Foreknew or Foresaw? Romans

A Radio Free Geneva responding to a video (which I play in its entirety) where Dr. Leighton Flowers attempts to "DeCalvinize" Romans 8:28-30 by insisting this is actually only about Israelites God "knew" in the past.
Leighton Flowers' general context • Radio Free Geneva: DeC...
All production and credit belongs to Alpha and Omega Ministries®.
If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/

[@arabniga]

Beautiful exegesis. Monergism will always be attacked but this is the truth.

[@tomtemple69]

"yeah God made everything but now He has no control over it"

[@stevehardwick7285]

??? God has complete control, how do you think he gave John Revelation?@@tomtemple69

[@CrossDailyCAT]

Amen!!!

[@georgeakoto171]

Awesome analysis by James White.

[@traceylok675]

As always.

[@samuelaguilar9668]

Thank you, Dr. James White, for exegeting these verses! Very well explained!

[@ant1k]

I think there could be a White vs Flowers round 2 debate

[@michaeldorsey4580]

Well you're in luck

[@traceylok675]

I struggle so much in trying to understand Flowers.

[@ryangallmeier6647]

I know, it's difficult when the majority of his videos are about what the text of Scripture DOESN'T mean, rather than affirming what is DOES mean. Here's a simple breakdown of Leighton Flowers' affirmations: 1) Choice=Free Will=Responsibility. Dr. Flowers thinks these terms all mean the same thing. Choice--- In his view, Leighton thinks 'choice' means: the act of selecting, or making a decision when faced with two or more options (taking his definition from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary). Problem? The words 'selecting' and 'deciding' are synonyms of 'choice,' making the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary definition no definition at all, but a Tautology (using different words to say the same thing)...which is a logical fallacy that communicates nothing. Proper definition of choice: 'a mental act that initiates, or results in a further action'. Human Libertarian Free Will--- All synergistic Christians fallaciously define Human Libertarian Free Will as 'the power of contrary choice,' or, 'the equal ability to choose between two or more incompatible options'. Problem? This is NOT how the Bible defines Human Libertarian Free Will! A two-part definition of Human Libertarian Free Will is deduced from Scripture (Jesus' words in Jn. 8:31-38, for example) as this: 1. a will that never assents to any errant propositions as if they were true; and, 2. a will that never wills to do anything other than that which is good and well-pleasing to God. Jesus Himself possessed THIS definition of Human Free Will; Jesus did NOT posses 'the power of contrary choice' to either assent to, or reject the truth; or, to either do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, or to fail to do so (ie. to SIN). The Glorified Saints will also possess THIS definition of Human Free Will; they will NOT possess 'the power of contrary choice'. Responsibility--- Synergists will claim that their fallacious definition is the prerequisite which establishes 'responsibility'. Leighton Flowers has a fallacious definition of responsibility. He thinks responsibility means: 'response able/able to respond [either positively or negatively to the Gospel proclamation]'. And so, he equates his definition of 'free will' with 'responsibility'...making them synonymous terms. Problem? They are NOT the same terms, and don't have the same meaning. A creature is 'responsible' if they will be obligated to give a response to an higher authority for any and all infractions of a law [or group of laws] imposed upon them by a lawgiver. Therefore, it is NOT 'free will' (as in 'the power of contrary choice') which establishes 'responsibility'; rather it is a LAW (or GROUP OF LAWS) which establishes a creature's responsibility. Human beings are 'responsible' because their Creator has given them laws/commands/imperatives to live by. And they are 'responsible' BECAUSE of those laws/commands/imperatives. Human beings will be obligated by their Creator to 'give a response,' or 'render an account' (accountability) to the highest authority (God) for any and all infractions of the law imposed upon them by Him. This proper definition of responsibility also means that God Himself is NEVER 'responsible' for ANYTHING THAT HE SAYS OR DOES. Why? Because there is no higher authority than God to whom He is obligated to give a response for any laws imposed upon Him (since there is no such thing). 2) Divine Epistemology (the study of God's knowledge and how He knows stuff). Every synergistic group of Christians that have tried to answer the question of 'how God knows stuff' has failed. They resort to some sort of Empiricism in God (Empiricism is the epistemological theory which states that knowledge comes through sensory perception). Empiricist Epistemology in God would state that God knows stuff through sensory perception; therefore, in order for God to know a thing, or person, God would be DEPENDENT upon that thing or person for His knowledge of it. This is precisely what Dr. William Lane Craig has stated (God's knowledge is DEPENDENT upon the events that occur in time), and what Pastor Mike Winger has said (God's knowledge is DEPENDENT upon the choices I make) *see my video entitled: Molinism Rejected, where I play a clip from each of these men saying precisely this very thing. The Reformed take up the gavel against this utter falsehood, and state that God's knowledge stems from His Decisional Decree...thus, His knowledge of all things stems from Himself ALONE; He is NOT dependent upon His creatures, or the creation for His knowledge of them/it. Just a couple of the major problem with Leighton Flowers' Neo Semi-Pelagiansim. And, unfortunately, there's much more wrong than this. Hope this helps. *Soli Deo Gloria*

