at the time one knowingly breaks the law and thus commits a sin, as shown by Paul in Romans 7:7-11. No one is capable of being a sinner until they know good from evil. The reason innocent lives still end in death is because of the curse. The innocent dead are victims of Adam's sin, but they suffer only the physical consequences of it, not the spiritual guilt or death.

[@deadeyeridge]

Be careful when strawmanning presup apologetics. Throwing those attacks not only isolates you from many many many modern christian apologetics, but the first thousand years of apologetics of the early church

[@Dizerner]

Something spiritual cannot be "unclean," "corrupted," "contaminated," "defective," "diseased" or "disposed to sin" in its nature without a morally negative component. As if we were just born righteous but debilitated.

[@krazzykracker2564]

Whats interesting is all the arguments flowers used against calvinists in this video are true about trinitarians also. Can't wait until flowers slays the snake of calvinism and moves on to the dragon called trinity

[@Pablo9989-lj7pm]

What do you do with John 14. Verses 16&17..?

[@krazzykracker2564]

@@Pablo9989-lj7pm I don't have to do anything with it. I agree with it.

[@mpalmer22]

Say what? Did you just call the holy doctrine of the Trinity a heresy???

[@Pablo9989-lj7pm]

@@krazzykracker2564 Would you please clarify what you are saying about The Trinity. God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit. It looks like you are calling the belief in a Triune God, “a dragon”. But when I point out John 14:16&17, you say you agree. I am confused. Please explain. Thank you.

[@krazzykracker2564]

@@Pablo9989-lj7pm I believe the same arguments that can be used against calvinism and calvinists applies to the trinity and trinitarians. Both are extra biblical and later developments. There followers were extremely violent and murderous who killed any who opposed them. Often they burned their works and them. Modern day trinitarians have on trinitarian glasses and massive presuppositions when reading the text. For example john the 14 chapter. Trinitarians presupposition frames their interpretation. Just like calvinists do. If you have ever been frustrated with a calvinist not being able to read scriptures outside of their bias and presuppositions its literally the same thing for the trinity.

[@suganemmenaul]

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. This verse says before we born we are estranged. And soon as we born we sin. We are guilty as soon as we were born. According to this scripture. 🙄 Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. We made in sin in the womb. We don’t have to act To be guilty. It’s very easy. Stop denying the fat that we are Not guilty until we sin. Scripture clearly says as soon as we born we lie.

[@williammarinelli2363]

1. Psalms are poetical. Look at Psalm 58:4. Does a newborn possess poison like that of a serpent? If so please cite analyses of chemical composition of newborn saliva. Do mountains literally clap? Do gates literally lift up their heads? 2. Psalm 58 contrasts the wicked with the righteous. 3. The personal pronoun "I" in Psalm 51:5 means that David was talking about David. 4. Those that spoke against David, and there were more than a few, easily could have employed the disgusting technique of insulting his mother. Saul even confronts his son Jonathan with "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman." Strange way for a dad to reprove his offspring. David could have been saying, in contrite anguish for what David did, "I'm as bad as they say I am." 5. When I stand before the judgment seat, to receive the things done in MY body, according to that I have done, and if I was conceived in the back of a greyhound bus, then I will answer for what I have done. 6. The verses you cite say what they say, the don't say what you suggest they mean.

[@suganemmenaul]

Hold on! what r you? How is that your knowledge is wise then scripture? I do understand what the psalm says. And I can understand the scripture clearly. So you telling me Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. So Writer is lying about the wicked people according to your knowledge and according to your knowledge they made holy in their mothers womb? Or David did not conceived in sin when he was in his mothers womb and he also holy like God? This what you trying to say? If a baby is not conceived in sin then baby is holy like God. Would you agree that all babies are holy like God? Or sinners like us? There is only two options here. Holy or unholy.

