What Convinced This Calvinistic Pastor To LEAVE Calvinism? | Leighton Flowers | Soteriology 101

Dr. Leighton Flowers talks to former Calvinist, Paul Cooper, about what convinced him to leave Calvinism behind.
Check out the full video here:
• Debated out of Calvinism?
To get your copy of Dr. Flowers new book, Drawn By Jesus, go here: a.co/d/6s767Ey
To SUPPORT this broadcast, please click here: soteriology101.com/support/
Subscribe to the Soteriology 101 Newsletter here: www.soteriology101.com/newsletter
Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...
DOWNLOAD OUR APP:
LINK FOR ANDROIDS: play.google.com/store/apps/de...
LINK FOR APPLE: apps.apple.com/us/app/soterio...
Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software development needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!!
To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip,” please click here: soteriology101.com/shop/
To listen to the audio only, be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or one of the other podcast players found here: soteriology101.com/home/
For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism), please visit www.soteriology101.com
Dr. Flowers’ book, “The Potter’s Promise,” can be found here: www.amazon.com/Potters-Promis...
Dr. Flowers’ book, “God’s Provision for All” can be found here: www.amazon.com/Gods-Provision...
To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: / 1806702. .
For updates and news, follow us at: www.facebook/Soteriology101
Or @soteriology101 on Twitter
Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!
To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers, go here: soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...
To become a Patreon supporter or make a one-time donation: soteriology101.com/support/
#LeightonFlowers #Calvinism #Theology

[@Magnus0311]

Calvinists seem to be very proud of their humility.

[@jeremiah5319]

I recognize your hatred for Calvin and Calvinists. It's not brotherly love you show. But to say that "Calvinists are proud???" That's coming from YOUR pride, my friend. Because it's actually the opposite. As an Augustinian, I claim to have done nothing toward my salvation. God did it all. Salvation is monergistic - the work of God alone. John 1:12-13. I was spiritually DEAD when God saved me. Ephesians 2:1-9 explains this. Dead men can do nothing. Is this analogy difficult to understand? I understand what it means, but only because God revealed it to me. Matthew 11:25-27 explains this. Let me ask you... Can I ipray for you? (Must you give me your permission to pray for you?) Or shall I pray for you without asking for your permission? Would that be rude in some way? Because God never asked me if I wanted to be saved. He just saved me, and I'm thankful for his mercy and grace. He didn't throw me a life preserver that I could grab and hold on to. He dragged my dead soul from the water and breathed life into my dead spirit. John 3:3-7 explains this. Do some unsaved souls seek God? Not according to God, they don't: Psalms 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there were any that did understand, And seek God. Were you seeking God when he saved you? I wasn't seeking God when he saved me. As scripture explains: Isaiah 65:1 I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me; I was found by those who did not seek me. To a nation that did not call on my name, I said, 'Here am I, here am I'.

[@LindsayJackel]

​@jeremiah5319 So much calvinist 'vomit' from you. So many lies. Calvinists, like YOU, tend to be entitled, proud, arrogant, contemptuous and condescending. This can be expressed in active hateful, harassing, insulting and bullying behaviour. Like your response above.

[@johnknight3529]

@@jeremiah5319 - "I recognize your hatred for Calvin and Calvinists. It's not brotherly love you show." What? The man said Calvinists seem to be very proud of their humility. What does that have to do with hatred? "I was spiritually DEAD when God saved me." Then worship God, not Calvin (or Calvinists) for goodness sake . . they can't save anyone.

[@joefrescoln]

@@johnknight3529 Proving that no one seeks God (for which we all should agree) doesn't prove that humans have no agency to respond positively when God seeks them. *For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to everyone* We shouldn't be interested in what sounds more humble to a narcissist, we should be interested in what the text actually says.

[@getrit3007]

@@jeremiah5319 Calvinists who struggle to answer the simple question: “When was Cornelius saved?” Their theology forces them to argue that Cornelius is a saved, regenerate man when first mentioned in Acts 10. But Peter’s subsequent visit and his words in Acts 11:13-14 say otherwise. The believer must either accept Acts 11:13-14 and reject Calvinism, or they will have to ignore or try to explain away the passage.

[@gospatrick]

Calvinists that I've known are NOT humble, they're arrogant and self-righteous, they REVEL in their view that they're God's chosen and YOU'RE NOT.

[@orborn3580]

Yes!

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

Absolutely 💯. It's a satanic doctrine that causes children to dishonor their parents and hold to what their calvinistic claims are over the actual explicit claims of scripture.

[@SeanusAurelius]

I've met many very nice ones. The cage stage is real when they're young. FWIW, Calvin himself was a pretty mild man in temperament.

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

@SeanusAurelius you've got to be kidding about calvin and no, cage staging isn't just for young folks or Christians .

[@emf49]

Also, that they’re smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us. I saw this first hand when I was involved with a Reform church.

[@sampowellmusic]

My five favorite words: “when I was a Calvinist…”

[@tedfordhyde]

Brother Cooper is spot on here. It seems like it's going to be too simple for most Calvinists to understand though.

[@jeremiah5319]

Why do so many say they believe IN Jesus, but either don't believe or understand the things he said? Jesus said to Nicodemus that one must [first] be born again by the Spirit (which is something no man can do); and Jesus never said someone can lose his salvation. In fact, he clearly said just the opposite: Jesus said he loses NONE that the Father gives him. Yes, he is The Good Shepherd. John 6 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. There is no ambiguity in Jesus' words. Do you believe he may have been mistaken? John 10 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one." Read it again, slowly, if you can't see it yet. Jesus owns only the sheep his Father gives him, and all he is given he keeps - Jesus loses none that his Father gives him. This should be cause for rejoicing, and it is for Augustinians.

[@gk.4102]

​@@jeremiah5319_"Why do so many say they believe IN Jesus, but either don't believe or understand the things he said?"_ Yep, that's Augustinians, specifically Calvinists. They operate under the TULIP grid, and can't see the Bible any other way. They're genuinely lost when you ask them to read the Bible without the TULIP lenses on. They've their own definitions and presuppositions, hence they reach their own conclusions.

[@Ancient-Paths]

@@jeremiah5319 We are in a covenant relationship with the Father. As in any covenant - either party can break that covenant. Almighty God, however, is faithful to His covenant with His chosen ones. He will never break His covenant promises, and no one can snatch us out of His hand. However, using our free will, we can at any time withdraw our hand and walk away from God. Did this not happen in the O.T. between God and His chosen people? Notice the IF's and BUT's throughout Scripture. And, yes, we are eternally secure in Christ ... IF we obey His commands and continue to abide in Christ. You say, "Jesus never said someone can lose his salvation." O, yes He did. Read John 15:1-6 ... read it again .... slowly....