[@traceylok675]

@@ryangallmeier6647 Thank you for taking the time to explain some of the issues. Very interesting, I like especially your point about God's knowledge. Isn't He so awesome and mind blowing?

[@nickhanley5407]

Maybe you should listen to Flowers instead of James White about what Flowers teaches… I know, kind of a crazy idea…

[@traceylok675]

@@nickhanley5407 sorry but that would be too torturous.

[@tomtemple69]

He does it on purpose, to obfuscate and ignore the plain truth of Scripture

[@phillipGriffiths-vr7hz]

You always manage to hit the nail on the head. About these verses, I think it's in the past tense because Paul is speaking to believers, to those of whom these things are all true. They have been called, justified and glorified. In regard to glorification, the believer is united with Christ, the glorified one. Paul is referring to the position of believers, those who have been called into the body of Christ. While our mortal bodies are yet to be redeemed and glorified, spiritually, we are where Christ is, seated in heavenly places. I chapter 6 Paul speaks of our position in Christ, we are partakers in his resurrection. Just as the head as been glorified, so too has the body. Yes, our spirits groan awaiting the redemption of our bodies, but our spirit itself can be said to have BEEN glorified because it has BEEN redeemed, being IN CHRIST.

[@SamOwenI]

Calling takes place in time when people believe the gospel. Therefore glorification in the golden chain cannot be referring to being united to Christ, the glorified one... It's about the effective call of God, where he brings a person to faith through the gospel proclamation, and the work of the Spirit. God is calling those whom he chose in eternity past. What you're doing is taking concepts from elsewhere in the book and bringing them in, despite the different context. If you follow the text in order, Paul's point is quite plain.

[@savedby_grace6110]

Foreknew... Something God does.

[@michaeldorsey4580]

Will Peter says that God foreknew Jesus.......

[@shadomane]

Hello Dr. James White! Thank you for your Exegesis on the Scripture. Can you explain yes or no, does the following passage of Scripture have any relationship or bearing to Romans 8:29-30? "10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. 16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained." (Philippians 3:10-16, ESV) Thanks in advance. God bless you.

[@brandonengle9531]

What is that program that he is using to compare greek and English text and when he puts the mouse over a greek word it highlights the english word?

[@ogmakefirefiregood]

Logos I think...

[@expoteam777]

Amen..

[@phillipGriffiths-vr7hz]

It should also be said that the Old Testament saints to whom Flowers thinks the text refers, have not been glorified (in the way he understands) because the mortal body is still in the ground.

[@donhaddix3770]

it makes perfect sense. foreknowing the result makes sense. we are not responsible until we do. we will be conformed once who do it. it does not mean mean God makes us do. a reward is for what we do of our own freewill, not what God makes us do. if forced it is not earned.

[@stevehardwick7285]

Nobody comes to Christ unless the father draws them.

[@donhaddix3770]