[@Charles-rb6jr]

​@@suganemmenaulIn order to "go astray" one must start from a place of not having gone astray. There's no such thing as going astray if one is already sinful at conception. The verse you quoted from the Psalms doesn't even mention sinfulness before birth. It mentions going astray (meaning a starting place of not astray is where one has begun) after being born. That is significant and should not be overlooked. The statement is about wicked people. That contrasts with those who are not wicked. He isn't speaking of everyone here. He is speaking specifically about wicked people. His statement employs a writing technique that magnifies the sinfulness of the wicked. That is why he says that they immediately (that is the meaning) "go astray." Again, one can't "go astray" unless one is first not astray, and he is speaking of the "wicked" and not everyone. (With a special emphasis on the sinfulness of the wicked)

[@Charles-rb6jr]

​@@suganemmenaulI noticed that I used different words than you did. You used a translation that says "are estranged." I didn't notice that when commenting so I quickly took a look at the Hebrew and some other translations. It does say "go astray" in at least one English translation. More importantly, in Hebrew the word is a verb. That means it is an action committed by someone and not a beginning condition.

[@suganemmenaul]

@@Charles-rb6jr Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. I understand your view point. It do make sense. You also sound like they are HOLY until they committed lies. I do get that psalm is talking about particular people. The question here is are they HOLY in womb? If not what are they?

[@jamesroberts6018]

According to scripture… God created hell and determined that all who do not believe will go there. True or false?

[@mpalmer22]

True! Next question.

[@jaggedlines2257]

" you are under the consequences of the Fall from birth but you are not guilty personally for anything but your own sin" Is this not Pelagianism ? Pelagius taught the sufficiency of human nature as created by God. Further, Pelagius taught that there was no inherited inclination to evil in human nature. Is this not rationalised moralism? Is the free will of man paramount to any of God's decrees? Does not this mean that Mankind can decide to be saved or not be saved? The Doctrine of imputation rests upon Romans 5: 12 to 21. Adam's sin was imputed to the human race. Adam was GUILTY of disobeying God by believing the serpent instead of the Creator. Adam agreed with the serpent that God is a liar. " you shall NOT surely die " Death is the consequence of unbelief. Is death a reality today? Of course it is. Therefore the imputation of Adam's guilt is that all mankind is now guilty. Death being the ultimate reality. To say that we are not guilty personally for anything but our own sin is reducing sin down to nothing more than subjective acts, either major or minor. The concept of sin is primarily OBJECTIVE not subjective. To limit sin as nothing more than subjective acts is missing the importance of original sin. Julian of Eclanum, a disciple of Pelagius said " By his free will man is emancipated from God" This is man-centred false Doctrine. Soli Deo Gloria

[@g.willikers7712]

We are not innocent “until sin is imputed by an act of sin.” All of creation was corrupted by Adam’s sin and “…the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now (Romans 8:22”. Just as death reigned from Adam until the law was given. Infants die - if sinless, if not corrupted - why would this be?

[@Ecclesiastic.OneMedia]

Love you Dr. Flowers. Despise Calvinism - it is completely unbiblical. However, original sin is a biblical teaching. Infants are covered by the blood of Jesus, which was shed for the whole world. There is no such person as an innocent person in the sight of God, except those who are in Christ. Also, there is a difference between acts of sin and the sickness of sin which makes all guilty and in need of a Saviour.

[@jakeyboy8402]

Where does humanity’s sin nature come from? You have not answered this question nor have you mentioned the Holy Spirit one time! Is your belief system based solely on your human understanding? Is there any reliance upon the Holy Spirit for understanding in your ministry?

[@Taterg1689]

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.

[@Charles-rb6jr]

Here's another good one. Ecclesiastes 7:29 "Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, But they have sought out many schemes.”

