How John Piper Tries To Soften His Determinism | Calvinism | Leighton Flowers | Desiring God

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, responds to John Piper's book, "Providence" in which John Piper borrows free will language and argues against his own Calvinistic belief system.
Check out the full episode here:
• Providence vs Permissi...
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 #Calvinism #JohnPiper #DesiringGod

[@MattB-vy5yr]

I've been a Calvinist for over a decade and my blindfolds are just falling off, thanks to your humble and faithful handling of God's word. God bless you Leighton for your exemplary Christlike demeanor which helped soften my heart to hear you out and better understand both my Calvinistic systematics and provisionism as the clear cut way of understanding biblical soteriology. God bless you!

[@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

God Bless you Matt. Welcome to coming out of the fog with your faith in Christ in tact. Many eventually reject the God Calvin describes, but throw him out with the frame in which Calvin paints him. I was never a Calvinist but have had a couple of friends who have become 'convinced' of it by being faced with the usual polished arguments from a Calvinist which they were unprepared to resist. I wasn't there but, at the time, I didn't know enough to be of any help. Now, they're so ideologically caught up in it they won't consider anything else.

[@CC-ii3ij]

God Bless You! It requires a rare humble & honest character to admit the possibility of error, and then to repent towards Truth. Very few Calvinists make it out, even though the Truth is obvious when we step back and look objectively.

[@zebra2346]

Matt, that's so awesome to hear, and yes, God bless. Soteriology 101 and Dr. Flowers has been a great help to me as well. It's shocking when the scales start falling off, and we can see how we've been programmed by Calvinism to read our Bible only through the Calvinist lens, and how different the Calvinist god is from the God revealed in Scripture. It truly is idolatry. I was a Calvinist for over 2 decades, and it was the only way that I understood the Bible. I definitely looked down my nose at anyone who said anything against Calvinism, so it gets its claws in you, puffs you up, and doesn't let go easily. I'll say this too, is that coming to grips that i had been deceived by Calvinism and its many popular false teachers took a long time to accept, and spiritually, it is a long, difficult process. I can understand what you might be going through as you are seeing things more clearly now. May I ask, and there's no need to answer, but how long ago was it before your first suspicion that something was off about Calvinism, to the point where you are currently at in your spiritual growth? For me, I began to suspect something not quite right about Calvinism in the summer of 2022, but throughout the past 6 months is when I really began to understand Calvinism and its cult-like properties. Gospel peace to you

[@TheGoomba13]

​@@zebra2346 thank you for your kind words I appreciate it :-) To answer your question, when I first was introduced to the doctrines Grace as they call it ie TULIP I remember falling on my knees with a sense of awe and fear as it were, you could say it was humbling to think then I was God's elect. At first it was all rosey and TULIP had a sweet scent to it after I accepted it despite the logical incoherence in the system, so like most calvinist I had to appeal to mystery and somehow still still think we are responsible in light of God's omni determinism, and that Godnis good. All along I was disturbed in the back of my mind, but like all my contemporaries i simply had to swallow hard pill and stoically just accept it no matter how hard it was. The tensions and the dichotomies basically kicked a couple of years later and one I give up my sense making as Dr Leighton puts it that's when it's real logical outworking began to impact me on every level. Specially when I was wrestling with sin and my eternal security. Basically by this time, the very foundations upon which I needed to stand for all joy, strength and hope was already undermined my my calivinistic convictions, which was the reliability and clarity of scriptures and the character of its author, God. It was just a few months ago I felt the repulsion reaching its climax and I came across Leighton flower's teachings, that's when you could sat the uprooting of all the theological and spiritual weeds started to be pulled out. But ya, calvinism was a trojan horse you could say and it impacted my relationship with others, as well as mentally. I praise God for such me as Leighton and many like him in bringing this to light. I personally think the reformation hasn't quite ended, there much correcting needed in the western church regarding soterioligy and its significant impact. I personally think this area of theological category of thinking is the most important, because it relates to the gospel and God's character. Other topics may not have nearly the same level of impact, such as eschatology and views on baptism etc. But ya that's it in a nutshell :-) i can finally look someone in the eye and confidently say they God loves you and wants you to be saved! :-)

[@zebra2346]

@JamesLancellotti Friend, i understand what you're saying, but we both have a different perspective. Flowers is a nice guy. He doesn't ruffle feathers, and that is very respectable. But I call a spade a spade, exposing works of darkness in love, using frank language so as not to sugarcoat the truth. Piper, McArthur, Sproul, and others, i followed all of these, and i was a huge Calvinist. But the Bible easily proves that Calvinism is false and that these men are false teachers of Calvinism, who, btw, have huge followings. I am not saying they are teaching heresy on purpose. But they are like Pharisees, the blind leading the blind and therefore also believe what they teach. When we are ideologically possessed under a particular paradigm, then we are not free to think outside of the paradigm, and the paradigm becomes our authority, not Scripture. Then, we must defend the paradigm at all cost, even throwing Scriptures under the bus in order to defend the paradigm. Roman Catholics are a good example. They are taught a particular paradigm under false teachers and believing everything that they are taught. The idea that they are in error is incomprehensible to them. It's the same way under Calvinism. As a Calvinist I could not comprehend Calvinism being a false religious system. I could not accept that, and thank God i came to my senses. But please consider that the longer one is Idealogically possessed under a false religion, then the harder and more calloused their heart becomes to recieving the Truth of God's Word, and they will actually fight against it! And speaking the truth truth in love here, Calvinism is idolatrous and dangerous. This can not be overemphasized. Against the authority of Scriptures, Calvinism teaches that man does not have the ability to respond positively to the gospel. It teaches Augustinian views of predestination and election that contradict the biblical views of predestination and election. It teaches that god loves some people and hates others. It teaches that christ didn't die for all but died only for the elect, and Calvinism teaches that god decrees everything, whether good or evil, and even decrees false beliefs in people, making God a liar who can not be trusted. I've heard the god of Calvinism being described as a narcissistic bully, and i totally agree. Friend, the god of Calvinism is not the God described in the Bible, and by the authority of God's Word, Calvinism has another god, another christ, and another gospel. Please take care not to careleasly dismiss this matter without an honest appraisal of what Calvinism teaches against what Scriptures actually say. Gospel peace to you. God's Word warns us over and over. Please take heed For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. 2 Corinthians 11:13-‬15 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. ‭2 Peter‬ ‭2:1‭-‬2‬ See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Colossians‬ ‭2:8‬ Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. ‭2 Timothy‬ ‭4:2‭-4 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. Matthew 7:15 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1 ‭

[@dustinpaulson1123]

"Calvinism is a systematic that depends upon inconsistencies." Folks, that's the ballgame!

[@bobbyadkins6983]

It also seems to depend on redefining words as well.

[@jayrodriguez84]

When you NEED someone's mercy, do you have free will, or are you at their will?

[@bobbyadkins6983]

@@jayrodriguez84Don't you believe you are free to accept or reject their mercy?

[@jayrodriguez84]

@@bobbyadkins6983 ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭26:24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ [24] The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! *It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”*

[@bobbyadkins6983]

@@jayrodriguez84 Thanks but what does that have to do with anything were talking about right now?

[@PrairieChristianOutreach]

Dr. Flowers, your work is appreciated. Thank you.

[@brucekriskovich4975]

The contradictions and backflips of Calvinism are dizzying.

[@DaysofElijah317]

They struggle really hard with the concept that GOD would truly create free creatures that are responsible for their own actions

[@spencersnead8160]

This is great! I’m actually reading this book right now. I grew up in a reformed church, in which the teachings of John Piper and others are very much admired. A friend got me this book several years ago but I never read it because I wasn’t interested. But lately I’ve been listening to non Calvinist ideas for the first time, and it’s very convincing. I’m reading this book to be fair and intellectually honest before I fully commit to one view or the other. But so far, I notice the inconsistency and the unjustified assumptions he makes regarding certain texts. This video is a perfect example. Piper argues later in the book that EVERY decision is made by God, not by man. He argues that it is literally God making every decision. Yet this obviously contradicts the idea that God permits sin. This seems like an attempt to make Calvinism more palatable. I think this is why so many people are calvinists. What is taught is often inconsistent and hard to pin down, which makes it possible to believe the contradictions. Many more people would not be Calvinists if their beliefs were truly consistent. I would love it if you kept reading this book and continued to critique it!

[@charging7]

That's rough to listen to. I applaud you Leighton for bringing these truths into the light

[@jasonhed]

I was predestined to NOT buy John Viper’s book…

[@pontificusmaximus6716]

That’s it. From now on he’s John Viper. Love it! He even literally hisses like a snake.

[@user-xq2bm3nq8y]

My Dad was a huge Calvinist. He was also the biggest control freak imaginable. I think people like to construct a god (unwittingly) that more or less comports with their predilections.

[@huntsman528]

😢

[@TAdler-ex8px]

First of all, sorry. 😢 I agree that Calvinism puts control as the highest value or principle.

[@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

This is often the case. What a man believes about the nature of the God he worships will eventually be acted out on those around him.

[@margaretschwartzentruber3154]

It seems that people gravitate towards the denomination or group that promote a merciful God or a vengeful God.

[@Whaat-in-the-world]

I had a dad like this! Also a Calvinist. Interesting

[@nealwright5630]

just saw a video of David Jeremiah speaking on the fact that foreknowledge _is not_ predestination! He laid it out very nicely!

[@rocketsurgeon1746]

Piper has a crazy look in his eyes. Discernment never hurts...

[@gregorylatta8159]

That is because Calvinism is a form of mental illness at best!

[@IronSharpensIron127]

It was decreed

[@rocketsurgeon1746]

@@IronSharpensIron127 😂 Well played sir

[@garfieldrobinson7837]

Well done Dr. Flowers. Thanks for consistently exposing calvinism inconsistencies

[@mrdandrea]

With the Calvinists worldview, how could they not be fatalistic? Just my opinion, but maybe this is why Piper inclines toward melancholy and James White towards anger, as these emotions would be byproduct of fatalism.