@@stevehardwick7285 1/. Why did Jesus say to His disciples further down, in John 6:72, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” where “chosen” is the verb form of the adjective form used in 1 Peter 1:2 - Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, Why did Jesus choose Judas when He knew Judas would serve satan? 2/. Why did Jesus say to all His disciples in John 15:16, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit” when Judas was still one of that group? Judas has been chosen, ordained, to bring forth fruit, yet he doesn’t. 3/. Why does Jesus say in John 6:39 say, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” Yet, after having chosen a devil (Judas) in John 6:72, and ordained that they should bear fruit (including Judas) in John 15:16, why does Jesus say of His disciples in John 17:12, “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.” What? Jesus kept them all, none of them is lost, except Judas. If John 6:39 is teaching about all the elect of God being given to Jesus, that He should lose none of them, then how is Judas lost after he has been chosen as per John 6:72? Clearly, to be consistent, calvinists cannot interpret John 6:39 as they do. 4/. If “many are called but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14), then why is the number chosen less than the number called. Why would God call a large number of people to the wedding feast, yet only choose some of them? How can this be explained without the free will of mankind? How does this compare with MacArthur’s church doctrinal statement “All whom the Father calls to Himself will come in faith and all who come in faith the Father will receive.” if in fact not all who are called will be chosen! (Of course, MacArthur says that Matthew 22:14 is “the general call of the gospel, the general outward invitation of the gospel” and that only the elect or chosen of God get the efficacious or effectual call to be saved. (www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-296/the-doctrine-of-gods-effectual-call) Clearly, to the calvinist, the gospel is merely the general outward invitation which, according to MacArthur, will be ineffectual to save! That brings us to question 5/. Why does God make a general call for all to be saved when calvinism teaches that Jesus only died for the sins of those who will receive the effectual call? Isn’t this deviousness at best from the calvinist God, to invite people when he has no intention of letting them in the door? Truly the calvinist God is no better than a politician who makes many promises but only delivers a few (if any)!

[@donhaddix3770]

@@stevehardwick7285 “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.” -John‬ ‭6:65‬ ‭(emphasis added) Jesus could have clarified His meaning by saying, “This is why I told you no one can come to me unless the Father drags or makes him.” Jesus had the choice of many Greek words that could have clearly indicated that intention, but Jesus said “didomi” which is typically understood as “to grant, permit or enable.” Calvinists often use the term “enable” or “grant” as if it somehow connotes “effectual causation,” but that is simply a systematic presumption they are reading onto these terms. I can enable you to call me by giving you my phone number, but you still have to pick up the phone and dial. Since when does “to enable” necessitate “to effectually cause?”

[@vincent8943]

It isn’t earned. You are acting as if “earning” salvation is something taught in Christianity, when in reality, works-based salvation or election is a divergence from orthodox doctrine. What you’re saying is antithetical to the Gospel. Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not counted according to grace, but according to what is due. Romans 11:5-6 “there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, since otherwise grace is no longer grace.”

[@donhaddix3770]

@vincent8943 it is an offered gift, not forced. a gift is not forced as Calvinism claims.

[@bradrob2863]

THEY HATE IT CAUSE IT MAKES THEM NOTHING ..WICH WE ARE W OUT HIM.

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

Also the title is misleading Leighton was not arguing forsaw...

[@Henry._Jones]

CHOICE MEATS!! 🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩😋😂🤣🤣

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

At 9:10 I don't agree with Leighton flowers view but it's clear what he is saying, by saying those he forknew he says it refers to those he knew in the past (in an active relationship kind of way) referring to old testament Saint s but James makes it seem like Leighton says those who God knew about which is extremely different, and James knows this but it simply helps his argument and keeps his audience confused.

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

@h2s142 yeah try to apply that definition in all the other places the word appears and maybe then you'll see the mistake your making. Your inserting a doctrine into a word kinda like some people do with the word salvation

[@michaeldorsey4580]

​@h2s142Peter makes the claim that God foreknew Jesus

[@michaeldorsey4580]

@h2s142 what? You made the claim that for knowledge means people before their existence, and Jesus was never brought into existence, so foreknowledge cannot mean God just knew people who would exist before they were born, based on the way Peter uses it. I don't know why you have to be rude about that

[@michaeldorsey4580]

@h2s142 when God says in the Old Testament that Israel is the only nation He has known, do you think that means He didn't know that other nations existed?

[@bassistguy13]

I love my brother James White and the mind that has been gifted him by God. But brother James, it’s so hard to follow the argument that you are dismantling from this man when you continue to cut in constantly. I don’t know what the heresy even is fully

[@ManassehJones]

