Totally true.

He's a molinist or he says he is at least.

@Ryan Buikema thats not how its spelled. Back to the books. We aren't talking about a nationality.

He sure is now. This interaction exposed the bankruptcy of provisionism so clearly.

It’s true.

@Ryan Buikema *arminian, as in the name of Jacob Arminius. Again, we're not speaking of nationalities, but disciples of the beliefs taught by the man Arminius.

Me too! Anytime I need a fresh breath of reformed air, I'll listen to one of his videos, lol. He solidifies the insanity of freedom of the will in almost every video he uploads. He cant help be be inconsistent in his theology because its unfounded.

@@joshhigdon4951 Have you heard the Consistent Calvinism Podcast yet? I believe you would enjoy it... kzfaq.info/love/aOUkMMHMSnDkuAF2aZ2alw

@@CCShorts I have not and will go check it out! Thank you!

@pk Amponn thats irrelevant. Can God create a rock so big He cant move it? Same thing. We are bound to freely choose what our wills desire.

@pk Amponn God determined that I would *want* to “make that comment”! “Force” is to weak of an argument! “Force” implies that God is in competition with another “force” and that would support the fallacy of Dualism! God is in control of EVERYTHING, including your “desire” and everything that leads up to and determines your desire. God does not have to “force” you to do what God has determined that you will “WANT” to do! -- In order for Leighton to “no longer be a Calvinist” he would *first* have to have been a Calvinist, and it is EXTREMELY obvious, to any real Calvinist, that Leighton NEVER was a Calvinist to begin with!

Absolutely

DW,.....MW is a 100% fraud, he has nothing to do with Biblical truth, or God.

@@tonybasoni8443 uh, no. We don’t have to agree on every issue with someone......there definitely are frauds out there and Mike Winger isn’t one of them.

@@DW-yq4zn ,.....MW 100% is one of them. If you understood the Bible you would clearly see this. Those that belong to Jesus understand the Bible, those that belong to the world do not.

@@tonybasoni8443 feel free to give me an example of someone you do think understands the Bible.

Agreed. I actually think Mike Winger will be a Calvinist at some point.

You know James white, he always has to be bashing and reacting to someone.

I totally agree. I love Mike and believe he is a sound teacher.

@@aaronladines9719 I did not see him bashing Mike. Did he?

KE,......MW is as unsolid as one can get. He has nothing whatsoever to do with God, and is a 100% false teacher just as is, LF. You are 100% deceived. Those few that belong to Jesus are not deceived.

Well ultimately you can't quite blame him. Calvinism is nothing more than determinism with a God label attached to it.

Calvinism is nothing more than faithful God-honoring biblical exegesis.

@@RyanSmith-zk4ve So basically determinism with theism added on. You can sugarcoat that all you like but ultimately that's what it boils down to.

Well the Logos is just a unifying force with a God label put on it. You could literally make this argument with any theology. Or Arminianism is just soft determinism with a God label on it

@@Cookiemunster779 I wouldn't consider myself an armenianist. I identify more with molinism. As far as the logos you are dead wrong on that. The logos isn't a binding unity with theism attached to it. Logos is God himself. Which is kind of the target of theism in the 1st place.

@Sage of Synergism from his mothers womb he was brought forth in iniquity. I guess OPs question has been answered, no. Could also go back to the Jacob and Esau story, but I know a synergist wouldnt dare go there would they?

@@joshhigdon4951 What in your mind constitutes a synergist?

@@TrueLifeAdventures That salvation depends in some way on something man does in addition to what God does. That can be obedience to the law, a profession or prayer, a man produced faith, or even just accepting a gift if salvation depends on man not refusing it. The monergist says that whatever acceptance, faith, good works, etc. a person displays is the result of having been saved and now being a new creation, and so is not in anyway causitive of salvation, as their salvation was accomplished by Christ before any of these things happened.

@@oracleoftroy That was a thoughtful answer and I sincerely appreciate it. I f I may, I'd like to ask you another question: Would you consider the Israelites who looked upon the brazen serpent for healing in the book of Numbers, would you consider that to be a monergistic work of God or a synergistic work of God? Thanks!

@@TrueLifeAdventures I would say that looking at the bronze serpent was synergistic. Anticipating where you are going with this, I would say that insofar as it is a symbol of Christ's death, the physical looking is disanalogous; else the guards and crowd at the crucifixion would have been saved by physically looking at Christ on the cross regardless of the state of their hearts. God operates regenerative grace differently than the grace provided in this serpent. Plus, they were already God's chosen people when God provided the bronze serpent to save them; they didn't become God's people by looking at the bronze serpent.

What you learned for your theo degree isn't what Calvies mean by "determinism" and "sovereignty". It is much more strict and specific than that.

Yep. Not hard to understand.

@@jamiejame911 read ch 9 of either the WCF or 2LBC, we believe in the will of man just not LFW, man’s will is free but God’s will is more free than man’s will Mans will is bound in the prison cell of sin until the spirit sets him free We give God all the credit for our salvation, and we praise him for his grace that taught our hearts to fear

@@jamiejame911 velociray is correct. Aristotle is just a human teacher and his ethical notions don't apply to God, despite your apparent worship of Aristotle. The Bible teaches both that God is sovereign and man is responsible (even if he is not capable of choosing otherwise).

@@chaleej5571 I'm pretty sure I've worn out my welcome... but, if "man is responsible (even if he is not capable of choosing otherwise)" then, since we are made by God, how is that any different than God shoving us in the pool and then condemning us for getting wet? Also, the answer isn't sovereignty. I'm not asking if God can do it. God, being God, can do whatever He pleases.

That is demonstrably false.

@@yvonnedoulos8873 You are technically correct! He started branching out and attacking Lutheranism when they noticed and started commenting on Leighton's Pelagianism. Has he attacked Arminianism yet? Roger Olson was the earliest person I'm aware of that pointed out the Pelagianism in the Traditionalist Statement, and after being on the show, he made comments specific to Leighton's Pelagianism. There is a pattern though; anyone that defends historic Protestant traditions against new heresy like Open Theism or old heresy like Pelagianism seem to draw Leighton's ire. Most disturbingly in my view is his willingness to join the side of Mormons and Atheists and anyone else who is standing against Reformed Theology. I've never seen him give any stand alone critique of these views, just a passing "I don't agree with them" as he joins forces with them to attack his true enemy; the historic Protestant faith. I mean, even when he sets out to give a positive case for his "provisionalism" it always ends up being about how it isn't Calvinism; and not something that stands up on its own.

@@oracleoftroy Dr. Flowers does not 'attack' anyone. Christians are called to be Bereans (Acts 17:11) comparing all teaching to God's Word. I see him simply doing just that and finding many 'systems' wanting. But then again, like you seem to hold to Calvinism, I hold to a non-Calvinistic perspective of Scripture even though I am a member of a PCA church and have studied many different Calvinistic versions. Unless you are truly willing to set aside all your presuppositions and what you think you know, and come to God's Word like a child, you may never leave your systematic. I encourage you to try it; it is quite freeing!

@@yvonnedoulos8873 ,.....LF has nothing whatsoever to do with God, he is a 100% false teacher that has zero Biblical understanding. He can only deceived those that do not belong to God/Jesus.