[@theologygeekgal]

Absolutely. I was becoming fatalistic myself when I put the issue on the back burner. I told God even though it seemed Calvinism might be true, I couldn't handle it. It was killing my faith. After Jesus took me to a place of actual grace and poured his love out on me, I was able to take a 2nd look. Leighton Flowers helped me understand I did not have to accept Calvinism to be intellectually honest and believe the Bible's accuracy.

[@JD10503]

If there is no chance of what God foresees happening exactly as He has foreseen, then even you Arminians have to admit that nothing can happen beyond what God determined. We Calvinists just believe God is on His throne actively determining the very course of the world.

[@americanparser]

​@@JD10503 If you reflexively assume that everyone who is not a Calvinist must, by default, be an Arminian, you have a very small and simple and narrow mind.

[@lindajohnson4204]

Ezekiel 18:23 *Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?* In context, Ezekiel 18:21 ¶But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. 23 *Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?*

[@manager0175]

You said: "With the Calvinists worldview, how could they not be fatalistic? ". Nothing prevents one from concluding from Calvinism deterministic fatalism. Which is yet another form of their contradictions. If 5 point Calvinism is true, all Christian activity is meaningless and valueless.

[@AlexanderosD]

Yes, Thank you Leighton! Consistent Calvinism collapses under the weight if it's own inconsistency.

[@AnHebrewChild]

Would you mind explaining what these inconsistencies are? I'm trying to understand the logic here. Thanks.

[@manager0175]

@@AnHebrewChild Asserting all things occur as God has willed them to be, and holding mankind responsible for what God has ordained to occur. Just one example.

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@manager0175 Thanks. Thank you for your thoughts on this. I'm not Calvinist... just a bible reader. I can definitely see how people derive teachings like the people who call themselves "reformed" on God's sovereignty from various places in scripture. Like I said, I'm NOT Calvinist but I think it's just about as odd for some to try to smoother over verses like Acts4:27 as as it is for the Calvinist to pretend things like 2 Pet3:9 don't exist. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. Acts4:27 God is God. LORD, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child. After years of seeing Christians debate these things, I've sort of just decided (for me) that it's best for children to leave mysteries up to the Heavenly Father. Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it. That includes Calvin, Aquinas, Luther, Arminius, and Leighton Flowers.

[@erixxu3260]

Very important finding, thank you Dr. Flowers. Wish God bless all your videos. 👍😊🙏

[@allyeatworld]

Dr Leighton, thank you SO much for this!! I love many of John Piper's - as well as many other Calvinist pastors' - teachings, but I cannot for the life of me agree with the idea that God *determines* every single action/sin we take, let alone the totally unbiblical Calvinist points of limited atonement, irresistible grace, etc. Majority of the voices online seem to be Calvinist, and all the Calvinists I've heard (sometimes imo arrogantly) refuse any possibility of Calvinism being wrong, so I was questioning if perhaps I was the one misunderstanding things somehow -- though while they often quote certain scriptures that seem to agree with their Calvinist points, I have not seen one of them refute non-Calvinist arguments convincingly, with many entirely avoiding discussing anti-Calvinist scriptures or applying very strange and/or contradictory interpretations. I really appreciate your and Mike Winger's balanced and fair approach to discussing these ideas, have immediately subscribed and will definitely keep watching, thank you and God bless you and your highly-important ministry.

[@PhilLacefield]

Yes, I agree. Dr. Flowers, your continued work is greatly appreciated! Thank you. Keep up the Good Work!

[@1995dodgetruck]

I appreciate your efforts to correct bad theology.

[@Orthocurious]

This is incredibly valuable, Dr. Flowers. Please do more on the compatibilist type calvinist's who sing the same tune you went over in this video. The Calvinist's who claim to believe in "free will" and reject determinism entirely except when it comes to salvation. It's very difficult to navigate conversation with those type of Calvinists. The deterministic Calvinists are easy to deal with.

[@blackwater642]

To me one of the biggest problems with Divine Determinism is that it removes God’s free will, not just ours! Once something is set into motion “before the foundation of the world” and MUST come to pass, then even God himself is not free to change it. Divine Determinism removes the free will of God to act in the material realm. God is not able to interrupt the course of events because changing an outcome would mean it wasn’t determined before the foundation of the world. Divine Determinism is really a form of deism; God created a world that is predetermined to go a certain way, and then just stands back while it all unfolds.

[@alanlietzke5738]

Several questions arise from you objection to "Divine Determinism": 1) Where within Holy Scripture does it say that God, or anyone else, has "free-will"? 2) If God is not in control, who is? It certainly isn't me. My best efforts are often thwarted by forces, even laws, beyond my control. 3) If God is not in control of all things, shall we ignore Scriptures which assert that God is in control of all things (1Cor 12:6, Eph 1:11), as most clearly asserted within the Greek texts? 4) Unless God makes mistakes why would He need to "interrupt the course of events, in order to change an outcome" as you suggested in your comment. 5) If God is not in control, how can the prophecies of His prophets be fulfilled in minute detail, many hundreds of years after having been prophesied? Are prophetic fulfillments just coincidental happenings? 6) If God is not in control, how can He declare the end from the beginning, and from ancient times, things, which have not been done (Is 46:10)? 7) Is His assertion "...I will accomplish all my good pleasure...." (Is 46:10), a promise to become fulfilled, or just an empty boast to be ignored?

[@7CorgiGirl]

I’m not a bit surprised John Piper refuses to debate with Leighton. Does Piper not see the contradictions in his own writings? Not sure which is a greater problem for him: that he doesn’t see the error, or he thinks people who read it, won’t see it.

[@shamrockdirtwork7945]

It seems like some men have such a high level of formal education that they must conjure up complicated, fantastical doctrines so as to seem superior to other men. They forget about the simplicity in Christ. Some doctrines are simply fancy big words disguised as super deep intellectual thought. Or...another opportunity to sell a confusing book.

[@Logic807]

I completely agree.

[@CC-ii3ij]

Amen!

[@andrewtsousis3130]

Right. Calvinism is nothing but philosophical rhetoric.

[@crisjones7923]

CRITICAL TO UNDERSTAND: inconsistency is a feature of the system, not a bug.

[@rjc9537]

I’m starting to think that their inconsistency is on purpose… 🤔🤔🤔 Why? Because that way they can appeal to the different types of Calvinist. 🤔🤔🤔

[@donhaddix3770]

there is no sugar coating Calvinism.

[@mikelyons2831]

Calvinists will sight Proverbs 21:1 thinking it validates absolute determinism...so God whom said Thou shalt not murder, hates divorce & inspired Paul to write "This is the will of God even your sanctification that you abstain from sexual immorality"... that same God MADE King David commit adultery then arrange Uriah's death. That's Cognitive dissonance with the text. At a certain point I believe (via numerous passages) when you succumb to wrong, false doctrine you open yourself up to a lying, seducing, deceiving spirit to help you believe a lie.

[@drjcw]

Excellent.

[@AndrewKeifer]

*"...since God foresees what he may or may not permit, he chooses whether to permit or not."* This seems to contradict the Westminster Confession of faith Chapter 3, article 2, which reads: _"Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath He not decreed any thing because He foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions."_ I see this kind of seeming contradiction frequently in my interactions with Calvinists, particularly with compatibilists.

[@thirdplace3973]

I caught that too, I grew up Presbyterian. Piper’s statement refutes his own systematic. 🤦‍♂️

[@JohnQPublic11]

Right, on Reformed Theology [1] nothing is actually permitted because everything is “Decreed” and [2] nothing can be permitted because it is 100% impossible for the sovereign Calvinist potter God to *LEARN ANYTHING!*

[@roddyk2655]

Come on, man... you're just not in tune with the nuance of Calvinist language... 😂

[@thirdplace3973]

@@roddyk2655 They might need to invent a new will of God with its own modifying adjective after this book.

[@roddyk2655]

@@thirdplace3973 Yeah... like *"not quite permissive but almost will"*...

[@thirdplace3973]

Uh oh. Piper made a claim on p. 175 that goes against his systematic: “ Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.” - WCF 3.2

[@ChumX100]

That quote would fit right in with Molinism. John Piper has many facets I guess...

[@drjcw]

Always good Professor Flowers! The fact that God always performs His Word can be explained simply. When God makes a promise....He always keeps His promise. If something isn't in His Word(child molestation, rape, etc ), He won't perform it. Calvinistic claims of God determining all things is not in His Word.

[@PhienNguyen1]

