John Piper VS J.I. Packer: Compatibilism or Contradiction? | Leighton Flowers | Calvinism |

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, compares and contrasts John Piper's views on Sovereignty and Free Will with J.I. Packer's views.
Check out the original video here:
• Calvinism's Contradict...
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 #John Piper #Calvinism #JIPacker

[@lmorter7867]

Piper Packer picked a peck of peppered paradoxes. How many peppered paradoxes can Piper Packer pick?

[@MarkRidlen]

Came here to post this 😂

[@meowpurrrrr]

This is great lol!

[@Wretch-rx2my]

Here's a challenge for you, friend: push pause on LF for 2 months. Read John 6, Romans 8-9, and Ephesians 1 five times per week. As you do, ask the Holy Spirit to teach you what you are seeing. Keep KZbin off. Just write down what you observe from the text in a journal. After you do this, come back and tell us what you see. Cheers.

[@lmorter7867]

@@Wretch-rx2my I appreciate your input. I will have to decline your invitation. I have been praying and studying scripture for over 35 years. I believe that I have approached reformed theology with an open mind and heart. I was challenged by a former pastor (whom I love to this day). He gave me books and materials and homework. He did his best to convert me. If determinism is true, I have not been determined to buy into it. I just can't ignore the inconsistencies that it has with scripture.

[@duanehensley8835]

Except they aren't paradoxes, they are actual contradictions.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

Leighton, thanks for your positive influence in this area of Sovereignty and Free Will. I'm not sure I'm a Provisionist, but definitely not a Calvinist. Probably more Orthodox than anything. I grew up in a Presbyterian megachurch in Atlanta, and don't recall this ever being discussed or preached. Maybe I was just too young and interested in other things. Even through college and seminary it wasn't a big issue, at least not for me, although it was discussed. But it's become more of one over the years as I've pondered the topic. I've come to see Calvinism, taken to its logical conclusion, as a distortion of the Christian Faith. However, most Calvinists don't carry it that far. They may be theogically TULIP, but you would never know it by their words and actions. Then, maybe many are simply content to live with the contradiction as a mystery.

[@KevElder]

Had a conversation with my Sunday school co-teacher who is (or who I discovered) was a Calvinist. He said: God chose only those He wants to be saved. I said: no - God wants all men to be saved. He replied: yes, that’s correct. I didn’t have a reply! The idea anyone can hold to both beliefs completely shut me down. Not just a contradiction or paradox, but a conversation ender.

[@James_yoder]

Lol

[@James_yoder]

How can you argue with that logic? 🤷

[@lchampag]

In the Bible old and new, we are told to choose, to seek God. And God does want everyone to do so. Some do, some don’t. The difference is since the fall, we all are born spiritually dead. Spirituality dead people only choose selfish pursuits, and when some are spiritually re-born by the Grace of God and sudden have eyes to see and ears the truth. Do they seek God, because they now want to.

[@AlexanderosD]

The Calvinist God: "I judge you to be condemned before you were born! How do you plead?" The consistent reprobate: "Uh....God, YOU made me do this..." Calvinist God: "Who are you to talk back to meeeee!? Condemned! Condeeeemned!"

[@AndrewKeifer]

Or perhaps more appropriately: Calvi-god: "I judge you to be condemned before you were born! How do you plead?" Reprobate: "However you've decreed me to." Calvi-god: "Quite right! Off to hell with you!"

[@Wretch-rx2my]

Sigh. Another uninformed strawman fallacious caricature of the beauty and glory of God's sovereignty in salvation. You make yourself look tragically uneducated here. Friend, may you, and your unfortunate followers, humbly go back and read the Scriptures for yourselves, apart from LF's exegetically fallacious influence.

[@paulsfam]

The non Calvinist god is called man

[@EskimoClay1]

Thank you for your labor in the word and doctrine, brother!

[@KISStheSON...]

Gaslighting 101: manipulate (someone) using psychological methods into questioning their own sanity or powers of reasoning. This is how a person becomes a Calvinist and also how a Calvinist becomes a gaslighter.

[@primeobjective5469]

Calvinism is unjust because one group is damned forever for FULFILLING God's immutable decree outside any human will or exertion, while the 2nd party is gifted eternal life in heaven for the exact same thing.

[@gracearmor]

You are correct ✅️

[@bravebarnabas]

You're Incorrect!

[@michaeldorsey4580]

The people that are in hell, are there because God is a Just God that HAS to punish sin. There is no Injustice with God

[@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

@@michaeldorsey4580 People are in Hell because they would not believe God and rebelled against him. That is just. In Calvinism, God has decreed men to rebel and sin against him, they have no choice or ability to do otherwise. Making things in one's own image for the express purpose of punishing, torturing, and destroying them for doing what you made them to do is a description of mental illness. God is not mentally ill. If you encounter a kid in a sandbox playing that game.... I recommend you do not let your child play with them. A doctrine, like Calvinism, which cannot avoid bringing into question the very character and nature of the God they worship, should be dismissed. It is at odds with itself. It is true that God IS sovereign... properly defined. God, being sovereign, is free to control whatever he pleases... BUT God is NOT obligated to control anything simply because he could if he chose to. God must honor his word, fulfil his promises, and cannot lie. But God has voluntarily limited himself in his interaction with men and the Earth. Exmpl. he cannot destroy the world with water again... but not for the lack of water.

[@lonelyguyofficial8335]

@michaeldorsey4580 The sin He Sovereigntly decreed for them to commit. Face it, God only has to because He chooses to. That will never be the case for any human damned in Hell.

[@stephenmorrison335]

I love Packer! It was that exact book that lead me to begin my exit out of Calvinism!

[@duanehensley8835]

One can clearly see where John Piper goes wrong as well. As is typical of Calvinists, they fallaciously appeal to mystery when they see an actual contradiction within their system of belief. As a very wise person once said, "Mystery is a sign of transcendence; a contradiction is a sign of error."

[@JohnQPublic11]

The Very Special and Wonderful Counsel, after lengthy and rigorous investigation, has determined Calvinists are “too old” and “feeble minded” to withstand the trials of critical examination, therefore, they have recommended all Calvinist be let out to pasture so they can peacefully fade away into the sunset of the horrific mess they’ve made of the Bible.

[@AndrewKeifer]

They're the _"Joe Bidens"_ of theology?

[@Orthocurious]

Thanks for your work Leighton, excited to watch this after work today.

[@Finch1993]

Love you, Leighton! Thank you!

[@MyRoBeRtBaKeR]

How can a God that is light and no darkness at all ordain all good AND evil?

