Romans 9: Provisionistic VS. Calvinistic Interpretations | Leighton Flowers | Calvinism

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, compares and contrasts the Provisionistic and Calvinistic interpretations of Romans 9.
Check out the full video here:
• Is Logical Coherence I...
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 #Romans9 #Calvinism #Theology

[@jcthomas3408]

This makes so much sense, especially in light of Paul's message throughout thd whole book of Romans that both Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way, by faith in Jesus. And that every Jew who heard the potter analogy would think of Jeremiah.

[@DaysofElijah317]

And considering Romans was written primarily to Jewish Christians in Rome it just fits

[@gabrielbridges9709]

⁠​⁠@@DaysofElijah317that’s a provisonist and arminian lie Paul says the opposite ”But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,“ ‭‭Romans‬ ‭11‬:‭13‬ ‭ He also says that Roman’s 9:22 and 23 context is not for the Jews only but also the gentiles ”even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.“ ‭‭Romans‬ ‭9‬:‭24‬ ‭ Leighton is forcing false presuppositions into the scriptures that don’t line up. Even if you play to his point and interpretation God still says He was the one who hardened the Jews to stray rather then hardened them because they strayed. ”Why, O Lord, do You cause us to stray from Your ways And harden our heart from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage.“ ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭63‬:‭17‬ ‭ He’s twisting and manipulating the scripture to get what he wants out of it rather then being honest.

[@RachelWeeping]

SURE ABOUT THAT? WHEN I WAS HUNGRY, YOU TURNED ME AWAY. DOOR PRIZE IS : ETERNAL UNQUENCHABLE FIRE. MATTHEW 25.

[@DaysofElijah317]

@@RachelWeepingto the least of these my brethren (the Jews) that judgement is at the end of time. And were talking about Romans and the theme of GOD’s dealings with Israel is thought the book GOD deals with gentiles as being grafted into Israel and the patriarchs through Jesus Christ this is also spelt out in Romans

[@andym1729]

Blessings to Leighton for continually fighting the good fight!

[@jgons]

he seems to be spending most of his time fighting believers instead of evil

[@RachelWeeping]

HE SPEAKS AGAINST THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD. YOU HAVE NO ANSWER FOR JACOB. I LOVED ESAU I HATED. DECLARED BEFORE THEY WERE BORN

[@canadiankewldude]

@@RachelWeeping I always understood that God, who knows all from the beginning to the end, already knew what they would do in their lives. Knowing, is not causing, mind you I was raised and educated a Roman Catholic, former.

[@NeoSpiritx]

I'm really thankful for Soteriology101. Really good ministry that is helping many.

[@RachelWeeping]

LIKE WHO?

[@AlexanderosD]

Thank you Leighton! Praying for an edifying and impactful debate with James White in March. I'm hyped!

[@donnaoscolaighlange]

Can we watch the debate live?

[@DouglasCouto1984]

Excellent, Dr. Flowers! Thank you for your ministry!

[@mikelyons2831]

Great teaching & comparison of Biblical soteriology vs Calvinism. As always, I hit 👍. Personally, I'm not so fond of "Provisionist". No problem if you feel the need to add or use that. It feels like another unnecessary denominational identifier. I simply say "The Believer's understanding of this passage is..." or "Christian's have always understood this to mean..." Now it's "The Provisionist understanding is..." kinda comes across as "You need to be one of us-ish"..."We are more than just Believers/Christians/Followers of Christ/Disciples".

[@TAdler-ex8px]

Agreed although I appreciate Leighton and that he is helping us work out our salvation with fear and trembling, I can discern in myself that labeling organizes and separates me. It feeds into my flesh’s desire to be perfect and have approval. We can be content with Christ and Him crucified as Paul admonished us to be, not getting drawn away from the simplicity of our hope in Him.

[@The_Methodist_Perspective]

I understand and appreciate the sentiment. However, using a label simply allows one to quickly understand what someone else is talking about. If I say "I'm a provisionist", you now know my soteriological assumptions. More than that, I take issue with the language of "the believer's understanding of this passage is..." because it would seem to mean that those who disagree with you aren't just not provisionists, but not even believers, which ironically makes it more exclusive in an attempt to be less denominationally minded.

[@cinemadolce]

Thank you so much for your videos. I’ve found myself in more conversations with calvinists lately and your careful study has helped me to have respectful responses ready when challenged.

[@primeobjective5469]

Calvinists speak AS IF there was no divine decree, when they give their attempts to blame men for sin.

[@vikasdiwakar2348]

I think when you want to create darkness you jus remove the light and it will be darkness there You did not create it directly but caused it For any of your purpose For the question of where sin come from I believe it is similar to what I said God jus removed his sorvengty from some of his angels thus they got free will and sinned Like there is a field in space which is zero gravity means a complete security When something goes out of that field it will fall But like the first law of motion says you need extarnal force to change your state I believe God limited his sorvengty and thus some angels got free will and sinned Otherwise if it is by a complete free will God had knowledge but no any control than any angel can sin any day which is not true it happened only one time so I believe God definitely had a purpose in that I don't believe the remaining angels have same free will Why God allowed that ???? I believe for his purpose as It happened in pretty much at the beginning and happened only one time

[@RachelWeeping]

DEVINE DECREE?

[@cephandrius5281]

@SolaAndTotaScriptura I'm not really following this. How is there real contingency in the choosing? I understand that Calvinists would affirm that our choices are voluntary; i.e., we are not forced to act contrary to our will. But, they would say that our will itself is still causally determined by God. Bavink says, "But this energizing activity of the primary cause in the secondary causes is so divinely great that precisely by that activity he stirs those secondary causes into an activity of their own." What does "activity of their own" mean here? If "activity of their own" means an action that was not causally determined by God, then I would agree, but that wouldn't be calvinism. If, on the other hand, this "activity of their own" IS still caused by God, then i fail to see how this is a real distinction that allows for moral accountability.

[@cephandrius5281]

@SolaAndTotaScriptura I appreciate the kind words! Trust that i'm legitimately trying to understand your perspective. "Man can access an alternative choice (free of natural necessity, and thus contingent) provided He desires to do so in response to reasons set before him. God ordains our choices through the means of the effects that secondary causations have on our states of heart and mind, inclinations, proclivities, desires, affections, thought processes, etc." This is very interesting. Correct me if I'm way off the mark, but this sounds quite similar to Molinism. On Molinism, God exercises sovereignty by placing people in different circumstances (because he knows how they will respond). To use some of your language, the Molinist might say that Pilot's choice to condemn Jesus was ordained by God through the secondary causations, for example, the fear of civil unrest. Presumably, you'd differ with the Molinist in that he might say there's a finite number of feasible worlds for God to create. You'd probably want to say that every possible world is a feasible world. But now I'm kind of confused in the opposite direction, because at first glance this really seems like it would still allow for libertarian free will. If God is sovereign not by directly causing our actions, but rather "through the means of the effects that secondary causations have on our states of heart," then that seems like it would preserve agent-causation. God arranged our circumstances -- the secondary causes -- but we can choose how we respond to them.