[@vincentkvincentkyolsonop9152]

@@Charles-rb6jrIf we are born upright why do we all sin constantly? Is it possible for a person to not sin? How is it that a child doesn’t have to be taught to lie or steal? Romans 5:18-19 18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

[@Charles-rb6jr]

@@vincentkvincentkyolsonop9152 If God did not create man upright then the Bible is wrong. The Bible is the authority on the matter. Your questions are good ones, but they are not the authority. (I'm not saying that you view your questions as authority. I only assume the possibility that you might see them that way since we've not previously discussed this, so please don't take anything I say as accusatory.) The Bible says that God always provides a way of escape from sin. If an escape is always provided then man has a choice to make on the matter of sin. The Bible also says that "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness...". As to why children don't need to be taught to sin, that is a philosophical question with theological implications. All answers are opinions on the matter. The doctrine of total depravity would be the answer if I were a Calvinist. I believe the Bible teaches what is contrary to that and have a different opinion. My opinion is that in our fallen state we are corrupted in some way. I don't think anyone would argue with that. The full extent of what that corruption does to us is what is debated. When God told Cain that sin was crouching at his door and he must master it, that was after the fall. God doesn't tell Cain that he can't make the right decision as the result of the fall. God affirms Cain's ability and Cain is justly punished for his sin. This is important because it is the Augustinian view of original sin that presupposes that children are sinful from conception. There are passages of Scripture in English that sound like they support that. I understand why some believe that about those Scriptures. I think there are good answers to why they don't actually teach that, and I believe Scripture is put at odds with Itself if we take those passages to support Augustine's view of original sin. The passage from Romans you quoted sounds like it supports the Augustinian view, but I don't believe it does based on what Paul said in Romans chapter 1. I view sin as an act and not just a condition passed on. It was an act when Adam sinned and I don't believe the Bible teaches anywhere that it is something that a person is the victim of, but rather the perpetrator of. Surely a baby is not a perpetrator of sin. The only way for a baby to be guilty of sin is if sin is not an act but a condition that a person has inherited. Does God really do that to babies? I don't think so. Even John MacArthur teaches that babies are innocent before God. In Romans 1, Paul's explanation of man's sinfulness there does not fit into the Augustinian model. (At least I can't see how) If someone who is in Christ is constantly spinning then there is a problem because the Bible teaches (in a passage I already quoted) that God gives us what we need for life and godliness. The Bible also says that "if we walk in the light as He is in the light....the blood of Jesus cleanses us." We can walk in the light according to this, and there is a cleansing occurring as we do. If something is being cleansed then.....you draw the conclusion. I appreciate you asking me those questions. I believe my view on this is consistent with pre-Augustinian church fathers. I don't hold them as the authority. It just so happens that what I have concluded from my own studies has led me to be in agreement with what I read from them. I hope I've given some answers that at least give some insight into my view. I respect your view regardless of whether or not you agree with me.

[@atyt11]

@@vincentkvincentkyolsonop9152 Why do you say that people sin constantly? There’s many times when I don’t sin, many times when you don’t sin, many times when most all people don’t sin why? I thought they sin constantly?? I would say more often than not most people don’tsin, does that make them good? Again I would say no, but they definitely are not sinning constantly. It’s a poorly worded statement.

[@Taterg1689]

Is it how often do we love the Lord our with all are heart strength and mind think on this things for a time

[@yoyoho2627]

Why is it that EVERY SINGLE HUMAN will commit sin and is "UNDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM'S SIN" if there isn't such a thing of Original Sin? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Makes WAY more sense that Original Sin precludes one from Heaven and personal sin subjects one to eternal torments.

[@YallCrazy-ix8ll]

this how i se the fall.. Gods not a dictator, so He lets the rebellion happen.. every human born at some point metaphorically goes to the tree and chooses to eat. and its up to us, just lie adam and eve, to decide if we want the tree or the body of Christ... so instead of us all being cast out every time someones born, as we decide to love God purely or not.. Hes letting the Garden of Life continue as the family grows everyday when we decide we no longer want this tree of life and death so 'original sin' is just letting the curse of " knowing good and evil" continue, and becuase we are humans not yet perfected,.. we will not choose Good every time... there is a war between laws of good and evil.. once judgment day.. evil ideas and feelings etc are cast away...and we no longer will have them floating around earth imo

[@EmWarEl]

Why are we even talking about the imputation of someone else's sins/guilt, whether conditional or not? We sin. God is holy. Our own sins separate us from a holy God and make us objects of wrath. Only the imputation of Christ's righteousness can save us. Adam was not the proto-Jesus. He was just a human being.