[@Michael-gx5mn]

@@jeremiah5319 If calvanists only had the list of whom God chose to elect they wouldn't waste their time with the damned

[@mikelyons2831]

Regarding him talking about Paul's miraculous conversion...many miss; "Therefore King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the Heavenly vision"... Paul obeyed, when he could've done otherwise. He too was a volitional being/had free moral agency/possessed libertarian free will before, during & after salvation.

[@jeramilltua-requena1497]

Great point

[@Daniel12.4Ministry]

Leaving Calvinism is the start of finding your way to God.

[@clintd3476]

🎶Humble thyself in the sight of the Lord and He will lift you up

[@johndisalvo6283]

GREAT SONG! Love it!

[@jeremiah5319]

Context, context, context. James isn't talking to unbelievers; he's talking to believers. How do we know? Because he refers to them as "brethren": James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

[@johnknight3529]

@@jeremiah5319 - The context is the inspired word of God, and I'm pretty sure He knew non-believers would hear those words too.

[@scwienert]

@@jeremiah5319okay Mr Context. Jesus said this to a bunch of unbelieving lawyers and Pharisees: Luke 14:11 NKJV For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

[@mountaingirl8124]

HUMILITY. He hit the nail on the head. There is an intellectual arrogance amongst Calvamists/reformed that is so unattractive. It repels people.

[@davie66fly]

Very similar to the intellectual arrogance that liberals exude.

[@MrShamaron041979]

I was at one point leaning towards the Calvinistic thinking but I was struggling with sin in certain areas in my life after hearing that some were elected and others were condemn it broke my heart because I didn’t think I could be saved so I had the thinking what is the point if I’m just gone go to hell anyway. This is really dangerous for someone is seeking salvation and wondering why they can’t stop sinning and hear this doctrine can cause someone to fall farther away from God because they believe there is no hope for them

[@TAdler-ex8px]

"I just wasn't thinking deeply about being consistent." ~ I completely relate to this quote in many biblical understandings!

[@bobthrasher8226]

The pagan Ninevites even humbled themselves and God change his plans to destroy them...

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

​@cal30m1 You're not bringing anything new to this conversation in saying what you've said . Repentance is granted to all who come before THE LORD in humility and if you don't know the passages that back this up its very telling as to why you're a calvinist. Although many calvinists realize that scripture tells man to humble themselves before THE LORD but just ignore them because they hinder their calvinistic paradigm that their obviously paradigmatically possessed by.

[@user-lu9me2yq7k]

And later destroyed them.

[@bobthrasher8226]

@@user-lu9me2yq7k Different people...

[@CC-ii3ij]

@@user-lu9me2yq7kA different generation of Nineveh was destroyed. The people who humbled themselves were spared by God.

[@williammarinelli2363]

@@cal30m1 Curious if you have ever pondered the "perhaps" in your first proof text. Were the word not there, would you believe differently and how? And BTW, in Rev 2 God says of Jezebel - "And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not."

[@virginiahernandez1329]

We gotta understand its not easy breaking bad dctrine, It takes the power of God to take the blinders off

[@BM5K007]

Calvinism is a doctrine in search of a text

[@getrit3007]

Calvinists who struggle to answer the simple question: “When was Cornelius saved?” Their theology forces them to argue that Cornelius is a saved, regenerate man when first mentioned in Acts 10. But Peter’s subsequent visit and his words in Acts 11:13-14 say otherwise. The believer must either accept Acts 11:13-14 and reject Calvinism, or they will have to ignore or try to explain away the passage.

[@thefriesens1071]

@@getrit3007 Could you explain this? I'm interested, but I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that because God was already drawing him in Acts 10 that the Calvinist would say that he was already saved?

[@getrit3007]

@@thefriesens1071 the point is a person can seek God before they are saved! Cornelius is a perfect example to show that the T in the calvinist T.U.L.I.P is false teaching. If Calvinism was true Cornelius would not have been able to seek God before salvation.

[@SomeUserNameBlahBlah]

@@getrit3007 They also struggle to answer Adam and Eve sinning. They were created good and walked with God, yet choose to sin against God.

[@reg7916]

Totally, it is in the OT, and often, the Israelites refused to listen to Him and that is still going on today🌻

[@woodman6176]

Humility together with honest intellectual examination of the inconsistencies leads to an off-ramp.

[@colmortimer1066]

One thing I do to avoid the type of cognitive dissonance that Paul here seemed to dismiss at first is that I make sure to read the Bible cover to cover, a few times I will stop, to go to a book I feel called to, but I go back to where I left off in the main reading. My thinking is I will never skip parts that either make me uncomfortable, don't fully understand, or even just feel it is out of date, as being more cultural ideas we don't adhere to anymore. I always try to look for something good in my reading, and try to wrestle with the parts I am less comfortable with to try and find the truth with in. I think a lot of people, tend to stick to the few books that really drive home their ideology, and don't read the full bible. Then they start arguing for their position using out of context quotes, as they have not really read the full bible in the context with in itself.

[@clellaadams]

Yes. The Word will wash you.

[@getrit3007]

Calvinists who struggle to answer the simple question: “When was Cornelius saved?” Their theology forces them to argue that Cornelius is a saved, regenerate man when first mentioned in Acts 10. But Peter’s subsequent visit and his words in Acts 11:13-14 say otherwise. The believer must either accept Acts 11:13-14 and reject Calvinism, or they will have to ignore or try to explain away the passage.

[@colmortimer1066]

@@getrit3007 One of my most watched channels is a Presbyterian pastor for the PCA church. His sermons are very good, not all that fiery but the best for me is he spends months or over a year preaching a book 5 to 10 or so lines at a time in 30-40 minutes sermons. Often giving many schools of thought, many he disagrees with. This style really gives me a much deeper understanding of the bible beyond my own reading, and he often covers the hardest books to understand. As good as he is, he has done as much to turn me away from Calvinism than anyone. I have seen him preach about the elect and really drive home parts of reformed theology, and then go right into another book to link to the concepts in the current text he is looking at, and those will often talk about repenting like it is a choice or the works we need to do as Christians. He will often use those parts then ignore that they disagree. I just often see the contradictions there that he does not even notice nor contradict.

[@davie66fly]

I really like his statement that "I was copping out to 'mystery'".