How John Piper Tries To Soften His Determinism So he's confessing the seeming absurdity here of ultimately blinding somebody and then holding them accountable for their blindness. Today, we're going to be talking about the book "Providence" by John Piper. It just came in, and I've been reading it recently. I'm a theology nerd. Yes, I even read 700-page books by people I don't agree with. I told you guys I would be doing this, and he is giving us all kinds of great information for us to go through. I got to about page 175 over the last couple of days, and that's where it just came to a full stop. You're going to see why as we go through this. It came to a full stop when I read something that John Piper said that seems, at least to me, completely inconsistent with what I've heard him say elsewhere. This is not unusual when it comes to dealing with Calvinism. Calvinism is a systematic system that depends, in some ways, on quandaries of seemingly inconsistent concepts and ideas. I'm not trying to be overly mean to our Calvinistic friends. All of us have mysteries within our particular worldviews, but I think mysteries are quite a bit different than blatant contradictions. As we've argued before, I think there are some blatant contradictions inherent within the determinism of Calvinism, and those are the things we're trying to push back on. So this is where I came to a full stop, here on page 175 of the book "Providence." The reason I came to a full stop is that he starts, like I said, buttering the bread on the provisionist table, meaning he's using our terminology as if it's his terminology and thinking that we won't notice or that maybe we won't care or maybe that others won't notice. I don't know. I'm not sure exactly why some Calvinists think they can get away with this, but we're going to point out what we feel, or at least what we see, as the logical inconsistencies here of these kinds of statements. Listen to what he says. He says, "If God planned the suffering of His Son before creation, and thus before the sin of Adam and Eve, as we saw in Revelation 13:8 and 2 Timothy 1:9, then He foresaw the coming of sin and planned to permit it to enter the world." I choose those words carefully, so this is not a mistake he's made. He's not misspeaking here; he is choosing these words carefully: "planned to permit." Sometimes we say God permitted something. This is perfectly fitting since God's providence does not govern all events in precisely the same way. Permission is one way to describe some of His acts of providence. For example, "Let us go on to maturity, and this we will do if God permits" out of Hebrews chapter 6. So he is using passages which we agree with. We use the word "permission" all the time. Continuing on to the next page, this is 176, obviously, in his book: "But what we sometimes overlook is that since God foresees what He may or may not permit, He chooses whether to permit or not." Let's just think about this logically. Let's think about this logically in accordance with other claims of the Calvinistic worldview. If God is foreseeing what He will permit, what is it He's permitting if not His own decree? He has to be permitting the free will choice of creatures or His decree. Which one? This is the problem when you have a worldview that says God decrees whatsoever comes to pass. Then what is it that God is permitting and/or restraining? We'll hear Calvinists all the time talk about God permits this or restrains that. What is it He's permitting and/or restraining if not His own decree? If you say permission, or if you say He's restraining something, it is presuming libertarian freedom of the will because that is what He's permitting and/or restraining. He's restraining Satan, who is acting independently of God. He's restraining Satan from doing what Satan wants to do freely. He's restraining Jonah from going to Tarsus. He's restraining Abimelech from sleeping with Sarah. He's restraining that from happening. Why? Because He decreed them to do it and only steps in and restrains them from doing what He decreed for them to do. In other words, if you use the vocabulary of provisionists, Arminians, and non-Calvinists of all sorts and you're making statements like "God permits this thing to happen," then you seem to be presuming that He's permitting something outside of Himself. Otherwise, you've got Him permitting Himself, and that makes no rational sense at all. It's just cloaking determinism with different words, and that's what we're calling out. Now, this is not just my argument. You're going to hear from John Calvin himself making the exact same argument against free willers. John Calvin is going to bring a rebuke of this kind of language, which we'll get to, but let's continue. Remember, I know I'm accused of not representing Calvinists correctly and all those kinds of things, but who is going through their words, putting them on the screen for you, letting them come on the program? John Piper has an open invitation, as does James White and other leading Calvinists. They have an open invitation on my program anytime they want; just let us know. What Calvinist is doing that for us? Not many leading Calvinists at all-none of the leading Calvinists and not many of the lower-level ones either. I'm not trying to be mean to those; I'm one of those people on my side too. Very few are representing us with our own words, so I'm trying to do that. I'm trying to let them represent themselves with their own words.

[@silveriorebelo2920]

Calnists are specialists in confounding people so that their horrible heresies are not identified

[@leenieledejo6849]

Like Catholics...

[@HoytRoberson]

Piper has said publicly that he is a biblicist. What he means by that is that he 'just reads the Bible and believes what it says.' He makes no attempt to correlate contradictory assertions, he simply makes dogmatic statements even if he can't make them all fit his theory. In this case, Piper has read the word permit and so he uses it. It matters not to him that his system can't allow that. Piper doesn't care. No one should get their theology from Piper because he readily admits that his theological system is self contradictory.

[@JohnQPublic11]

Theseus Flowers slays the Calvin Minotaur Asterion Piper!

[@PhienNguyen1]

So here we go. He says, "And all God's choices accord with His perfect wisdom and goodness and justice. God is not whimsical; He never chooses foolishly or sinfully," which, of course, we would agree with. Matter of fact, this whole paragraph I would agree with because, again, he's buttering the bread on our table here. I love that blog by the way that Peter writes. So he says, "He chooses in view of all the consequences, painful and pleasant, that will flow from whatever He permits. Therefore, we may speak properly of what He plans to permit." Again, we see that same terminology: "what He planned to permit." But again, what is He permitting if not free will? His own decree? Is He decreeing something and then planning to permit what He decreed? What do you mean by that? And again, that's not just my argument against this; it is even John Calvin's argument. And thus, we may and should speak of God's purpose in permitting. Now, that's our language again. We would love to talk about God's purpose in permitting. That's what free will is all about. What is God's purpose in "allowing" for free creatures to act freely, i.e., allowing, permitting? That's a free will theory that you hear from all of the leading non-Calvinists out there. Every non-Calvinistic apologist out there that I'm aware of uses the free will theory of what true love in relationship looks like-the C.S. Lewis video that we've played dozens of times. This is it. God has a purpose in permitting. God has a purpose in allowing for free choice, and we talk about that purpose-that it's necessary for true love and relationship. So what is the Calvinistic purpose in permitting? Well, let's continue down this page here and continue to understand what Piper is trying to argue. He goes on, the next title says, "God Planned Permission of the Fall." God foresaw-let's just think about this word for a moment. Does the word "foresaw" mean that He sees something that Adam and Eve freely choose to do and then permits them to freely choose to do that thing? Not on Calvinism. Not in even John Piper's form of Calvinism. According to other things we're going to listen to, it's going to be a long program. Stay tuned because we're going to listen to John Piper in his own words say things that are contradictory to what he just wrote and published. Is he softening himself here? I don't know. You be the judge. I'm just putting out the information-you judge. "I report, you decide," as they say, right? So God foresaw that Adam and Eve would sin. Would sin freely, or would sin by decree? Would sin because God decreed that they would sin, or that He foresaw that they would choose to sin freely and allowed it to happen? Which one do you mean by that? Because again, you're using our vocabulary and bringing ruin on His creation. He took this reality into the Council of His will, considered all its consequences and all His purposes, and chose to permit their fall into sin. He did this in accord with His perfect wisdom, justice, and goodness, since He could have chosen not to permit this first sin. Just as He chose not to permit Abimelech's sin, "It was I who kept you from sinning against Me" from Genesis 20:6, which, by the way, is a perfect example but proof that God steps in time to prevent a sin from taking place, which would possibly thwart a bigger purpose and plan of redemption that He has through Sarah's life. It doesn't prove that God deterministically brings about all sin. And it certainly doesn't prove that God in any way decrees Abimelech's sinful desires or Abraham's sin in that circumstance-passing him off as his sister and giving him over to the king like a jerk would do. So anyway, we know that God has wise and just and good purposes in permitting it. Again, I don't disagree with any of this. I could have written this in my book, almost verbatim. It would be consistent with Arminian provisionistic theology as it's written so far. This is why we're going full stop. How is this consistent with what you have claimed elsewhere, John Piper, and what your systematic claims with regard to God's decree of all things that come to pass, including the very thing that you say he's planning to permit? It is baffling. He goes on to say, "If God had wise and just and good purposes in permitting the fall of Adam and Eve, we may speak of God's plan in permitting it." Now, remember yesterday when Austin and I read several quotes directly from John Calvin, which talk about the fall happening because God decreed it to happen, not that God just foresaw that it would happen, but that God planned and decreed it to happen. So again, planning to permit something seems to suggest free will is in play. That is, we may speak of God's planning or ordaining the fall in this sense. By planning or ordaining, I simply mean that God could have chosen not to permit the fall. So by planning or ordaining, he simply means that God could have chosen not to permit the fall. So whenever you say, "God ordained that Leighton Flowers believed in Jesus Christ," do you mean the same thing? Honestly, I'm just trying to figure this out. When you say plan and permit, John Piper, could God not plan to permit every lost sinner to accept or reject the gospel, just like he planned to permit Adam and Eve to sin or not to sin in the garden? In other words, if you're going to say that God planned to permit Adam and Eve to sin or not to sin, why can't you equally say God planned to permit Joe to accept or reject the gospel? What's wrong with that vernacular? How is that not consistent with our theology and inconsistent with your theology? Because by planning and ordaining, you simply mean that God could have chosen not to permit the fall. It seems to me that by planning or ordaining, you could simply mean that God has chosen to permit a choice with regard to salvation or not, and it would be perfectly consistent with what we claim is libertarian free will, which you, in other articles, explicitly deny is even possible or biblical. Just pointing out the inconsistencies; you take it for what you will. He goes on, "But in choosing to permit it for wise purposes, he thus planned and ordained it. He considered everything-millions of things, trillions of things he would do with it-and made it a part of his ultimate plan. This means that God plans and ordains that some things come to pass that he hates." Again, this is perfectly consistent with provisionism. This is consistent with Molinistic type of theology as well, or philosophy as well, with regard to how God may know something is coming, but he permits that thing that comes even though he hates the thing that happens.

[@brendaleehayter8464]

👍 awesome, noticed a calmer and more constructive line of comments on this presentation .

[@SpielbergMichael]

Awesome video!!!

[@Fireking285]

Can you address King Nebuchadnezzar being "made to eat grass" and "given the mind" of a beast? Does this overrule his free will?

[@JD10503]

No, because he never had free will to begin with. No created thing does. The bird flies when God tells it to, the fish swims where and when God directs, and human beings act when, how, and what God determined they would.

[@rebsince71]

Again, only on Soteriology 101 would a 34:10 video be grouped in the “Shorts” category…😂 I absolutely love it…

[@user-ee9qu8kv8n]

Yes, I saw the length and thought the same thing!

[@PsychoBible]

You know it's a Leighton Flowers "short" when it's 30 minutes long . . .

[@5Solas1Truth]

I've read that book! I was beyond disappointed (but not suprised) he starts not with scripture but with the WMC. That's all ya need to know

[@philipatoz]

While God does not cause or orchestrate the sin, as He fully knows ALL things, hearts, motivations, and clearly has ALWAYS foreknown how he will orchestrate the RESULTS of the freely chosen sinful actions of men for His good purposes (which THEY often do not intend nor perceive) - a very different thing than CAUSING their sin. Scripture tells us God chooses the specifics of geographic places, years, families, etc. that people will be born in - and yet, He is able to do that using THEIR free-will choices to make this happen. Clearly, God is influencing and swaying those who make sinful, even horrific choices to bring about ultimate earthly and eternal outcomes per His purposes, despite THEIR sinful actions and desires - all of which is a very different thing from God supposedly CAUSING their sin. Our free will choices are not in conflict with God's sovereignty or ability to orchestrate OUTCOMES! Ultimately, Piper and other Five Pointers ignore much Scripture while hyper-focusing on ones that fit their Five Point beliefs. Which is a terrible theological approach - it's truly amazing that they just can't see it. But when people come to prominence or influence per a certain teaching or movement, it becomes exceptionally difficult for them to back up and eventually say, "I was WRONG!" As they would lose their followings, leadership roles, jobs, etc. And people in Reformed churches - same thing, denying Reformed teachings about Sovereignty is going to see them shunned, lose friends, etc. - the very same reason why many won't leave whatever cult.