[@bewitchedprophetofislam9048]

The Bible clearly teaches Original Sin. You'd have to be totally dishonest to deny this teaching. Sin entered the world because of or through one man, Adam. Paul explains this clearly in Romans. You'd have to reject Paul to deny the doctrine of Original Sin because he hones in on this teaching in Romans. Adam's sin is the original sin which only him is guilty of. However, the consequence the fall of Adam is that we who came after Adam become predisposed to sin as a result of the fall of Adam, but this only happens at the age of accountability/ knowledge as taught by Paul in Romans. This is why those who teach that babies are born sinners are totally WRONG and go against the teaching of Jesus, Paul and the Bible as a whole. So, to accuse someone of not believing in Original Sin as Durbin does because of a perverse Calvinistic misinterpretation of scripture which holds that Original Sin implies Guilt is a dishonest and unbiblical presupposition to say the least. This, Calvinist do all the time to defend their system of presuppositions and Bible butchering. The Calvinistic perversion of the Biblical teaching of Original Sin is not at all supported whatsoever by the weight of scripture. I believe in Original Sin as the Bible teaches, Calvinist don't because of their man-made satanic system by John Calvin.

[@scottwojack]

The consequence of Adam's sin is that death entered the world, not that anyone was already born a sinner. After death entered the world everyone was born into bondage and the fear of death which Satan masterfully used to cause everyone to sin Heb 2:14-15.

[@Dizerner]

@@scottwojack Do you think God would condemn an innocent person? For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation (Rom. 5:16 NKJ)

[@Dizerner]

Wondering exactly what do you mean by "predisposed to sin"?

[@scottwojack]

@@Dizerner In the context of Romans 5 condemnation only means physical death. Don't read into how Paul is using the word. We are condemned because death entered the world. In other words there is no escaping our mortality.

[@Dizerner]

I am puzzled, however, how you seem to think it is acceptable and just to condemn innocent people to death?

[@SimplyReformed]

So called "conditional imputation of sin" is a rejection of the Christian doctrine of original sin. Go ask any Lutheran or Anglican. Rejecting the doctrine of Limited Atonement is one thing, rejecting the doctrine of Original Sin puts you outside of Christian orthodoxy.

[@cdenese108]

respectfully, you mean a rejection of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin (original guilt). Disagreeing with Augustine and those who follow his doctrine is not outside Christian orthodoxy.

[@SimplyReformed]

@@cdenese108 Biblically, and historically, that is not true. For example, in the Reformation all sides, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, believed in the doctrine of original sin. As for the Bible, it is a foundational doctrine, see Romans 1:18-3:20; Ephesians 2:1-3. To make a fundamental error about sin directly impacts the Gospel and everything else.

[@LifeandLifeMoreAbundantly]

My echo chamber is the Bible. I notice you mostly quote men and other books,

[@Parks179-h]

Leighton, Respectfully, I have never seen so much theological misrepresentation until I started watching you. Conditional imputation is just a bad way to speak of this. Your position is thoroughly semi-pelagian because it disconnects our guilt from Adam. your presenting your position as if it were the mediate position of original sin (the position that states we inherent Adams sin nature but not his guilt). The mediate position that is perfectly orthodox, is held by the Eastern Orthodox, much of Rome, historic Methodist etc. the reformed position has historically held the immediate position (we inherent both the fallen nature and the guilt of Adam). Note that both the mediate and the immediate positions state that we inherent the fallen human nature in Adam. Thus, both realize that the sin that all men inevitably commit are linked to Adam who IS their federal head. That federal headship is not conditional. Read Roman’s 5! You are not presenting this issue carefully or accurately, and at this point, after watching you for years; I am not surprised. “When you don’t want to engage theologically or biblically, what do you do? Oh he is a heretic, I don’t have to engage heretics, that what’s presuppositonal apologetics is all about.” -Leighton Flowers Least you be guilt and show yourself projecting, perhaps you could make a video interacting with both pelagianism and semi-pelagianism and show how your provisionism isn’t the same as either? Dealing throughly with the pelagian controversy may help. Furthermore, your quote on Anselm does not further your case. The seed that Anselm speaks of is directly Augustinian. What Anslem was speaking of there is specifically harkening back to Augustine’s position of Original Sin being spread seminally. if you miss something so basic to historical theology, I am curious to see in further investigation how you have misquoted others. Also, I don’t think you know what presupposional apologetics is. And this is coming from someone who prefers classical apologetics to Presuppositional. You would do better to steal-man rather than straw-man. This is a very unfortunate video, and I believe that has confirmed much of my suspicion concerning your semi pelagianism. I pray that you may at least come back to a mediate position of original sin even if I myself hold the immediate position. It is better to be orthodox. Sincerely, A mean Calvinist