@@yvonnedoulos8873 _"Dr. Flowers does not 'attack' anyone."_ I didn't say he attacked a "one", as in a person, but named theological positions he opposes (is that word objectionable?), and named Lutheranism and Arminianism. He does "_" these other positions. I think "Attack" is a fine word for that blank; but perhaps you would prefer "critique"? "attempt to rebut"? "argue against"? "Oppose"? Given that _every single video_ on his channel in some way involves undermining Reformed soteriology, I don't think my impression of him taking "a belligerent or antagonistic action" (Merriam-Webster attack-noun sense 2) against Calvinism to be incorrect. _"Unless you are truly willing to set aside all your presuppositions and what you think you know, and come to God's Word like a child, you may never leave your systematic."_ I'm at least as convinced by this as you will be when I tell you that "Unless you are truly willing to set aside all your presuppositions and what you think you know, and come to God's Word like a child, you may never leave your systematic. I encourage you to try it; it is quite freeing!" Why should I leave my systematic? I find Reformed Theology on every page of the Bible; so why would I reject the Bible's teaching? I've examined scripture proofs people use against Calvinism, and they almost always require ignoring the context and importing an understanding that is refuted within 10 verses of the proof text. Or take White and Leighton as points of contrast: If I look through White's catalog of videos, I won't find a single example where White needs to Calvinize the Bible; yet Leighton (along with many other non-Calvinists) has spent quite a lot of time trying to fit passages into a non-Calvinist viewpoint. The very existence of "de-Calvinizing" videos and blog post, etc, says a lot about how obvious the Reformed position flows out of the explicit teachings of the Bible. The lack of similar videos from the Calvinist side reinforces the point. Worse, these 'decalvinizing' videos have to jump all over the Bible to inject an anti-calvinist understanding into a passage, where White just reads through a chapter in the original language verse by verse to understand the passage in its own context and lets the passage make it's own point. BTW, I'm also a member of the PCA, and I appreciate that they require holding to the Westminster Standards for their elders, yet merely ask that congregants respect the authority of the church leadership but don't require adherence to Reformed Theology beyond faith in Christ. I don't think our differences on these matters need to divide us and am glad that you haven't let it divide your own participation in your local congregation. There is plenty of room for passionate disagreement while at the end of the day being united in Christ.

yeah, he is ALWAYS dumping on open theism.

SolaScriptura21 Flowers teaches at a seminary, he teaches more than one thing. His KZfaq channel's focus is soteriology, he's obviously going to focus on that there. He's talking about open theism in this video. Clearly, he doesn't only teach or focus on one thing. Don't just thoughtlessly regurgitate what you hear critics like Dr. White claiming, it's unbecoming.

@Sage of Synergism That's simply not the biblical or reformed view of the purpose for God's sovereign decree of all things that come to pass whatsoever according to the counsel of his own will. It is however, extremely dangerous to claim that salvation is synergistic. Lest any man should boast.

So true! They are always so ironic and cannot help but to expose themselves at every turn. But Leighton still has to at least try to save face, because his stance is so very embarrassing, for it can never hold any biblical water.

@@benjamingallows well said.

@@benjamingallows Even most Calvinists believe salvation is partially synergistic (sanctification is part of our ongoing salvation...) and even scripture says we are God's "synergists/co-workers" in ministry and being part of the "building" with Christ as the head (I Cor 1:9 - it's where we get the English term synergism.) [Though I have met a few Calvinists who think all other Calvinists are synergists as they believe anything short of God applying Jesus' faith to a person's account and continually doing so would 'involve the person.'] But when it comes to God passing us from death to life, i.e. regeneration, that is done by God. He baptizes the new believer into the death and Resurrection of Christ (Rom 6) - we can't raise ourselves to life or forgive our own sin or do any of that. We do act as the "baptizee" - so it's not that we don't have a role there, it's just a passive one for the new believer. Overall, I find the monergism/synergism language too unhelpful as it is murky. Synergism has a slightly different meaning in Greek (share portions of labor) and English (augmented effectiveness when working together,) and both are different from the frequent Calvinist redefinition where even mere cooperation or consent counts as "working together." Then on top of that you have monergism, which wasn't a term until coined in the 16th century to smear non-Calvinists as somehow wanting to take partial credit for their own salvation, and generally contains far more connotations than merely "working alone." As for faith, it in every way *excludes* boasting. I'm not sure where on Earth the strange argument that if people were capable of coming to faith without prior regeneration or overwhelming enlightenment from God, that would somehow mean people get to "boast" in their salvation. Do people boast they partiallly gifted themselves when they accept a birthday present? No. So why would someone who humbly trusts that they can do no works or be righteous enough to be saved, but that the Lord Jesus Christ did it all, be somehow able to "boast" in that? Is humility pride, or trusting someone else's work taking credit for that work? ebible.com/questions/16904-what-does-it-mean-in-rom-3-27-that-boasting-is-excluded-because-of-the-law-that-requires-faith Question: Is monergism or synergism correct? See Answer: ebible.com/answers/17977?ori=167400

@@jenairothnie8796 "Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and *that not of yourselves*; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." "*he saved us*, *not because of works done by us in righteousness*, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit," "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, *for it is God who works in you*, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." "*All things have been handed over to me* by my Father, and *no one knows the Son* *except the Father*, and *no one* knows the Father *except the Son* and anyone to whom the Son *chooses* to reveal him." "When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "*With man this is impossible*, but with *God* *all things are possible*." "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? *BY NO MEANS*! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends *not on human will or exertion,* *but on God*, who has *MERCY*. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then *he has mercy on whomever he wills*, and *he hardens whomever he wills*. *YOU* will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are *YOU*, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” *Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?* What if God, *desiring to show his wrath* and to *make known his power*, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath *prepared for destruction*, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-

Please do, I agree. Mike really doesn't comprehend Calvinism but he fears the Lord and is humble in his own learning journey 👍

He's probably not misrepresenting calvinism. There are so many flavors. Luther, Calvin, McArthur, and Piper all teach different nuances. Consider Piper - to be saved you must first be regenerated by the Spirit, then receive salvation by faith, but are ultimately saved by works. There are multiple videos of him teaching this

@@jameswillison7195 I agree completely

@@mtac99 yes there are different nuances in secondary issues like baptism but I believe he is referring to the distinctive 5 points of reformed theology, which Piper agrees with and teaches. I believe you are misguided and have a misrepresentation of Piper, he definitely does not teach works as earning salvation in any way but as necessary evidence/fruit if regeneration. All who are elect and predestined are called, Justified, sanctified and finally glorified.

@@mtac99 What? Piper does not teach salvation by works but that works will accompany salvation as evidence of true regeneration.

This is a strawman statement If almost anyone actually had a direct message from G-D and tbey were sure HE was the ONE. They would obey. The non Calvinist point is. G-D decrees people to be and not to be Calvinist. Accordi g to Calvinism

No it's not. Because if God is the same God that Calvinism preaches, Then there is no good and there is no evil. It is only a narcissist programming machines. If God intended the goats to be goats from the beginning of time, Like Calvin claims, Then ultimately you can't fault the goats for being exactly what they were made to be. Therefore the goats cannot be evil since evil requires a choice. The sheep cannot be good since good requires a choice. The lambs can help but be lambs and the goats can't help but be goats. Which means it's impossible for God to be good.

Has God or anyone else ever put a gun to your head and forced you to do evil? No. You did it of your own volition. We are slaves to our nature, which is born sinful.

@@douglasmcnay644 If a man at a bar puts a drug in a woman's drink and then takes advantage of her, would you say she chose to do it of her own volition, that no one had a gun to her head? In the same way under calvinism, who is the one that determined what the post-fall nature of man would be like and then condemns man for acting upon that nature?