[@user-xq2bm3nq8y]

I think Piper’s god is obsessed with his glory. I guess people are predetermined from eternity-past to spend eternity-future in conscious torment because it brings glory to God. How I don’t know. Maybe God has a bigger ego problem than Piper. Nah…

[@AnHebrewChild]

For *my name's sake* will I defer mine anger, and for *my praise* will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off. Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. For *mine own sake,* even for *mine own sake,* will I do it: for how should *my name* be polluted? and I will not give *my glory* unto another. Isa48 What are your thoughts?

[@kraffty1]

Sometimes, I feel that even as Christian, God removed His hedge from Me, allowing me to experience His wrath for disciplinary purposes. But how does this square with Jesus taking the full wrath of God on the cross? I suffer terribly and often try to figure things out. However, I ultimately come to end of myself and reinvest my in trusting in the goodness of God.

[@jessedbanks]

Sometimes we have to recognize that things we go through in this world aren't a judgement of God for something we did wrong but simply the consequences of living in a fallen world. Jesus said that in this world you will have tribulations but that He has overcome the world. If we trust in Him we to shall overcome but it may take some time. Eventually we will be with Him and the things we are experiencing now will have passed away. If we realize that sometimes God allows us to experience these things to be able to identify with Christ in His suffering and use it to demonstrate Christ in you. Trust in Him brother and your suffering might be a witness to bring others to Jesus.

[@Migler1]

We don’t experienced God’s wrath as born again believers. We receive chastisement. God’s wrath is reserved for the unbeliever. Take heart! ”It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled;” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭12‬:‭7‬-‭15‬

[@JD10503]

Just by being human, we earn His wrath. He doesn't need to punish us for something we do when He can punish us for simply exisiting.

[@jtcharland]

@@JD10503do you have children?

[@EulersIdentityCrisis]

I remember these episodes going through the book. What I don't remember is if there was any push back from anyone. Were there 25 dividing line programs about this? I'm genuinely curious if other Calvinists blasted Piper's theology.

[@swilliams7850]

Please, please, please do a series on soteriology and the Roman Catholic Church. They have a very convoluted system that really makes no sense, and, in my opinion, strays from biblical teaching.. One paradigm that that is essentially their norm is for babies to enter the church by virtue of being born in a Catholic family (original sin that is more vague than some Calvinists but practically still adheres to inherited guilt, ex opere operato baptism for infants without faith, a system that demands some level of adherence to their rules to maintain salvation after confirmation years later, etc.). They have a second paradigm for adults that is much closer to the truth (faith/understanding first), but the systems are inconsistent with each other. Again, the infant soteriology is their norm. I think the key error you will find that runs throughout is that faith is not required in their system for infants and is therefore contrary to clear new testament scripture. Catholics have a large and influential presence on KZbin and your ministry is *** needed*** to point out errors in their soteriology. It appears only Calvinists have taken on Catholics in terms of debate. Gavin Ortlund is quite fair and cordial, but your voice is needed also. He's what I would describe as a soft Calvinist. Thank you and I pray God continues to bless you.

[@PhienNguyen1]

Alright, so moving on, let's look at what I referenced earlier from Calvin's Institutes. This is where John Calvin brings a critique of what you just heard from John Piper. So, we've got John Calvin critiquing at least the section we just read from the book called "Providence" by John Piper, who is defending Calvinism. Let's hear what the namesake of the system says so you can hear both sides. Calvin writes, "From other passages in which God is said to draw or bend Satan himself and all the reprobate to his will, a more difficult question arises, for the carnal mind can scarcely comprehend how, when acting by their means, he contracts no taint from their impurity." Now again, sometimes translation gets a little difficult to understand what he's saying here. When he says "he contracts no taint from their impurity," he means how God does this thing by which he brings the reprobate to do what he wills them to do without contracting taint-in other words, without being guilty. How is it that God is not guilty for causing them to do what they do? That's the mystery here that he's appealing to. "Nay, how in a common operation he is exempt from all guilt and can justly condemn his own ministers. Hence, a distinction," Calvin continues. Here's the problem, the mystery: how God can control these ministers of Satan and the reprobate to do what he wills them to do and not be guilty for what they do. Some people have tried to justify God by doing this thing that he's going on to describe-a distinction has been invented. Look what it says: "Hence a distinction has been invented between doing and permitting." So again, John Calvin is critiquing John Piper's approach by saying he's inventing something-a distinction between doing something and permitting something. "Because to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases and employs their iniquities to execute his judgments. The modesty of those who are thus alarmed at the appearance of absurdity might perhaps be excused. They do not endeavor to vindicate the justice of God from every semblance of stigma by defending an untruth. It seems absurd," Calvin writes. "It seems absurd that man should be blinded by the will and command of God and yet be forthwith punished for his blindness." He admits that it sounds absurd. "Hence, recourse is had to the evasion that this is done only by permission." What is he arguing here? He's saying some people try to get out of this quandary that's created by this statement right here, this seeming absurdity right here. Some people are trying to get out of it by using the word "permission." It's ultimately what he's arguing. "And also by the will of God, he himself, however, openly declaring that he does this, repudiates the evasion." In other words, what is Calvin arguing? He is saying, well, you can't claim that he does it by permission because the Bible argues that he does do these things. His interpretation we would find suspect, but what he's arguing is the Bible says he does this. He doesn't permit it; he does it. They've invented a distinction between doing and permitting, and it's obvious that he does it because the Bible says he does it. Therefore, they are not following the truth and the logic of scripture by just coming out and saying he does it. Now, we would argue that the passages that seem to come across saying that God does something evil are often figures of speech, attenuations, and other things that we've talked about, like "The White House put Iraq into shambles by pulling the troops out." In other words, by letting Iraq act the way the Iraqi people chose to act and the criminals in Iraq chose to act, it doesn't literally mean Barack Obama or the people in the White House went over and started cutting off heads and burning down buildings. No, of course not. It means he removed his power, the strength of the United States forces, so that Iraq could act freely, autonomously, separately, libertarian freely from the will of the White House. In the same way, they say the White House put Iraq into shambles by removing its presence. So too, there are the same figures of speech within the scripture. By permitting, by pulling back his presence, by allowing people to act freely, he has put them into shambles. He has put his wrath upon them. Another word for wrath is to allow people in the natural consequences of their sins, which will lead to destruction. That's referred to sometimes as God's wrath. So, it sounds like an active thing God is doing when in reality it's simply him removing his protection and his presence to allow the natural consequences of one's actions and sin. Moving on, look what he goes on to say: "That men do nothing save the secret instigation of God." In other words, men do nothing save what God secretly instigated. Those are his words, not mine. So, make sure people understand: "Oh, you're misrepresenting Calvinism." This is John Calvin. I think Calvin probably understands Calvinism. Men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God. So, who instigates the actions that we take? According to Calvin, God instigates them. If a molester molests or if Satan does something evil, who instigates it? God does. In fact, according to Calvin, men do nothing except by the instigation of God and do not discuss or deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed. They don't even discuss or deliberate on anything but what he has already decreed with himself and brings to pass by his secret direction. This is proved by numerous clear passages of scripture, Calvin argues.

[@quinnpeterson2716]

Calvin was arguing against the idea of general permission or bare permission. Wherein God sits back and arbitrarily allows sin for the sake of freewill. Here’s a Paul helm quote that discusses general permission vs specific permission. “He could not be the ‘author of sin’. So how do evil actions happen, if God’s providence is in control of everything, and nevertheless he cannot be evil? The answer is by His permission. God allows evil. It is possible to think of permission in two ways, or as having two strengths: general or specific. For example, John may be leaving the country and gives his friend Joe permission to use his car while he is away. This is general permission; no particular uses of the car are specified. While joe has the car he may go wherever he wants. Although John, by his permission, is affecting Joe’s movements (for joe now has use of the car) he is not controlling his movements. The idea of general permission has been favored by those who hold to one version or another of the ‘risk’ view of divine providence (non-Calvinist). But it is hard to see how general permission of this kind could be compatible with the control which God exercises over his creation.” And regardless, every Calvinist I’ve read or heard agrees with Piper on this so really even if you proved that Calvin wasn’t on board with it it would just be an argument to change the name of Calvinism.

[@J-ky8qg]

We agree God isn't the author of sin. So do you. It's what the bible teaches. Its the Calvinist systematic that leads to that conclusion. Yet when it does there is no humilty and a thought to think the systematic could be wrong.

[@RedeemedRogueMolecules]

They only use hard deterministic language among themselves largely. They bring a difference dictionary to the public discourse.

[@DamonNomad82]

Islam has a principle called "Taqiyya", which posits that lying to "infidels" is acceptable if it's for the purpose of furthering the goals of Islam. Since Calvinism is essentially "Trinitarian Islam" to begin with, it makes sense that they also have their own version of "Taqiyya".

[@RedeemedRogueMolecules]

@@DamonNomad82 Calvinists haven’t met an abhorrent tactic they didn’t love. Taqueria, Marxism, redefining terms. That’s why I lovingly call it Deformed theosophy.

[@DrGero15]

7:57 where can I see the C. S. Lewis video?

[@Dropaprayer]

I tell my kids not to go out in the street, then drag them out there and punish them for disobeying me.