[@Charles-rb6jr]

I respect your opinion. I want to point out that what you have written is nothing short of empty rhetoric. You mentioned Romans 5, but you did not quote any Scripture to support your opposition to his view. You just rehashed a bunch of historical theological baggage. Your position might be correct, but one could certainly not decipher as to why from the Bible you believe what you do based on what you have written. It is clear that you disagree with Dr. Flowers. What is not clear is how you support that Biblically. What would you say to someone who asked you to show from the Bible what it is that you believe on the matter? Sincerely, An Honest Listener Who Wants To Correctly Understand Your View

[@Parks179-h]

@@Charles-rb6jr Charles, my goal was not to give an explosion of the Scripture, this is hardly the proper platform. I’m not opposed to this, however, it was not my intention. That said, my intention was to point out that the view of original sin is more nuanced that what is presented here in Flowers video (hints my pithy rehash of historical theology). I find it ironic that you stated this was mere rhetoric? It’s not necessarily charitable to judge my post on criteria that I was not myself seeking to meet. Honestly, I have no interest in going into a back and forth with people on Leighton’s channel. It has shown to be a waste of time in the past. For that reason, I showed my disagreement and said why. To say that my distinction above lacked substance says to me that some of my points may not be understood. To which, I cannot help you. Have a great day, Avery

[@Charles-rb6jr]

@@Parks179-h Sorry if you think I wasn't being charitable by pointing out that your empty rhetoric isn't helpful at understanding your position. I didn't realize that empty rhetoric was what you were going for. Good job. You nailed it. We need more of that around here. It really puts us in our place when we want to hear someone out on something. If empty rhetoric is all you got.....then I guess I shouldn't expect more. Silly me for trying. I actually thought you could articulate an explanation after such a lengthy initial comment. I was honestly wanting to hear your thoughts. I didn't mean to run you off. You can run away now if you want. I can't stop you from doing that. I won't think less of you. I'll have to ask someone else to explain their empty rhetoric the next time it happens. It never gets old. The comments section is constantly filled with it. BTW, it is obviously fear that keeps you from giving an explanation. Your little jab about me not understanding you and you not being able to do more for me show that you aren't the least bit interested in backing up your view. You chose to make a personal attack on me for asking you to show me where the Bible teaches your view. I gave you an open ear......and you ran. That is so typical. Here, I'll give you another chance to explain from the Bible your position. I won't even respond. I'm not interested in a back and forth. You assumed that apparently. Go ahead and give a Biblical explanation. You have my word that I won't even respond. For me and anyone else who is interested in better understanding your view, please explain from the Bible why you believe what you believe on the matter you initially commented about. Or you can make another personal attack and run away. You can also just run away and not say anything. I'm gone. You're up. (If you choose) Sincerely, Someone Who Unintentionally Scares Off Mean Calvinists Who Are Full Of Empty Rhetoric

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

It says in Ezekiel the sons are not responsible for the sins of the fathers, nor will they be punished for them. That each man is responsible for >his own sins< It's simple If you have to complicate it to justify your presup, maybe your presup is wrong.

[@Lanaioahu]

Your words are nothing more than theocratic word soup.

[@Jason.Detrick]

So when you label somebody who holds to the doctrines of Grace as a calvinist and you use that as a bad word because of the views that are held. When somebody says you're a semi-Pelagianist because those are the views that you hold then they're wrong by slapping on a label but you're not? And just so you know, I'm not a "Calvinist that wishes you dead" I would pray for you to be granted discernment because imo You're idea of "free will" is very unbiblical.