[@cephandrius5281]

​@SolaAndTotaScriptura Interesting. So, a couple things. It of course makes sense that you would assert that libertarian free will is neither biblical or necessary for human responsibility. But do you really think it's not sufficient? Or do you mean that in a non-technical sense? To me, saying something like "If humans have libertarian free will, then they are responsible for their actions" is overwhelmingly obvious. But there, libertarian free will is the sufficient condition. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of divine simplicity, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around Aquinas' formulation of that. It seems like the Molinist and the Calvinist would both say that God uses secondary causes to ordain a person's actions. But, the Molinist would say that it is logically possible for the person to choose something else. Would this be a big point of contention? On Calvinism, if God brings about a certain set of secondary causes, is it logically impossible for the action of the creature to be any different than what it is? In other words, the same input necessarily produces the same output.

[@guelavicioso90]

I thank God for Dr. Flowers.

[@user-yg8gc5dd7u]

Really appreciate your channel Dr. Flowers! I've been debating, off and on, a really good friend of mine who is a pretty ardent 5-pointer. You are articulating from a strong academic, theological, philosophical--yet popular (in terms of style) and relatable dissent to the systematic theology of Calvanism. My background has been in Christian education and worldview ministry. So, I tend to gravitate towards thinking systematically. However, I've learned through the years that our "systems" can very easily (and probably unitentionally) cause us to isogete scripture instead of exogete scripture. Thanks for your contributions and thoughtfulness in our "sharpening" process as we lovingly engage our calvinist freinds! I particularly appreciate (although I haven't seen all of your videos) your willingness to debate the issues but with a loving heart! And, I also appreciate some of your "shorts" format for those of us feeling time constraints. I wonder if you could direct me to anything you have published that refers to or addresses the LUTHER VS. ERASMUS book which discusses the concept of free will. I don't have the author's name at hand but it was something I read many decades ago when a friend of mine attending Luther Seminary recommended it. At the time, I wasn't as informed as I would be now. Yet, haven't gone back to read it again. And, as an elder of a church find it intimidating to spend the mental rigor revisiting it! Thanks, Dr. Flowers!

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

Good job brother. GOD bless

[@Inconceivable73]

3 questions for Provisionism --> 1) So can you tell me who are some of the missionary champions of the Provisionist movement? If you can give some names of Provisionist missionaries to the unreached peoples. Would love to hear specific names (eg, William Carey, David Brainerd, John Eliot, Adoniram Judson were Calvinist missionaries). 2) If Provisionism says that anyone can be saved by Christ's blood, what about those who never heard the gospel? How was God salvifically loving to them? 3) And lastly, if libertarian freedom is necessary for a truly loving relationship with God, how can we love God in the eternal state since we won't be able to sin? (Yes, we will have compatibilistic freedom in the new heavens and new earth). So just 3 questions.

[@darrow2381]

1. For the first question I have no knowledge of names but I go on missionaries and I would consider myself a provisionist lol. But why are you asking this question? Is it to show off that Calvinist’s have more missionaries with big names? Not assuming that’s what your asking but if it is, it’s kinda useless to the discussion. It’s more of a popularity question, and the reverse could be done to the calvanist. For Ex: Almost all Christs agree Jesus died for everyone and since we have more our view is more honorable and right. 2. The second question is a bit of a misunderstanding and is differed between every provisionist just like some Calvinist’s differ on things, like infant salvation. Jesus died for everyone to show Gods love for everyone. But just because he died doesn’t mean they are saved. Faith comes through hearing and hearing through the word of God. They need to hear and that’s why we evangalize so as to provide Gods saving grace to them. That’s why we spread the Gospel. They need to hear so they can believe. Which is more practical than the Calvinistic view, and that’s why there are hyper Calvinist’s because, why go out and share? Those people who never hear are doomed anyway and we’re non elect anyway. Even if they hear it doesn’t matter cause, God might not save them anyway. But God is salvificaly loving to them, and I’ll appeal to John Piper and Mcarthurs exisgesis of Roman’s 1. They say babies and mentally handicapped people are not held accountable for their sins because of “lack of knowledge” and so a possible view is they will be judged fairly based of what revaluation they had. I think Paul says in Roman’s that the general revolution of God through nature is enough to condemn people. So if they didn’t reply to what light he gave them they are responsible, and if they did reply he would eventually lead them to hear about christ. 3. This is a super good question. Here’s what I think the best answer is. You, using your libertarian free will, are willing to give up your libertarian free will, for a more “compatabalistic free will” in heaven. You still chose to give it up when you enter a relationship with Christ. It’s completely your choice to become a compatabalist in heaven 😂

[@darrow2381]

Hope this helps 😃:)

[@TAdler-ex8px]

Praying for your ministry. There is a controlling, degrading, and belittling spirit behind this theology or at the very least the TULIP. I highly encourage studying George Muller? I heard John Piper preach a whole sermon about him being a Calvinist but I have been reading his journals and biographies for the last 5 years and I don’t see any evidence of it. They inspire me to trust God’s provision and see myself as a loved, trusted worker in the daily dependence upon Christ for the work of the Cross. George Muller decided early in his ministry to put the writings of men away and only meditate on scripture. He believed in God’s complete providence but prayed for the soul of 1 man for 60 years who became converted within a short time after George Mullers death.

[@thegrahamclan2351]

George Muller is one of my favorite missionaries to read about. I’ve never seen or heard anything either about him having been a Calvinist.

[@TAdler-ex8px]

@@thegrahamclan2351 John Piper has a sermon proclaiming that he was. It’s actually a great message, At first I just accepted it because I didn’t really understand what that meant. You can find it on KZbin if you’re curious 😊 My personal presumption is that because Muller was outspokenly dependent upon the sovereignty of God, he was associating that specific doctrine to Calvin. George Muller actually took the sovereignty of God to the next level. Not merely in the providence of God but in trust and accountability to ourHeavenly Father, through the Spirit’s leading and the Word. I’m delighted that you also love George Muller. I love to glean from his journals. Daily dependence and practical applications of faith. I also appreciate that he was so gentle, not assertive or directing. Blessings ❤️

[@julie6780]

Great analogies!

[@biblicaltheologyexegesisan9024]

thanks Leighton nice

[@johnm75]

I heard some people say romans 9 is about election to service and others corporate election. Are those the same thing or different? Are the only two views on romans 9 corporate election vs unconditional election or are there other popular interpretations? Thank you

[@clopes8599]

I was told today in a counseling meeting by a reformed church that I had a problem with accepting the truths of scripture. I was told that I’m not in the faith because “it sounds like I can’t accept a God that would would chose to do things the way he did it” I came to church seeking counseling and Godly biblical advice and left super discouraged. I have been wrestling with the Bible back and forth with this KZbin channel and what my local reformed church is teaching me and I’m lost and more confused than I have ever been. Has anyone had this experience before?

[@timstinies9519]

Hey clopes, ya I have been lost and confused many times in regards to scripture in my life. The Lord has graciously helped me slowly work through things over the years. I can see if I can possibly help. Is there maybe a specific question you wanna talk about?

[@user-um5wn8ri7s]

Yes, I have had the same problem my friend, why do you keep going back? I understand, please do not let yourself be abused as I did for years. Find a church who believes in the love ❤️ of God and love for you, which is biblical-I was a Calvanist for 30 years, and I am healed from that doctrine of demons! God loves you-Something a Calvanist can not say

[@vincentkvincentkyolsonop9152]

Can you do a video on Isaiah 10? “ Does the axe boast itself against the one who chops with it”

[@ryanparris1021]

Excellent analogy. Guess who else used analogy very frequently. There was this guy named Jesus of Nazareth and several of His Apostles. Pretty good company maybe analogies aren’t all that bad?