[@quinnpeterson2716]

Yeah I promise you that no Calvinist thinks God is taking well meaning or neutral creatures and forcing them to sin. That’s not what is meant by “decree” or “ordain”. No matter what kind of straw men your teacher likes to make. “The good acts of men are rendered certain by the positive decree of God and the sinful acts occur only by His permission. Yet, it is more than by a bare permission that the sinful acts occur, for that would leave it uncertain whether or not they would be done. Concerning this subject, David Clark says, ‘The most reasonable explanation is that the sinful nature will go to the boundary set by the permission of God. Hence, God’s bounding of sin renders certain what and how much will come to pass. Satan could go no farther with Job than God permitted, but it is certain that he would go as far as God allowed.’” Loraine Boettner “God ordains all those circumstances which are necessary for the for the performance by a person of a particular morally evil action, say, an action of cruelty at a particular time and place. God does not himself perform the action, nor could he. Nevertheless he permits that action to take place. He does not prevent it or stop it. So in the circumstances ordained by God someone does an evil action; the circumstances are ordained actively but the evil is ordained by permission. The force of appealing to divine permission is considerable when it is remembered that God being all powerful, could have prevented the action in question being performed. He could do so, most drastically, by annihilating the person, or less drastically by diverting or distracting the person. And perhaps for all we know, God in fact prevents many evil actions in this way.” Paul helm “God determines all that comes to pass, yet given the truth of the active/passive counterfactual pair, God could be said to move the will toward the good only, working against the tide of sinful nature, but on the moment of sin, cannot in that sense be said to ‘move the will of the sinner to do evil.’ To sin, a human will needs no special ‘moving’ by God.” “Calvinists can (and I shall) coherently maintain an asymmetry between God’s control of the good and his control of the evil; more than merely in his attitude, it is an asymmetry in his very providence, whereby he actively brings about the good, and more passively “permits” the evil, both of which still occur under his meticulous control.” -Bignon

[@marcosobreque3981]

The sin of sinners is like water, it spreads everywhere unless you set limits on it so that it goes in a specific direction. So. How does God permits sinners to sin in a way that fulfills his purpose? By stopping them from going on any of the possible sinful paths they would choose, and leaving room for them only to do what is in accordance with his purpose. This is the way I believe calvinism understands sovereignty of God. I'm a calvinist by the way.

[@quinnpeterson2716]

I agree! We use our wills to love the world and to spread the sin like you just explained and God exhibits meticulous providence over it all by determining whether or not He will permit each sinful intention or prevent it or redirect it or redeem it. I’ve tried explaining that on here so many times but it doesn’t fit their narrative and their silly straw man of fatalistic Calvinism. All we can do is try though.

[@JD10503]

I wouldn't waste a breath trying to convince heretics and reprobates.

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

Well that's fantastic! So we don't need laws then😮 It's funny to me, because what your espousing is 2500 year old Presocratic Greek philosophy in ascribing determinism to the divine. Yours is not a new idea. No. It is very very old, and pagan. Cisero said "To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to remain a child." I encourage you to find out from whence the things you've been taught actually come.

[@georgekramer5747]

Piper is a sophist, I think his intention is to "prove" his doctrine regardless of the inherent inconsistencies or any well reasoned rebuttal. He is not seeking truth, but rather, seeks to defend his position. He has demonstrated his willingness to use deception by using orthodox sounding words, to attract and to confuse, conciously knowing he believes and/or is using a different dictionary than his audience. I can not infallibly impugn him with malice, he may be "sincere", but sincerity is not by itself a virtue. A Life-long thief may sincerely try to be a successful thief, but he still is nonetheless, a worthless thief.

[@ByGraceThroughFaith777]

Problem is they asume the calvinist worldview as a fact, and explain everything from their error

[@J-ky8qg]

100%

[@JD10503]

Oh, it is a fact. Or do you want to go against the Bible?

[@ByGraceThroughFaith777]

@@JD10503 You can't establish it as fact before you can prove it to be so. Calvinists interpret the verses they use to prove calvinism as if calvinism was true already by changing the definitions of words and terminology to fit calvinism. A non calvinists reader would never arrive to the calvinists worldview from just reading the bible.

[@PhienNguyen1]

I think it's because he's misinterpreting those passages in the way that I described with the figures of speech and other such things. You can see, I hope, the distinction between the way in which Piper has made these arguments and the way John Calvin, the namesake for the system he's supposedly defending, has argued these points, just pointing out this distinction between doing and permitting. Interestingly enough, because we have critiqued John Piper over the years, we know other things he has said about this subject. I have them in files from previous shows and programs. Hopefully, this is coming through clearly. Let's listen to the difference between doing and permitting with John Piper's own words and see if it's consistent with the book he just recently released. Let's see: From Exodus 3: "I am who I am; tell them I AM sent you." Jesus is claiming to be God, and the basis of it is, "I know Judas is going to betray me." This is huge. The same thing is true of Peter's denial. Jesus knows precisely who will deny him, how many times he will deny him, and when in the morning he will deny him. The same thing with Judas-when, where, why-and he knew this about Judas from the beginning. We know that from John 6:64: "I knew from the beginning." Notice that he's pointing out sinful things that people have done that he knew from the beginning. He knew beforehand. So, he knew the sinful choices of Judas; he knew the sinful choices of Peter beforehand. We're talking about him knowing sin. Now, does he say he planned to permit Judas to sin? Does he say he planned to permit Peter to sin? Listen: When he chose Judas, he knew what he would do. Here's the text that connects the prediction of God with the planning or the performing of God. Isaiah 46:9: "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning." So, he declares it; he knows it. And then he goes on, "From ancient times, things not yet done, saying, 'My purpose will stand, and I will accomplish all my good pleasure.'" Now we get a window into how God knows the future. He knows it because he plans it and does it. He knows it because he plans it and does it. Here, Piper is consistent with Calvin. He doesn't invent the distinction between doing and permitting. He just comes right out and says he knows the future, i.e., he knows what Peter will do, he knows what Judas will do because he plans it and he does it. His words, not mine. He knows it because he plans it and performs it. Jeremiah 1:12: "The Lord said, 'I am watching over my word to perform it.'" God doesn't just predict; he does what he predicts. Or Ezekiel 12:25: "He does what he predicts." So, if he predicts the sin of Peter, what is he saying? He does the sin of Peter. Again, I'm using his words for themselves, and it seems consistent with what we just read from John Calvin, his namesake. But does it seem consistent with his planning to permit? You tell me how that's consistent. "For I am the Lord. I will speak the word, I will speak it, and I will perform it. I will speak the word and perform it," declares the Lord God. In other words, God knows the future because he performs the future. So, what's the future? Well, at one time, the future was Judas's betrayal, Peter's betrayal, every rape of every person, every molestation of every child, every horrible, heinous thing is in the future at some point. Therefore, to say that God knows the future because he performed the future-maybe when he sits down and writes, he's more careful with his words than he is when he's talking on a broadcast. I would think that when he's getting these broadcasts together because they're so short and concise and he has them outlined, I would think he's careful with his words. I'm just not sure how that's consistent. Maybe someone in the side chat can see a consistency here that I don't see, or maybe you can come out as a Calvinist and say, "Yeah, you're right, Piper's not really consistent in these two things." I'd be glad to hear it if you can see the consistency because I certainly don't. He's never surprised because he's not surprised at his own work. Foreknowledge is his own work. He's not surprised at his own work, so he's not surprised by Judas's sin. He's not surprised by Peter's sin because he's not surprised by his own work. Why would he call sin God's work if it's true that God only permits sin, God only plans to permit sin? Again, it's inconsistent. Not an awareness of what the fates will make happen. Foreknowledge is not an awareness of what random chance is going to bring about. Foreknowledge is not an awareness of what ultimate human autonomy is going to produce. So, foreknowledge is not what will be produced by human autonomy, as he just now said. But yet, doesn't he foreknow what Adam and Eve will do? And if they're not doing it autonomously, then why does he foreknow what they will do? Listen: There is no fate, there is no random chance, there is no ultimate human autonomy. What God knows is what God will do. The future is not some kind of free-wheeling reality separate from God's will that he is trying to catch on to and adapt to. He knows the future because he plans the future, and he's never surprised by what he plans. So, the future at one point was Adam and Eve's sin. How does he know what Adam and Eve do? Because he does it. He performs it, which is exactly what Calvin's Institutes say and exactly the opposite of what I just read in his book, "Providence."

[@peterfox7663]

14:55 I don't think any open theists deny God allows things to happen that He knows will happen, or claim that God doesn't know what is happening and cannot stop it.

[@jayrodriguez84]

After you heard the gospel, how long was it until you believed?

[@truthtransistorradio6716]

Theologically, I am 50/50 on this debate. Logically, I am 100% a Provisionist!

[@stephenroberts3173]

And all this time I thought prophesy was amazing because God knew the end from the beginning even though most of the ‘middle’ was the choices of men with free will. If I declare to my wife that I am going to the store she’s not going to be amazed when I call her an hour later and tell her ’I’m at the store’ and boast that I prophesied it.

[@josephlambert5413]

Hi Leighton. I’ve been trying to get this message. Keneth Wilson said something about how Ireneaus’ logic explains that if God is deterministic and controls everything, that’s smaller than if he had allowed for choice and can have his will anyway. I didn’t see his refference where Ireneaus is demonstrating that. Can you tell me the refference in his writing ? Or does anyone else know ?

[@whiteshadow6601]

Dr. Flowers thank you. Thank you for combing through that Piper book. It’s frustrating that our Calvinist brothers love to have their cake and eat it too (I.e. blind to their inconsistencies).

[@troyedwards6713]

I believe this old quote summarizes how Calvinists are obligated to acknowledge the truth about God's permission even if they are not consistent about it: "…. the Hebrew writers frequently speak of a person’s doing a thing, or appointing a thing, which he only permits or does not prevent. Calvinists themselves, however inconsistently, are obliged to make this admission." Summers, T. O. “The Theological Works of Thomas Paine” in The Quarterly Review of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, Volume 8 (Richmond, VA: Stevenson and Owen, 1854), p. 501

[@fredmiller6166]

Gen. 50:20 "God MEANT IT for good..." (planned??) when I look at the Hebrew usage of the word, it seems it COULD BE translated as USED IT for good. (Not PLANNED AHEAD, but rather "USED" for good, as in Rom 8:28 style) - Thoughts?

[@quinnpeterson2716]

We do have freewill it’s just enslaved to sin so many it’s really not that free. It would be like if in your system you would just admit that we naturally hate God and only want to sin. Which is why God is free to allow, restrain, redirect or redeem whichever actions he has a purpose for.