[@ashermarcus5242]

I appreciate Leighton and his ministry a great deal. He is one of the reasons I myself did not come under the false god of Tulip over a year ago when I left the Pentecostal/charasmatic denomination...over it was the Holy Spirit that first convicted me to investigate what calvanism truly is....even though they rarely discuss their Tulip doctrine openly in a church service. I am not ashamed to admit that I struggle to consider calvanists beothers/sisters in Christ because their foundation is the god of Tulip and it doesn't matter how nice or similar the rest of the building looks...the god of Tulip is not the true God of the bible. Calvanists also hold to Ephesians 2.. grace alone through faith...but does that still apply to a absolute false foundation of the Tulip god. Even jw and mormons speak and claim to believe in thw god of the bible but I doubt any of us will conaider them brothers/ sisters in Christ. The Tulip god is sadistic...simple as that. Leighton considers them fellow brothers/sisters in Christ but if that is so than why is he and so many others so set on bringing people out of calvanism...in the end they to will fo to heaven to be with Jesus...so why spend so much time and put in so much effort. I pray for all calvanists as I do jw and mormons to come to the true God of the bible and stop corrupting the character of the Father.

[@MyRoBeRtBaKeR]

This is the best description of who He shows mercy on: God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

That very statement that's obviously backed by scripture utterly destroys calvinism and yet the proud n narcissistic hang on to their unbiblical doctrine called calvinism that has possessed them .

[@JesusIsLord777-lz7mg]

Are the words "adoption as sons" in Ephesians 1:5 referring to justification or glorification? ‭Ephesians 1:5 NKJV‬ [5] having predestined us to 👉 adoption as sons👈 by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

[@MyRoBeRtBaKeR]

@JesusIsLord777-lz7mg What comes first, justification or glorification, or are they simultaneous? I believe that anyone who was chosen was justified and glorified simultaneously, why. Because theyvwere chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Therefore, when it was finished on the cross, God did the work so that He could fulfill all necessary requirements for anyone who should humble himself and seek mercy to be justified sanctified and glorified.

[@JesusIsLord777-lz7mg]

@MyRoBeRtBaKeR If they happen simultaneously, then why does Paul say we are waiting for the redemption of our bodies in Romans 8:23? ‭Romans 8:23 NKJV‬ [23] Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

@@JesusIsLord777-lz7mg if what happens simultaneously, my friend ?

[@carollynnpettis6580]

The mysteries of God, like the Trinity, are not contradictory to His nature. Calvinism is. Thank you for this, as I am wrestling with the ideas of Calvinism presented in my church.

[@acsberean4092]

Glad I never had to leave Calvinism because I never was one, or Arminianism, or Open Theism.

[@SomeUserNameBlahBlah]

The Word of God and Jesus Christ crucified is all we need.

[@SheilaODrane]

Augustine had a nearly hysterical fear,Christians would brag of their salvation, which SOME may have. So his anecdote, was to create the false teaching that humans were completly powerless, incapable of any positive action because humans wete totally depraved. John Calvin picked up that ball, that false teaching and carried it forward. promoted tha

[@mikelyons2831]

Hard for me to wrap my head around "God sent His Son to deliver us four & no more from the sting of death caused by sin & no one else... the rest of you will get the wrath you deserve".

[@virginiahernandez1329]

bingo

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

This is so good I love it

[@SomeUserNameBlahBlah]

"If God gets all the credit for people humbling themselves, then God must receive all of the blame if someone does not humble themselves." Well said, I wonder how Calvinist would respond to that?

[@Christian-Carr]

Hearing the gospel like when Peter preached in the book of acts caused them to convert it was Gods power unto salvation in those words that made them believe

[@getrit3007]

Calvinists who struggle to answer the simple question: “When was Cornelius saved?” Their theology forces them to argue that Cornelius is a saved, regenerate man when first mentioned in Acts 10. But Peter’s subsequent visit and his words in Acts 11:13-14 say otherwise. The believer must either accept Acts 11:13-14 and reject Calvinism, or they will have to ignore or try to explain away the passage.

[@djohnson3093]

I've always felt that Paul was saved after encountering Christ because of his free will. I wonder if Christ knew what would most likely happen if He'd have sent Peter to witness to Paul? Jesus probably felt He'd better take care of this one Himself 😂 (Just my thoughts 😊)

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

Paul more than likely would've had Peter killed .

[@jeremiah5319]

If you can show me a verse where Paul indicates he had free will to follow Jesus, I'll give you a dollar for each verse. Bring the verse(s). Paul was assured of his own salvation: Romans 8:38-39 ESV For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. How was it that Paul was *sure* about his salvation (if by some means he could lose it)? John was also sure of his salvation. Not only that, but he told others they could be sure of theirs. Notice the verb tenses: 1 John 5:10-13 ESV Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. Why were the Holy Spirit-inspired writers certain of their salvation, but Leighton Flowers is not? 1 Corinthians 1:4-9 4 I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge- 6 even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you- 7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. As an Augustinian, I have assurance of my salvation, because "God is faithful... and he called has me into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." Can you see it? It's not by my will or work that I come to salvation, nor by my power that I am kept. It's all God's will and work, which is why I cannot boast. It wasn't my doing. Salvation is monergistic.

[@djohnson3093]

@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 My thoughts exactly.

[@chrislucastheprotestantview]

I realized recently that I never believed in closed theism. I just never thought about it much because almost everyone around me and even people I argue with were all closed theists. But I never thought about the inconsistencies of being a non-calvinist, a non-dererminist, yet holding to closed theism. If you are raised around only hearing that, many on the internet teaching closed theism, you may never consider it yourself. But I realized the way I see science, I do not see time existing, only the present. Yet when I would discuss things about God, my mind would shift views of Time and I would adopt a closed theist view of time, like it is something real and created, which God can exist "outside of". And I never realized I was being inconsistent until recently and I asked a guest how long they were an open theist. Then when I thought how I would answer the same question, I realized I was separating my view of time from thinking about other things versus when I thought about God and the bible. So I can relate to Paul a bit in that way.

[@jeremiah5319]

You said, " I do not see time existing, only the present." If someone kicks you in the shins, you only feel it in the present? But yesterday when it happened, you also felt it, right? Do you have no remembrance of yesterday? And if you do, and yesterday doesn't exist, what is it you're thinking you are remembering? Of course time exists. But we can only ACT in the present. Is that what you mean, maybe?