[@rickward2977]

Question: as a non-Calvinist, I have had conversations with “five pointers” and when I ask them, define “the elect” and they have been unable. Aren’t they elect those who’ve come to saving faith?

[@davidjmitchell77]

Crazy. Romans 9 was preached today at church and i thought of this verse and was reading it thinking popeple dont read these verses in conjunction that often then boom a few hours later this pops up.

[@georgemay8170]

I believe that only God knows and determines all things.

[@saamajama]

Determinism falls apart

[@CyborgGerbil]

⁠Many Calvinists come across as very arrogant, boastful and almost prideful, that they are the chosen elect, kings above us non Calvinist peasants. They will say: “So you don’t believe God is sovereign!?!” And “So you believe that you had a part in your salvation!?!” I’m not a Calvinist, because I don’t believe that God pre-ordained billions of people to be thrown into the lake of fire to be tormented for eternity, when they didn’t even get a choice! (Calvinist won’t talk about those people, only the elect!) I’m not a Calvinist, but I know that God is 100% sovereign. I also know that Christ and Christ alone saved me, all I did was accept His good news, the gospel. I’m a Bibleist, a Christian, I love the Lord my God, He is Lord and He alone saved me!

[@Terrylb285]

Couldn’t find Provisionism in any of my dictionaries. Is this a new term for understanding Gods sovereignty and man’s sovereignty?

[@Forgivenmuchlovingmuch]

Do you have a video about what it means in Romans when God gave them up to a reprobate mind? Thank you for explaining the potter. It’s this passage that has led me to reevaluate all that I was taught.

[@EricHeidenAuthor]

In your experience, how do Calvinists typically respond to Jeremiah 32:25?

[@Yaas_ok123]

I am puzzled about "Free grace theology". Is it good or bad ?? Help me out brothers...

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

Why tie your theology to a set of statements? Salvation is the free gift of eternal life to all that believe. Beyond that we should be arriving at conclusions based in prayerful study, supplemented by edification which comes through felliwshipping with other believers. The need to identify with a set of conclusions such as "Free Grace" theology to me seems a wrong headed approach. Calvinists do the same thing btw.

[@Yaas_ok123]

@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi I'm following closely one Yt channel and the host is fan of Free grace theology. I don't know what to think of it ? I don't want to accept error. I am reading Defence of free grace theology book. Looks like there is no relational emphasis to Jesus and turning away of sin, when you start to follow Christ....so that looks bad.

[@vitaignis5594]

Chrysostom's homilies on Romans 9 are the best approach to Romans 9

[@contemplate-Matt.G]

Dr. Flowers, I'd love for you to consider a different interpretation of Rom 9 13, also non-Calvinistic. I think you will be surprised pleasantly. I sent you my book on the topic, which you did hold up on camera, complimenting the cover and saying the content, at a glance, seemed good. You're a busy guy, I'm sure. But this is some very unique commentary I know will give you much to ponder.

[@JasonJrake]

Where can we buy and/or download copies?

[@contemplate-Matt.G]

@JasonJrake thank you for asking. YT will not let us post links. It is on Kindle and is entitled Jacob and Esau Two Nations and the Inheritance. I'd really love feedback, so it's better if you first click on those three crosses. My contact info is there

[@ggmcsassy]

One of the issues that I have had with Calvinism is knowing that we are made in the image of God. We are created good, creative, capable of love and free choice. I just cannot in good conscience, knowing scripture, knowing God and His perfect goodness, fairness, love, justice and mercy, reconcile a God that damns a baby from the womb and creates and causes men to do and be evil with no hope of redemption. That is a capricious and evil god. Not the God of the Bible who became man to die in our place to reconcile us to Him. Who loved the world (everyone in the world) enough to take on all of the sin and pain of the world out of pure love and justice. I do know that because of Adam's sin we are prone to wander. We are prone to hide ourselves from God. And YET He loves us and He draws us ALL to Him! Unfortunately not everyone responds. Not everyone chooses to run to His arms. What would His love be without giving us the ability to choose it? That would be no love at all! Thank you Leighton for breaking down these complex concepts and biblical passages to further help me and others untangle Calvinism from scripture.

[@JStevensdk7]

Another thing to note about the clay, is that it is from the same lump, Israel, both the vessels of wrath and mercy are two states of Israel.

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

But paul says it's Jew and Gentile in his answer to the rhetorical question.

[@JStevensdk7]

@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi I don't believe so, Israel is the subject of Rom9-11, I have my Rom 9 line by line under my videos if you want to watch. Rom 9 is about why the Jews missed the Messiah and in doing so was God done with them. It is not about Gentiles nor nations actually.

[@mijko79]

Please help me understand how a person is born? Sinful or sinless? What do the expressions mean?

[@dansands6363]

Original sin is a doctrine that all major denominations of Christianity hold to. However, a reformed Calvinist will have a different view of the original sin doctrine than say, Eastern Orthodox. All humans are born in a fallen, sinful (or at least sin-natured) state. Everybody agrees with that. At least I think they do…. Orthodox believes that we are held captive by sin nature and bear the consequences of Adam and eves first sin, but ultimately don’t take responsibility or guilt for it. Many non reformed Protestants have a similar view of original sin, especially those who believe in credobaptism (or believers baptism). Augustine pretty much built the foundation for original sin theology in the west, and this is what a lot of the early Protestant reformers like Luther and Calvin looked back to build their theology. Augustine argued that all of man are fully responsible and guilty for the first sin committed by Adam and Eve and that we are fully due eternal punishment in Hell, apart from God, for that sin. It’s basically why Catholics and most Christians baptized infants because Augustine argued that if a newborn died without being baptized they were going to hell. And the church held to that view, and many still do.

[@mijko79]

@@dansands6363 Thanks for this, but I did not get my answer. What does fallen, sinful or sin-natured state mean? How would you describe it in plain terms even a child would understand?

[@dansands6363]

@@mijko79 In the story of Genesis, God created man and proclaimed it to be "very good" (Gen. 1:31), After all, we are made perfectly in his image (Gen 1:27). Adam and Eve were made perfectly without sin. They would dwell in the Garden of Eden, in the presence of God (Gen. 2). During this time, man was without sin. Sin had not yet entered the world. Sin, in the most simplest way, can be defined as, "an offense against God" (Collins Dictionary). A more biblically apt answer would be 1 John 3:4, "Sin is the transgression of the law." In other words, knowingly doing something that is wrong in light of the revelation provided to you. In Genesis 3, Adam and Eve were commanded by God not to eat of the fruit from the Tree of life, but they were were tempted by the serpent and willfully disobeyed God's command and ate from the tree out of rebellion and disobedience. This is known as, "the fall." It's called the fall because we "fell away" from God's Grace and Goodness. It was at this moment sin entered into the world through man (Romans 5:12) and we lost our gift of life that God has so graciously given us (Gen 2:17). This was the first sin, or "original sin." Through mankind's own actions, we have corrupted God's creation and stained it with our "sin nature", that is, our willingness to sin against (rebel/disobey) God---as Adam and Eve demonstrated. In the simplist words, God is perfect and GOOD, like real good, like the goodest of good. and we humans SUCK. We are wicked and evil and have a "sin nature" that gives us the desire to do evil things. It is in the core of our being, or "flesh" as the Bible calls it, to sin.