11:20 Dr. White clearly articulates the HEART condition of every Exhaustive Self Determinist, ie Leighton Flowers, and all "in his like kind," or as defined in the Word "of the same seed." If Dr. White can remain isolated in his realizing this Truth revealed to him, by this statement he says at this time stamp, EVERY refutation he makes of Leighton Flowers should be brought back to this CORE heart issue of which ALL of Leightons eisegesis originates...and it is this: Leighton Flowers believes his carnal intellect and moral judgments ARE equal to the Most Highs. Isa 14:13-14. Leighton honestly believes he has moral and ontological equivelency to the Most High, and the fruit of his lips reveals the root, and the root reveals the seed, and there's only 2 seeds. Genesis 3:14-15 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between 👉thy seed👈 and👉 her seed; 👈it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. The two seeds are the Word of God which is Truth, and the perverted truths of Satan. The seed of Satan is revealed by anyone who demonstrates they believe they are equal to the Most High in judgments and ontology, as we know this is the heart of their father in Isa 14:13-14. The Exhaustive Self Determinists ARE judging God to their own Self, according to their own will, moral standards, and ontological understanding. Remember that. They are God Judgers. Now read Isa 14:13-14. Pay attention to the five times "I" is used. Isaiah 14:13-14 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;👉 I will be like the most High.👈

[@SolaScriptura21]

That's interesting, the phrase "self determinist" I believe that is new age type of thinking

[@ManassehJones]

@@SolaScriptura21 Self Determinism started with Cain. It's always been here.

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

29:17 try the Calvinistic definition on Christ being for known, does that mean Calvinist think God chose to have a relationship with him unconditionally and to save him???

[@thinketernal260]

No it actually means Christ was foreordained and pre-selected to be the Savior of the world in eternity past and was revealed in these last days for us. The plan of salvation through Christ was conceived in the mind of God before the foundation of the world. Hope this helps.

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

@@thinketernal260 my point is you can't insert a doctrine in to the meaning of a word. The word simply means known before hand or known in advance or even known for a long time. What you just did is insert a doctrine into the definition of a word and that's not the way to treat scripture, it's a form of eisegesis

[@thinketernal260]

@@eleazarfernandez9369 “For He chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ for Himself, according to His favor and will, to the praise of His glorious grace that He favored us with in the Beloved.” ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭4‬-‭6‬ Sorry but no, when scripture uses the word “known” and “foreknown” referring to God it is always an active choosing of a nation or individuals completely separate from anything having to do with that nation or people but wholly on the sovereign good pleasure of God. And the choosing is done in love , see Ephesians 1.

[@davidemme2344]

I never understand why no one goes to Psalms 14 but have no problem with using Romans 3. I would say go check out Psalms 14 and when you do, explain to me why verse two and three are not Anti-Calvinist/Provisionist/Arminian/Molinist/Biblicist for all those who say they are niether Cal or Arm but always criticizes Cal with Arm arguments-explain how these do not teach Arminian foreknowledge?

[@timothyvenable3336]

If anything, psalm 14 is saying no one seeks God because no one seems good. Every man is evil and against God. So how could anyone come to God without his intervention?

[@blchamblisscscp8476]

If progonosko (spelling is wrong,.im sure) means foresaw, that is a problematic view. It is an attack on the omniscience of God because it says God allegedly, to use the popular terms, looked down the corridor of time to see what happens. God, in His omniscience, doesnt need to do that. He is eternal past and eternal future. What then would He glean from looking forward? Is He not already forward of us mortals???

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

I actually agree with James starting at 23:00 minutes that the knowing is a personal knowing and involves relationship. But that actually brings a problem to his view because he is saying that God knew in a relational way people who were outside of Christ and weren't even born yet. According to scripture in Galatians 4 9 God doesn't have a knowing relationship with people who are not sons through Christ. So how does God have that relationship with unbelievers? Who aren't even born yet? According to scripture before a person is in Christ this is his condition Ephesians 2 11¶Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

[@danielomitted1867]

So God didn't have a loving relationship with anyone until Christ? Not Abraham, Moses or David? Before Jeremiah was born he was known. He and also chosen and and anointed as prophet. Ephesians 1:5 says we we're predestined to adoption through Jesus according to Gods good will. Seems to me if thats true then before I was in Christ God has already chosen to enter into relationship with me.

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

@@danielomitted1867 did you read Galatians 4 9? And the church age is different than the old testament. Also a person is not predestined to adoption as sons until he is in Christ. The theme of Ephesians 1 is the blessing of a person who is placed in Christ. Chp 2 addresses our condition before being in Christ

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

@@danielomitted1867compare these verses Ephesians 1 3¶Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Ephesians 2 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. A person goes from having no hope and being separated from God to being chosen to be Holy and blameless and predestined to the adoption and to an inheritance once he is placed IN CHRIST which according to Ephesians 1 13 happens after a person believes .