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

Where did that come from, that all mankind hates God? Martin Luther? I never hated God, nor does anyone I know. That's just a wierd accusation. From my earliest recollections I knew He was Savior, I suppose from Sunday School. I didn't receive Christ till I was in my 20s though. In all that time I never once hated God. You guys need to get some better arguments instead of these (which aren't scriptural btw)

[@quinnpeterson2716]

@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi “The natural mind is HOSTILE TO GOD, it does not submit to the law of God for it is not even able to do so.” Romans 8:7 “For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” Romans 5:10 "If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” John 15:18 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, HATERS OF GOD, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:28-32 So here are multiple texts that clearly lay out our hostility, enmity and hatred of God. Idk what translation you have but it’s pretty hard to twist those texts. And I did lay out a very deep, concise and honest argument that nobody has responded to. This was just a quick refutation of one thing he said. I’d love for you to answer the tough question I asked. Let me know if you can’t find it I’ll post it on this thread.

[@quinnpeterson2716]

@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi Plus the Bible tells us “the human heart is deceitful above all else and desperately wicked, who can know it?” Which should tell you that using your own personal experience and humanistic insight to contradict scripture is not at all wise. In other words, just because you don’t feel like you ever hated God and don’t think anyone else you know has hated God does not mean the texts I’ve provided above are all wrong. Btw, I’m sure the Jews didn’t think they hated God when they were crucifying Christ…

[@drjlrust]

This is baffling. The Bible itself is very straightforward, but Calvinists have made it a tangled mess.

[@TheSiteDirectorLLC]

AND what’s worse, they won’t even discuss it! my son-in-law is a Calvinist and will not even discuss this with me!

[@gereshare6659]

These clips are so revealing! Did Pipers teaching just say that God sinned?? Was Peter a marionette through which God holds the sticks and strings. That is possibly accusing God of sinning himself, which we know scripturaly IS NOT POSSIBLE. Nor can He tempt or cause others to sin. Pipers teachings, if nothing else, are sure dabbling on the edge of here. My hope is that he just means God is fully sovereign in his plan. Is it not enough to say that in Gods sovereignty, he had a perfect plan, and knew who would fit perfectly into that plan?? I could make my plans with everything revolving around a chocolate cake that I know my son loves, and put the tickets to a game in that cake, and be assured that he will pick that cake, and we will go to the game! I have no control over which cake he will pick!, but I know my son!! I have no foreknowledge. God HAS foreknowledge and has a PERFECT plan. That plan includes humans with free will to choose HIM after he first CHOSE us, praise God for His mercy!! Btw, I have great respect for J Piper who has certainly been responsible for helping me to follow Christ!

[@quinnpeterson2716]

No, what happens is leighton assumes that “ordain” or “decree” has to mean that God is taking neutral or well-meaning creatures and forcing them to sin. That’s not what any ordinary Calvinist has said for all of history. We have volition and freewill. We just freely choose to use it only for sin and self glorification. Thus, God is free to allow, restrain, redirect, or redeem any intention we have. But never does he take someone who walking along just glorifying God, and use them to accomplish a sinful act. That’s just a straw-man. Here are some quotes from theologians explaining Calvinism exactly as Piper does in his book. “God determines all that comes to pass, yet given the truth of the active/passive counterfactual pair, God could be said to move the will toward the good only, working against the tide of sinful nature, but on the moment of sin, cannot in that sense be said to ‘move the will of the sinner to do evil.’ To sin, a human will needs no special ‘moving’ by God.” “Calvinists can (and I shall) coherently maintain an asymmetry between God’s control of the good and his control of the evil; more than merely in his attitude, it is an asymmetry in his very providence, whereby he actively brings about the good, and more passively “permits” the evil, both of which still occur under his meticulous control.” -Bignon “The good acts of men are rendered certain by the positive decree of God and the sinful acts occur only by His permission. Yet, it is more than by a bare permission that the sinful acts occur, for that would leave it uncertain whether or not they would be done. Concerning this subject, David Clark says, ‘The most reasonable explanation is that the sinful nature will go to the boundary set by the permission of God. Hence, God’s bounding of sin renders certain what and how much will come to pass. Satan could go no farther with Job than God permitted, but it is certain that he would go as far as God allowed.’” Loraine Boettner

[@quinnpeterson2716]

Here’s one more from pipers book that leighton didn’t mention. It’s explaining that even the permission of God to allow a man to sin is a conscious decision and that decision couldn’t be made unless He had a purpose in it. Which means everything, even sinful actions are determined by God for a purpose. “If God does not step in and turn the king’s heart another way when He has the right and power to do so, then His choosing not to do so is to decide that the king’s decision will happen. This is as much to govern the king’s behavior as if God had immediately acted to turn the king’s heart.” Piper

[@johnknight3529]

"He plans it and performs it." Bingo! No need to "see into the future", when He can orchestrate any future, when the time comes. It seems to me that the preachers of total predeterminism are trying to insert themselves (which is to elevate themselves) into the status of His Prophets, without needing to make Prophesies which come to pass.

[@PhienNguyen1]

Jeremiah 19:5, they kill their children, burn them to Molech. Even open theists would have an issue with this because they acknowledge that God has enough foresight to know what possible things people will do. Certainly, when they're carrying their kids, tying them up, and about to throw them in, in that window of time, even if it's only five or ten minutes, God could step in and stop them from doing that and does not stop them from doing that. So even open theists have the quandary. If open theists think they're getting away from the quandary of why God permits sin to happen or moral evil to happen, they're not. They're just kicking the can down the road, so to speak. It doesn't really answer the quandary because in time, God could step in and stop something from happening if he chose to do so. So the free will theory, the problem of evil existing, exists even among open theists. Open theists aren't getting away from that. And so, whenever he says these kinds of things, again, he's speaking our vocabulary, but it doesn't, at least in my estimation, seem at all consistent with the claims he's made elsewhere. He goes on to say that this means that God plans and ordains some things that he hates. He hates sin; it dishonors him and destroys people. Yet he planned to permit sin to come into his perfect creation. Now, do you say the same thing with regard to the crucifixion of Jesus, that he just planned to permit it? With Pharaoh, did he just plan to permit it? Or do you say he sovereignly and unchangeably ordained, decreed, and causally determined to see to it that it would come to pass, as you've said elsewhere? Because if you're going to talk about him just planning to permit something-in other words, I plan to permit Judas to betray him, knowing Judas's sin and using it for my purposes-our vocabulary is great, it's good theology. But if you're going to say, as you said elsewhere, that God doesn't just work out the bad for his good redemptive purposes, but he actually brings about the molestations, the rapes, the murders, the killings, all the things that he does-again, we're going to listen to Piper in his own words in a minute, but I'm just letting you see both sides here. He planned to permit sin to come into his perfect creation. Therefore, God's infinite wisdom and holiness is not sinful for him to plan that sin come to pass. There are no doubt countless wise and holy reasons God plans to permit sin. Again, he's got God permitting sin versus God sovereignly and unchangeably bringing it about, as he says elsewhere. But we have been drawn into these reflections by only one, namely, that God's ultimate aim in creation and providence is to display the glory of his grace, especially in the suffering of Christ, echoing forever in the all-satisfying praises of the redeemed. That is the ultimate wise, just, and good purpose of God in planning to permit the fall. Adam and Eve meant it for evil; God meant it for good. In other words, though there are mysteries in how God wills that sin exists without himself sinning, we are given biblical guidance for how to think and talk about this. For example, we may fittingly speak of the sin of Adam and Eve with the words that Joseph spoke of the sin of the brothers who sold him into slavery: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Genesis 50:20). It does not say God used it for good; it says God meant it for good. Let's talk about that. For example, God meant it for good. What does he mean for good? He means the selling of Joseph into slavery so that he can bring Joseph through Potiphar into Pharaoh's second command so that he is able to influence Pharaoh in such a way as to prepare him for the famine. So, he meant what the evil brothers did for good. We talked about this with our debate with Chris Date. Proof that God means a single act of evil for a good purpose doesn't mean that he somehow decrees the evil intentions of the brothers themselves. In other words, the reason that the brothers are guilty is because the evil intentions are their own evil intentions. Lust and pride are not from the Father but from the world, as 1 John 2:16 says. And so, when the brothers have pride and lust for money, they're prideful, and they're jealous of Joseph and the love he has for the father, and they have lust for the money that they could gain for selling him. That pride and lust are not from the Father. God does not sovereignly and unchangeably decree their pride and lust. He knows and uses their pride and their lust, just like he knows and uses the pride of Pilate or Judas or the lust of Judas for money, the greed he has. He knows it and uses it for his purpose, which he means for good, i.e., the crucifixion of Christ. He means it for good, the selling of Joseph into slavery. He means that for a good purpose. There is nothing here which even remotely suggests that God decrees, causally determines, or brings about the sinful pride and lust of the actors within any of those events. And that, again, is the fault line of the Calvinistic system. They take it too far. Determinism, theistic determinism, goes too far because it ultimately puts back onto the table something that God should not be blamed for, i.e., the choice of evil creatures to act in evil ways. And that's what we are trying to highlight as not what is biblical. It does not say God used it for good; it says that God meant it for good. The same word used for the sinful intentions of the brothers is meant for evil. They have one intention in the act; God has another intention in the act. Exactly. But their intention in the act, according to the claim of Calvinistic theology, is decreed by God, and that's the problem. If you say, hey, they're guilty for their intentions, and then you also say their intentions are sovereignly, unchangeably decreed, i.e., causally determined by God, who determines their nature in such a way and their circumstances in such a way that they could not have chosen to do otherwise, then you're ultimately putting the blame back onto God versus onto them. Because you're not just having God permit them to make this choice; you're having God sovereignly ordain the actual desire and choice itself. And again, that's what you've got to understand in order to understand why this is so blatantly inconsistent.

[@daquanlamar4752]

Hey guys, the free will offerings in the mosaic law were actually preordained from the foundation of the world offerings

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

Funny 😅

[@yoshkebenstadapandora1181]

I am concerned both about the perversion of Calvinism and the perversions of Dispensational eschatology. Try finding a church that hasnt swallowed one of these lies.