[@j.c.1025]

BECAUSE THEY Look at John 3:18. John says they are condemned already because they have not believed. It doesn't say because God, it says because they.

[@brendaleehayter8464]

Wow the first comment section I’ve seen (this channel) that doesn’t have the same couple of local hyper meticulous predetermined antagonists here trying to harass and insult other believers who are desiring the deeper things of God. ✌️

[@nickhanley5407]

Just thinking from the possible perspective of an outsider, if a potter messed up a pot they were throwing, wouldn’t it be the fault of the potter? Would we really blame the clay?

[@seth101-hv4st]

In this case the potter is perfect. But He uses imperfect humans, some who refuse to be molded into the image that the potter desired.

[@AsTheWatersCoverTheSea33]

Lets be men of the scriptures. When the word says " you were by nature children of wrath." We affirm it . When God says there is none good not even one. We uphold that. We are from Adams stock and are corrupt from birth being born in sin. We aren't born neutral. And even "enemies of God, hating God" Romans 5. And when a man, woman or child enters the kingdom, forsakes all and follows Christ, is born of the spirit, repents and believes its "of God" John 1:13. " That no flesh should glory in his presence . But of him are you in Christ Jesus..(1corinthians 1)" were we all rebels in the highest sense against God? absolutely. Deserving of wrath and needing new birth? Yes! Should all men everywhere repent and believe (acts 17)? Yes! And when they do glory to God, for it is He who has delivered me from this body of death, it is the Lord who has shined in our hearts the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. When MacArthur says something he deduced from a biblical truth but the scriptures dont teach it then reject it. When someone from the opposite side of the debate says something that goes against the teaching of Scripture because it fits their system then reject it.

[@derpjones3736]

Has he ever explained why he only talks about Calvinism?

[@recoveringknowitall1534]

You may want to search thru His videos for the answer. It's there if you want it.

[@Postmillhighlights]

If what you are presenting here is true (that they clay itself makes itself good or bad first) then the potter can rework it for His purposes - doesn’t that present at least two major problems? 1) the Jacob vs Esau example - these clay vessels are not doing anything to make themselves good or bad. 2) if the clay can make itself good or bad, why would it need reworking? If the potter is taking some bad clay and further hardening it to ensure Jesus is killed, isn’t that unfair? That call no longer has an opportunity to become good? Forgive me for the edit - but I thought I’d add a question. How is it ok to create Pharaoh to accomplish a purpose in history but not all men?

[@GhostBearCommander]

There’s an innate problem with quoting “who are you, oh man, to answer back to God” out of context. Namely, it could be misconstrued to apply to anything. Unless you understand what God is exactly doing, or His intentions, you cannot just assume that talking back to Calvinists (or any other viewpoint that claims Biblical origin) is tantamount to talking back to God. We must establish firm foundations before we set up our walls. We must establish specifically what God is saying or doing in context within Scripture before we claim that a viewpoint being preached is safeguarded by such unassailable immunity. I can’t just say that elephants fly like Dumbo if you paint them pink, then answer all my interlocutors with the phrase “who are you, oh man, to answer back to God.” Calvinism is no different. It begs the question and assumes an unassailable position behind assuming that questioning it is tantamount to questioning God. Calvinists must prove this, and I contend that they cannot.

[@zacharybeauford2244]

All human pots spoil them selves, Romans 3. God therefore shows mercy on some (rom 9:18) spoiled pots and other spoiled pots he leaves to their own spoiled state. Pretty simple stuff. God does not cause the spoiling. That’s all of man. This is a better interpretation of Romans nine.

[@j.c.1025]

BE HONEST If calvinists want to be honest, When they witness to people, they must tell people to get chosen.

[@filmscorelife4225]

You mean..."I hope you're chosen!"

[@TeslaandAirbusesarewaytoofun]

I believe you used sarcasm there and its really good.

[@JacquelineHahn1]

Sometimes I feel that Calvinist’s describe people in a way that makes us like robots. God forcing us to be a certain way rather than inviting us to come to Him. My thought has always been that God doesn’t want Robots programmed to respond but wants sentient beings in His image to choose Him/seek Him. I I have often wondered why i feel like the life is sucked out of me when listening to many Calvinists and Lutherans who tell me my choices are useless, that God allows some to come and others He has made not able to come. The picture of God they way they define Him is not the picture I get when I read His Word starting at Genesis. I have often wondered as well why entities such as Calvinistic Churches create systematic Theology when the Word of God is not written that way. In my mind we are called to a living relationship with a living God who interacts with His people. I see in the Old Testament God calling Israel to chose and to chose rightly, I see this repeated by God often. I also see God who calls people to return to be merciful, love justice and walk humbly. All these things He is asking us to do. You don’t ask a robot to respond you just program it.

[@vikasdiwakar2348]

I have a question if you would like to ans In OT God deleverd Israelis from slavery weren't there any other tribe in slavery

[@kevinjypiter6445]

Wow, Jeremiah 18 destroys any interpretation by Calvinists of Romans 9. I’m curious, what would a Calvinist’s response be? That there is no connection between these two passages?

[@jjphank]

@@user-kp5gx6pp2v Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9 And Ephesians 1 are dealing with the nation of Israel- plurals, or the church, not individuals look at the language! Not 1 individual in the Bible, is ever predestined. you have to use your free will to join those pre-destined groups, to go to Heaven!

[@johnknight3529]

"You don't understand Calvinism"

[@kevinjypiter6445]

My favorite is “you cannot understand until you are regenerate” 😊

[@DaysofElijah317]

Yep scripture interprets scripture- until it ruins my interpretation

[@williammarinelli2363]

Who art thou, oh man, that answereth back to my Calvinistic caricature of God?

[@lbamusic]

12:34 Luke 1:15 shows the Potter (God) making John exactly as He determined, without Johns choice or free will. This was what God decreed for John from the womb.

[@markever234]

Where does it say any of that? The angel spoke with God's omniscience. Omniscience does not mean fore-ordained, that is a Calvinist's incorrect view of God's sovereignty.

[@chiamtateng1973]

How did the clay spoil itself. ?

[@jefferypassagecpa9125]

He explained that.

[@vikasdiwakar2348]

Because the number is few who will ultimately believe in The Gospel I see definite redemption more reasonable than free will theology As even though the number is very few but it is definite Otherwise it is who wants to go to heaven no pressure jus free will and few believed but God had a desire all to believe this doesn't seem reasonable to me

[@marce.goodnews]

I became Traditional Roman Catholic also thanks to Leighton Flowers. Recommend the book "Catholic Controversy" of Saint Francis de Sales. Countering Calvinism. Also recommend the documentary on Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Society Saint Pius X). And the documentary 'Mass of Ages'.

[@danielboone8256]

What if that drunk was made a drunk by his parents as a child or in the womb? Would he still be culpable?

[@danbrewster839]

Is this a biblical statement? " Trust as if it all depends on God , live as if it all depends on you".