[@danielomitted1867]

​@@eleazarfernandez9369 yeah I did, you loaded a lot of assumptions into that verse. "Well the old testament age is different then the church age" lol great, doesnt address the argument though. You said God doesnt have a "loving relationship" with people who arent in Christ. Clearly God did have "loving relationships" with man before Christ accomplished his work. You can keep side stepping the issue here but your blunder is pretty obvious. How am I predestined to adoption if the adoption is based on my choice? Or if I was chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world?

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

@@danielomitted1867 church age , God does not have a relationship with anyone outside of Christ. Do you agree or disagree?

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

At 28:39 I don't see why he asks for a parallel? It's the same word he is simply showing the other usages of it. Because Calvinist add doctrines to definitions of words but showing that that same definition cannot be used the same on another passage that uses the same word serves to prove that that definition has been altered to fit a doctrine.

[@billyr9162]

Sometimes I wonder if brother white knows what hes doing. All you gotta do to correct Choice Meats here is look at the 1st word in the sentence which is a conjunction. Then go to the sentence before it you'll see another conjunction. And another and another and another. And it doesn't really quit till you get back to about the beginning of chapter 6. The whole thing is one continuous paragraph. So all the stuff that God is working together is all the stuff he was talking about since the beginning of chapter 6 or even 5. And all of that is about us! Current believers! Duh ! In all that stuff of how you become a new creature was in those previous chapters. Come on brother white!

[@wojak91]

Since you're so much better, you should just take his place huh

[@billyr9162]

@@wojak91 i probably should

[@donhaddix3770]

so the bible lied? foreknew actually means pre-ordained those who would love him? 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who[i] have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

[@timothyvenable3336]

Foreknew just means know before, but in more than a casual, passive knowledge. It’s an active, personal knowledge, like knowing your wife. Or God knowing Israel.

[@donhaddix3770]

@@timothyvenable3336 it results in predestination for the saved, not the lost, not Calvinism.

[@timothyvenable3336]

@@donhaddix3770 foreknowledge results in God calling, and calling results in justification. And justification results in glorification. Since only specific people are glorified (believers in Jesus), then the same specific people (believers in Jesus) are fore known

[@donhaddix3770]

@@timothyvenable3336 God calls everyone but few respond, that freewill thing Calvinist reject. read Romans 8 for sequence of events. belief alone does not save. Satan believes. God foreknows all.

[@timothyvenable3336]

@@donhaddix3770 I’m confused. Romans 8 says everyone called will be justified. So if God calls everyone, then everyone is justified. Are you a universalist?

[@donhaddix3770]

1/. Why did Jesus say to His disciples further down, in John 6:72, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” where “chosen” is the verb form of the adjective form used in 1 Peter 1:2 - Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, Why did Jesus choose Judas when He knew Judas would serve satan? 2/. Why did Jesus say to all His disciples in John 15:16, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit” when Judas was still one of that group? Judas has been chosen, ordained, to bring forth fruit, yet he doesn’t. 3/. Why does Jesus say in John 6:39 say, “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.” Yet, after having chosen a devil (Judas) in John 6:72, and ordained that they should bear fruit (including Judas) in John 15:16, why does Jesus say of His disciples in John 17:12, “While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.” What? Jesus kept them all, none of them is lost, except Judas. If John 6:39 is teaching about all the elect of God being given to Jesus, that He should lose none of them, then how is Judas lost after he has been chosen as per John 6:72? Clearly, to be consistent, calvinists cannot interpret John 6:39 as they do. 4/. If “many are called but few are chosen” (Matthew 22:14), then why is the number chosen less than the number called. Why would God call a large number of people to the wedding feast, yet only choose some of them? How can this be explained without the free will of mankind? How does this compare with MacArthur’s church doctrinal statement “All whom the Father calls to Himself will come in faith and all who come in faith the Father will receive.” if in fact not all who are called will be chosen! (Of course, MacArthur says that Matthew 22:14 is “the general call of the gospel, the general outward invitation of the gospel” and that only the elect or chosen of God get the efficacious or effectual call to be saved. (www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-296/the-doctrine-of-gods-effectual-call) Clearly, to the calvinist, the gospel is merely the general outward invitation which, according to MacArthur, will be ineffectual to save! That brings us to question 5/. Why does God make a general call for all to be saved when calvinism teaches that Jesus only died for the sins of those who will receive the effectual call? Isn’t this deviousness at best from the calvinist God, to invite people when he has no intention of letting them in the door? Truly the calvinist God is no better than a politician who makes many promises but only delivers a few (if any)!