[@simonbutcher8534]

Who puts the law in your inward parts and writes it in your heart? Case closed.

[@loydjenkins2241]

Our sin nature comes from Adam. Otherwise, someone would be able NOT to sin. Time wise, we ALL are lost. Some are chosen, at some time, to be saved. Your Church History seems to be bombastic.

[@TheBluegoatman]

Are you responsible for the sins of your parents? Are you responsible for the sins of your grandparents?

[@jzlove5088]

@@TheBluegoatman, are you responsible for the evil and sin inside you? Does ignorance of the law make you not guilty of breaking it?

[@loydjenkins2241]

How does death pass to us from Adam?

[@scottwojack]

No you sin because you are in bondage to the fear of death. Heb 2:14-15. Jesus was born with the exact same sin nature as us but did not sin. All that means is that he was born into the same bondage we are born into.

[@TheBluegoatman]

@scottwojack so if you don't fear death you don't sin? I don't think that's right

[@adamperez8555]

All of this futile thinking comes from not understanding what actually happened in the garden. If we understood what happened there, we would understand why we are all born in sin.

[@user-wh8cm1uw1d]

Outside of the misunderstanding of "Election" the misunderstanding of Salvation is the other string Leighton really needs to add to his one string Soteriology banjo!😂 Salvation isn't about our "Sins" or Adams sins, it's Adams spiritual death and our being born dead in him. Salvation is about having "Life," Christ life in "YOU - Our only hope of glory!" Christ's work on the cross didn't just take away the sins of the elect but of the whole world - He took them ALL away! Salvation is a two sided coin... Forgiveness and Life. We are naturally born spiritually dead, "In Adam" and in need of LIFE that can only be found "In Christ!" This is why, if you're a believer you are dead to sin! That's because salvation isn't a sin issue anymore, it's a "LIFE" issue. See John 5:40 "Yet you refuse to come to me to have life!" This is also why as believers we don't lose our salvation the moment we sin - Jesus already paid for them. Everybody is offered forgivness, but not everybody will accept it, if you don't accept your need, you don't get the gift of his LIFE! You go to Hell, not for your sins, but for the sin of rejection of Christ provision to reconcile you to God through the perfect LIFE He lived. This is the distilled essence of the Gospel!

[@DamonNomad82]

No one is "born dead" spiritually. That's a false teaching imported from pagan Greek philosophy via Manichean Gnosticism in the early 5th Century. Instead, everyone who develops to the point of knowing good and evil is enticed to sin due to the fact that all living things have a self-centered nature, which, when combined with the knowledge of good and evil, inevitably leads to sin. It is when a person willfully commits his or her first sin that he or she dies spiritually. According to Paul in Romans 7:7-11, "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me." From this passage, we can see that Paul (like the rest of us) was not born "spiritually dead". If he had been, he couldn't have been "alive once without the law" and couldn't have "died" when the commandment came and sin revived. Thus, Paul destroys the Manichean Gnostic argument that sin and death are passed by blood from Adam to his descendants. Instead, they are "passed" by a combination of the bad precedent Adam set by sinning and by the fallen state of the world and all life in it that was caused by the Curse, which in turn was caused by Adam's sin.

[@user-wh8cm1uw1d]

@@DamonNomad82 So... Which of your sins killed you and placed you in Adam and in need of Christ? Was it when you threw your baby bottle from your crib or was it when you lied to your mother for the first time? Were you aware when you became Dead - Do we need to know we're dead to be dead? Where's your support of all that in the bible? Seems it's pretty clear, All of creation was under the curse from Adam - It wasn't the Gnostics in the 5th Century that came up with that idea. 1 Cor 15:22 - You're either in Adam or in Christ. All seems a bit silly to me, but clearly we're all given the Grace to not get it right - Clearly I'm nothing but animated dirt and my understanding is extremely limited. I rest on Christ finished work and not my own limited understanding. Best wishes to you and your walk - Let's get together on the other said and talk!😂🙏

[@DamonNomad82]

@@user-wh8cm1uw1d Fair enough! I look forward to that discussion, when both of us are beyond the sinful influences and personal foibles of this life and the removal of the scales the flesh puts on our eyes!