[@jimcarwest]

Not “could have wrote”, but “could have written.” Love your ministry.

[@blackwater642]

Dr Flowers, if there is a chance during the debate with Mr White, ask him if God has free will or if God is bound by his own predetermined decisions. Under what conditions does God have free will since all conditions would have been predetermined? If he’s consistent he would have to admit that Determinism removes God’s free will, not just ours. Determinism is just deism hiding in a convoluted systematic. God determines the course of the world then watches aloof while it happens. It seems kin to a form of paganism where all is determined by entities called The Fates. I think you could seriously back a determinist into a corner with this; I’d like to see how that would go.

[@craighelgerson2698]

This entire argument is an either/or argument (at times) instead of allowing a both/and, which would cause one "side" or the other to burn and rewrite their books. I have been studying this on and off since the mid-seventies. Studying the statistical foundation that drives everything in God's creation, Vifredo Pareto's 80/20 rule, much could come into focus. Also, I wince whenever something is posited where one can say or think, "It only stands to reason," for we have now left theology and moved into the sin-cursed fallen thoughts of men (philosophy). Also, after doing much study of the relationship and privileges of the Foreigner" in Ancient Israel, I have been wrestling with drawing a correlation that matches the various prooftexts we either torture or obfuscate in regards to the Church (Elect = Elect of Israel) and (Elect in the Church age and those outside of the elect who can volitionally join Israel or call upon the name of the Lord and are chided to stay to the end. I was saved when driving in my van as a teenager with no radio or other with me, and out of the blue, I knew Jesus was alive, and I was in big trouble... I threw myself at Jesus' feet, and everything changed from that day. The sin I loved I now loathed, and the Bible went from boring and confusing to cool, clear water for my soul. The thought of not staying faithful is incomprehensible. I have experienced viciously hard things in the last 45 years, and each strengthens my hold on Christ, and the thought of leaving Him seems impossible. I know many cannot attest to such an experience of the Holy Spirit convicting and drawing (I am not Pentecostal) as I had, but I will stay the course, whatever appears to be the end. This type or shadow in the OT of the Elect of Israel and the foreigner who comes volitionally but can leave seems to remove all the contention and confusion in the New Testament when we see there are elect who God keeps and the person (equivalent to the foreigner) who calls upon the name of theLord and can also leave (thus the admonishing to remain faithful to the end).

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

If you don't think reason is valid, then how can you trust your own thought?

[@craighelgerson2698]

I can't, and you shouldn't... the Word of God is truth, and we are not.@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi

[@granthollandvideos]

Piper must talk like this , if he was persistent, I can’t see under determinism that there would be a “ thing “ called providence or “his will” ., because all is just his providence and will. Satan sin evil and wickedness are just as much his will as forgiveness the cross his kingdom etc. under determinism things just all are from above, there is no providence per se.

[@lindajohnson4204]

Ezekiel 33:11 KJV - Say unto them, *As I live, saith the Lord GOD,* I have *no pleasure in the death of the wicked;* but that *the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?*

[@alanlietzke5738]

I listened to this video in order to learn something that I might have missed from my Bible studies. I learned at least two things: 1) John Piper is an embarrassingly poor apologist for reformed theology, because, in trying to explain the nature of God, he contradicts himself, and departs from Holy Scripture. He would be wiser to quote Holy Scripture, rather than using flawed logic, which distorts God's Holy Word. 2) Leighton Flowers reveals himself as a fast talking, smooth-talking proponent of "free-will" and avowed opponent of reformed theology. However, he ignores Scriptural contradictions of his beliefs (Is 46:10, 1Cor 12:6, Eph 1:11), thereby revealing a limited love of the Truth (2Th 2:10).

[@truthseeker5698]

Now take off your befuddled lenses and have a look from reality, if you’re willing / choose to do so. Sola de laughable conclusions you have.

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@truthseeker5698​​⁠​⁠by your comment above, it would seem that you have something important you want to say. Perhaps some helpful thoughts to contribute? Who knows I'm replying here in case you ever decide to write something helpful on this subject. I'd love to hear what you have to say, but I need it a bit more organized. This is on me 🙋‍♂️ I've never been great at decoding word puzzles. Let me know!

[@truthseeker5698]

@@AnHebrewChild I do not see the comment you reference. I’ve commented over 4000 times on calvinism themed videos. A disgusting theology used by scammers to recruit /indoctrinate more cult members .

[@quinnpeterson2716]

“God created the human with the possibility of sinning and he has the power to interfere at any time to prevent the evil act. Even if he had no purpose to work out in the permission of the act, the very act of permitting the act when he has the capacity to interfere, places the responsibility squarely on God. Moreover, if he has no purpose to work out in allowing such an evil, he is certainly reprehensible in not preventing the act.” Floyd E Hamilton

[@rocketsurgeon1746]

You wonder what kind of things the "God made me do it" guys have done.

[@quinnpeterson2716]

“He could not be the ‘author of sin’. So how do evil actions happen, if God’s providence is in control of everything, and nevertheless he cannot be evil? The answer is by His permission. God allows evil. It is possible to think of permission in two ways, or as having two strengths: general or specific. For example, John may be leaving the country and gives his friend Joe permission to use his car while he is away. This is general permission; no particular uses of the car are specified. While joe has the car he may go wherever he wants. Although John, by his permission, is affecting Joe’s movements (for joe now has use of the car) he is not controlling his movements. The idea of general permission has been favored by those who hold to one version or another of the ‘risk’ view of divine providence (non-Calvinist). But it is hard to see how general permission of this kind could be compatible with the control which God exercises over his creation.” God ordains all those circumstances which are necessary for the for the performance by a person of a particular morally evil action, say, an action of cruelty at a particular time and place. God does not himself perform the action, nor could he. Nevertheless he permits that action to take place. He does not prevent it or stop it. So in the circumstances ordained by God someone does an evil action; the circumstances are ordained actively but the evil is ordained by permission. The force of appealing to divine permission is considerable when it is remembered that God being all powerful, could have prevented the action in question being performed. He could do so, most drastically, by annihilating the person, or less drastically by diverting or distracting the person. And perhaps for all we know, God in fact prevents many evil actions in this way.” Paul helm

[@thirdplace3973]

*pagan Greek* determinism

[@jayrodriguez84]

After you heard the gospel, how long was it until you believed?

[@thirdplace3973]

@@jayrodriguez84 My experience would be subjective. The Bible says it’s by faith we have access into the grace. Gnostics taught men had to be regenerated first by the Aeons.

[@jayrodriguez84]

@thirdplace3973 Was it a few hours or days or months or years?

[@thirdplace3973]

@@jayrodriguez84 What does that have to do with what the Bible says? My personal experience would be subjective not objective, I said that in the previous reply.

[@jayrodriguez84]

@thirdplace3973 Well, after you provide a truthful answer, then we can move forward. The question I am asking is a legitimate question.

[@tommysuriel]

The biggest problem i see with calvinism is that it seems to completely ignore God's judgement. God just made a choice before the foundation of world and that's it. What happened to the judging of our sins? All will be judged the Bible says.

[@quinnpeterson2716]

Leighton, you’re right when you say God did not give Joseph’s brothers the evil intentions. No Calvinist believes that. Even the confessions say “nor is violence offered to the creatures.” All we’re saying is that He could’ve done whatever He wanted with the evil intentions of the brothers. In fact, He did do exactly what He wanted. He restrained their sin through Reuben. Which means He ordained everything that took place. They had freewill. Just not libertarian freewill to do what was right on their own. “God determines all that comes to pass, yet given the truth of the active/passive counterfactual pair, God could be said to move the will toward the good only, working against the tide of sinful nature, but on the moment of sin, cannot in that sense be said to ‘move the will of the sinner to do evil.’ To sin, a human will needs no special ‘moving’ by God.” “Calvinists can (and I shall) coherently maintain an asymmetry between God’s control of the good and his control of the evil; more than merely in his attitude, it is an asymmetry in his very providence, whereby he actively brings about the good, and more passively “permits” the evil, both of which still occur under his meticulous control.” -Excusing sinners and blaming God pages 222 and 224

[@JD10503]

This Calvinist does. I believe that we are no better than machines but we will be justly blamed for our evil actions, even though we could do nothing else than what God determined we will do before we even came into being. We can't as much eat, sleep, or scratch our backsides unless God rendered it fixed and inevitable.

[@brantleystokes5127]

So he's written a book about Providence that is almost as lengthy as the entire Bible.

[@quinnpeterson2716]

Leighton, PLEASE PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS. I believe you are misunderstanding what decree means. To explain it in depth, all we have to do is apply God’s attributes to any situation. We’ll use the example of rape since you mentioned it several times in this video.. okay, if a man rapes a little girl, God is omniscient which means he knows about it before it even happens. He’s omnipresent which means he’s there before and during the wicked act. He’s omnipotent which means he has the power to stop it (even if you say he refuses to interfere with freewill, he could still stop the man’s heart or even make him unbearably sick before he has the chance to do it). And so it inevitably follows that He is making a conscious decision to allow this to happen since he is CHOOSING not to stop it. Now the question is what do we do with that…it appears you guys would rather say that it’s out of God’s hands somehow even though you’re not an open theist. While my answer is that God has a holy and just purpose in allowing this to happen even if we don’t know what that purpose is. The best answer a libertarian has is that he allows it solely because he gave us freewill but allowing a rape simply because you have too much respect for the rapist’s freewill is not a sufficient reason. Now you guys get up and arms about God decreeing whatsoever comes to pass but that’s exactly what he’s doing in this case since He is making a conscious decision to allow it. And that applies to every other situation to ever take place. So it’s important to note that I’m not saying God is forcing this man to commit the rape… he’s simply allowing the man to do what he wants with his own freewill according to the sinful nature he has apart from God. And most of the time God chooses to restrain or repurpose those intentions like he did in Isaiah 10 or with Satan in the book of Job. So I’d like to hear your own positive explanation since it’s clear based on my example that even in your system God is making a real decision to allow that specific act of evil. Does he have a reason or not? And is it just that he loves the rapist so much and has so much respect for his freewill that he refuses to save the helpless victim? Or is God just as helpless as she is in that situation? I’m truly curious what your answer is. And if your answer is that He was free to allow, restrain, redirect or redeem those wicked intentions and had a holy and just purpose that we don’t know about at this moment, then welcome to Calvinism. Because that’s exactly what we mean by ordaining whatsoever comes to pass.