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

When it talks about Jesus being for known the text specifies that it was before the foundation of the world so that you know. In Romans it doesn't say it was before the foundation of the world because according to scripture a person is not known by God until he is in Christ. That's why the beginning of chapter 8 say there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are IN CHRIST JESUS.

[@donhaddix3770]

God knows all; past, present and future.

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

@@donhaddix3770 scripture makes a difference between knowledge of relationships. For example Christ says "I never knew you" God did not know people intimately before the foundation of the world and there's people that he he never knows. Correct? Or do you disagree with that idea?.

[@donhaddix3770]

@@eleazarfernandez9369 not correct. either you were in an intimate relationship with God or not from before the foundation of the earth or not. God allows things to develop according to our sense of time to allow freewill to function. we cannot be judged by our actions until we actually do them. applies to rewards or punishments.

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

@@donhaddix3770 ok, read Galatians 4 9 and give me your thoughts... And also Ephesians 2 12... Seems to me that it's not until we're in Christ but maybe you see something different

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

@@donhaddix3770 what kind of knowing is Galatians 4 9 referring to?

[@SolaScriptura21]

It almost seems like he is making God more impersonal and more distant simply to refute monergism. Seems like those who attack reformed theology do this with God and his truth.

[@marksorenson5871]

Flowers is an Arminian synergist. Heresy

[@aletheia8054]

We get our English word heresy from the Greek word hairasis. It means a personal choice. Isn’t that interesting?

[@Romans1136.]

So because we can choose Christ that makes it heresy? Hmmm....

[@donhaddix3770]

why do Calvinist dismiss God created freewill? we seek in freewill then God saves in sovereignty. love cannot be decreed, it must be given freely. God created no one for hell.

[@donhaddix3770]

If “free will” means that God gives humans the opportunity to make choices that genuinely affect their destiny, then yes, human beings do have a free will. The world’s current sinful state is directly linked to choices made by Adam and Eve. God created mankind in His own image, and that included the ability to choose. However, free will does not mean that mankind can do anything he pleases. Our choices are limited to what is in keeping with our nature. For example, a man may choose to walk across a bridge or not to walk across it; what he may not choose is to fly over the bridge-his nature prevents him from flying. In a similar way, a man cannot choose to make himself righteous-his (sin) nature prevents him from canceling his guilt (Romans 3:23). So, free will is limited by nature. This limitation does not mitigate our accountability. The Bible is clear that we not only have the ability to choose, we also have the responsibility to choose wisely. In the Old Testament, God chose a nation (Israel), but individuals within that nation still bore an obligation to choose obedience to God. And individuals outside of Israel were able to choose to believe and follow God as well (e.g., Ruth and Rahab). In the New Testament, sinners are commanded over and over to “repent” and “believe” (Matthew 3:2; 4:17; Acts 3:19; 1 John 3:23). Every call to repent is a call to choose. The command to believe assumes that the hearer can choose to obey the command. Jesus identified the problem of some unbelievers when He told them, “You refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5:40). Clearly, they could have come if they wanted to; their problem was they chose not to. “A man reaps what he sows” (Galatians 6:7), and those who are outside of salvation are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20-21). But how can man, limited by a sin nature, ever choose what is good? It is only through the grace and power of God that free will truly becomes “free” in the sense of being able to choose salvation (John 15:16). It is the Holy Spirit who works in and through a person’s will to regenerate that person (John 1:12-13) and give him/her a new nature “created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:24). Salvation is God’s work. At the same time, our motives, desires, and actions are voluntary, and we are rightly held responsible for them. If “free will” means that God gives humans the opportunity to make choices that genuinely affect their destiny, then yes, human beings do have a free will. The world’s current sinful state is directly linked to choices made by Adam and Eve. God created mankind in His own image, and that included the ability to choose. However, free will does not mean that mankind can do anything he pleases. Our choices are limited to what is in keeping with our nature. For example, a man may choose to walk across a bridge or not to walk across it; what he may not choose is to fly over the bridge-his nature prevents him from flying. In a similar way, a man cannot choose to make himself righteous-his (sin) nature prevents him from canceling his guilt (Romans 3:23). So, free will is limited by nature. This limitation does not mitigate our accountability. The Bible is clear that we not only have the ability to choose, we also have the responsibility to choose wisely. In the Old Testament, God chose a nation (Israel), but individuals within that nation still bore an obligation to choose obedience to God. And individuals outside of Israel were able to choose to believe and follow God as well (e.g., Ruth and Rahab). In the New Testament, sinners are commanded over and over to “repent” and “believe” (Matthew 3:2; 4:17; Acts 3:19; 1 John 3:23). Every call to repent is a call to choose. The command to believe assumes that the hearer can choose to obey the command. Jesus identified the problem of some unbelievers when He told them, “You refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5:40). Clearly, they could have come if they wanted to; their problem was they chose not to. “A man reaps what he sows” (Galatians 6:7), and those who are outside of salvation are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20-21). But how can man, limited by a sin nature, ever choose what is good? It is only through the grace and power of God that free will truly becomes “free” in the sense of being able to choose salvation (John 15:16). It is the Holy Spirit who works in and through a person’s will to regenerate that person (John 1:12-13) and give him/her a new nature “created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:24). Salvation is God’s work. At the same time, our motives, desires, and actions are voluntary, and we are rightly held responsible for them.