[@bravebarnabas]

For greater purposes than you and I could understand. NO greater than this, then one lay down his life for a friend.

[@unitedstates3068]

@@bravebarnabas your 2 comments are unrelated and meaningless to what @MyRoBeRtBaKeR wrote

[@unitedstates3068]

or.... If God decrees something - how can it be evil? If God is calvinistically sovereign, how is anything evil - it can only be a contradiction between His eternal will and His moral will

[@MyRoBeRtBaKeR]

@bravebarnabas That's stupid, He shows us His character and it is no respecter of persons. By predetermining the damned He is choosing others over most. It make no sense.

[@Magnus0311]

It seems like Calvinism can lead to learned helplessness.

[@galaxyn3214]

1:00 "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

[@fernandosviewpoint]

I like the definition of the word contradiction which I read in a dictionary that I have. It says that contradiction is an affirmation and a negation that mutually destroy each other. If I understand correctly, he who believes in two contradictory concepts simultaneously has none.

[@peterbengtsson]

What you say Leighton is what I basically found out discussing with Calvinists their teaching of sovereignty and free will. My conclusion was and still is if Piper's Calvinistic view is right, man has no responsibility and therefore can't be judged. I do however better understand Packer's view. At least then we are responsible, we just do not understand how it is possible. Kind of an appeal to mystery. Christ love! ✝️

[@peterbengtsson]

@JamesLancellotti My view is that God uses evil to bring about His purposes, even He doesn't will evil itself. Concering Rev, I don't want to say more than Rev is a very different book than the other in the NT, and we are to be careful to use it to form our theology. I leave it with that. Sorry for not egaging in your question.

[@peterbengtsson]

@@kgar5Stringhave you checked out Lutheran theology? They do hold to God predesting the elect for salvation before time existed. However they don't hold to eternal security. Would you call Lutherans man centered?

[@mattgates1925]

@soteriology101 At the 29:11 mark, what interview is this w/ Hernandez and Stratton? Can you provide the link? Thank you in advance!

[@joshbohn2884]

Just because we believe in the Triune God does not exempt us from logic and reason.

[@joshbohn2884]

@@kgar5String While I agree with your statement, it is also essential to be good Bereans. With that comes logic and reason-the gifts God has given us to aid our search for truth. Additionally, philosophy isn't necessarily wrong; it's what it is rooted in that matters. Basic philosophy is essential for understanding the world around us. For instance, Scripture presupposes morality, as it indicates that we all have knowledge of right and wrong through God's moral code written in our hearts. Furthermore, Scripture also presupposes language, assuming that we all have a basic grasp or understanding of what it's trying to teach us. Moreover, every church doctrine and theological system depends on philosophy (logic and reason) because not all theological systems or doctrines are based on the objective truths clearly stated in Scripture. Consider the following: while God has revealed the necessary conditions for salvation, He has not revealed the step-by-step process of soteriology (salvation). For centuries, humans have debated God's Divine Sovereignty and whether true genuine free will exists or if God's Divine Decree has causally determined all things. Again, the Bible doesn't explicitly state determinism in the way we define it today, nor does Scripture as a whole indicate that all things are causally determined, as it repeatedly calls all to repentance-which is entirely contrary to a predetermined world. When discerning truth in more nuanced areas of Scripture, two things are needed: 1. The Holy Spirit 2: logic and reason. Therefore, I believe both go hand in hand, meaning you can't have one without the other, as the Triune God is truth, which incorporates Philosophy, Theology, Science, etc. So, while you are correct, I think your misunderstanding stems from the difference between worldly philosophy and Christian Philosophy-one is rooted in the world, and the other is rooted in Christ.

[@makedisciples8653]

@@joshbohn2884That is why nearly all philosophers are not Calvinists Leviticus 15 "You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor. I’ve seen Calvinists twist and turn on that verse

[@JacquelineHahn1]

If God is the author of contradictory concepts which He then makes ‘friends” would not the god they speak of be contradictory? Does this then mean that the God they speak about has two diametrically opposing natures? This sounds so very ying yang to me. If as some Calvinists end up saying that we must accept we just can’t understand the heart of God why then did God spend so much effort in making Revelation to mankind? When I start to view the Word and Will of God through Calvinistic eyes I feel that everything becomes scripted and arbitrary like I am in some play with a role assigned to me that I can’t even understand the meaning behind what I am saying and doing. What then is the point of me?

[@AndrewKeifer]

It's dualistic similar to ying yang or gnosticism.

[@AndrewKeifer]

​@JamesLancellotti Taking money from a person, imprisoning them, and killing them is evil and a sin, except in the case that they are sentenced by a judge to such pains on account of having committed crime(s). In those cases it's no longer evil, but the execution of justice by carrying out a sentence against them. Being used against your will to carry out a sentence is a form of judgement against you. In such cases, the Potter has taken the clay that became marred in His hands and has reshaped it for an ignoble purpose. It's a mistake to assert that absolutely everything that occurs follows the same mechanism as when God reshapes the clay for ignoble use, such as with Pharoah, for example. Such cases are nevertheless erroneously used by many Calvinists including Calvin himself, as evidence that God does indeed utilize that mechanism exhaustively. Unfortunately, to do so commits the question begging fallacy known as a hasty generalization. It's like saying, because you met 1,000 Americans with blue eyes, all 350 million of them must have blue eyes.

[@AndrewKeifer]

@JamesLancellotti several thoughts: 1. We do have some things that are similar to the Holy Trinity in creation and this comports well with Romans 1:20 - Creation is a trinity of trinities [Space: (x, y, z); Time: (past, present, future); Matter: (Liquid, solid, gas). No, these are not exactly like the Holy Trinity, they are but shadows, nevertheless, I submit them as something to liken to the Trinity. 2. As a non-Calvinist myself, I have no problem with God willing those whom He is judging to sin since carrying out His sentences against others isn't a sin any more than our own government executing an inmate for their crimes. 3. The potter analogy in Romans 9 is an allusion to the same in Jer 18:4. So I think the point about it not being presented in a responsive fashion is incorrect. 4. The point about election regarding Jacob and Esau might hold true on Calvinism, but on non-Calvinism, it's false because what's in view is national election to bring the Messiah, not individual salvation.

[@AndrewKeifer]

@JamesLancellotti also, regarding Gen 50:20, it can be understood as God re-purposing what the brothers did. In that sense He can intend the same act as they, by allowing it for a different reason, but where it gets troubling is when we start saying that God intended the brothers' evil intentions as well.