[@elmoman00223]

At what point is a channel (individual) guilty of stirring up division? Shouldn't we be more focused on our unity with each other as believers through Christ rather than creating content which seems to be mostly, or entirely, aimed at driving wedges between fellow brothers and sisters in Christ? Not to say doctrine is not essential, because it is. Sola fide, sola scriptura, deity of Christ, the Trinity, and any other absolute essentials that I'm missing. Dr. Flowers has so much opportunity to reach the lost with this platform, but every video from the last year at least is aimed directly at Calvinism (based on a quick scan, could be wrong). What is the ultimate purpose of this channel and is it edifying to the body of Christ? Brothers and sisters, those of you who are truly running desperately after Jesus Christ and living a life fully surrendered to him, consider how much time you would give to content like this. Knowing Christ, falling on him, and taking his yoke upon you, is so much more than mere intellectual pursuit. Cherish Him. If this type of content is causing you to look down on fellow brothers in Christ, question your motives in constantly consuming it. 10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. In verse 12, can we not replace "Paul" with "Calvin" and "Apollos" with "Arminius" or "Wesley"? Some debate is fine and can be useful, but I it becomes questionable when it's at the forefront of our interests.

[@TheBluegoatman]

How can it be faith alone if you keep adding things to it?

[@jci9804]

Calvinism eviscerates God’s character and consequently is a huge obstacle for people to trust in Jesus. Calvinism is evil philosophy that needs to be confronted

[@GradoniusTheWise]

This is his side gig where he focuses on this topic so as to keep it separate from his main ministry.

[@scwienert]

Reaching the lost is only one function of the body of Christ. Some are called to teach those already in the body. Ephesians 4:13-14 NKJV till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; [14] that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, What Leighton does is very much in line with this.

[@TrueLifeAdventures]

It seems to me that Calvinists are the main culprits of proselytizing...trying to covert Christians into Calvinists rather than convert unbelievers into believers. So it can go both ways by that logic.

[@g.willikers7712]

Leighton is teaching philosophy leaving out scripture.

[@Chris.A.H]

This is semantic salad. We can all agree that it is because of Adam’s sin that we all must be born again. His disobedience is why we are all sinners (Romans 5:19). Whether you commit sin or not, we are now all sinners because of what Adam did. We don’t inherit the guilt of eating from the tree but we are born sinful and this is the whole reason we must be born again. That’s Bible. We are born into sin. Sure, God will spare a child like he did King David’s first son with Bathsheba, he won’t hold someone accountable for them not having a will to reject or accept like a baby does. But the baby is not born righteous, the baby is born into sin as a sinner. Innocence and righteousness are not the same.

[@Fireking285]

Innocence and guilty of sin from birth are not the same

[@Chris.A.H]

@@Fireking285who said it was the same?

[@Fireking285]

@@Chris.A.H who said innocence and righteousness were the same?

[@Chris.A.H]

@@Fireking285 focus on the entirety of my comment. You’re deflecting from what was said. I never said that anyone said innocence and righteousness were the same. I’m making a statement. Focus on the entire statement. Nothing I said was wrong. None of it. It’s all biblical.

[@jzlove5088]