[@quinnpeterson2716]

“He does not approve sin in people. And he does not directly awaken sin in anybody. He doesn’t directly awaken those lurings and those yearnings toward sin. However, he knows, as God, all the circumstances that a corrupt heart will respond to that way. He knows exactly how Satan functions and what Satan does in response to those kinds of things. And he may ordain that those circumstances and that Satan be in such a position that a corrupt heart will respond that way.” John Piper

[@HKFromAbove]

Great Short. Wow the Judas thing brings up an issue 1. We know God is good. 2. We know God is the authority for morals and law etc 3. God therefore doesn't sin. We can conclude from that anything God decrees isn't sin. Therefore if God decreed that Judas betray Jesus has Judas sinned? After all God decrees all. And God only does Good and the last I checked God only does good. Then let's Put in the claim God decrees all. We can therefore conclude we all do good because God decreed me to do it. Now I know this doesn't match the bible just a logical conclusion from God determines all rather than God allowing free will and letting us do what we want. I think the biggest fallacy is that people think that if you don't control everything your not all powerful. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you will or should. True power comes when you can let others decide thier own fate. God provides a way. We choose that. If choose wisely then God in his Grace will save. Not because we have super power but because God has chosen to allow us to choose. Choose this day whom you will serve.

[@quinnpeterson2716]

Libertarian freewill is not necessary for God to permit something. All you need is an ability that serves as a control condition for responsibility. Which is ordinary freewill.

[@JD10503]

Free will of any kind is a lie.

[@joebrowser775]

They make sense with their inconsistencies because “it’s a mystery” and “who are you oh, man!”

[@quinnpeterson2716]

What part do you think we need to appeal to mystery for? I don’t really think there is any mystery in Calvinism. Let me know and I can try to explain how I understand it.

[@genevanessen8785]

Why the need to say "another words" ?

[@higiniomorales459]

You folks I been doing some research on the origins and meaning of the words Dinosaurs and Dragons and here's what I found, the word Dragon has been in the English language since the 1600s and the Word Dinosaur was coined in 1841. Dragon means: big ferocious lizard. It's also used to describe a huge serpent, a reptile, and yes a long serpent type of reptilian creature with wings that breathed fire. Dinosaur means: terrible lizard or monstrous lizard. Now a serpent, just like a dinosaur or crocodile, is a reptile. And the bible describes the serpent as a "beast of the field" in Gen. 3:1, which means the beast of the field encompasses all types of wild ferocious animals one of which is dinosaurs which are reptiles. You ever wondered what people around the world called dinosaurs before that word was coined in 1841 ??? I heard that the Chinese referred to dinosaur bones as dragon bones in the past before 1841, from what I read people called dinosaur dragons prior to 1841. Be careful though in the Bible, for dragon is used at times when referring to Satan, that lying serpent 🐍. Anyhow if you ever wonder why the bible doesn't mention the word dinosaur, it's because the bible was translated into English centuries before the that word was coined. But you will find the word dragon in the Bible, the KJV was translated in 1611. Oh and the word "unicorn" isn't referring to no white mythical horse with a horn in it's head, it's referring to a rhino, a rhinoceros. Look up biggest snake ever found, it's a big snake fossil referred to today as Titanoboa.

[@throughthegrace7893]

I agree with 99% of what you say but where you are dead wrong is in regards to God's wrath. Wrath is not pulling back, it is an active thing God does to punish the wicked.

[@quinnpeterson2716]

“God determines all that comes to pass, yet given the truth of the active/passive counterfactual pair, God could be said to move the will toward the good only, working against the tide of sinful nature, but on the moment of sin, cannot in that sense be said to ‘move the will of the sinner to do evil.’ To sin, a human will needs no special ‘moving’ by God.” “Calvinists can (and I shall) coherently maintain an asymmetry between God’s control of the good and his control of the evil; more than merely in his attitude, it is an asymmetry in his very providence, whereby he actively brings about the good, and more passively “permits” the evil, both of which still occur under his meticulous control.” -Excusing sinners and blaming God pages 222 and 224

[@jolookstothestars6358]

I think we can truly appeal to common sense here.🤣👍

[@lindahartranft9135]

Hearing John Piper speak these things with such inflections as though he assumes he is making an obviously “correct” point, makes my stomach churn. We need to put men like him-and John MacArthur and James White and so many others on our prayer lists. It seems obvious that if all that is taught in scripture of Satan is true-and we know it is-that he would have as a high priority to so twist God’s Word so that those he was unable to prevent from trusting Christ, would not be able to grasp the truth of God’s Word which would empower them to use it (as a sword) against him and thus his strategies would be defeated. Satan’s hatred of God is undoubtedly & gleefully expressed by blackening God’s character - and as if that isn’t enough, to make God’s own people his (Satan’s) pawns to carry out this slander! And to add the “icing” on top of his diabolical plan-the Christians who do see the truth are forced to defend it-not out in the unsaved world, but to spend their limited amount of time defending it with their own brothers/sisters who are unwittingly carrying out the devil’s will! If there is a “top ten” list of Satan’s strategies, this evil doctrine of Calvinism has got to be #1. I bet Satan congratulates himself every day that he thought it up. Leighton, might you do a program on how we can engage in spiritual warfare in praying for the Church to be released from this doctrine? Thank you for all you do!

[@Calem-ky9hu]

It is not surprising that every calvanist has to learn calvanism from an idea rather than studying the scripture themselves.

[@kaciclark85]

In a Calviniistic framework, you can't permit people to do good because they are incapable of good on their own. But you can stand back and not intervene on the bad they naturally are inclined to do. So God can "permit" evil or sin but He can't "permit" good. He'd have to enable good through grace. Whether that is common grace which all experience to varying degrees. Or salvific grace. The restraint of evil is also a form of grace. So he's not being inconsistent to say that God could permit Adam and Eve to sin but can't permit Joe to do good. He'd have to enable Joe to do good through grace. Remember they hold to total depravity. The inability to choose anything other than sin unless enabled by grace to do so. So for you to say to a Calvinist, "why can't God permit Joe to make good choices" is like you asking "why doesn't God permit the fish to roar like a lion"? The fish is totally free to roar like a lion. No one is stopping it. But it can't and therefore won't because it is not in its nature to do so. God would have to specifically enable the fish to be able to roar. So, God is not standing in the way or prohibiting Joe from making godly choices. Joe has full "permission" to do good. He just can't and won't when left to his own. If, on the other hand, God permits sin, it means He doesn't actively restrain it through grace. He allows people to behave exactly as they wish to behave...and their hearts are only inclined towards evil without His intervention. Your argument makes perfect sense only if you don't believe in total depravity. If you believe people are capable of both good and evil, then yes, it would make sense for God to permit humans to choose either. If you believe they are capable of only evil on their own...then you can permit evil but you'd have to enable good.

[@Snoopy0310]

Soft target determined

[@lindajohnson4204]

Ezekiel 18:32 *For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.* In context: Ezekiel 18:30¶Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. *Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.* 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: *for why will ye die, O house of Israel?* 32 *For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.*

[@elijahmorris9864]

Calvinist: You see when talk about good things and salvation it is not good enough to believe God permits He has to determine. But when we talk about bad things, sin, and damnation, then it is ok to say permits. What so inconsistent about that?

[@IronSharpensIron127]

Piper wrote a book arguing with his critics but he doesn't believe we have a choice but to believe what his god made us believe 😂 I also bet he thinks he wrote that book. But if his god is real he didn't write it 😵🥴😵

[@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

It's so ironic they believe God determined what they believe but then decreed others to believe the opposite. Then God decreed they should both debate their differences... But, if Calvinism is true, God has decreed at least one of them to believe a lie. But ...which one. If man is unable to freely believe something, as Calvin says, and whatever he believes is God's decree the Calvinist has no logical reason to believe he's the 'lucky fellow'. In the end, he cannot trust what he believes any more than he can trust the God who made him believe it. They're just not thinking it through because the chance to say they've been uniquely 'enlightened' by God is too much for some to resist.

[@jayrodriguez84]

After you heard the gospel, how long was it until you believed?

[@IronSharpensIron127]

@@jayrodriguez84 I didn't hear the gospel, I heard the Gospel. Calvinist don't believe the Gospel of the Bible. They serve an evil god.

[@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

@@jayrodriguez84 I was raised with Godly parents, I grew up hearing the Gospel at home. My mother was a very fine pianist who played in churches an in ministry all her life. And my dad was a good fiddle player. He used to play for dances before he became a Christian. One day she and my father were playing Gospel music at home, which they often did, because even though she could play in the key of "A", Turkey in the Straw wasn't her favorite tune🤠. I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit move in my heart. I ran to my bedroom and knelt and prayed and worshiped God. .. I was 5. That was almost 65yrs ago.

[@jayrodriguez84]

@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT When you say, "I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit move in my heart," 1. Did you ask the Holy Spirit to move in your heart? Or Did the Holy Spirit move in your heart without you asking, and you responded by running to your bedroom and kneeling and praying and worshipping God?

[@jimpowell2296]

Why do calvinists go so far to twist or perhaps debunk Gods word?

[@talldog7632]

The problem with Calvinism is that it plays word games to disguise very simple concepts. It is built on a foundation of Orwellian doublespeak. It insists on concepts like holiness and free will which have no logical intelligibility given the underling commitment to theistic determinism. However, if words cannot communicate understandable ideas, then words become noise. Calvinistic systematic theology is ultimately a form of doctrinal nihilism.

[@tommycapps9903]

John Piper’s comments sounds like Armenians who say God “foresaw” who would be saved so those are the ones He saves? “God FORESAW that Adam and Eve would sin….and chose to permit their fall into sin.”