[@AndrewKeifer]

​@JamesLancellotti 1. _"My only caution with using more substantive analogies (aspects of creation) is that they can be mistaken for modalism..."_ Agreed, and please remember my stated caveat: "No, these are not exactly like the Holy Trinity, they are but shadows, nevertheless, I submit them as something to liken to the Trinity." 2. _"I suppose it comes down to what understanding of human freedom you may want to defend as a non-calvinist in terms of God willing people to sin."_ Agreed on the main point. On the sub-point, I think there's no issue with human freedom at all because on my view judgement passages as the exception, not the rule. 3. Agreed. 4. _"My observation in Romans 9 is that Paul is applying that freedom of God in Jeremiah 18 to persons for election and in Romans 9 that purpose in election is not responsive (i.e. conditional)."_ I think Paul's reference to the Potter's freedom is in reply to his hypothetical interlocutor's complaints. Paul then goes to the example of Pharoah to show that God is doing the same thing with Israel that He did with Phroah. He's hardening them in judgement and using them for an ignoble purpose, namely to bring about the crucifixion. Israel is the clay that became marred in the Potter's hand in Jer 18. As for the election mentioned in Romans 9, why do you think Paul quoted Malachi 1:2-3? 4. [cont'd] _"In Romans 8, there is talk about Christ dieing for the elect, charges being impossible to bring against the elect, and nothing being able to separate us from God's love. So it is very soteriological."_ Of course, God electing Israel as the nation through whom the Messiah would come is definitely soteriological, so this doesn't seem to me to contradict anything I've said so far. Perhaps I missed a detail? 4. [cont'd] _"But it seems if the focus is on the obstinence of the Jews and God's hardening of them, then it would then be a matter of willing and running promoting God's treatment of them."_ God's choice of Israel, and not some other nation, to be His people and to bring about the Messiah is the part that doesn't depend on man. The hardening and judgement against Israel DOES depend on man: *Matt **23:37**-38 -> "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!"* 4. [cont'd] _"Also, and I mean this genuinely, I am not sure how it makes sense for nations to " will or run" if it's about national election. How do nations "will or run"?"_ God's choice of Israel and not some other nation had nothing to do with the wills or actions of men. 4. [cont'd] _"Paul's answer to the crisis is 'Not all Israel is Isarael'. This would seem to be a peculiar phrase if the sense is, 'not all the nation of Israel is the nation of Israel."_ You've quoted the second part of Rom 9:6, but the first part of that verse is important: "BUT it is not as though the word of God has failed." What we see in Romans 9:1-8 is that God's purpose in electing Israel hasn't failed despite Israel falling under His judgement because not all Israel are children of God, but Rom 9:27 makes it clear that some are: "IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED" Isa 10:22-23; Jer 44:14; Joel 2:32; Isa 28:22; Mark 4:11; Luke 13:23; Rom 11:5. Rom 11:25 also spells it out that a partial hardening occurred and 11:23 even says that some hardened Jews can be grafted back in. 4. [cont'd] _"But if the point is, not all persons truly belong to the elect body (Israel), then it seems to fit and correspond to the issue at hand."_ I'd say it fits and corresponds to my points too. ----------------- On Gen 50:20 _"What's tough about the re-purpose take, is that it still suggests an afterthought notion of God's plan,"_ Now we're getting into deep waters! Why do you suppose it's a problem? I consider the fact that God's foreknowledge consists of both the sin of the brothers and God's own re-purposing of it. If it seems like He cannot have free will because of this, I would simply appeal to both His triune nature, and His omnipresence irrespective of time (from a temporal perspective: existing both inside and outside of time and able to see any temporal event from any perspective). _"whereas the text seems to suggest that God intended the sin in the same sense as the brothers did, though for different reason and purpose. And the responsive piece is still lacking in the text, as in God 'meant it' once He saw what they intended to do, but not before."_ I don't think you've established exclusive support for your view. You seem to interpret "intended" as "determined/caused" and I interpret it as "permitted/allowed." I think either view fits the text just fine.

[@ryanhoward8694]

Hey, Dr. Flowers! Have you ever read or dealt with Clement of Alexandria? If not, I would recommend checking out his “Stromata” Book 4, chapters 11-12. It’s a well-done takedown of a deterministic outlook from the Gnostic teacher Basilides. It demonstrates an early Christian teacher rejecting Gnostic determinism and what seems a very Augustinian-like idea much like original sin/guilt. Clement defends the idea that God does not determine what people do but does not prevent them from doing what they will, and He punishes each person for their own choices.

[@gregorytoews8316]

"Doublethink" seems paradoxical. If one believes one can hold 2 contradictory beliefs simultaneously, one could also simultaneously believe one can't.

[@Yaas_ok123]

Help ! Free grace theology...good or bad ???

[@laochsolas]

So, again, to simply summarize: free grace theology emphasizes "faith alone" while neglecting repentance, obedience to Christ, denial of self, pursuing holiness, picking up your cross, and all such related commands given to us in Scripture.

[@Yaas_ok123]

@@laochsolas Thanks. I have been quite confused, when i see Ken Wilson being free gracer and David Allen endorsing their book ! I have been reading Defence of free grace theology-book, but it is just too much. Hi from Finland.

[@gk.4102]

Bad of course.

[@colonalklink14]

​​@@laochsolasFree grace doesn't skip any of these things. We seperate salvation, which is absolutely free, with service (discipleship) that can cost you everything. Salvation is absolutely free and not conditional upon service to God. You've got another gospel.

[@lonelyguyofficial8335]

👋

[@bobbyadkins6983]

Easy answer: contradiction

[@quinnpeterson2716]

“If I wanna take somebody and unilaterally create them for destruction before they’re ever born and cause them to reject me from birth- and if I wanna shape you and make you into a reprobate, that is an objectionable doctrine.” (Leighton Flowers) VS “When the gospel is presented to mankind in general, nothing but a sinful unwillingness on the part of some, prevents they’re accepting and enjoying it. No stumbling block is put in their way. All that the call contains is true. It is adapted to the conditions of all men and freely offered if they will repent and believe. No outside influence restrains them to reject it. The elect accept, the non-elect may accept if they will and nothing but their own nature determines them to do otherwise.” (Loraine Boettner)

[@lchampag]

I am well read with works and sermons from both John Piper and JI Packer and I tried to follow the points that our Moderator was trying to make and got totally confused. Obviously he believes man has free will and can at any moment decide to believe in Christ and be saved without any divine intervention, and if he never wants to be saved he won’t, even if he walking on the road to Damascus and Jesus stoke him blind with a bright light.

[@brianschmidt704]

I spent many years growing up in a calvinist church. Then I was an armenian church. I have learned that both views are part of the truth, like you say. We need to read the whole council of God to come up with theology, not just cherry-pick specific versus that say what we want to say.