@@thepalegalilean You really really love Aristotle. It's no wonder that you are a blasphemer.

@@chaleej5571 I'm a blasphemer for telling the truth Charlie? Really? Do point out the Blasphemy for me please. But I know you can't do it. The truth is you're just butt hurt and so you have to refer to character assination as response. Ultimately at the end of the day if Calvinism is correct then so is my summary of it. The goats can't help but be goats and the lambs can't help but be lambs. And due to this fact there is no good and there is no evil. And due to the vacancy of good and evil being in cosmic reality, God can't possibly be good. But the good news is he can possibly be evil either. He just is. But that also makes your God a liar because he claims to be good. This is the destination your logic will take you to. If the shoe fits then wear it.

Thats what Catholics say about Cameron Bertuzzi and Catholicism. Not sure what the deal is with people craving for someone to join their denomination, saved is saved. Believing in Calvinism doesn’t change ur salvation status

@@Frosee14 It has nothing to do with "denomination" but everything to do with the individual putting faith in the true Gospel vs. a false one. There is no salvation outside of the Gospel, thus we pray that they will one day receive it.

Hopefully not.

@@jaked8537 are you claiming Mike Winger has not accepted salvation because he isn't a Calvinist?

@@Frosee14he became one 😂😂😂

According to Calvinism, he made them vessels of wrath to begin with And they had no choi e in the matter

@@goyonman9655 you mean according to Paul ? Romans 9:22... the potter.... preparing vessels....

Noncalvinists always start with Aristotle. His ethical teachings are their foundation apart from the Bible. Then they come to the Bible to try to fit the Bible into an Aristotalian system. But the God of the Bible is not subject to Aristotle. We don't choose "freely" (i.e. "randomly"). We don't choose based on nothing. Matt7:16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 33Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. Luke6:43No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. It goes back to the OT: Jer13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil. The Bible that teaches that our choices reflect our desires and understanding...our very nature and identity. There is nothing in the Bible that teaches that “our will must be 'free' in order for us to be held responsible” - quite the opposite. The problem comes when you reject Jesus and prefer Aristotle. It is important to understand that Calvinists do break the link between ability and responsibility. Human philosophy from the time of Aristotle teaches that if I don't have the ability to fly, then you would be wrong to try to hold me responsible for not flying. If I'm not capable of A, then you can't reasonably ask me to do A. It's reasonable from a human standpoint. You see this foundational (but unbiblical) principle implied by many noncalvinist teachers who point to God’s commands (“I have set before you life and death, therefore choose life…” or “Repent and believe!”) as evidence that we are “free to choose” and therefore must have the capacity to obey. Wouldn't God be evil according to this man-made human philosophy if He demanded the impossible? Oddly enough, biblical commands such as “Be perfect” and “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with ALL thy heart, and with ALL thy soul, and with ALL thy mind...” are never chosen as examples…because they more clearly demonstrate our inability. If we fail to keep one part of the law, we are guilty of breaking it completely. (Jam2:10) What person born of a human father can claim that he is truly capable of meeting this standard? (If you are witnessing to a nonbeliever and trying to explain to them that they need Jesus what would you tell them? That they are a sinner because they've broken God's law? Yet they could throw the principle above back at you and argue that a "good" God could never require the impossible and demand perfect obedience in the first place…but I digress.) Which is all to say that Calvinists believe that we remain responsible for our choices even if we could never have chosen otherwise. Aristotle may teach otherwise but the Bible says that we are responsible whether we have ability or not. When Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him 3 times, Jesus was certain. Peter was not "free" in any real sense to do otherwise (NOT because God made him deny but because he was choosing based on who we was and how he saw the world - he was choosing based on being Peter). His three specific denials in the future were as certain as anything he'd done in the past. Yet Peter was still responsible and was right to weep bitterly over his sin (Luke22:62) rather than deny responsibility as you seem to suggest would be more appropriate in that case. Jesus was a party to inspiring King David to write in the Psalms about Judas' coming betrayal 1000 years in the future. Then Jesus as the incarnate God-man within space and time recognized Judas and invited him to join the 12 in order to fulfill those Scriptures. Not because God forced him to be bad but God left him as he was...and he was not free to do otherwise. The Bible says it would have been better for Judas if he had never been born but he was and things played out exactly as God intended. Leighton Flowers is a blasphemer (and not all nonCalvinists are). He was decreed to be a blasphemer and is not free to choose otherwise. Yet he remains responsible for his foolishness. It is right to oppose him. God often uses such means in changing hearts. Calvinists understand that God is God and we are not. God declares the ends from the beginning. We can't see the future. Deut29:29 The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law. The "revealed things" that we all agree on include the truth that God will save all those who put their trust in Jesus. At the same time, it's useful to note that while Deut30 includes all manner of "I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live..." with many reminders that they were responsible to choose and if they chose death, it was no one's fault but theirs... the "secret things" were revealed in Deut31:16, where (in a bit of OT dark comedy) God speaks to Moses and Joshua and says, "So yeeaah...they are absolutely NOT going to choose life so here's what I want you to do..." That is the Biblical mindset. The people were not "free" to choose life, yet they were responsible to do so. Leighton Flowers remains responsible to correctly handle the Word of God, even if he is not capable of doing so.

@@chaleej5571 They didn't get it from Aristotle. They got it from the self. Same place Aristotle got it from.

I think we should be careful to source what "Calvinists" actually affirm. Your understanding of "Calvinism" doesn't seem to align with what actual Reformed Christians believe and have publicly confessed for centuries. Westminster Confession 3.1 states that God has ordained all that comes to pass, and in so doing, God establishes man's free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes through what he ordains. So yes, Leighton absolutely has the free will, liberty to make his choices as he does without there being any fixed necessity of his choices, and God will judge him for his choices. Yes God is in control by explicitly ordaining our freedom to act as we desire. God ordaining what comes to pass isn't a contradiction of our free will, it establishes our free will.

Well, Susan...even if you didn’t understand it. Open Theism is a system which tears down PSA, aseity, immutability, eternality and the Holiness of our God who is wholly other than us. God makes Himself known through scripture. Are you listening? Do you have ears to hear?

I agree, Susan. JW does seem to dance around to issue and simply criticizes. But it would take a strong person to willingly address the actual point of contention. I’ve watched him for too long and haven’t seen him able to manage that yet.

This is why I watch his program!! 🍿

Yeah, that's why many in that camp are so friendly to open theism.