[@gnatural]

I used to be an Armenian and left that teaching because it’s not based on the Bible . It’s self determinism . And I still believe we have free will but that will is in bondage to sin . Not only is it in bondage but everyone who sins is DEAD. And dead spiritually and cannot choose God . That’s why For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” God is the initiator and the author of salvation . To say that he needs your permission to save you or that it’s not “authentic” is absolutely absurd . He did not need Paul’s permission or Abraham or Moses or anyone to acknowledge him and that doesn’t make us robots. It should make you humble that God is so gracious to save rebellious clay pots that cannot reach for him in the first place because they are dead in sin.

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

.."..and dead spiritually cannot choose God.'' Says nowhere in Scripture, which is one of Leightons biggest points. He keeps asking Calvinists to show one place where it says this. Still waiting........

[@gnatural]

@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi Ephesians 2:1 very clear Roman’s 3:23 After Adam sinned all who are born are spiritually dead and God must make them alive Romans 3:10 even If not for the grace of God the entire world would have perished in the flood and without Gods intervention we are dead and unable to choose righteousness Ephesians 2 alone destroys the entire argument for Arminians

[@KodyCrimson]

@@gnatural God's intervention doesn't have to mean he forces us to follow him. God does have to intervene in some way, yes. But it's NOT stated here that HE HAS to make us follow him. His intervention can be something as simple as putting us on the right track, like sending a missionary for us to hear the good word of God. There's your intervention. Then it's up to us to decide whether or not we follow him. THEN God will make us alive if we choose to follow him and keep his commandments. We are unable to choose righteousness unless God intervenes, because we'll never know any better otherwise. God's intervention and God's forcing of our wills to follow him are two VERY different things. When people bring someone to an intervention over an addiction, most times they don't force them out of it, they try to help them out of the problem and to guide them out of it. Guidance =/= Forcing.

[@gnatural]

@@KodyCrimson it’s not differnt , a corpse cannot make a decision yet alone the right one . No human being on their own would ever choose God that’s why he must overcome their will which is a slave to sin . This true love stuff that “oh it’s not true love if you force someone “ is absolute nonsense . It’s nowhere in the Bible . Would it be loving if a parent never forced their kids into being disciplined? No, they would be spoiled brats . In the same way God must show us the right path he must force us away from sin into the light and he does that through irresistible grace and sanctification .

[@j.c.1025]

Wide and easy is the road to destruction. Narrow indifferent is the way to salvation and few are those who find it.. Jesus Is the Path to salvation. After the condemnation of the world. The knowledge of the souls that will be lost despite the work of Jesus is the reason we're sweating blood in the garden.

[@jeffreybomba]

LEIGHTON, of topic: If you channel is about Soteriology and you have talked other views of Soteriology such as Arminianism, and Conditional Security, why not Free Grace? Like Calvinism, is used the word grace to make it sound good, but the idea that SALVATION is brought by our momentary mental assent/confession and the salvation for the gentiles believer is not necessarily effectual/life changing can cause as much, if not more, damage than Calvinism.

[@jordanrouden6440]

So, the drunk could have chosen to not drink. By implications of the analogy, the sinner could have chosen to not sin.

[@cdefinney]

Correct

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

I once was a drunk. I now choose not to drink😊

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

But sin? We choose not to sin all the time. I sometimes feel like walking off my job and punching my boss in the nose on the way out😅 But I don't do it. We do resist the temptation to sin every day.

[@jordanrouden6440]

@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi except you already sinned. You sinned when you had the desire to punch your boss. "And I say to you if you lust after a women in your heart, you have already committed adultery". That's the crux of Jesus' teaching, that sin is more than actions. Praise God we don't always compound our sinful thoughts with sinful actions, but those thoughts are still wicked.

[@humejephcott4543]

The brain aneurysm analogy is NOT very wise, in my opinion, since the aneurysm IS a result of mismanagement of blood vessels, whether it is a result of the person's ignorance of the cause-and-effect relationship between lifestyle choices and blood vessel function or the result of outsourcing knowledge of the truth to others who are either not competent or not trustworthy or both. A better analogy might be a sudden nearby lightning strike that temporarily blinds the driver and produces a reflex reaction that turns the steering wheel or a sudden sneeze and associated brief reflex closing of the eyes while driving.

[@tekblade]

This is a myopic interpretation. Please review after considering that the Bible states God knew us BEFORE the foundation of the world.

[@rodneytruitt9335]

The potter is in Jer. 18 is a person. The potter in Rom. 9 is God. So how is these two passages talking about the same thing? Leighton has remade Jer. 18 for his purpose, so he doesn't have to believe Rom. 9. That's how I see it.

[@MrTheguywithalife]

jer. 18:5 Then the word of the Lord came to me: "O house of Isreal, can I not do with you AS THIS POTTER HAS DONE? declares the Lord. Behold, LIKE the clay in the in potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Isreal.

[@rodneytruitt9335]

​@@MrTheguywithalife Yes, He said he could deal with them like the potter but He was not the potter as Leighton tries to make it seem. In Rom. does it say that the clay becomes spoiled in the potter God's hands? No, I don't see that anywhere in Paul's words . Do you? Just pointing out that they are not the same passages being restarted in Rom.

[@markever234]

@@rodneytruitt9335 Lol... it must take alot of extra effort to twist everything to fit determinism. Paul is clearly, 100%, speaking to Jews, using the analogy from Jerimiah...because the Jews would have known it. Secondly, God is clearly claiming to be a potter in Jeremiah. Basically saying surely I (being the LORD) can do this, if this potter can.. I can even more so because I am The Great Potter!

[@rodneytruitt9335]

I thank God for teachers like Martin Loyd Jones and James White. People who will walk you through the text and show what the words Paul and the other writers of scripture actually mean and are saying. Then once we can see what is actually said we can accept it. Leighton seems to take what is actually written then changes it into something he can accept. Then he presents the new more acceptable provisonist version.

[@DaysofElijah317]

It seem to be the exact opposite especially since Paul would have been teaching out of the Old Testament you cannot divorce the Old Testament from the New and you cannot take the Jewish understanding of the scripture out of your interpretation

[@Telkor]

It sounds to me like you're upset there is more than one way to interpret this passage. There's the Calvinist Version, which makes God out to be a monster, and forces the Calvinistic system to adopt multiple stances on, Gods Will, His Decree, His Love, the word "all", so on and so forth in order to make any sense of the systematic. Or, we can just read what Paul says, understanding that in those days the very first argument a Jew would have brought up was, "Why would God change his mind and now make those found 'In Christ' be the elect? When we the Jews are the Elect?" The answer to which is, "God has the right to decide whom he finds acceptable." If read in its simplicity, you don't need a teacher at all to understand Romans nine. You could just read it in context with the rest of the book of Romans.

[@leonhanekom2311]

Hi. I assume that you also agree with James White when he says that everything that happens is ordained by God, even the rape of a little child? In other words, not only does God allow evil to happen, but He is also the author of all evil?

[@williammarinelli2363]

You're correct. When Paul says "God...,who will have all men to be saved" Leighton naughtily rewords that into "God...,who will have all men to be saved."

[@roddyk2655]

@@williammarinelli2363 🤣🤣🤣

[@jamesphillips3115]

Why does anyone go after any …ism they are all denominations. Denominations set off a law for themselves which is nothing to do with The God. If your a believer be removed from all isms.