[@aoie11]

Just fyi - Armenia is a country. "Arminian church" is what you're meaning to say. As an Armenian Christian, it's just a pet peeve of mine when people spell it wrong which is actually really common, no disrespect. 😅

[@brianschmidt704]

@@aoie11 I did not mean to offend you. I do you know the difference between the two words. I was using spell check and it switched it to the name of the country which you are from. The most important thing to know is who saves us from hell. Only Jesus.

[@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

8:30... 🤷🏻‍♂ Even Mr. Packer starts out 'redefining' the word he's chosen so that it can be 'used' to support his doctrine. IS THIS not typical of Calvinist arguments. It's SO ironic John Piper employs the same 'technique' in opposing Mr Packer🤪🤣🤣 The example of an antinomy I found was this; "there is no absolute truth". It would seem Packer's ultimate purpose is to kick up a cloud of dust with a lot of mumbo jumbo to obscure the fact he has made a doctrinal claim which is itself Biblically indefensible even within the parameters of his own system. For all his valiant efforts, he still ends up just like John Calvin, in claiming "mystery" rather than to reexamine the presumptions which led him there in the first place. Let's call it "CCS", Calvin's Conundrum Syndrome. LOL... While Mr. Packer chooses to redefine 'antinomy' as opposed to 'paradox', the former being less commonly known than the latter, and therefore more easily 'massaged' to fit his purpose.🤔 Mr. Piper attempts to define 'freewill' to accomplish his purpose 🤦🏻‍♂(presumably because there was no real obscure fancy word for 'freewill') ... But neither man is able to make their case apart from jiggering the English language and using 'verbal gymnastics'. And both still end up worshiping at the sacred alter of "Mystery"🤷🏻‍♂

[@AndrewKeifer]

👏🏻 Bravo! In a nutshell, Packer engages in _paradigm preservation,_ as I believe Kevin Thompson calls it. Declaring mystery rather than going back to the drawing board to figure out what went wrong. On a side, I actually made a couple of videos a while back (they're no longer online) which I titled "Calvinistic Conundrums." 😅 What a coinky-dink!

[@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

@@AndrewKeifer LOL.. GREAT MINES DIG ALIKE

[@undergroundpublishing]

Why are non-Calvinist Baptists still in the SBC? The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message clearly indicates that regeneration precedes faith. Maybe its time to fully repent of the denomination that was built on racism, and start a new convention.

[@dw6528]

*THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR CHOICE* 1) In Calvinism - every decree must entail NECESSARY CONDITIONS. For example - if it is decreed Calvinist_A will drive a blue pickup truck at noon tomorrow - then that blue pickup truck must exist. One cannot drive a blue pickup truck if it does not exist. 2) Similarly - a NECESSARY CONDITION for a CHOICE is the existence and availability of *MORE THAN ONE OPTION* in order to constitute having a CHOICE. It is logically impossible for Calvin's god to determine you will CHOOSE [X] where [X] does not exist for you to CHOOSE. 3) Where Calvinist_A is decreed to (SIN at TIME-T) then the option to (NOT SIN at TIME-T) is NOT granted existence. In such case - the option to (NOT SIN at TIME-T) simply does not exist for Calvinist_A to CHOOSE. 4) It is logically impossible to CHOOSE something which does not exist for one to CHOOSE 5) Additionally - in Calvinism - every impulse within the human brain is also predetermined. And the human brain is granted NO SAY, NO CHOICE, and NO CONTROL over any impulse that will come to pass within it. In such case - even if an OPTION did exist for the human brain to CHOOSE - that brain would not have the CONTROL necessary to make that CHOICE. CONCLUSION: In Calvinism - for every human event - and every human impulse - there is never granted more than *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION* And the creature is granted NO CHOICE in the matter of what that option will be - and no ability to refrain. Therefore - humans are not granted CHOICE in Calvinism.

[@AndrewKeifer]

This also means that the point of origin for any choice Calvinist_A is decreed to make is in fact NOT Calvinist_A, but God, whose idea it was in the first place for Calvinist_A to CHOOSE [X].

[@dw6528]

@@AndrewKeifer DW: In the case of Exhaustive divine Determinism (aka Calvinism) the human is actually not granted a choice at all. The reason for this - is because a necessary condition for choice - is the existence and availability of more than one option. And the decree does not grant that condition to exist within creation. Lets take the example of James White having to take a Bible exam - and all of the questions are TRUE/FALSE questions. His mind engages with the first question at TIME-T. Per the doctrine - Calvin's god must determine what PERCEPTION will come to pass within Jame's brain at TIME-T Calvin's god has two options OPTION_A: James brain will infallibly perceive the answer as TRUE. OPTION_B: James brain will infallibly perceive the answer as FALSE. Calvin's god cannot decree both options because each one cancels the other. He cannot leave it OPEN (undetermined) because that would falsify the doctrine of decrees He must select one option and reject the other. The option he selects is granted existence - and the decree makes its existence infallible. The option he rejects is NOT granted existence and the decree makes its NON existence infallible. So James brain is not granted a CHOICE between TRUE and FALSE because one of those options does not exist. James perception in that event entails 1) The existence of ALTERNATIVES (true and false) 2) He has a choice between those ALTERNATIVES 3) That choice is attributed to him as a choice that he made. All of the above (1-3) do not really exist for James. They are ILLUSIONS. So Calvin's god is giving James an ILLUSION of choice which doesn't actually exist.

[@makedisciples8653]

Without creating false dichotomies, Calvinists would not have a theology

[@dw6528]

@@makedisciples8653 DW: Yes! Very true! There is a phenomenon within Calvinism - because it is founded on Determinism. That phenomenon is called *AS-IF* thinking - and is the natural human response to Determinism. The Determinist (aka Calvinist) 1) Asserts his doctrine is TRUE 2) Treats his doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE Sean Carroll (Theoretical physicist - Atheist Determinist) -quote Every person in the world, no matter how anti-free-will they are, talks about people *AS-IF* they make decisions. William Lane Craig -quote Nobody can live *AS-IF* all that he thinks and does is determined by causes outside of himself. Every determinist recognizes he has to act *AS-IF* he has option(S) to weigh, and can decide on what course of action to take….. (Determinism is unlivable) John Calvin -quote “Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so to apply himself to his office *AS-IF* nothing were determined about any part.” (Concerning the eternal predestination of god) The Calvinist is forced to assert the doctrine is TRUE while simultaneously treating the doctrine *AS-IF* it is FALSE in order to retain a sense of human normalcy. That is because of the radical nature and the consequences entailed with determinism.