[@chrislucastheprotestantview]

@@jeremiah5319 now if someone kicks me in the shin wasn't that done in the present at some point ? And doesn't something that happens in the present also affect the future? So if you kicked me in the shin and the past it would affect my current present. And what you also fell to do is Define what the present is. Because there's a present nanosecond a present second there's a present our a present day a present year a present thought a present breath

[@chrislucastheprotestantview]

@@jeremiah5319 this might help you to understand where I'm coming from. We can tell time by the lights in the sky that's a reference point. It is how the lights change in the sky. How could you even have a sense of time if you had no body and you had nothing else around you except for your mind? The only thing you could observe is that you are present. What I'm arguing is there's nothing called time that's independent of anything else that we can go and set our watch to. I don't believe time is a tangible thing that exists time is relative to how we measure the changes in things around us. I don't believe time is something that has mass that you can touch or observe in of itself or that can be worked by gravity like the Calvinists think. Something that God can exist outside of. But I argue that the present is an attribute of God. If you think about it is God going to exist in the future or did he always just presently exist. At some point God presently existed and I argue he always presently existed and the word presence has almost the same meaning as present. So I argue you cannot even exist until you are present you're probably familiar with the question, how long did God exist before he created the world and I would respond to such a question that God has simply always been present. And then he decided to create the world and then the world became present 6000 years ago. Now from our vantage point it would look almost as if as soon as God existed he instantly created the world

[@gk.4102]

​​@@chrislucastheprotestantview _" if someone kicks me in the shin wasn't that done in the present at some point?"_ What do you even mean by "done in the present at some point"? How many "points" does the present have? Everything else you wrote is hard to follow. It sounds like you're just conceptualizing time the same way most do, so not sure what you're even saying that's different.

[@chrislucastheprotestantview]

@@gk.4102 the difference is I acknowledge that all my time is based on the changes going on around me. I don't think time is something that exists all by itself independent of anything else that you can set it watch to. And that's a really big issue. Because you got people talking about how time can be dilated in physics and saying that gravity can affect time and cause time to slow down or speed up. But I argue there's nothing called time that you can set a watch to nor can it be affected by gravity because you can't even set a watch to it

[@datchet11]

I became a Christian 10 years ago and have been under calvinist teaching in that time its only recently I've started to question calvinist theology, the one doctrine i find difficult to find a alternative view is election.

[@grizz4489]

Election has nothing to do with unsaved people being chosen to be saved. Election is all about service for the believer

[@Breauxmann]

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

[@user-um5wn8ri7s]

Every Calvanist i have ever met was mean spirited and horeible to one another, filled with pride and conciet

[@user-hi1cf1wn4w]

So, the individuals who leave what today is commonly called "Calvinism" are the ones who demonstrate that they do not understand it by appealing to mystery. Makes sense.

[@Veretax]

I'll give you one more Leighton. Calvinists will go so far and say you can't believe unless God GIves you faith. Yet if you look at the entire old testament you see so many places, where Israel turns and worships idols, graven images, stone, wood, etc. They exercised faith toward things which were created, and God Rightly calls them to repentance for hundreds of years before the captivity judgement happens. I continue to attest that the concept of faith is an inherent human attribute, which we have, because of how Mankind was created, and thus we have the capability, the question is why do some not believe and others do?

[@mannyedwards2820]

The difference in the mysteries is that the mysteries of the Trinity and of the inspiration of scripture arise out of the scriptures, whereas the mysteries of Calvinism arise out of Calvinism.

[@SomeUserNameBlahBlah]

Well said.

[@grizz4489]

It seems to me that out of all the old testament passages quoted on humbling oneself,.... that most if not all of them are regarding physical life or death / blessing or cursing in this life and are NOT soteriological... involving eternal life or eternal condemnation.

[@getrit3007]

Parable in Luke 18:9-14 carries on the theme of simple humility.

[@grizz4489]

​@@getrit3007 Humility is very likely a characteristic of someone who recognizes that they are a sinner and in need of a savior. However it is not a condition for everlasting life. Believing in Jesus for everlasting life is the ONLY condition for everlasting life. Also my comment was to point out that the many passages used in this video about humility were NOT salvific passages.

[@getrit3007]

@@grizz4489 it’s a parable Jesus gave not a rule of thumb. No two born again experiences are the exact same but the parable symbolizes the right way to approach God and the wrong way.

[@KJBpreacher]

You’re right. It is biblically irresponsible to tell someone they can’t do something that God commanded them to do

[@KJBpreacher]

@@morrij01 out of context. It’s talking specifically about rich people being saved not people in genral

[@Christian-Carr]

We have to preach the gospel and the lost must here it to have faith

[@robertburke9920]

Perhaps you would enjoy the page-turner novel "Where Do We Go Now, LORD? - Burke." A Divine Comedy, Tale of the Christ. Enjoy, it is quite ameliorating. A deep-thought, yet fun read. Makes you think. And want to read it again. Enjoy!

[@AgeOfInterpretations]

im curious. do ppl GO TO calvinism after being against it? Id think its a 1way road of conversion

[@Dakzstars]

Some do

[@Christian-Carr]

I’m not a Calvinist but Gods word have power to override our carnal brains.

[@KJBpreacher]

I just found this channel. I was raised IFB became SBC for a while. Became very Calvinistic. It was actually Spurgeon and his wife that help lead me back out of Calvinism. Late in his life he declared that he would preach whosoever will. After he passed, his wife said that at times when her husband would preach in his latter years she couldn’t tell if if he was a Calvinist or an Armenian. I thought hmmm. I’d call that a biblicist. Systems don’t matter. Bible truth matters. I ultimately went back to the IFB. It was right for me. The other side is that God smote my heart one day that when he said whosoever will he meant it. Also, even when I was Calvinist I never could accept Regeneration preceding faith. That’s biblically out of order. I too would cop out to mystery on that. I’d say well I just don’t understand that. I didn’t understand it because it just isn’t true. We come into contact with the Word of God, Holy Spirit convicts, we respond in faith, and then comes Regeneration.

[@getrit3007]

Calvinists who struggle to answer the simple question: “When was Cornelius saved?” Their theology forces them to argue that Cornelius is a saved, regenerate man when first mentioned in Acts 10. But Peter’s subsequent visit and his words in Acts 11:13-14 say otherwise. The believer must either accept Acts 11:13-14 and reject Calvinism, or they will have to ignore or try to explain away the passage.

[@grizz4489]

Perhaps you had better read more closely. It is very clear that Cornelius and house hold believed the message in Acts 10:44. It is precisely then that they were saved.

[@scwienert]

@@grizz4489you missed his point. The beginning of chapter says he is a devout man who feared God before he is saved. This would be impossible if Calvinism were true.

[@getrit3007]

@@grizz4489 I read it. It points specifically to Cornelius in 11:14, not generally. But either way it proves the ruse of Calvinism

[@grizz4489]

@@scwienert I completely reject all 5 points of calvinism. The text is very very clear when Cornelius was saved. It is Acts 10:44. Not before and not later. A person receives everlasting life the moment they believe in Jesus for it.