@pk Amponn Of course Isaiah 46 talks about God being more powerful than idols. And why? Verses 9-11 clearly say that God declares based on His counsel and He will also bring it to pass and do it. God is saying in this verse what He does, not just that He is more powerful than idols. You would have to ignore so many verb actions in that verse to come to a conclusion that God isn't sovereign. You can't take the context of Proverbs 16:3 and cram it into 16:9. 16:9 says God directs the steps of the person. Again, a verb action that shows God is the determining factor of man's steps. The only way you could ignore this is to try to make verse 3 the context of verse 9. Psalm 135:6 says that whatever God pleases, He did (again, an action) in the heavens and earth. The next verses tell us what He did. God controls the weather in verse 7 (He determines); God killed the first born of Egypt (again, His actions which He determined); He sent signs and wonders to Egypt in verse 9; He smote great nations and killed kings in verse 9 and naming them in verse 10-11, and literally gave the land unto Israel in verse 12. God takes credit for all of it saying that He did it. Again, determined and then action. Acts 2:23 not only says God planned the crucifixion, but determined it would happen. And the next part of the verse says Jesus was slain with "wicked" hands, telling us the humans doing the killing are morally responsible while God delivered Christ up. And "delivered" is a verb, again an action. God did it. 2 Chronicles 20:6 tells us that God rules over the kingdoms of the heathen. And He has power and might so no one can withstand Him. The context of this chapter is the victory over Moab and Ammon from Judah. Yet if it was just Judah, why is God given the glory and said to have power and might if He doesn't determine the outcome? Acts 17:26 shows God as Creator and the determining factor of the times and the habitation of people. In other words, no person created themselves or where they would be born or where they would live. It is God that determines this. "Us" in Ephesians 1:4 speaks of the elect, which is why we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world (before Genesis 1:1). Are you telling me man determined to be in Christ before God ever created a human being in Genesis 1:1 when only the God-head existed? It's easy to pick one verse out of Romans 9 without starting at the beginning and going all the way through. To do so would not only show God's sovereignty, but ask and answer the two most common objections in Romans 9:14-24. I suspect that is why you ignored the rest of the context of this chapter. Open view of God? What does that mean? What Bible verse backs this up? John 12:47 has a context, and you can't take the word "world" and interpret it to mean "every single person that ever lived." It doesn't fit. I also noticed you ignored Daniel 4:34-35, which has plain language of God being sovereign and deciding. I haven't misinterpreted anything; I referenced the verses and you think I misinterpreted them, but I have taken the time to go over those verses. Show me in many of these verses where God isn't doing the action or isn't determining it based on the context and grammar, not your opinion. Regardless, I respectfully disagree with you. (And really quick, I'm not going to go into a back and forth debate with you because God's Word says what it says. If you want to believe it doesn't, then stop coming to videos that are against your view of God's sovereignty and go to like-minded people that think like you. Because I get the feeling you're not trying to sharpen another brother, but just prove you're "right." Well, I have no problem being corrected as long as the interpretation is based on context, content, grammar, and proper hermeneutics. Unfortunately, I don't think your interpretation does that.)

I think your observation is very accurate, which is terrifying considering that Leighton teaches theology at seminary.

@@christophersmith7412 If that's the case James is right, stop going to seminary, churches need to be training their own pastors for the role.

Another word he keeps using is responsible. People are responsible for their sin. The Bible never uses that term either.

I don't think it is wrong to per se, but then we need to be consistent with the terminology. It can get confusing when mixing philosophical language with biblical language. Leighton seems to use it as a crutch. He hears 'determinism' and pulls out all his arguments against a meterialistic deterministic universe instead of addressing the theistic compatiblist determinism the reformed side holds. He has been corrected over and over again, but it's all he has. 'Free will' is an area that bugs me. The Bible never speaks of it head on, it is purely a philosophical word. Calvinists affirm a compatiblist free will position, yet I see many who are not familiar with the philosophical distinctions claim they deny free will entirely. And biblically that makes s sense, our will is in bondage according to the Bible. We are either slaves to sin and Satan or righteousness and Christ. And similar, the non-calvinists go on about their 'libertarian' free will, but it is very rare that they actually understand what that actually means, and most of the time when you can even get them to unpack that, they will oppose the libertarian position in favor of a compatiblist one. The words end up masking their actual position rather than bring clarity. So there is a lot of wisdom in your father's approach.

Calvinist are Compatibalist not Determinist.

@@jonathanhauhnar8434 But compatibilism means determinism is compatible with free will. If you are a compatibilist, how can you not be a determinist?

@@oracleoftroy Could you give an example of how a correct understanding of compatibilism escapes Leighton's critiques of Calvinism? I'm not a Calvinist, but I always hear Calvinists talking about being strawmanned, so I want to try to not do that

WF,......Yes, LF has nothing whatsoever to do with God. He is 100% spiritually blind.

@@tonybasoni8443 I don’t know that I’d go that far, but I am very concerned I will (readily) admit. I’m praying God will open his eyes to his errors.

@@willisfletcher6260 ,....God does not bring someone into a totally false understanding of the Bible and then open their eyes later on. God brings those that are his straight into Biblical truth. The idea of a freewill gospel is an entirely different gospel to that of actual Christianity. It is another gospel. God does not bring those that are his into another gospel only to later take them out of it. Flowers is where he is because he does nor belong to Jesus, he belongs to the Godless world and its false manmade freewill gospel.

@@tonybasoni8443 well, you just wrote me out. For my first 6 + years I was a hard core free will believing Christian. Then God opened my eyes to my many errors. I was once close to a modalist, I then jumped straight into Arianism after that. Thankfully, God patiently drew me out of that mess. So, as I do have very grave concerns about Dr. Flowers, I leave the judging of his eternal state in his hands. But I agree that it doesn’t look good at this juncture.

RPT,......Yes, LF is nothing more that the dead leading the dead, and the blind leading the blind.

@10:12 of the video White points out Flowers most obvious error…Flowers determines what is the standard of what’s right/wrong and makes God live up to it…White corrects him Brilliantly…well done Dr.White

Exactly

Catholics posting their L's online

@@geckoniner5625 you're so desperate to be reactionary that you liked your own reply my dude.

@@crobeastness didnt like my own comment, thats gay lol im not you

From what I have heard/read, the decree of God is what WILL take place. God telling Abraham that He will make him the father of many nations through Isaac. The prescriptive will is like the Ten Commandments. These are things that we SHOULD be doing, but because of our fallen nature can't keep. So the difference is what God absolutely will accomplish vs what He wants us to hold to.

Judges14:2 Samson went down to Timnah and saw there a young Philistine woman. 2 When he returned, he said to his father and mother, “I have seen a Philistine woman in Timnah; now get her for me as my wife.” 3 His father and mother replied, “Isn’t there an acceptable woman among your relatives or among all our people? Must you go to the uncircumcised Philistines to get a wife?” But Samson said to his father, “Get her for me. She’s the right one for me.” 4 (His parents did not know that **this was from the Lord**, who was seeking an occasion to confront the Philistines; for at that time they were ruling over Israel.) Samson should not have been listening to "little Samson" - he was responsible to honor his parents and avoid foreign women who worshiped foreign gods. That was the stated law of God (Deut7:3) and God's prescriptive will. But Samson was not "free" and could only act like Samson, so God ordained/decreed to use Samson's disobedience. It was sin. It was also “from the Lord.” Gen45:5 And now, do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that **God sent me** ahead of you. Gen50:20 You intended to harm me, but **God intended it for good** to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery, but Joseph saw God as responsible. God decreed that he would be sold into slavery. God intended that he be sold into slavery. His brothers still needed to repent as they were wrong with respect to the prescriptive will of God. But God was not helpless in being forced to allow them to do evil according to their “free will.” Jesus (pre-Incarnation) was a party to God calling His shot roughly 1000 years before Judas was born in Psalm 41. Betraying an innocent man to those who want to murder Him is against the prescriptive will of God. Psalm 41:9 ...Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me. John 6:64 For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. John 13:18 “I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.’ It would have been better for Judas not to have been born, but Judas accomplished exactly the evil that was ordained for him to do. He was also completely responsible for his choice, even though he could not have chosen differently. Matthew 26:24 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

These are made up terms the Bible doesn't mention... Which you can liken to the Trinity. No mention of the word, but you believe the concept is there. But ultimately, at the end of the day, they are trying to explain reality. And that God is not the author of evil. Yet he is the author of creation which does have evil. And so not everything that occurs has been prescribed by God. I.e. it's not his prescriptive will. But it is still within his ultimate will and sovereignty to allow these things to occur. A fancy way of saying, God didn't want it to happen, you (anyone) to sin. He didn't prescribe it. But he did allow it.