[@makedisciples8653]

@@dw6528 The “As -If” discussion is one where the Calvinists paints themselves into a corner of cognitive dissonance. Nobody wants to be painted into a corner based on their own words. So they punt to the Reformers but not the Scriptures. It’s always “but, but, but Calvinism says…” “The dictionary defines cognitive dissonance as an anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible ideas or beliefs. To relieve this anxiety the human mind will strive to diminish relative importance of one of those beliefs in favor of the other” “As-if” nails that. Thanks DW

[@quinnpeterson2716]

"If you just don't talk about the sovereign decree of God that conditioned everyone to be haters from birth, yeah, it sounds like He's just leaving them to do their own will and their own desire but that's not true Calvinism." (Leighton Flowers) VS “While man is constantly commanded in scripture not to commit sin, he is, nevertheless, permitted to commit it if he chooses to do so. No compulsion is laid on the person, he is simply left to the free exercise of his own nature and he alone is responsible.” (Loraine Boettner)

[@coreylapinas1000]

All we're missing is a.w. Pink!

[@nicklowe8102]

Piper Packer Pinked a pickled pepper... 🎉

[@dirtyburd71]

"DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." Richard Dawkins Sounds deterministic, aka calvinistic

[@paulsfam]

Fringe is thinking that man has some authority with his salvation, it's not even fringe it's unbiblical

[@user-nt5lw2ek6r]

Calvinists say a train that runs on its railway is free move because it can stop or run at 100mph whenever it likes. Provisionists say no it is not free move because it can not go outside its railway, so it is not free.

[@AndrewKeifer]

Actually that's not thorough enough from the Calvinist perspective. The train isn't free to start, stop or change speeds any more than it is to go off the rails when it likes. In fact, it isn't even free to like, desire or prefer anything because that too is decreed before the train was ever built.

[@joopfennis8272]

Calvinists are off track anyway.

[@duncanwashburn]

At the beginning of this, Leighton is talking about holding two opposing ideas as true. I think he's going to say that can't happen logically in order to be in line with truth. If that's what he is saying, I can just hear a JW accuse us of doing the same thing with Jesus as part of a triune God.

[@jesuschristbiblebiblestudy]

Piper and Packer have more in common than may appear. Both are theologically sound. Also read Geisler's multi volume Systematic Theology, and see if you would place him closer to Piper or Packer. God bless. Pastor John

[@annakimborahpa]

John Piper VS J.I. Packer: Compatibilism or Contradiction? | Leighton Flowers | Calvinism | Response: 1. In my estimation, John Calvin provided the solution to any question of antimony in the human mind due a perceived contradiction when he 'let the cat out of the bag' in his 1552 book On The Eternal Predestination Of God, 124 (OC 8.316). 2. If according to His Sovereignty (defined as absolute rule and domination): A. "...it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man's future was," - and - B. "without God being implicated as an associate in the fault as the author and approver of (human) transgression," - then - C. this decree indicates that God's nature is ONE OF PURE UNADULTERATED BLIND WILL THAT IS WITHOUT ANY RHYME NOR REASON, and therefore He is entirely and completely amoral (neither moral or immoral), i.e., God is neither responsible nor irresponsible for anything. 2. If God is faultless for everything that has ever happened in His creation, then good and evil are human constructs that evolved as a utilitarian means for people to live in proximity with one other in some degree of comfort and peace, directed according to their base animal-like motives. 3. Everything that happens, including what is perceived by humans as good and bad thoughts, words and actions, are really only acts of God like hurricanes, tornadoes, tidal waves, land slides, etc., that are without any moral agency, in that nothing and no one is to blame for who lives, who dies, who is injured, and who gets traumatized. 4. The Bible is divine revelation only in the sense that God's pure blind will determined its contents to be written. 5. The evolution of God's pure unadulterated blind will culminated in the person of John Calvin who, as the most perfect and excellent instrument of divine determinism, revealed God's true nature when Calvin asserted: (A) that God truly was the inspirer and author of The Institutes of the Christian Religion, both in the 1537 preface to the Latin edition and the 1545 preface to the French edition, respectively, - and - (B) in the same 1545 preface stated that the Institutes should be memorized first before reading the Bible, so as to properly understand the sacred text. 6. The followers of John Calvin are those elected by God to salvation, since they have come to believe in and accepted what God most perfectly revealed through him, either through (A) Calvin's writings, (B) the TULIP extraction of his teachings and/or (C) the tradition of the Reformed church communities that preach what he taught.

[@annakimborahpa]

Thanks for your reply. I was merely following John Calvin to what seemed like the most logical conclusion, since after all, he was a trained lawyer: 1. A. If God through His foreknowledge and by His decree ordained/determined exactly what every man's future was, i.e., all their thoughts, words and deeds, including their transgressions, - but - B. He could not be associated in the fault of human transgressions, as either its author or approver, that according to the doctrine of Total Depravity, taints the very nature and character of all men, - then - C. How could God be a reasoning moral agent, but rather a blunt force imposing His blind will on all men? 2. What reasoning moral agent ordains/determines the transgressions of its creation, yet is without any responsibility for it? In theism, this is not possible for a creator distinct from His creation, except only in the case of His being completely amoral, that is, without any conscience or remorse - as in being entirely sovereign without any regard for His creation except for the purpose of exalting His own glory. Isn't that exactly what John Calvin's followers say? That it is all one big divine power trip to demonstrate His sovereignty? 3. John Calvin chose to dwell on combining 1. A. and B. above as a mental mystery that consumed his interests over all other concerns: "... clearly a secret so excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance. I daily so meditate on these mysteries that curiosity to know anything more does not attract me." Martin Luther was tempted to follow in the same direction, but to his credit he did see its logical conclusion: That a deterministic notion of predestination made God the author of evil, and therefore he pulled back from this abyss. 4. So convinced was John Calvin of the divine inspiration/authorship of his writings that when a Lutheran theologian in 1552 referred to them as Calvinism, he became vehemently irate: "They could attach us no greater insult than this word, Calvinism. It is not hard to guess where such a deadly hatred comes from that they hold against me." - John Calvin, Leçons ou commentaires et expositions sur les révélations du prophète Jeremie, 1565 [Cottret, Bernard (22 May 2003). Calvin, A Biography. A&C Black. p. 239. ISBN 978-0-567-53035-6 - via Google Books.] 5. John Calvin's immediate followers took his counsel to heart and only referred to themselves with differing designations: In France, as Huguenots; in Scotland, as Covenanteers, and in England, Holland and the New England colonies, as Puritans. Everywhere they went they destroyed anything that visually represented Catholicism, i.e., pictures, statues, stained glass, vestments, altars, candles, relics, tombs, shrines, etc. Was this wanton destruction for the purpose of exalting God's glory? As a demonstration of His sovereignty through the ministration of His chosen servant John Calvin?