[@gabrielbridges9709]

2nd Timothy is about how you sanctify yourself is how God will use you for ministry and service it’s in a fundamentally different context. Seeming how all monergist think sanctification is synergistic just not justification. And actually if you read how every synergist go to proof text is in the context of believers you can easily deprovisonize all of your proof text without manipulating the scripture to get it to say what you want like you do.

[@TimWismer]

You say that when Calvinists claim God made some to be reprobates, they are putting the blame on God, whether they intend to or not (3:20). Not true. Paul acknowledges your human logic in Romans 9:19, quoting your same argument in this form: "Why does He [God] find fault? For who has resisted His will?" This is a rhetorical question, with the obvious answer, "No one." No one can resist God's sovereign will. Yet Paul does not refute this argument by suggesting that the argument is invalid, because people have a free will. Instead, he says, "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?'" (9:20). You can go to Jeremiah to find a different application of a similar analogy in order to avoid the clear context of Romans 9, but that is bad hermeneutics.

[@gerardgmz]

Calvinists fail to understand that free will is just as powerful - if not not more - than God's sovereignty and predestination put together.

[@eleazarfernandez9369]

?

[@vikasdiwakar2348]

I have a question in my mind if you can ans ,Why God allowed Hitler to be in this world as he is all knowing Hitler killed thousands of Jews We protest against worldly kings when they fail to protect the Nation But they don't know the future and that is their ans for every accusations like on October 7 happened Israel government thought we had no Idea So God had all idea of what Hitler would do then why he allowed him to be in this world Why he didn't protect those humans

[@jamesfountain3474]

What an ignorant comment.

[@CyborgGerbil]

Why would God create billions of people who He has not preordained, who have not received irresistible grace, to be born and to live on earth, knowing that these people can never come to Christ? Because that’s how they’ve been programmed, only to die and then to spend eternity being tormented in the lake of fire! The Calvinist God almost comes across as sadistic. It (He) doesn’t sound like the loving God of the Bible. What is the purpose of creating people who, before they were even conceived, have been predestined to go to hell to be tormented for eternity in the lake of fire? What’s the point in praying for someone to be saved? To come unto Christ? If they were not preordained to be saved? If God selected that person to reject the gospel, to reject Christ and to spend eternity in the lake of fire, being tormented forever, because they rejected the gospel, because they rejected Christ. They didn’t have a choice. They didn’t reject the gospel or Christ, because they were never given that choice! So the Calvinist God is punishing people for something that they didn’t, or couldn’t do!? God made the choice for them. John 3:16-18 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” But in Calvinism, John 3:16-18 would be: For God so loved the few, that He gave His only begotten Son, that the few pre-ordained who have been programmed to believe in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the few pre-ordained will be saved through Him. The pre-ordained who are programmed to believe in Him, are not condemned, but those who could not believe were condemned already, because they were not chosen to believe in the name of the only Son of God. There is a closed door with the words; ‘the good news’ or ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ’ on a sign above the door. So man walks up to the closed door, of his own free will, then God opens the door, and tells you about the good news, and man makes the decision to walk through the door, or to turn and reject the good news. Some won’t even walk up to the closed door. Similar to affirmative action, where a black woman wins an Oscar. Now did she win that Oscar on merit, or because she’s black and female? To those who are saved, who have come unto Christ. Can you really say that you came to Christ? My point is, if you have been programmed to come to Christ, to accept Christ, can you really say you made the choice? That you put your faith in Christ? Whereby, when you get to heaven you didn’t get there by choosing Christ, you didn’t get there by putting your faith in Christ, you got there, because before you were even conceived, God selected you to get into heaven. So the free will that you thought you had when you thought you came to Christ, you didn’t. You were programmed to come to Christ. So your faith in Christ is not by your own doing. Wouldn’t it be nice to get to heaven, knowing that you rejected the world and put your faith in Christ? I’m not saying that you play a part in salvation because you are saved only through Christ and His sacrifice, not anything that you have done. It’s the same with the affirmative action. So YES God is sovereign and YES Christ did 100% of the work to save me. As Calvinists believe that non-Calvinists don’t think this to be true. Those unelected and unsaved. The elect would say; ‘well they don’t care about the gospel anyway.’ I bet they will care when they get thrown into hell, but they will think to themselves, I didn’t get the opportunity to be saved. If people can’t be saved, because they are not part of the elect, why waste time giving them the gospel? ​​⁠Many Calvinists come across as very arrogant, boastful and almost prideful, that they are the chosen elect, kings above us non Calvinist peasants. They will say: “So you don’t believe God is sovereign!?!” And “So you believe that you had a part in your salvation!?!” I’m not a Calvinist, because I don’t believe that God pre-ordained billions of people to be thrown into the lake of fire to be tormented for eternity, when they didn’t even get a choice! (Calvinist won’t talk about those people, only the elect!) I’m not a Calvinist, but I know that God is 100% sovereign. I also know that Christ and Christ alone saved me, all I did was accept His good news, the gospel. I’m a Bibleist, a Christian, I love the Lord my God, He is Lord and He alone saved me!

[@FabledNarrative]

Jesus Christ is the perfect High Priest. He died for His people who was given by the Father. He lives to make intercession forever for those He died for.

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

[@FabledNarrative]

@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi So, Jesus lives to make intercession for everyone everywhere for all eternity for those in hell? So, for all eternity, will continue to fail as the Perfect High Priest, because He's interceding for those in hell, right?

[@lawrencejones1237]

@@FabledNarrative I would like to know how you got from propitiation of the world, to intercession of everyone in hell.

[@FabledNarrative]

​@@lawrencejones1237 1. Propitiation means full satisfaction, 100%, complete, from the wrath of God. 2. Where does that propitiation come from? Christ's sacrifice, not your faith. 3. Christ is the Perfect High Priest, making a once for all sacrifice for His people. 4. Who are His people? Those who have believe in Christ, who have been given by the Father to the Son. 5. Christ lives to make intercession for His people, because He is the Perfect High Priest. So, Jesus Christ made a once for all sacrifice for His people, which is the propitiation of their sins, complete satisfaction, for those who Christ died for and He lives to make intercession for His people forever. If Jesus Christ made His sacrifice for EVERYONE, then He will be living to make intercession for those in hell, failing to save them, making Christ's sacrifice impotent and Christ Himself ineffectual.

[@lawrencejones1237]

@@FabledNarrative Your assuming that because Christ made a sacrifice for everyone He then intercedes for everyone.