Thanks for the answers! So is the prescriptive will strictly concerned with how people should behave? Does it or can it have anything to do with no-human events like weather/earthquakes?

What God decrees will happen vs what God commands. God decreed the murder of Christ (acts 4:28) vs do not murder. God decreed that He would harden Pharoahs heart vs let my people go.

YES!! Same here. Listening to their heretical theories humbles me and reminds me of all that my Lord and Savior has brought me out of! Only by God's grace, through faith in Christ alone have I been forgiven and set free from such insanity.

Oh brothers - hate to see it. INSANE and heretical; so easily thrown. I remember Paul calling Peter INSANE and heretical, when he corrected him. I think the chapter is called “INSANE heretic gets schooled”. Or when he split with Barnabas, hehe. I bet Jesus schooled his disciples, calling them insane heretics as well, when their faith proved itself small and inconsistent. It always bothers me when these loaded terms are thrown at brothers in Christ.

@@srendahl1232 Perhaps a more biblical term would be delusion, defined as a firm and fixed belief in that which is based on inadequate grounding.

He has a lot of great information!

@@christrescuedme2182 Delusion seems loaded, still. Let's call what is truly heretical and delusional just that. I think Winger is neither. Perhaps he's delusional in the sense of his ignorance of who God truly is and knowing him personally, fully. In that case I'm delusional as well and I bet I'm not the only one;)

Under theological determinism God 'programs' man to do evil. In that sense, God is "making people" commit evil deeds that God solely and in and of himself strictly thought up before time began.

@@jamiejame911 your absolutely wrong. You and everyone else thinks for themselves and chooses to do either GOOD or Evil. And as a fact to prove that God doesn't make anyone choose anything that he could force everyone to do Good and he doesn't even do that even though he could and that's why your premise is wrong

Why are you assuming Jesus had a free will. Jesus said he did the will of the father.

Jesus did what the Father told him to do.

At the end of one of his debates with Flowers, Matt Slick posed a similar question. Leighton couldn't answer the question. Caught totally off guard. It was very very revealing. Both debates were very very good and very very revealing!!!

Dr. Leighton isn't an Open Theist, so it's probably better to ask niche questions like that from actual Open Theists. I'm not an OT either, and I wouldn't know how to answer since I don't know how exactly they see it (and there can be variations, like any view.) If I had to guess, I would suppose the Open Thiest would see it as God knows *His own character* perfectly well. So the Father would know 100% that Jesus would 100% choose to follow His will, as their wills were aligned in that. So in all possible futures, there would never be one where Jesus would sin. Since Jesus' perfect character was known from eternity, His character on Earth (despite coming in human flesh and facing human temptations) would not actually be a future unknown. Open Theists don't seem to believe in an "anything can happen" future, just one where not everything is set.

@@billyr9162 I don't think you understood my question. I was asking from the perspective of an open theist. Does that make sense?

So is free will an unbiblical mindset towards the Lord.

I guess you like misquotations of the Bible. You must not like exegesis. Also flowers has some of the worst logic I’ve ever listened to. It’s sad honestly how many people listen to this guy.

@@SquishyyyBeaner 100% you are entirely biased. Flowers has single handedly retires James White. You nor James has actually refuted anything Flowers had ever said, I've been in this debate for many years now. Flowers logic and exegesis are perfectly fine. You and all Whities are living a life of sinful denial. The reason why James is hiding from Flowers through his unrealistic and unfair debate requirements is simply James knows he's beat in facts, logic and exegesis and is hiding through his Greek only requirements for debate. This also, is habitual sin from James. It is typical however that all Calvinists must claim that all English translations are false since you are required to retranslate away words like any, all, world, whomever, whosoever etc. Feel free to search for my video on Kosmos Sozo to check my logic and exegesis on John 3:17.

@@JStevensdk7 seems like your comment is 100% biased. Flowers puts up a weak straw man and tears it down. Also he gets more hateful everyday. Listening to him is toxic.

I would listen to Flowers get schooled by Dr Stephen Boyce on TGT. Matt Slick devastates him also.

@@joelwoody517 Flowers has already refuted both extremely thoroughly and repeatedly. I love your imagination however you should work for Disney 🤣

@pk Amponn No!!! there is no problem for he is God like The Bible says (Which he is) for he created all things seen and unseen. Rev 10:5-6 (Time no longer)

Time is the earth going around the sun isn't it?

@@billyr9162 Time effects everything in creation, the rotation of earth around the sun has nothing to do with it. We grow old and die, so does everything else. When time ends there won't be a past or future it's beyond comprehension.

@@SteveWV How would you know what time had an effect on a billion light years away in a black hole somewhere? I don't think people in outer space if they didn't have a watch wouldn't know what time it was. I think that's a problem in outer space from what I've read. They don't even know when to sleep.

@@billyr9162 You sleep when you get tired. Just because you don't have a watch doesn't mean time doesn't exist. All things are affected by it planets die and stars die, things wither away and die nothing stops that no matter where it is. Even black holes dissipate according to scientists like Stephen Hawking. Even an atheist like him had to admit creation submits to time.

Sorry, but he doesn't live to please your personal preferences. His podcast is something he does on his own, it is not a biblical office that he is under an obligation to administer and never simply discuss what he wants.

If you would like more focused content directed towards Flowers videos consider the Consistent Calvinism Podcast... I believe you would enjoy it... kzfaq.info/love/aOUkMMHMSnDkuAF2aZ2alw

@@Michael_Chandler_Keaton I'm just sharing my opinion. What he does with it is between him and God. (Although he might want to ask himself why he constantly goes off on unrelated rabbit trails. What's the telos? If his videos are a ministry [which they are], then he should occasionally make time to ponder if he's maximizing the 'talent': these rabbit trails don't glorify God; and they certainly doesn't glorify the audience. Whom does that leave? Food for thought.) Also, if it irks and frustrates one person, odds are that it irks/frustrate others too. How many? (Good question for a ministry leader to reflect on.)

@@CCShorts Thanks. (FWIW I gave up listening to Flowers. His disregard for logic is depressing)

@@timffoster I actually like Dr White's "rabbit trails" and often find unexpected nuggets in them. Be very careful not to allow your personal opinion to decide what does and does not glorify God. An "imperfection" in a presentation from a sincere heart glorifies God more than a "perfect" presentation born out of wrong motives.

Everybody does

It’s not true. Flowers is a con man.

Yep! His whole purpose is to be an anti-Calvinist.