[@getrit3007]

@@scwienert exactly

[@Pablo9989-lj7pm]

@14:45. Freewill is not at all, “at odds” with the mystery of our supernatural God!

[@coreykeplinger3391]

I didn't choose to be born into this world or the family I was born into. Can I choose to be born again into God's family? If a 2 yo toddler is running into the street into heavy traffic and his mother swoops in to save that child; can the child take any credit and say I chose to be saved? Just asking?

[@grizz4489]

Choosing or making a decision is not the condition for a person to receive everlasting life. Believing in Jesus is the sole condition . A child can believe that his or her parent can save them. So it is when a person believes in Jesus.

[@coreykeplinger3391]

@@grizz4489 to all who received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children...

[@grizz4489]

​@@coreykeplinger3391.......even to those who believed in His name.

[@grannyblinda]

Acts 17:30…

[@reinemacherfrau]

One of my absolute favourite passages in the bible

[@francesvincent793]

WE have to come to Christ just as people in the new testament did!!!!!!

[@AgeOfInterpretations]

😇🙏

[@BELUSHIPREVILON]

Usually, it’s the Calvinist who are accused of dividing God with two separate wills and two separate kinds of love, but i noticed here that pastor Cooper and Dr Flowers affirmed that God has one general grace expressed to all men, and another kind of special grace expressed to those who are specifically humble? Id like to understand what is meant by that. If those categories are allowed, then why is the Calvinist wrong for holding to the idea that God has a decree (primary cause) and yet men are responsible (secondary cause)?

[@cecilspurlockjr.9421]

Will and love are different things in many aspects. It's not that cut n dried . Calvinists claim that everything that happens is the will of GOD, while claiming that not everything that happens is the will of GOD. Scripture says that GOD wills that all are saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Those who reject salvation have gone against the will of GOD, but calvinists claim when they reject salvation they have done the will of GOD just like those who have accepted the knowledge of truth and have been saved.

[@webgold3408]

In Matt. 15:19 Jesus tells us what comes from the heart of man. Humility is not one of them. Therefore, if a man does have true humility before God would that mean that a spiritual change has taken place in that man ? Who makes us differ one from another (1 Cor. 4:7) ?

[@williammarinelli2363]

I challenge consideration of 830 times that the word, "heart" is mentioned in Scripture, including the passage you cite that deals with things that "come forth from the heart; AND they defile the man." It's a compound verb and not everything fits that category. See Abimelech "answer back to God" in Gen 20 about the integrity of his heart, and the Lord concedes that point. Also consider David's desire to build the Temple described in 2 Chr 6:8 - "Forasmuch as it was in thine heart to build an house for my name, thou didst well in that it was in thine heart:" I'm no fan of single verse proof texting, although there would be a former time in which I affirmed that Jer 17:9 sums up the human heart with no consideration of the context of Jer 17 nor the 830 other mentions of the heart. As for final question: If I see something troubling about you, then I don't wish to be like you in that area and I, the created being endowed with the faculty of reason, am the originator of that choice. And if that point is disputed, I am also the originator of the snicker at the concession of my point on the part of the person trying to change my mind - to choose to change my mind, the net effect is that I am different than I was. And if you convince me to change my mind, then I am different from those I formerly agreed with on the point, and I attribute it to your persuasion.

[@webgold3408]

The story of Abimelech shows that pagan people will sometimes admit that certain acts are wrong even though they may be guilty themselves. This does not change the truth that Jesus said concerning man's heart being a fountain from which many evils flow.

[@williammarinelli2363]

@@webgold3408 Don't forget that Abimelech was called a dead man by God. And since Sproul bellows "dead means dead, what's wrong with you people?", we must conclude that, like a corpse, dead Abimelech is unable to do anything at all, including the admission that certain acts are wrong. That was tongue-in-cheek self-amusement. Since I'm amused, I assume everyone is. My wife is unconvinced that such is a valid thought process. Parlando sul serio, I think your second sentence is spot on so I offer no dispute whatsoever. I note the absence of words like "only" or "exclusively," and good on ya as such is the case with the Scripture cited - providing room in our minds for the Gentiles of Rom 2:14 who do by nature the things contained in the law reflecting a heart which, at the time of so doing, is not the usual disappointment.

[@robertrogers-lc8vf]

Love this channel

[@Jesusandbible]

Calvinist pastors malign the character of the Holy Ghost for a living. Calvinism is like Molochism. Quite honestly I think some of them are committing blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. The best one line refutation I ever heard was "Foreknowledge is not causation." For goodness sake, if you are going to read Romans 9 read Romans 8:29 first.

[@Jordankulbeck]

God reacts to us being in Christ. Christianity 101 guys

[@claudecharest7018]

I'm not calvinist but i believe all things are submitted to Christ 1 cor15 and ps 139 ;16 and in your Book were all written the days that WERE ORDAINED for me, when as yet there was not one of them. Pro19 ; 21 many plans are in man's heart, but the counsel of the Lord will stand and no matter the explanations of Romans 9 nobody can discuss about the decisions of God . Preachers don't say what God never said because His Thoughts are more over ours.

[@user-um5wn8ri7s]

Calvanism is a doctine of demons-It leads to self-righteousness, and despair after self righteousness ❤

[@ggductor1511]

It’s easy, Calvin didn’t die for him

[@jeremiah5319]

Leighton Flowers says God's word is "difficult to understand." Yes, I can see that it is difficult for you. Arminianists are SO utterly confused. Is God the author of that confusion? Of course not. Arminianism is an example of "doctrines of men." Like Roman Caholicism's many false doctrines, of which Arminianism is one - it's in agreement with Romanism/Vatican doctrines. It's easy to disprove Arminianism by only using the Bible. But Arminianists cannot prove their position by only using God's word. If they can I've never seen it. They must add their own human reasoning and doctrines of men to convince someone who is perishing. They must use arguments like, "How is that fair?" It's interesting that Leighton Flowers attempts to invent analogies to support the idea that one can bring himself to salvation by believing BEFORE being saved by God. But where are the verses to support it? Where did JESUS ever suggest one can lose his salvation? It's certainly not this one: John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. Jesus says he loses NONE of the sheep that *his Father GIVES him.* Maybe there's another way to salvation other than the Father having to give someone to Jesus first? Nope. Jesus refutes that idea here: John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. Those are verses Arminianists (Arminians?) NEVER quote. They have to drive around the whole chapter to avoid them, too, because there are more places in that chapter that prove it is by God's will and work that men are saved, not to mention John 1:12-13 which states it specifically, another passage which Arminiansts ALWAYS AVOID - they NEVER talk about them, and you'll never hear Flowers give a sermon on them (thought that would be interesting to see). Here's another passage Arminiants will AVOID AT ALL COSTS. Jesus says that God is NOT REVEALED to everyone, and it's not an accident or oversight - it's intentional: Matthew 11:25-27 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Can Arminianists explain how that's 'fair' for God to intentionally hide himself from a sinner in need of salvation?