[@jjphank]

OSAS Hebrews 6:18. ..It is impossible for god to lie. 3 verses in the Bible say your name can be blotted out of the book of life, for 3 various reasons; Psalm 69:28, revelation 3:5, 22:19! Never receiving Jesus is not the only way to go to hell Says Matthew 7:21-23 ; verse 23 ‘away from me I never knew you’ does not apply to everybody, Jesus says this twice in verses 21 and 22! “Not everyone will say to me (on that day)……., yes many will say…..” If OSAS was true he would’ve said “everyone and all” instead of “not everyone and Many”! So not everyone will go to hell based on never knowing Jesus, and other verses will back this up as well! you can no longer use Matthew 7:23 to say they were never saved to begin with! Same with 2 Peter 2 “after knowing the Lord, they went back into their vomit as a dog; or back into the mud as a pig wallowing in the mud”. The word ‘knowing’ is the same word in Matthew 7:23, it’s ‘ginosko’ in the Greek- it’s a salvific relationship with Jesus! So you can lose your salvation, says this verse as well! 2 Peter 2:20 “If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning!” THEY ARE ENTANGLED IN THE CORRUPTION OF THE WORLD…AGAIN- says this verse! Jude 12 - “twice dead”; Dead in sin, born again, dead again! And there’s many more; Revelation chapters 2 & 3 are full of ultimatums and all Jesus is focused on is our works! Revelation 2: 5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place! Revelation 2:14 there are some among you….. 16 Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. These are just 2 and Jesus says “he who overcomes” , Overcomes is present active- future tense, and Jesus says this to all 7 churches, even the 2 good ones! You have to stay faithful to the end of your life to go to heaven! John 3:16 is he who believes, or continues to believe will have eternal life! it doesn’t say ‘believed’ past tense, you have to maintain your faith to go to heaven! The Greek word ‘believes’ is ‘Pistis’ which basically means faithfulness so faith equals faithfulness, according to the Bible! So if you have problems with this, then you have problems with the word of God, the Bible! You need to study these passages so that you can make it to heaven! If your pastor cannot answer these questions according to what I just said, then you need to leave that church!

[@contemplate-Matt.G]

Amen, and it's nice to hear an objector to osas say that it's a maintaining of one's faith, excluding any works, that allows them to "overcom by believing in the one who overcame".

[@grizz4489]

Your comment just does not make any sense to me. I just do not understand your line of thinking no matter how hard i try to understand it. So Jesus says whoever believes in Him has everlasting life and will never perish but you say that one who believes in Jesus can perish. How can that be ? That is a head scratcher !

[@contemplate-Matt.G]

@grizz4489 names taken out of the book of life should explain it. What about Paul being afraid of the Galatians believing a different gospel of law keeping and falling from grace?

[@DaysofElijah317]

If every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Yahweh to the Glory of the Father Then Jesus can truly say not all who say LORD LORD shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And if you do not believe that there are those who are self deceived into thinking they are saved then you are forgetting much of scripture Old and New Testament

[@jjphank]

@@grizz4489 Jesus promises eternal life on his end, but you don’t get to do what you want and live a life of sin! God‘s not stupid, Jesus is not dumb; he didn’t die on the cross and suffer that much pain for just saying you believe in him? No, you need to do his will and then when you get to heaven you get to kickback! see the modern church has it backwards just like the world! & there’s more verses that say this then what I said at the top!

[@SEL65545]

This is a Christian "ministry" that's devoted entirely to tearing down. Why not invest your energies into positive ministry? Is this the legacy you'd like to leave behind, that you spent your days arguing against Calvinism?

[@jettoth3]

One of the biggest problems with this man-centered view of Scripture is that it violates the "no one can boast" principle of the apostle Paul (Eph. 2:8-9). With provisionism, we all supposedly have the natural God-given ability to repent and come to Jesus in faith, for salvation. On this teaching, God only OFFERS salvation; He doesn't actually save anyone. As a result, God is only capable of saving the GOOD people--those who use their free will wisely and righteously. This is a blatant denial of every sinner's desperate need for God's grace... to draw the sheep to the Good Shepherd. Are we saved by using our free will righteously, or are we saved only by grace?

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

A "will" that is in bondage is not free, no matter how many churchy sounding words are used. It's like saying Israel in Egypt was free - in bondage. And your comment that in Provisionism "As a result, God is only capable of saving the GOOD people-- those who use their free will wisely and righteously." You didnt get from scripture. The reason i can tell is that these are other peoples talking points. I've heard them before. Which means you don't do your own thinking. I don't want to argue talking points with you because you have a MUCH bigger issue. The issue is that you don't understand the Gospel, and as such you're lost, which breaks my heart! We've all sinned. As such we all stand before a Righteous God, guilty, and deserving of His wrath. But the GOOD NEWS is that Christ died in your place, suffering the death that you, me, all of us deserve. "The chastisement that brought us peace was upon Him." Please, trust Him in your heart and receive His free gift of eternal life today! Don't wait until it's too late. And please, read and study the Bible for yourself, asking the Holy Spirit to guide you in it. He'll never let you down.

[@jettoth3]

@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi Yes, we all have a desperate need for mercy, and that can only be found in the finished works of Jesus!

[@harrisarms2151]

You beg the question with freedom here…… par for the course.

[@W4YN0T]

Your argument would only make sense if we were born without sin and chose to reject God. We all know that's not true. Therefore, I'm afraid your argument isn't logical.

[@gracelandministries1846]

Titus 3:9, this is all foolishness. God in His Word tells us to avoid foolish debates. Both are perspectives. This is carnality according to the Book of Corinthians. Dr. Flowers, William Lane Craig, and others are dividing Christ. We are supposed to defend the Faith, not a perspective.

[@skyt54]

So granted Calvinism is a false unbiblical religion. So the scriptures are about Jesus, the one who God sent to restore us to a relationship with the one who gives life. So we are to be followers of Christ. So that would make us followers of Christ or Christians. So why would we want to put a label of Provisionism on ourselves. I really would like an answer. What you are saying here is biblical accurate. I am a follower of Christ, by no means perfect, but I don’t see why we want to create another ism label.

[@kevinsBiblicaldiscussions]

it's sick and disgusting that Calvinism makes God the author of evil

[@vikasdiwakar2348]

May I know Why God allowed angles to sin?? As he has the ultimate authority of this world he must have allowed it otherwise it would not have happened

[@Alan-hw1np]

God did say that he creates darkness

[@filmscorelife4225]

​@Alan-hw1np That verse in Isaiah has 2 parallels. 1 is physical light vs physical darkness from creation. He compares that to "evil." Now...if you know anything about the Hebrew word there used for the word translated into English as "evil," you would dicover that it is NOT MORAL evil. It is a term that means judgment. You can't miss the meanings of ancient words just because in English today we have lost key distictions.

[@Alan-hw1np]

​@@filmscorelife4225I don't think it is innapropiate to equate darkness with sin because light is equated with truth all throughout the bible. The word for evil ra is used throughout the old testament to refer to calamity, but is also used to refer to moral evil. In Ezekiel 7:24 kjv when it says "I will bring the worst of the heathen", the words "the worst" is the word ra, refering to the heathens nature. Genesis 6:5 also uses the word ra when it talks about mans wickedness.

[@filmscorelife4225]

@Alan-hw1np The Bible as a whole has to be taken into account when doing exegesis. You can't ascribe wickedness to God's attributes(moral sin) to God when His word says none of that is in God. God doesn't tempt anyone either. This determinism idea about God literally sinning through people...is INSANE to me. Therefore....Ra here...cannot be moral evil, but calamity and righteous judgement.

[@robertwheeler1158]

As is so typical of Dr. Flowers, he makes every Calvinist out to be a Supra-Lapsarian.

[@BPond7]

So, completely wrong, in other words. Sorry, but that’s on the Calvinites.

[@TeslaandAirbusesarewaytoofun]

I feel as if he is attacking calvinism. Not calvinists.