Noncalvinists always start with Aristotle. His ethical teachings are your foundation apart from the Bible. Then you come to the Bible to try to fit the Bible into an Aristotalian system. But the God of the Bible is not subject to Aristotle. We don't choose "freely" (i.e. "randomly"). We don't choose based on nothing. Matt7:16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 33Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. Luke6:43No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. It goes back to the OT: Jer13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil. The Bible that teaches that our choices reflect our desires and understanding...our very nature and identity. There is nothing in the Bible that teaches that “our will must be 'free' in order for us to be held responsible” - quite the opposite. The problem is that you reject Jesus and prefer Aristotle. It is important to understand that Calvinists do break the link between ability and responsibility. Human philosophy from the time of Aristotle teaches that if I don't have the ability to fly, then you would be wrong to try to hold me responsible for not flying. If I'm not capable of A, then you can't reasonably ask me to do A. It's reasonable from a human standpoint. You see this foundational (but unbiblical) principle implied by many noncalvinist teachers who point to God’s commands (“I have set before you life and death, therefore choose life…” or “Repent and believe!”) as evidence that we are “free to choose” and therefore must have the capacity to obey. Wouldn't God be evil according to your man-made human philosophy if He demanded the impossible? Oddly enough, biblical commands such as “Be perfect” and “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with ALL thy heart, and with ALL thy soul, and with ALL thy mind...” are never chosen as examples…because they more clearly demonstrate our inability. If we fail to keep one part of the law, we are guilty of breaking it completely. (Jam2:10) What person born of a human father can claim that he is truly capable of meeting this standard? (If you are witnessing to a nonbeliever and trying to explain to them that they need Jesus what would you tell them? That they are a sinner because they've broken God's law? Yet they could throw the principle above back at you and argue that a "good" God could never require the impossible and demand perfect obedience in the first place…but I digress.) Which is all to say that Calvinists believe that we remain responsible for our choices even if we could never have chosen otherwise. Aristotle may teach otherwise but the Bible says that we are responsible whether we have ability or not. When Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him 3 times, Jesus was certain. Peter was not "free" in any real sense to do otherwise (NOT because God made him deny but because he was choosing based on who we was and how he saw the world - he was choosing based on being Peter). His denials in the future were as certain as anything he'd done in the past. Yet Peter was still responsible and was right to weep bitterly over his sin (Luke22:62) rather than deny responsibility as you seem to suggest would be more appropriate in that case. If he was just doing as the Lord decreed, then nothing to be ashamed of, according to you. Jesus was a party to inspiring King David to write in the Psalms about Judas' betrayal 1000 years in the future. Then Jesus as the incarnate God-man within space and time recognized Judas and invited him to join the 12 in order to fulfill those Scriptures. Not because God forced him to be bad but God left him as he was...and he was not free to do otherwise. The Bible says it would have been better for Judas if he had never been born. If he was just doing as the Lord decreed, then nothing to be ashamed of, according to you. Leighton Flowers is a blasphemer (and not all nonCalvinists are but he fits). He was decreed to be a blasphemer and is not free to choose otherwise. But he is responsible for his foolishness. It is right to oppose him. God often uses such means in changing hearts. Part of the problem is that Calvinists understand that God is God and we are not. God declares the ends from the beginning. We can't see the future. Deut29:29 The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law. The "revealed things" that we all agree on include the truth that God will save all those who put their trust in Jesus. At the same time, it's useful to note that while Deut30 includes all manner of "I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live..." with many reminders that they were responsible to choose and if they chose death, it was no one's fault but theirs... the "secret things" were revealed in Deut31:16, where (in a bit of OT dark comedy) God speaks to Moses and Joshua and says, "So yeeaah...they are absolutely NOT going to choose life so here's what I want you to do..." That is the Biblical mindset. The people were not "free" to choose life, yet they were responsible to do so. Leighton Flowers remains responsible to correctly handle the Word of God, even if he is not capable of doing so.

Have you even listened to Dr. Flowers vs. White's strawmen? As Dr. Flowers puts it, "Of course God is sovereign!" He just doesn't think God is so un-wise He "has" to play both sides of the chessboard to win a chess game. God is sovereign over all (power, authority, domain, right to set laws and enforuce judgements, etc.) but that doesn't mean God must 'determine' all things to ensure they come to pass. God isn't so powerless that if He allowed humans a bounded level of freedom that would somehow "thwart" His plans. In the Provisionist view, God's sovereignty is like an infinite sphere. God may choose, as He pleases, to set up lesser spheres of sub-sovereingty that are still supject to His own - i.e. God is "King of kings." So He might delegate tasks and territories for angels, routes for the stars, tasks and laws for nature, etc. God can set these up, guide them, overiide them, or give them limited freedom within boundaries as He pleases. And we see this with humanity as well. We are strictly bounded - such as we cannot go to the past, override the laws of physics, control other people, etc. But we can move within limited bounds, and choose to obey or disobey, to do right or wrong. But if we do wrong it is not because God decreed it, but because we chose to violate God's decree. Hence, because God *is* sovereign, God can judge us and condemn us. Or, He can show mercy. Question: How does God's sovereignty work together with free will? See Answer: ebible.com/answers/17091?ori=167400 White completely misrepresents Leighton Flowers, over and over, and seems to have no interest in actually understanding his position. Flowers isn't "threatened" by God's sovereingty, he's pushing back on the inferior Calvinist re-definition of "sovereign" that does not mesh with God's character, wisdom, power, justice, or will as revealed in scripture.

@@jenairothnie8796 Where do you find libertarian free will in the Scriptures? Your well written response is a philosophical argument, not an argument from Scripture.. Yes, I've listened to Flowers and let him speak for himself.

@pk Amponn Man is not sovereign over any part of God's will. In the case of laws, rules, and order (God's prescriptive will) it is precisely *because* God is sovereign above all that He can set those rules and punish those humans who do not keep them. God giving mankind limited freedom to move inside boundaries (but not legal permission to break commands) does not threaten or override God's sovereignty in any way. Question: How does God's sovereignty work together with free will? See Answer: ebible.com/answers/17091?ori=167400

​@@CrestviewScott "But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that your goodness will not be out of compulsion, but by your own free will." Phil 1:4 That certainly looks like libertarian free will...doing good because you freely want to do you, and consent to do that good, pretty much undermines the thought that one was unconsentingly decreed before time to want and do that good. "I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of mine heart I have willingly offered all these things: and now have I seen with joy thy people, which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee." I Chron 29:17 God is "trying" the heart - something He would literally have no need of doing if the heart were incapable of willingly offering anything to God, or if God had decreed every intention of those hearts, etc. "Very truly I tell you, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me." John 13:20 Here we have to dive a little into the Greek, as the Engish isn't as specific. That word for receive/accept? It's lambanó - a term used many times in the NT for accepting the gospel, Christ, the gospel, etc. It means to "accept with initiative" or to "actively lay hold of what is offered." That is, it's an active receptance with volition - one sees what is offered and willingly takes it. It doesn't refer to a gift passively received (like life or sunshine) nor would it easily apply to a gift where one's willingness to take it had been pre-decreed or rendered certain without one's involvement. biblehub.com/greek/2983.htm There are several similar terms used for reception/acceptance throughout the NT (a bit many to list out on KZfaq) which show our active involvement in freely accepting the gospel and welcoming Christ. All of those terms only make sense in a non-deterministic framework where a human can willingly choose to receive Christ when confronted with God's offer.

@@jenairothnie8796 oh boy. You claim to want to dog in to the Greek, yet you use a translation (especially for Phil 1:14) that uses a term “free will” that isn’t even close to the Greek. I’m busy this evening with family stuff, maybe I will get back to you, maybe not. I’m not much for back and forth a on social media. Especially with someone who it seems is trolling sites they don’t like in order to argue about something they’re obviously ignorant of, meaning you obviously are ignorant of what Calvinists actually believe.

I agree... it is obvious Leighton never was a Calvinist. Have you heard the Consistent Calvinism Podcast yet? I believe you would enjoy it. He has started directly addressing leighton’s videos. kzfaq.info/love/aOUkMMHMSnDkuAF2aZ2alw

@pk Amponn Yes. Just because you don’t know/understand the purpose behind why God determines something to come to pass does not prove that God did not determine it to come to pass!