[@kenbeach5021]

Maybe the hiddeness was temporary for a specific reason. Now Christ is risen from the dead God commands all men everywhere to repent, a meaningless statement if he intends to hide salvation from a large number of them.

[@banjoninja]

@@kenbeach5021 The hiding is a judgement of their unbelief. They can't believe because they will not believe.

[@user-hi1cf1wn4w]

At 5:36 he declares that "humility is not a meritorious act." Yet, the word "meritorious" comes from a Latin verb that means "to earn," and to earn means "to bring in by way of return." According to him, salvation is given to those who humble themselves, therefore despite his assertion to the contrary, BY DEFINITION, humility/faith would be a meritorious act. According to scripture, faith is the fruit of regeneration, worked in man by God as a result of his relationship with God, it is not the root of regeneration; the "choice meat" that brings about regeneration. This manner of thinking is the error of Rome.

[@joefrescoln]

Paul appears to say that belief is not meritorious. God applies the merits of Christ to you by grace, through faith. ‭ Romans 4:3-5 ESV‬ [3] For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” [4] Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. [5] And to the one who *does not work but believes* in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

[@bcmguy]

“God has chosen to grace those who humble themselves. God gives grace to the humble not because a humble response deserves (it), but because He is gracious.” - Leighton Flowers

[@scwienert]

To bring in by way of return - did you do all of that word study and then stop short of the prize? Salvation is not a return for belief. It’s a GIFT!

[@user-hi1cf1wn4w]

@@joefrescoln Right, because man's faith is God's work in him, John 6:29. So, faith isn't meritorious since it is a fruit of the Spirit, a product of salvation. Flowers gets things entirely backwards by asserting that faith comes first, then salvation, that God grants salvation to the one who merits it through producing faith.

[@user-hi1cf1wn4w]

@@bcmguy Proverbs 3:34 is not a soteriological passage.

[@Richard_Rz]

Calvinists special case their whole theology to God magick. If GOD does something, all vocabulary definitions change.

[@benjaminvasquez1185]

Let me fix the title for you. Why this "so-called" pastor left the truth. There you go. Sola Scriptura!!

[@jeremiah5319]

I'm guessing Leighton Flowers, if not currently a Roman Catholic, is a former Catholic. Romanism leaves a noticeable doctrinal residue.

[@LindsayJackel]

Wrong.

[@larrybedouin2921]

Calvinism is the opposite side of the same coin as Rome.

[@jeremiah5319]

Your claim to having free will may not be what you assume it to be. God has free will, but that doesn't mean he can do anything. He cannot lie, because Truth is part of his character. Likewise, an unsaved (unregenerated) soul can only do what is in his nature/character. What is the nature of the unsaved soul? We're told: Psalms 14:2-3 The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. 1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. So, if the unregenerated soul doesn't seek God, and he doesn't accept the things of the Spirit of God, and he is not able to understand them, how does he then choose salvation? The only logical solution is that God must do ALL of the work - salvation is monergistic - the work of one. John 1:12-13 says it is by "the will and work" of God that men are saved. Read it.

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

Your biblical knowledge seems superficial, in that you seem to use verses void of the context in which they were produced. The "natural man" you guys use as a meme is somewhat laughable, considering the context in which was originally written. The "natural man" isn't Paul waxing metaphysical all of a sudden about the spiritual state of the reprobate. He's talking about the men who were troubling this church with Platonistic (Greek) philosophical ideas. (Corinth was a Greek city, in case you are unaware) "Natural Theology", as it's called, was the world view of much of the Greco-Roman world. (Go figure😅. Since the Greeks conquered the know world prior to Rome's rise) I'll leave the research to you, for much is available on the 1st century worldview of the Gentile world, if you care to search it out. I strongly encourage you do so. I will say though, that the point Paul is making is that since with natural theology, the universe is itself divine, as an emanation of the organizing Principle, the Monad, the "One". (Read, Plotinus) Creation itself is divine: The expression of the Monad. Everything Your Mom, Dad, trees, dogs and cats, mold, Mountains, stars, sky, rocks, lobsters, platypuses, fungi.... All are divine. As such Wisdom is gained through observation. It it inferred from that which is. Thus there is no "Revelation FROM God" to be received (2:14) as the Creation IS the revelation of God. And the proposition that God would reveal Himself in the form of a creature, be crucified, buried and resurrect - is utterly foolishness to this philisophy. To the Greek mind, "the things of God" are discerned from the world - NEVER received from God. Now you know what Paul means in 2:14. Now you can stop using "natural man" as a talking point to "prove" your gnostic beliefs. Please tell all your friends of your new discovery so that they too can stop misusing Scripture, the discovery of a concept called, context. -out

[@larrybedouin2921]

Do you understand what context means?

[@user-lu9me2yq7k]

Leighton, i've watch your debate with james white and it seems you are just angry witj calvinists like him.🤣

[@CC-ii3ij]

Do you think Jesus was angry when He cleansed the temple? Trampling the character of God is a serious sin!

[@SeanusAurelius]

@@CC-ii3ij Sure, and the NT is REALY hot on false teachers, but you need to justify wanting to metaphorically whip and drive out an apparent Christian brother. Would you say that you can't have saving faith in Christ AND believe in TULIP? I wouldn't, though I'm not a Calvinist. And the risk is not one sided, maligning your fellow servants of Christ is very strongly condemned in scripture.

[@CC-ii3ij]

@@SeanusAurelius Why does every strong rebuke degenerate into hand-wringing about questioning salvation? People need to repent of false teaching. EVERY Bible confrontation against false teaching was STRONG. Paul confronted Peter in Galatians: Galatians 2:11 (ESV) But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. Jesus confronted Peter when he tried to discourage Jesus from going to the cross: Matthew 16:23 (ESV) But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” Strong rebukes are the foundation of Christianity, and our pansy generation has flipped good & evil.

[@HikeRx]

It's clear to me that God used his sovereign free will to give man the gift of free will. Without free will of man, having faith in Jesus Christ is meaningless. Loving God is meaningless unless man has free will to chose to turn to God. Calvinism sounds more like a perversion of truth than good news. Calvinism is an abomination.

[@gregorylatta8159]

Anyone who knows scripture knows Calvinism is false!