[@Romans1136.]

Yep. It's that simple.

[@kapmahn]

Why do non calvisnist insist that man has to have a choice for it to be fair, or real love, or ungodly in opposition to how scripture and God speaks about His definition of each? If God calls Himself holy and that includes creating men who don't have the capacity to choose Him without His help, who are you, oh creature, to say He isn't still holy in that creative act? How dare you disagree with God's own spoken word about Himself. Why is your human autonomy so important? It's not. God's will is the only thing that ultimately matters. Man does have free will to choose, but in his sinful nature his choice is limited to that which he is still a slave to. Sin. Man responds, with hatred toward the creator unless God intervenes. God doesnt choose people arbitrarily to save. He saves with specific purpose. But in His wisdom, he doesn't share every nuance of His choice. Why should He be required to? Stop telling God how He should act to be righteous, and accept He is righteous and purposeful in all He does, even if we are too corrupt, blind, and purposefully uninformed to know why or how. Wasn't the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil what started this all? Stop assuming God has to share every piece of wisdom of good and evil with you right now.

[@donhaddix3770]

@@kapmahnbecause the bible teaches freewill

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

At minute 30:49 this is a terrible misrepresentation of what flowers is saying, and specially concluding that that means he was a Calvinist in the past but now isn't. I don't agree with his interpretation either but I know what he is trying to say enough to know that James white is misrepresenting him purposely

[@OC3707]

I think he was referring to God then. But actually Flowers claims to have been a calvinist in the past, I think.

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

@@OC3707 I know, but flowers view is simply that those he forknew or knew before (referring to old testament st he knew personally before) he predestined to be comformed to the image of his Son, not to be saved. So I'm not sure why white claims that he was a Calvinist in the past by that interpretation. Possibly because of all the baggage carried by the word predestination for Calvinist maybe purposely idk

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

@h2s142 explain what you mean there is no past, and what source are you using for the definition?

[@Romans1136.]

Only in Calvinism does "All" not mean "All", "Foreknowledge " not mean to know beforehand. So when scripture goes against your theology you simply redefine the meaning of words.

[@timothyvenable3336]

Could you explain further on the foreknowledge part? I’ve heart the arguments for “all” and i sympathize with it, but I haven’t heard foreknowledge defined any other way than to “know intimately beforehand”

[@jaygee2187]

So according to James White, God was limited in His ability to communicate effectively because He could not overcome language limitations. Why not just decree language and human understanding of language to more accurately what God desired to communicate? Why is James White alone able to see beyond what the language simply states? Was Christ glorified?

[@Vae07]

so "what the language simply states" means to ignore context. Nice.

[@billyr9162]

Dr. White never said God was limited to anything.

[@ant1k]

What matters is what the bible says. If you think the bible god is limited has something wrong with your understanding

[@xblakelfoglex]

God is. It limited to communicate effectively. Humans are spiritually dead and cannot understand the things of divinity and holiness. It takes the supernatural author of Scripture to reveal the truth of God’s Word. Dr. White is not giving a new interpretation, he is just using the Greek, confessional faith, and church history to show what Scripture has always said.

[@Henry._Jones]

This is an insufferably stupid, inane attempt at misrepresentation.

[@lawrenceagnew1634]

I'm sorry Lord,James white so arrogant