@pk Amponn God decreed that Leighton would follow the desires of his heart, yes. Just like we see occur in scripture (see above, Isaiah 10, Acts 4:27-28 and more). So yes, God decrees whatsoever comes to pass in time, yet to imply that this means that God "caused" it or that the creature has no will or responsibility is to present a straw man that in no way represents anything Calvinism teaches.

The descent from truth into error always starts gradually. Leighton even admitted in his last video with Dr. Curtis Dupree, that he had previously just been a "moderate" Calvinist. No wonder he got bogged down with inconsistencies, for moderates can never harmonize all of the essential doctrines of the gospel.

Agreed. And I highly recommend the 3 part video series, Amazing grace, the history and theology of Calvinism.

Predestination as described and defined in scripture is true. Calvinist predestination to salvation? No. That is not true. It's not a matter of us being unable to comprehend or understand God - it's a matter of the Calvinist teachings on predestination are not found in scripture (without reading a lot of pre-assumptions in, anyway) and actually contradict God's revealed character from scripture. So we can know it is a false man-made theory. ebible.com/questions/3697-are-we-predestined-to-know-christ Note that every "good and perfect gift" comes down from the Author of Heavenly lights (James 1:17) - not every twisted and evil thing. God doesn't decree people to sin - He decrees people to be good and then mercifully makes a way for us to still be saved when we inevitably fail at keeping those decrees. He doesn't tempt people (James 1:12-18) or pre-determine that they will fall into temptation - but makes a way out of temptation when we are tempted by our own desires. God can redeem any circumstance, work any evil man does to good, bring blessings in abundance out of any trial, etc. - but that doesn't mean He was also planning and ordaining every sinful thought of man to begin with. He's not a God of parallax or duplicity (James 1:17.) [If anything, the Calvinist theory on predestination does *not* show God with the power to do anything, as it doesn't allow God to work evil He did not pre-decree to good, nor allow God to give people limited freedom and the un-determined choice to say no, etc. For non-Calvinists, we agree God has the power to do anything, but that He binds Himself by His own Holy and just character so there are things He will never do - like decree someone to reject Christ or decree someone to sin.] Nor does God predestine before time what specific individuals will come to Christ. Rather, He has predestined that He will save all believers and unite them in Christ, and that those in Christ will be given every spiritual blessing in Christ. ebible.com/questions/3697-are-we-predestined-to-know-christ ebible.com/questions/6106-what-does-it-mean-by-god-chose-us-in-him-before-the-foundation-of-the-world-to-be-holy ebible.com/questions/3273-how-are-predestination-and-election-connected-with-foreknowledge

You think of Mike Winger as an enemy of God?

That's a sad statement. They are Christian brothers.

@@zachboles8466 No 21st. They believe in a god of their own making.

@@jonathanwick5582 James White clearly refuted Winger on Acts 13:48. Winger ignored it.

@@jameswr1958 Christians can disagree on certain issues and still be brothers.

Flowers is someone whose theology is very close to semi-pelagian and he likes to flirt with open-theism. I would define him as a man whose "ministry" is best avoided.

He hates God because he loves himself. Jesus said to hate yourself in order to belong to him. Flowers does not belong to Jesus.

It doesn't say he could have a change of plans. He told Jeremiah that he could speak of it in that way.

@@billyr9162Yes it does between 7-10. Verse 8 literally says "if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it." Obviously He's not going to change His plan for no reason or a bad reason, but the fact He can change His plan at all is evidence for Open Theism.

@@BandyAndysExcellentEssays No it doesn't. It says he might speak like that. That is what he will command them. And right after that he tells Jeremiah what to say and what their response will be. All the grammar is important. All the context is important. All the words are important. Without it you cannot derive the meaning.

@@billyr9162 I literally quoted (copy and pasted) the verse verbatim and you're still in denial of what it says because in your mind, Open Theism must be false, no matter what the Bible says.

@@BandyAndysExcellentEssays You didn't quote the whole thing. 18:7 At one moment I might *speak* concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 18:8 if that nation against which I have *spoken* turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. 18:9 Or at another moment I might *speak* concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 18:10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. I highlighted the word speak so you could see it.

That sounds like a good rebuttal against something. Not Reformed Theology, not something anyone actually believes, as far as I'm aware, but something. Biblically (and on Reformed Theology) God created everything, including our heart, and said it was very good. In the garden, humans sinned against God and corrupted their heart, setting themselves against God. God has to create in us a clean heart, or replace our heart of stone with a heart of flesh (to bring up two biblical analogies) in order for us to set aside our hatred of God and submit to him in love. This isn't God controlling our minds, it is God restoring his creation to its intended state after we broke it. I'd recommend reading the Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 9 to dispel some common myths and see for yourself the Reformed affirmation of human free will and what we say that entails.

@@oracleoftroy Thanks! My point though was if God only creates a clean heart for 1 person then others can’t have a clean heart because God didn’t choose them? In that case is the one person giving their life up for Jesus still, if so is it because he was made to love God. And the other people would just be continuing their rebellion to God and they have no choice to love Him because they weren’t given a new heart. I suppose I have a lot of reading and thinking to do haha

@@ZachFish- _"In that case is the one person giving their life up for Jesus still, if so is it because he was made to love God."_ No, not quite. He freely comes to Jesus willingly, having been regenerated by grace. He isn't made (as in forced) to love God, that flows naturally from spiritual birth. _"And the other people would just be continuing their rebellion to God and they have no choice to love Him because they weren’t given a new heart."_ Not exactly. They have a choice, and they choose to reject God. If God leaves them to their own desires, they will continue to choose to rebel and sin. If God shows mercy to them and gives them a new heart, they will choose to love and serve God. Reformed Theology is a compatibalist position, and I suspect you are inserting incompatiblist assumptions. If God does something, that does not take away our responsibility in that thing, and if we do something, that does not take away God's role in doing that same thing. Gen 50: 20 gives a very nice example, where Joseph is speaking of the sin of his brothers who sold him into slavery, he equally credits his brothers and God for that action, yet notes a moral distinction between them: "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." So we are sinners by nature due to the fall. Yes, if God doesn't step in, we will continue to sin and rack up condemnation. But we freely choose to sin and reject God and are fully guilty for it. God didn't make us sin. If God does show mercy, it isn't because we earned it, but because God is merciful and gracious, even to rebellious sinners who want nothing to do with God. And when God shows mercy, he gives us spiritual life that enables us to love him. That isn't God making us love him, we are freely loving him according to our new nature.

@@oracleoftroy Yea I guess I’m just trying to understand how the unsaved have a chance to love God if God has to make that decision. I know God is sovereign, it’s just a little confusing of a topic and I need to put time into studying more about it. Thanks for the help 👌🏽

@@ZachFish- Have you ever written a story?

As a bit if a defense of Mike, he seems to me to be concerned with two things: accurately representing biblical teaching and not being a dreaded Calvinist. When he teaches the Bible apart from any discussion of Reformed theology, he often gives very solid Reformed answers. He isn't Reformed, yet he is closer than he knows. It's when he has to contrast his views with 'Calvinism' that he often seems to be in a bind. But when faced with the choice of twisting scripture or twisting Calvinism, he will follow scripture and instead claim Calvinists believe something else even where he gives the same answer we give. I honestly find it refreshing, as most people seem to do both; lie about Calvinism to make it seem as evil as possible, and twist scripture to fit their man-centered theology. With Winger, I get the impression that it is not malicious, but rather the result of faulty reasoning: I believe X (where X is a biblical truth), I am not a Calvinist, therefore Calvinists must believe not-X.