[@jeremiah5319]

Here's a verse for all you Arminians who need to be humbled. Ephesians 2:1-9 ESV 1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins... 4 But God, being rich in mercy... 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,... 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. 9 And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. IF you are saved, it looks like you have NOTHING to boast about. So, why are you always boasting about your salvation? Why do you keep making videos like this, Leighton Flowers? Why do people keep saying "Amen" to them? That isn't the work of the Holy Spirit. And why are you ridiculing the saved who have God's promised assurance in their salvation? The apostle Paul did. We do as Paul did. We believe as Paul believed. What spirit is that one driving someone to mock and ridicule the saved because they say they have assurance like the apostles did? The apostle Paul spoke as if had full assurance of his salvation. So did the other apostles. (None of them ever babbled gibberish, btw. For the record, neither did Jesus. That has nothing to do with true salvation. It's only found in the 'fake' Churchianity so many belong to.) Does anyone seek God? God's word say no, none do. Psalms 14:1-3. Do you suppose God is lying there? Was he mistaken? Because, if Leighton Flowers knows better than God how people are saved, then I should believe Flowers' words instead of God's. The only logical answer is that the only people who seek God are the ones the Holy Spirit first changes (regenerates) so they have the ability to seek. Logically, this is simple, but it's very, very difficult (if not impossible) for Arminians to acknowledge, much less understand. That's the resrult of pride. Ironic, in light of all this talk about humility, isn't it? As an Augustinian, I cannot boast in my own will or work, because none of my own will or work was responsible (even in part) for my salvation. That's why Ephesians 2:9 says I cannot boast. My hope and trust in salvation isn't in my ability to remain in the faith, but in the promise of Jesus to KEEP me in faith, BECAUSE I have been justified by the faith OF Jesus Christ, not by my own faith. Whatever faith I have was given (granted) to me. If you are an Arminian, what do you think "the faith *OF* Jesus Christ means?" With as many times as this phrase is used, you should study it. Because you won't hear it from your pastor (or Leighton Flowers). See Gal 2:16-20, Phil 3:9, Romans 3:22, Col 2:12, Rev 14:12) Ephesians 2:1-9 gives us that analogy that it might be helpful for understanding. It says we (the saved) were spiritually DEAD at the time God saved us. Can a dead man seek God? No. Dead men can do nothing. Can he walk forward to the altar, or raise his hand and say a "follow-after-me" prayer? No. Because he's dead. Why is this such a difficult analogy/metaphor for Arminians to comprehend? And BECAUSE DEAD MEN CAN DO NOTHING, God MUST first regenerate us ("Ye MUST be born again," Jesus said... "EXCEPT a man be born again, he cannot see (or enter) the kingdom of God." John 3:3-8. And Jesus makes it clear that it is the work of the Holy spirit to give a man rebirth (regeneration). How many times must God keep saying the same thing? John 1:12-13 says it's only "by the will and work of God" that anyone is saved. Do you suppose he forgot that there's another way? @11:12 - "God gives grace to all men." I'm glad Cooper admitted that. Surely, God DOES cause it to rain on both the just and unjust. But that has nothing to do with salvation. The scripture Flowers is attempting to use has nothing to do with salvation. Context, context, context is the first rule of proper exegesis. The problem is that many who say they believe IN Jesus, don't actually believe or understand the things Jesus was saying. And that's why most of American evangelical churches have derailed. This shouldn't be news. You see them in the ditch there. How did they get there? Their leaders have deceived them, whether knowingly or not. And just wait until someone brings up the question of when the rapture is! Even more utter confusion there! Is that from God? Nope: 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. There is no peace or assurance for one who believes he can [by some means] lose his salvation. That's the saddest part of this whole thing.

[@clellaadams]

Besides being scriptural ignorant. (The ESV is the favorite perversion of the Calvinists) you wrote a thesis on another man's youtube channel. Start your own channel if you want to write a chapter in your comments. 😅😅

[@joefrescoln]

According to Paul, boasting is ruled out on the principal of faith, he doesn't say that it's ruled out on the principle of the divine lottery. Romans 3:27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded! By what principle? Of works? No, but by the principle of faith!

[@SeanusAurelius]

@@joefrescoln It wouldn't be a 'lottery' though, would it. God's not a lottery ball. I'm not a Calvinist but "lottery' is silly, that's a straw man.

[@joefrescoln]

@@SeanusAurelius We're in agreement that God is not a lottery ball, the implications of their system, for us humans it is a lottery. Jacob picked for heaven and Esau picked for hell, BEFORE either of them had done anything good or bad. Esau lost the divine lottery, and Jacob won.

[@clellaadams]

What is sad is the calvinist's god is more akin to a devil from Greek mythology than the God of the Bible revealed from heaven by his Son Jesus.

[@robertwheeler1158]

I must say that I become very exasperated with Dr. Flowers, because he is constantly harping on predestination and determinism. And then when we point out to him that the Bible teaches both that God is sovereignly in control of all that takes place, but that He holds human beings accountable for their own actions, and we point out that there is an element of mystery involved, he accuses us of logical inconsistency, as though he is capable of fathoming the infinite mind of God. It is true that God created us in His image with the ability to think, reason and make decisions. And in a sense, the entire Bible is an account of God's interactions with the human race. But that does not detract from the central truths of salvation: TULIP. The question is, how does the Bible describe the condition of a lost sinner, and what does the Holy Spirit do to draw him to Christ?

[@SeanusAurelius]

My soteriology is close to that of a confessional Lutheran; that is, I affirm T and U, reject L hard, and don't see I or P as a huge deal. I was humbled by God and did NOT choose him of my own volition, it was only by his sovereign grace (and that not of a vague prevenient sort, but very imminent) BUT TULIP is not the Gospel, it's an explanatory theological framework thereof and not even the only monergistic one. Conflating the two is why so many people dislike Calvinism, and it's the grain of truth in these guys otherwise fairly wrongheaded thinking, IMO.

[@robertwheeler1158]

@@SeanusAurelius I may have overstated that a little. Obviously justification by faith is central to the gospel. But once you reject the T and the I, you have basically gotten rid of the new birth, and that's what really concerns me about Dr. Flowers' theology. There may not actually be much of a difference between us on the L. The Synod of Dort stated that the death of Christ was of infinite value and should be proclaimed to all. But hopefully we would both agree that noone is actually saved until he places his faith in Christ. So in that sense Christ died as a substitute for the elect, and effectively atoned for their sin and purchased their redemption.