[@robertwheeler1158]

@@TeslaandAirbusesarewaytoofun I think that Dr. Flowers, in his personal relationships with Calvinists, tries to be quite charitable. But he is a debater, not an exegete, and he tries to force Calvinists into what he thanks are the logical implications of their system, which is an extreme form of Calvinism known as Supralapsarianism. In point of fact, however, probably few Calvinists hold to such a position. Most of us are simply trying to be faithful to what the Bible says about the sovereignty of God, the depravity of man, and the work of the Holy Spirit in the process of conversion. Predestination is a matter of God sovereignly choosing to show grace and mercy to rebellious, hell-deserving sinners.

[@Postmillhighlights]

Your example of the drunk person doesn’t accomplish what you think. The Calvinist also believes the guilty are responsible. Honestly Leighton, this is why you face the criticism that you don’t understand Calvinism. I personally don’t think it’s a matter of understanding. You understand Calvinists believe God decrees whatsoever comes to pass and men are responsible. Your drunk/aneurysm analogy assumes Calvinists believe/teach that man isn’t responsible and you know that isn’t true. So that raises the question, why say it? It doesn’t matter what we believe does it? At 9:30 you speak for Calvinist and say ‘they didn’t have any control over it, it just happened.’ You present this as if it means men are not responsible for their own sin when you know the ‘didn’t have control over it’ language is about being in Adam - original sin.

[@13kimosabi13]

Both Calvinist and Provisionists Are WRONG…..but at least Calvinist understand, God chooses better than man. The problem with both sides is that they both believe God is impotent and only saves 3% (and of course THEY are always part of the 3% club). Please answer HOW GOD WAS OK GOING FORWARD WITH A PLAN THAT ONLY SAVES 3% => and how Satan isn’t the real winner when taking 97% to Hell for all eternity. And please explain how Doubting Thomas and Paul were free will believers?

[@vikasdiwakar2348]

It's an excellent question

[@vikasdiwakar2348]

I believe in definite redemption so even I can't answer why very few But it says my sheep will here my voice And in Romans 11 it says in this way all Israel will be saved Ephesians 1 it says he will collect all of his which is in heaven and in earth The parable of wheat and tares is crystal clear that HE sowed his children who are the sons of the kingdom of God And he says I will gather them at the end But I have sowen them in this world Based on these passages I believe in definite redemption But still I can't answer why very few why not 50:50 or even more than that

[@vikasdiwakar2348]

I believe in definite redemption so Satan is not winning Because he has sowed his seed and he will only have those no more than that As it says in Matthew 24 God has shorten the days for the sake of his chosen He is winning in free will theology because he wanted all to perish and pretty much succeeded in that

[@13kimosabi13]

@@vikasdiwakar2348 Since you believe so much of the Bible NOT WRITTEN TO YOU OR ABOUT => is actually to you, you will always live in chaos and confusion and won’t be able to figure it out. You’re just like the rest of Christendom, which is really sad. At least you understand that what you believe => makes no sense. It’s nonsensical to continue with your current belief system. You need to learn Right Division and Progressive Revelation and Context and a few other key biblical concepts to have a chance. I doubt you ever will on this side of death. But it’s ok => Jesus has you covered….

[@zeekzeek9088]

Jesus Himself could have fallen away..

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

Could He have? If He's God in the flesh, how could He fall away from Himself?

[@zeekzeek9088]

@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi if He couldn’t then He risked nothing and sacrificed absolutely nothing..

[@KodyCrimson]

He literally could not have. Not because he had no choice, but because he had literally no desire to sin. He HAD to be perfect in order to be the sacrifice for us. A sinful vessel couldn't have served as one to bear our sin for us. Jesus was pure, and only wanted to be pure. If he could have fallen away, he would have in the desert when Satan came to him. That temptation served to also show that Jesus was pure and couldn't fall away no matter what the Devil tried. His sacrifice means EVERYTHING as that's the only reason we can simply come to him willingly. It's why we don't rely on animal sacrifice anymore too for sin atonement, which is how those before Christ's death did it. If Jesus was a sinful person like us, then his death on the cross would have no effect, as he'd just be another man, and not God and Man.

[@gottschalk4662]

Wow that is the most desperate stretching of scripture I’ve ever seen.

[@SpotterVideo]

Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. ====================== A person must be “baptized” to be saved, but it has nothing to do with water. The proof is found below. Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit) Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. (Acts 10:38) The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church? The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again) Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.) Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment) ============ Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 1:5, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water/ every time they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13) “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.) Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant) How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist? Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ? Hebrews 9:10 Old Covenant vs. New Covenant (ESV) but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (Geneva) Which only stood in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnal rites, which were inioyned, vntill the time of reformation. (GW) These gifts and sacrifices were meant to be food, drink, and items used in various purification ceremonies. These ceremonies were required for the body until God would establish a new way of doing things. (KJV) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (KJV+) Which stood onlyG3440 inG1909 meatsG1033 andG2532 drinks,G4188 andG2532 diversG1313 washings,G909 andG2532 carnalG4561 ordinances,G1345 imposedG1945 on them untilG3360 the timeG2540 of reformation.G1357 (NKJV) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. (NLT) For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies-physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established. (YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them .

[@overcookedcooki5285]

No Calvinist I know believes God spoiled the clay. Adam spoiled the clay. If you believe that Calvinists believe that God spoiled the clay, then I want proof. His analogy, perhaps accidentally, admits he is an open theist, and if he's not, I think it's funny that he doesn't differentiate himself from them, like he did with Arminianism. Finally, perhaps his most heinous action yet, he did not exegete the text like he would with a text about the trinity or something else. I don't think he exegeted at all. I couldn't even get a glance at Romans 9 because he was so busy talking about other things.

[@davidblanton795]

@overcookedcooki5285 re: “Adam spoiled the clay.” Please explain what “clay” represents and how Adam managed to spoil said “clay”. Thanks.

[@jordandthornburg]

Adam spoiled the clay. Did God unchangeably decree he would do that? If so, then there you go. There’s your proof.

[@jordandthornburg]

Roman’s 9 has tons of OT quotes. It would be foolish and exegetical malpractice to NOT go to those texts and see what the meanings are.

[@ZachFish-]

@@jordandthornburgGod did not make Adam sin. Take his drunk guy scenario. We are the drunk guy who is hardened in need of remolding by our creator. That’s what most Calvinist believe (but this channel deals with determinist). We were able to sin (pre fall). Not able not to sin (post fall). Able not to sin (by the spirit). Not able to sin (post res). I’m not sure what view I hold to though.

[@jordandthornburg]

@@ZachFish- Calvinists are determinists 99 plus % of the time.

[@gabrielbridges9709]

2nd Timothy 2:20 is in the context of sanctification not justification. We are not proof texting we are calling you out for not interpreting the text with the different text then the one Paul is directly referring to. Roman’s 9:24 also says this principle is not for the Jews only but also the gentiles so you saying God only hardened the Jews is a false presupposition your forcing into the text as Paul says it’s not the man who wills or runs rather then it’s not the nation or ethnicity who wills and runs nonetheless if we play to your false interpretation you are still easily falsified because the scripture directly says it is God who caused them to stray out of His own will so He spoiled the clay in specific reference to the Jews ”Why, O Lord, do You cause us to stray from Your ways And harden our heart from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage.“ ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭63‬:‭17‬ ‭

[@RachelWeeping]

TIL YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO USE THE TERM "SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD" I'M NOT WATHCHING THESE.

[@soteriology400]

None is the anti Calvinist rant holds water.