[@annakimborahpa]

1. The take? A distinction between God's direct will and God's permissive will is required. 2. The Book of Revelation is resistance literature for a church that is under extreme persecution, so conflicts are pitted in black and white terms between the evil powerful and the good powerless. 3. It would be my interpretation that God allows moral evil for a greater purpose by permitting those conducting it to follow their own will, inclination and desires. 4. James 1: 12-15 (ESV) is instructive: Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. 5. The greater purpose would be for those undergoing persecution to cooperate with God's grace for the benefit of Christ's mystical body that includes humanity, the angels and creation. St. Paul in Colossians 1:24 (ESV) writes: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the church ...

[@annakimborahpa]

1. I would agree that God takes infinite responsibility for good and evil since, according to 1 Timothy 2:3-4 (ESV): This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2. However, John Calvin writes: " ...it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man's future was without God being implicated as an associate in the fault as the author and approver of transgression ..." 3. Since John Calvin's God directly ordains/determines evil and yet is not responsible for or associated with it, then again, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that Calvin's God is (A) amoral, (B) neither responsible nor irresponsible, (C) but only pure blind will without any reason.

[@annakimborahpa]

OK, Sir Lancelotti. How's Lady Guinneveri and life in Camelotti? 1. Again, Revelation 17 would be understood in a non-John Calvin way as God allowing/permitting sin to fester in some evildoers for the resulting greater good by those who in response are its victims, their suffering benefiting Christ's entire mystical body. “The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church" (quoting Tertullian, a third century AD North African church father). 2. You wrote: "As another example, God is a Trinity; we have nothing to liken to that ..." Response: I have something, if you grasp that the Bible or anything that we can say about God is by way of analogy to things from human experience. A. Genesis 1:27 (ESV): "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." B. In human anthropology, man communicates in trinitarian fashion, whether speaking or in written word. To effectively communicate an idea, a single sentence requires a subject, object and verb. These components of a sentence correspond to the relations of the Three Persons: Subject = The Father, Object = The Son and Verb = The Holy Spirit. Therefore, a single sentence communicating an idea corresponds to One God in Three Persons. C. Likewise in human anthropology, whenever man performs a human act, defined as an action employing will informed by reason, there are three components that correspond to the relations of the Three Persons: Intention = The Father, Object = The Son and Circumstances = The Holy Spirit. Therefore, a single human act corresponds to One God in Three Persons. 3. Besides the human soul that directs communications and actions in trinitarian fashion, man's physical body is an image of the Holy Trinity as hinted at by Irenaeus of Lyons. A. Irenaeus of Lyons, France (c. 130 - c. 202 AD) was of Greek origin from Smyrna who knew Polycarp, bishop of that city, who in turn had known John, beloved disciple of Jesus and one of the twelve apostles. John was the author of the fourth and last gospel of the New Testament, in addition to several other canonical writings. B. From Irenaeus of Lyons' work Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 6, No. 1 [written c.180]: "Now God shall be glorified in His handiwork, fitting it so as to be conformable to, and modeled after, His own Son. For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God." C. If the Son and the Holy Spirit are the two hands of the Father in an analogy initially premised on the human body, then a distinction readily can be made between them. Irenaeus himself stated that these two divine hands were involved in the creation of man revealed in Genesis 1:29 (ESV): "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." D. Quoting the Scientific American's November 1, 2001 article 'Why are more people right-handed?': "Most humans (say 70 percent to 95 percent) are right-handed, a minority (say 5 percent to 30 percent) are left-handed, and an indeterminate number of people are probably best described as ambidextrous." E. Therefore, when this prominence of right handedness is extrapolated to authority, to sit at the right hand indicates the second greatest position and ahead of one who sits at the left hand. F. The Bible confirms this regarding Christ's authority in Hebrews 1:3, ESV: "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high ..." G. So if the Son 'is' (Irenaeus) or 'at the' (Hebrews) right hand of the Father, it would follow then that the Holy Spirit 'is' or 'at the' left hand of the Father. H. Therefore, it would appear that there is a moral hierarchy in the ordering of the equality of Persons as when Jesus Christ, as part of what is referred to as The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19 (ESV), proclaimed: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." I. Indeed, for those churches that regard baptism as a sacrament whose action performs regeneration, such as Catholic, Orthodox, Assyrian and various Protestants including Anglicans and Lutherans, the rite would be null and void if there was an incorrect ordering of Persons, say if one was erroneously baptized 'in the name of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit and of the Son'. J. Further, with regard to the Holy Spirit as the left hand of the Father based upon the analogy with the human person, the left hand supports the right hand in the actions of the majority population of right-handers, and in the same way that the right hand supports the left hand in the minority population of left-handers. K. Since this integral connection between the right and left hands exists as one of leading and supporting in the majority of right handers and vice versa in left handers, might this then be reflective of the interior relations of the Holy Trinity regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit beneath the directing headship of the Father, where the Son secondarily leads and the Holy Spirit lends support?

[@annakimborahpa]

You wrote: As a calvinist, I believe in the Bible as our sole infallibe rule of faith and God forbid I ever place Calvin on a par. "Calvinism" is not intended to imply as much, but it's a shorthand way of laying claim to a particular body of beliefs. The Westminster standards, the Belgic Confession, Heidleburg Catechism, Canons of Dortch, etc., all capture the reformed distinctives. Response: 1. Quoting the original 1647 Westminster Confession Of Faith, Chapter XXV. Of the Church, Article VI: "There is no other head of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God." [From the Free Presbyterian Church of North America Org webpage /beliefs/wcf/] 2. Can you please tell me exactly when the Pope, the Catholic Bishop of Rome, became the Antichrist? Although John Calvin devoted much of Book IV of his Institutes of the Christian Religion to the Roman Antichrist, he neglected to state exactly when in history God predestined this change to happen. John Calvin writes positively of Pope Gregory I [c. 540 - 12 March 604], so I assume this change from Pope to Antichrist happened sometime after Gregory. So can you tell me who was the first Pope predestined by God to become the Antichrist? 3. Also, John Calvin in his Institutes, Book IV, Chapter 18, No. 1 states regarding the Mass, the center of Catholic worship: " ...But when it shall have been most clearly proved by the word of God, THAT THIS MASS, HOWEVER GLOSSED AND SPLENDID, OFFERS THE GREATEST INSULT TO CHRIST, suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey, enervates and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of his death was retained, will its roots be so deep that this most powerful axe, the word of God, will not cut it down and destroy it?" So how well has "the word of God" cut down and destroyed the Catholic Mass since the mid-16th century? And how do the followers of John Calvin think/feel about the Catholic Mass, i.e., "the greatest insult to Christ" still being celebrated throughout the word, even near to where they may live? [Beveridge translation, P. 866, ntslibrary website, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pdf 874 of 944] 4. Oh and by the way, I previously referenced Irenaeus of Lyons as the first to present the idea that the human body was an image of the Holy Trinity with the two hands as The Son and The Holy Spirit. According to Wikipedia: "He was buried under the Church of Saint John in Lyon, which was later renamed St Irenaeus in his honour. The tomb and his remains were utterly destroyed in 1562 by the Huguenots." The Huguenots were the devoted followers of John Calvin and their destruction of Irenaeus' remains occurred two years before Calvin's death in 1564. With his blessing?