[@SeanusAurelius]

@@robertwheeler1158 Why would rejecting I get rid of the new birth? A full blown Arminian can (in fact, does) accept the new birth, don't they? Even if there are some logical consistencies downstream. Re: Flowers, I think he is the mirror image of a hyper-Calvinist, has contempt for his Calvinist brothers, and TBH, probably considers Calvinists unsaved (he seems to let that slip from time to time although he dodges the question whenever it's put to him outright). Like a hyper-Calvinist, he's arguably heretical, and if not, then certainly right at the edge of orthodoxy. Re: L, of course noone is saved until they place their faith in Christ, and of course the atonement is ultimately effective for the believer in a way that it's not for the unbeliever. I understand that many moderate Calvinists and probably even Calvin himself recognised that we mustn't be too doctrinaire about L. In my case, I think that Christ is the propitiation of our sins and not only that but for the sins of the whole world, etc, etc, you know the passages. How? I plead mystery and justify it by arguing that a simple faith in God and reading the Bible with as little theological lens as possible outweighs logical coherence, which I concede the Calvinist system wins on. In other words, I place the atonement along with the Trinity, the idea of substitutionary atonement in general, and the other basic mysteries of the faith that we all accept.

[@robertwheeler1158]

@@SeanusAurelius I would be reluctant to accuse Dr. Flowers of having contempt for Calvinists, or of thinking that they are unsaved. He still has personal friends who are Calvinists. My big problem with him is that he is a debater, not an exegete. He's out to win an argument, even if he has to twist passages of Scripture ("de-Calvinize" them) to do so. It is true that Arminians (at least Wesleyan Arminians) believe in regeneration, and on the "T" don't really disagree with Calvinists. But on the "I" they believe in prevenient grace, and believe that grace is resistable. But they still believe in the active work of the Holy Spirit in conversion. Dr. Flowers does not. God simply makes the provision, and leaves it up to the individual sinner to decide with his own free will whether or not to accept it. Ironically, Dr. Flowers really agrees with Calvinists on the subject of reprobation -- God leaves sinners to decide for themselves whether or not to accept the gospel. What he denies is election and irresistable grace -- that God actively does anything to save anyone.

[@SeanusAurelius]

@@robertwheeler1158 Oh sure, Flowers' theology absolutely does undermine the new birth. I thought you were aiming at Arminians in general (lloking back, that was my fault, not yours). I personally don't get he *wants* to deny the active work of the Holy Spirit in the first place. On an experiential level, does he feel that he was completely unassisted by God when he came to faith? It's quite odd. The typical Arminian is motivated by wanting to preserve free will because they feel like they experience it every day, or because the Bible speaks of choosing, or as a downstream consequence of not-L, or maximising the kindness of God, etc, etc...Flowers' motivations *seem* pretty close to what his Calvinist critics might uncharitably assume, free will for his own autonomy's sake, although it's hard to tell because as you point out, he's a rhetorician first and a theologian second. Nice talking to you, God bless.

[@tedprice5828]

Calvin followed Augustine. This is what scripture says.

[@jeremiah5319]

Salvation is monergistic, according to the Bible says. Monergism means "the work of one" - in this context, namely, God. The real question would be, "Are Arminians saved, and if they are, why do they vehemently resist this truth?" Why doesn't the Holy Spirit inform them? Why doesn't the Holy Spirit HUMBLE THEM to accept that is is ONLY by the will and work of God that men are saved? If you can't answer those questions, maybe these? If one is born again, then loses his salvation, how is it that he "unbirthed" himself? And how many times can one be saved, then lose his salvation? I've asked this of many, but none can answer (because God's word says nothing of the sort). Example: 1992: A man is born again, with evidence of tongues ("babble gibberish"). 2008: Walked away from it all. Became "unborn again", i.e., lost his salvation, (but still can babble gibberish at will). 2015: The same man is born again (again); still able to speak in tongues. 2020: Lost his salvation (again), but can still babble gibberish at will. So, in 2009, was he still born again if he can still babble gibberish as he first did in 2002 after he 'got saved'? (If so, then how is babbling gibberish evidence of the Holy Spirit?) How many times can this cycle occur in a person's lifetime? What's the limit? What does God's word say about this? (Nothing at all.) Where's the scripture to support your answers? (I believe you have none, because it's just manmade doctrines you're promoting.) The main problem with the Reformation is that it didn't reform enough. Catholics still have many false doctrines, and salvation is one of them. Sadly, though, many who say they're not Catholics believe the same false doctrines. How is that possible?

[@SeanusAurelius]

Wouldn't a simple answer of "1" disarm the problem?

[@ericmchenryil5186]

I'm sorry, but the 5 points of armonionism completely go against the gospel message.

[@coreykeplinger3391]

I don't know if free will is in the Bible. Slave of sin or righteousness...

[@noybiznatch]

Romans 6:16 16 Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

[@TheRomans9Guy]

You’re a “slave” because you put yourself in bondage to one of those based on how you choose.

[@seanvann1747]

If one is a slave to righteousness does that mean they can no longer do anything unrighteous? 🤔

[@coreykeplinger3391]

@@seanvann1747 Are you asking because you don't know?

[@scwienert]

“Whom you present yourselves to obey” - the choice is ours. Romans 6:16 NKJV Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?

[@scienceandbibleresearch]

The reprobate will humble themselves for selfish reasons because they have free-will towards selfishness. They want to sin. Conversely, the elect will humble themselves for holy reasons because their will was changed by being born again by the Holy Spirit. That's the difference.

[@andrewtsousis3130]

The elect won’t humble themselves according to your doctrine, they can’t, so God humbles them? If so, God commands them to be Humble, then grants them the humility to be Humble? Is that what you mean?

[@scienceandbibleresearch]

@@andrewtsousis3130 : Yes. God makes them willing to be humble. God grants them the willingness to be humble for holy reasons.

[@TheRomans9Guy]

There’s no difference between these groups. All people are just people. There is no one who is sub-human. We’re all sinners and we’re all forgiven. Stop trying to separate people into two categories. It’s evil and unbiblical.

[@andrewtsousis3130]

@@TheRomans9Guy ? So you are saying God grants the humility to everyone? I’m confused, are you of the reformed view or something else?

[@andrewtsousis3130]

@@scienceandbibleresearch where does it say in the Bible that God grants Humility to people?

[@Jordankulbeck]

Maybe one day Leighton will humble himself by claiming he really has never understood the doctrines of grace so his strawman ministry might cease.

[@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi]

You criticize the Will of the "Soveriegn God "? You guys are amazing😮

[@RedeemedRogueMolecules]

In which instance did he misrepresent them?

[@koraegis]

I know he means well. But this host hates the God of scripture. And yeah I hope I’m wrong about LF…..but he is spreading the wrong gospel. Not that there is one

[@larrybedouin2921]

That is a false witness.