ORIGINAL SIN! Scripture is very clear about our Nature, our sinful nature. All one has to do is read the Bible, Gods word. To me ALL of these verses and passages say…….humanity is wicked and corrupt to its very core, no one is righteous not one, if it is made of flesh and has a heart, it is wicked in Gods eyes. And what Jesus’ blood does is covers us of our wickedness and sinfulness, which every single human has had within them since conception…. I complied this list of scripture to counter those who claim infants are innocent and cannot be judged or held accountable, and to counter the false doctrine of “age of accountability” Disclaimer** I am NOT saying, “all aborted babies, or all infants who die therefore got to hell”, that is just absurd to claim or even think. I believe God can and will correctly judge even the unborn since He knows ALL, HE is omniscient! They could be held accountable for what they would have done had they loved a full life. Genesis 6:5 (5) Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (The wickedness of man, what other reason would humanity be wiped out for?) Genesis 8:21 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. (What did God just say about our hearts?) Proverbs 22:15 “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child” Psalm 51:5 David says, “Surely I was sinful at birth, / sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Absolutely no reason not to take this literally, the text is plain and very clear, it also harmonizes and corroborates the rest of what scripture teaches about our very nature, the doctrine of sin nature, we are born with sin) Psalm 58:3 “Even from birth the wicked go astray; / from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies” Job 14:4 4Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one. Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Romans 5:18 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. (Sin nature isn’t biblical?) Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:10 As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; (Except for infants and children, I guess!?!?) Romans 3:12-15 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: (Who does good?) Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned- (Who sinned? Does this exclude anyone?) 1 John 1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 Timothy 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. (Who did Christ come to save? Why would Christ save an infant that isn’t a sinner?) Psalm 14:2-3 2 The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. 3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. (Seems like a contradiction to say….my baby isn’t corrupt!) Mark 7:20-23 20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:. 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. (This couldn’t be more clear…. Where does our sin come from? It comes out of man, it comes out of us, where does the evil come from? It comes from within us….. It is part of our nature, our sin nature.) Matthew 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? (Woah! Who is he speaking about here? Is Matt speaking about me, did he just call me evil?) Luke 18:19 19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 1 Corinthians 15:22 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. Ephesians 2:3 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. Ephesians 2:1 1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 1 Peter 4:3-4 3 For the time already past is sufficient {for you} to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. 4 In {all} this, they are surprised that you do not run with {them} into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign {you;} Isaiah 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. Numbers 15:39 “Harlotry” here is a metaphor for idolatry. Their hearts and their eyes were inclined to worship something other than God, just as every other human being has tended to do. Proverbs 22:15 15 Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him. Ecclesiastes 9:3 This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead. Ephesians 2:1-3 1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience- 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. We are ALL and were always influenced by Satan, the prince of the power of the air. We all walked according to the sinful course of the world. We all fulfilled our lusts. All of us were children of wrath, that is, we were under judgment because of sin. Our nature is corrupt to the core. Scripture can’t be much more clear on the fact that humans, every single one regardless of age is wicked and evil to our very core. What happens to ANY human who might get to be in Gods direct and immediate presence? What happened to the humans who went in the holy of holies? And why? Gods very presence will kill the wicked/evil/sinners. For some reason though y’all think an infant could stand/lay before God without dying. I don’t think so, and I wouldn’t want to test the theory out either. Here is a good one for you….. As a saved Christian, a follower of Christ. What do you think would happen to you if God came to you in His FULL GLORY? Do you really think you could walk into Gods throne room and stand before Him in your current fleshly state? You would die instantly, and this is because you are impure and unclean, you have what God hates inside of you…….SIN & EVIL!

[@huey7437]

....yes, every christian affirms those passages Lol. Each passage is evidence we have a FALLEN nature...👍 Calm down dude

[@jzlove5088]

@@huey7437l please explain “age of accountability” and innocent babies and children? The point of this is to refute Leighton claims that there is an “age of accountability”. When scripture is perfectly clear that ALL humans are wicked from the get go, we ALL have sin and evil in us from conception……

[@BenjaminButler-zs1cm]

An honest question. I would like to know we’re in scripture does it say children are held accountable for their sins. From birth, age 5, 9 etc. Does god not pass over the ignorance of children as it pertains to sin?

[@GradoniusTheWise]

Yeah, so you obviously are missing his point, these passages do not refute Leighton’s view. You have just spent a lot of time showing how you don’t understand the point of contention.

[@jzlove5088]

@@GradoniusTheWise, lol, okie dokie arty chokie. If you say so. What I am refuting is “age of accountability” and so-called innocent infants and children. Does being ignorant of the law make one not guilty of breaking the law?

[@elusive4072]

Do you spend your entire life arguing against predestination?

[@mpalmer22]

He's predestined to do so

[@Zomfoo]

“Anslem”? 😬