[@sheilasmith7779]

Of course we act on our desires. To refuse to act on a desire, is as much an act of the will, as to act on a desire. The question is who determines my desires? And who determines what I do with my desires? God determined humans to have desire. God created humans to have desires. Evidence in scripture reveals that God did NOT LIMIT human desire. God did not cause or control the desire of Cain, or the desire of Abel. God did not control the action (will) of Cain or the action (will) of Abel. Calvinists, provide scripture evidence that God caused or controlled both the desire and the action of each man? Abel desired to please God, and acted on that desire with his will. Cain desired to please himself, and acted on that desire. When Cain's desire and action did not produce the result Cain desired, he killed Abel. There is no evidence in scripture that God controls individual desires, and individual choices of action on desires. While God has/does harden a rebellious heart, there is no evidence in scripture that God created the initial rebellion. What God created was the human characteristic of desire, and the human ability to act (free will) on a desire. These 2 characteristics existed in Adam and Eve, and all humans after.

[@michaeldorsey4580]

Can we please talk about another subject, can we please talk about baptism or eschatology or evangelism would be great?

[@unitedstates3068]

the channel name gives a clue.... This focus is required because of the tainted/polluted waters of calvinism/doctrines of grace / reformed theology

[@michaeldorsey4580]

@@unitedstates3068 would you agree there are more important things to discuss?

[@unitedstates3068]

@@michaeldorsey4580 Hi Michael depends if you think God is responsible for evil/ determines all sin / didn't make a way for all to be saved. Calvinist aren't quiet on teaching that God only picked some people for heaven and decreed everyone else to hell... for his glory. If you are presenting a different gospel to scripture then this is very important. Calvinism teaches a different gospel to scripture. False teaching (whether calvinism or prosperity gospel or atheism) need to be refuted (not just stated)

[@michaeldorsey4580]

@@unitedstates3068 you have never read a reformed book have you? They don't believe that, see this is the problem I have with the internet, you only hear stuff from Dr flowers and other people's perspective, which have all been called out for lying about what the reformed believe. If you really want to know what they believe go watch James White Jeff durbin Paul washer John macarthur, any of the top big ones. And read any book about that topic

[@michaeldorsey4580]

@@unitedstates3068 how exactly is Calvinism a different gospel? Because they literally call it the doctrines of grace, and they are the ones who started the reformation, that taught grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone. If you study history they were the good guys believe it or not

[@k9ine999]

Leighton if im being honest I feel like the Trinity seems like double speak, id like you to make a video about that if possible. Being able to accept the trinity made me feel like I would have to accept compatalizem.

[@wretchedsinnerRighteousSavior]

He's said before that this channel is solely for Calvinism refutations essentially. You don't have to accept there are three persons on the Trinity - just that God reveals himself in three different ways mainly. They often say Father is not Son is not Holy Spirit, but the Bible says Jesus is the Father - His name is "everlasting Father" in Isaiah, and ultimately He is the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians)

[@KevC1111]

The trinity is an essential doctrine of Christianity. Think of the Trinity like this. 1×1×1=1. 1 Divine essence in 3 divine beings. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

[@domo649]

The trinity is indeed a mystery but it is not contradictory. If God were three in persons and also one in person that would be contradictory. God is three in persons and one in essence which is non-contradictory. God wanting everyone to be saved and only choosing some to be saved and choosing the rest to be damned is a blatant contradiction. It can’t be both.

[@musiciandeborah1854]

​​@@KevC1111I like that math analogy!

[@musiciandeborah1854]

@k9ine999, I've often thought of it like this: as humans, we each have a brain, heart, and lungs. All of those make up who we are; we would not exist without all three. The genius of the brain is expressed through the pumping of the heart and the breathing of the lungs, which power the body. And my brain is no more or less "me" than are my heart and lungs. They are all part of who I am, and they all must communicate together for me to function. There is no contradiction here, as we can visibly see via science how this works. While God is obviously not limited to human body functions, I understand that things on earth mirror, or are a shadow of, things in heaven. Physical operations give us a glimpse into spiritual ones. So if I can accept that our bodies have separate parts which all are equal but different, and yet still make up one person (without any hint of contradiction), then I can see no logical justification for not accepting that God operates in a similar way, and that the way we function in earth is just a dim reflection of how He functions in heaven.

[@MineStrongth]

To the Calvinist: Why does God being sovereign have to mean he determines every little thing? How can one claim such a high opinion of God and then restrict him to such a feeble state? I'm just a man, and even I can let a child make her own decisions and yet still end up in control of the final outcome. Usually, I'll even have my own desire for the choices she will make, yet I'll still let her do her own thing. Why isn't God also "allowed" to choose to give us the freedom to go against His desires? Are you saying that if God lets a man decide for himself that he wants to shoot another man, that God will then be unable to prevent that from happening if He so chooses? God is incapable of intervening in a million different ways to stop that without preventing a freewill choice on the man's part? BTW, desire and will don't have to be the same thing. God desired a lot of things out of Isreal that they never did. Sometimes, I desire to speed down the freeway, but I also desire to stay out of jail, so my will is to obey the traffic law, and I don't speed. God can desire all to be saved and also desire that they choose him freely. There is no contradiction if He places one desire over the other.

[@JD10503]

Which is more powerful to you, a God who gets everything He wants at all times or a God who says 'I want this to happen but my creation kept it from happening." I believe God is more powerful than any created being, and He controls all He has created to ensure His glory, His purpose, His will are accomplished. If He desires something to happen, it happens. If a tornado levels a small town, killing everyone who lives in it, which is better? That it happened for no reason or simple because of nature, or that God brought to pass for reasons strange to us but ultimately glorifying to Him? Calvinism doesn't diminish God. It is the only theological system that actually acknowledges His throne, His kingship over all.

[@MineStrongth]

@@JD10503 Thanks for your reply. The problem with your view of God is that you unintentionally make him weak by forcing him to conform with your human imagination. As a human, you can't imagine being able to remain sovereign over a situation without directly calling all the shots. So, you place that same restriction upon God. 2 Things: 1) It doesn't have to be all or nothing. God can allow humans to have free will, especially regarding salvation, while ALSO directly influencing other events or even choices. We certainly see examples of God influencing physical events throughout scripture. 2) If God says he wants to allow people to make free will choices about x, y, or z... *drumroll* ...people making their own choices about x, y, and z IS what God wants to happen! It doesn't matter which choices they make; God isn't surprised or thwarted. You're acting like God doesn't know what he was signing up for by making that choice. So yeah, you express a small view of God. A god who can give broken creatures free will and still remain in control is way more powerful than your view of God.

[@MineStrongth]

In other words, people freely choosing to accept or reject God is God getting what he wants. He wants them to make their own choice. And he will deal with them based upon which choice they make. Those who choose him, he will conform to the image of his son, as he predestined (ie, as he intended and promised from the beginning). And those who reject him, he will judge and reject in turn.

[@JD10503]

I do disagree with your assessment. As a human, I may want to force someone to do my bidding, but I can't. On the other hand, God is powerful enough to make people do anything He wants, anytime He wants, and I am just awestruck and honestly a bit terrified by that kind of power. I'm not saying God couldn't have the system you describe, but I don't believe it's the system we're under. I believe we are little more than chess pieces on His board, made to serve His purposes. We're not people, just objects for God to use in whatever way He wishes.

[@MineStrongth]

​@JD10503 But WHY do you believe we're under such a system? The Bible does not describe that system, nor does it paint such a picture of our God. Have you ever encountered a mere object, a chess piece, that you loved so much you'd die to protect it?

[@harrisarms2151]

What’s amazing is that with all the times Leighton has dealt with this subject he still doesn’t get why it’s incomprehensible. It’s because one side of the equation is God. Fully understanding the “sovereign” side would mean fully understanding how God relates and interacts with creation. To do that would require some foundations in the Doctrine of God, something I’ve asked Leighton to tackle for years now. I suppose this whole subject would be “simple” for someone who doesn’t put any effort into contemplating the Doctrine of God and the ramifications of God relating to creation. If you just posit God as some really big, smart, and powerful man (for the most part, as in if I do X then God does X as well, just better), then sure, this whole subject becomes simple. The problem with that though, is that you will quickly find yourself outside of orthodox Christianity.

[@garybowings1538]

Lol, "Leighton is running away from me."

[@kevinjypiter6445]

Your "Orthodox Christianity" condemned the gnostic and manichean heresies of determinism and advocated for the free will of man. Your argument is literally "You can't understand god because he's too complicated for you". Bruh

[@unitedstates3068]

are you suggesting calvinism is "orthodox Christianity."?

[@AndrewKeifer]

I think in Leighton's view Calvinists have set the bar far too low for "Fully understanding the 'sovereign' side" in their declaration of mystery.

[@harrisarms2151]

@@unitedstates3068 how did you come away with that question?

[@themanisnoone8401]

These debates are pointless both of you believe God knew before creating who he would love forever and who he will torture forever

[@Son_of_Rest1495]

It’s simple… Calvinism has a misunderstanding of justice. Here’s an example: Charles Manson was a serial killer/cult leader who was sentenced to death in prison. However, he never physically killed anyone according to his record, but rather influenced his followers to do the killing for him. Now, is the sentence given to Charles Manson just? I hope everyone here would say yes. Now, if you do agree then why don’t you apply your sense of justice to the Calvinistic view of God’s justice though He may not actually physically murder anyone, He is however influencing i.e. “decreed” those who commit murder in accordance to His say so. So does humanity somehow have a higher sense of justice than God? I don’t think so… 🤓

[@paulheberling2750]

It’s only a contradiction if you assume the only kind of free will is LFW.

[@gk.4102]

LFW is the only will that is free. There may be all sorts of of wills, but only one is free.

[@paulheberling2750]

@@gk.4102 yes, libertarianly free. But that doesn’t exclude freedom in the non-libertarian sense.

[@gk.4102]

@@paulheberling2750 There's no freedom of the will in any other sense, but one.

[@paulheberling2750]

@@gk.4102 why only one?

[@gk.4102]

@@paulheberling2750 Because Calvinists will tell you boldly that men's will is NOT FREE. In fact, they'd claim that nothing is free from God's exhaustive meticulous determinism. Some Calvinists believe that only God has a will that is truly free while other Calvinists reject that.

[@EenChristJesus]

If what Calvinists believe is true, then God is the author of sin and we can all chuck our Bibles in the trashcan.

[@BereaBaptistVoice13]

Did you know that you freewillers are sometimes refute yourselves and think like Calvinists determinists? Because you Believe that God has a purpose in your lives and in everything. If you're fully freewillers you should have said God has no purpose in us but we do have. ☺️

[@musiciandeborah1854]

??????

[@AlexanderosD]

Whut m8?

[@PB4U]

You are conflating purpose with determinism.

[@AndrewKeifer]

"Truly you have a dizzying intellect." - The Dread Pirate Roberts

[@StrategicGamesEtc]

26:56 Spoken like someone too naïve to carry a Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch with them /me shakes head sadly

[@Wretch-rx2my]

Friends, note well: Watch out when a supposed theologian (or anyone) beats the drum of one theological issue over and over. LF has been consumed with one issue: the desperate search to find ways to demonstrate how God is not sovereign in salvation. May you have eyes to see this massive problem.

[@unitedstates3068]

or... Calvinism has been consumed with one issue: the desperate search to find ways to demonstrate how God is "sovereign" and therefore responsible/author/determiner of all evil/sin ... for His glory. May you have eyes to see this massive problem.

[@Wretch-rx2my]

@@unitedstates3068 I'm sorry you've misunderstood. Here's a challenge for you, friend: push pause on LF for 2 months. Read John 6, Romans 8-9, Ephesians 1, Lam 3:37-39, Eccl 7:13-14 five times per week. As you do, ask the Holy Spirit to teach you what you are seeing. Keep KZbin off. Just write down what you observe from the text in a journal. After you do this, come back and tell us what you see. Cheers.

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

​@@Wretch-rx2my Theology via proof text. Pass