@@oracleoftroy I agree. I think Mike Winger is sincere and not purposely twisting reformed theology, he just is ignorant of what it actually is, and ignorant of church history. But I still think he has a condescending attitude toward reformed theology, and is a bit patronizing to reformed persons like me. I hope he eventually studies the tenants of Calvinism and re visits church history if he has visited it before.

The hardest thing to do is to let go of self. Free will belief is just a form of not letting go of self.

@@mariosangermano5709 You have to understand that Winger is Calvary Chapel, the denomination that loves to villainize the Doctrines of Grace. Think: Dave Hunt who influenced a lot of CC pastors. Winger is in an environment that will not allow him to see the truth of a calvinistic God. It was always in vogue to bash "calvinism" when I was in CC, and it's no different today. The exam that CC pastors have to take to be certified is very much geared toward what they call "calminianism." Chuck Smith thought he was blending Arminianism and Calvinism but because he didn't know Church history or the real teachings of Arminius and Calvin, he created a whole group of people who haven't a clue either. In fact, Chuck's document on his calminianism is just a rehash of Arminianism! Yet, they like to think they are taking the best of both camps and blending them.

@@carolberubee thanks for the info. I didn't know that.

What, you think the serpent just snuck into the garden without God's awareness or allowance?

@@dustincampbell4835 my question had MUCH more to do with far more than Adam and Eve's sin.

@@duncanwashburn so did mine.

@@dustincampbell4835now we are going round and round as a merry-go-round; looks like we will get no where fast. Oh well.

He didn't ask him what he must do in order to be saved as if he wasn't at that moment. The verb there is an aroist subjunctive. It isn't saying what I must do at a time in the future. It's a Greek form of the verb that means what do we do now. Therefore it doesn't negate being chosen.

God has loved, given common grace, shown mercy to, and been exceedingly patient with his enemies. Of which everyone of us are/were prior to salvation. God will also judge the wicked and the world on the day of His wrath. And if believers had not obtained unmerited, grace and mercy through the work of Jesus Christ; then we too would justly be the recipients of God's wrath.

@@dustincampbell4835 does YHVH extend unmerited grace and mercy to ALL humans?

@@duncanwashburn if we live one second after the first time we make a conscious decision to sin, then He has extended us all grace (unmerited by definition) and mercy.

@@dustincampbell4835 I believe you dodged my question. No big deal.

@@duncanwashburn I'm sorry you feel that way but I believe I answered your question. Maybe you could reframe the question?

Their denial is determined. Why are you mad? 😂

@@ThePettiestOfficer_Juan117 This is what I don't understand about Calvinists. If everything is determined by God then why do anything. How much you know, what you will do, has all been determined. Why preach the gospel or comment on youtube.

This comment is nonsense and I think you know it. I would hope you would be capable of showing a bit more charity to your non-calvinist brothers

@NicoCoco Demonstrate where this has ever been said or eluded to by LF.

irony,people keep thinking it was james' channel

No it’s not up to you that’s true but God will move you to do what is needed for his will. Calvinism doesn’t lose the importance of evangelism

For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. *One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"* *But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?* "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--

@@Cookiemunster779 For a calvinist to suggest you can somehow evangelize an individual who is totally depraved is ridiculous.

@@benjamingallows If you're referring to Romans 9, may I suggest you read the entire chapter and consider the context. The great dilemma is Romans 9 is not individual election but the controversy that God would make salvation available to the gentiles and not just the "elect" Jews who rejected God and his Messiah. And might I add, while it is obvious that the chosen people of God rejected him, Calvinists teach this is impossible

@@mtac99 It must be hard for you to kick against the goads. Is this the cost of your desire for freedom apart from God?

God

@@billyr9162 According to the logic of Calvinism, that's exactly right. Which makes God the author of sin and evil. Thank you sir.

@@TrueLifeAdventures Yes

@@billyr9162 Thanks!

@@TrueLifeAdventures There is no other author.

At least not yet...With the way things are going with the SBC, that may not last long.

This is true. He claims to be equally appalled at both "determinism" and open theism but the evidence is there that he is being dishonest.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

What determines good or bad in an indeterminate universe?

@@oracleoftroy Good question

It's called man free will. No sinner goes to hell kicking and screaming. Hence their just punishment. On the other hand, those who believe have been drawn to accept the provision.

I found the clip of Leighton reacting to it even funnier. Leighton "I was totally a Calvinist guys, why don't you believe me" Flowers had just started calling his new system "Provisionism" and then discovered that Calvinism has always had a theology of God's provision. One would think he should have known that if he was a Calvinist minister for 10 years or whatever he claims to have been.

It is not stupid. God fitted the vessels of wrath for destruction.

I think first, we need to acknowledge that "determinism", "free will", and other related topics all stem from philosophy rather than Biblical depictions of God and man. I don't think it is wrong to frame scripture into philosophical terms, scripture certainly gives a philosophy, but it can be a bit too removed from the plain statements the Bible does give. Second, even in philosophy, determinism and free will isn't just two narrow theories about how things work, it is several categories of theories with many particular theories within them them. Some even say those two things aren't opposites, but compatible with each other. A huge part of the problem is that most people talking about 'determinism this' and 'libertarian free will that' aren't able or willing to even define their terms. They don't seem to understand the issues well enough to explain it, but they demand you accept their conclusions anyway or they will call you names. That aside, I think when most people stop to think about it, they recognize that determinism needs to have some sort of role in free will in order for it to make sense and have some sort of moral accountability. To be completely indeterministic is to make free will indistinguishable from randomness. If someone was on trial for murder, we don't think they are guilty because it randomly happened, we think the person is guilty because they set in motion events with deterministic consequences that were designed to kill the other person. We know that there is a deterministic outcome to loading a gun, pointing it at another person, and pulling the trigger. We judge the person by their intent and knowledge. We would judge an animal or child who happened to get ahold of a gun differently from a normal adult. Similarly, we normally think of our beliefs as determined by some sort of reasoning and logic. We don't just believe things randomly, we believe _because_ of reasons A, B and C. Those reasons determine our beliefs. If we change our mind on one of those things, the conclusion we now reach will change because of the causal relationship between our reasons and the conclusion. Someone doesn't just randomly believe in indeterminism, their belief is determined by a chain of reasoning based on their presuppositions about how thinks work. They need determinism to reason to the conclusion that determinism doesn't exist. This should highlight that just saying it is determinism OR free will is an oversimplification. If you could not determine to do what you freely willed to do, what good is your free will? You need determinism to actually do your will. Or to say as some do that God created humans with free will (as Calvinists and many other Christians say) is to acknowledge determinism on the part of God, he did something with intent and deterministic consequences to a purpose. God didn't just say "let there be light" and by sheer coincidence, light just happened to appear at that moment. Humans aren't the product of random chance in Christianity, but the result of a mind with intent and purpose determining their design. So I think most of the arguments trying to do the whole "Calvinism is determinism and that's bad" thing have a hard time even offering an alternative that is intellectually, morally, and intuitively satisfying when we really try to get dirty and work through the issues. The critique always relies on shallow unexamined definitions of what is being claimed.

Why would it be agreeges to say that God is the author of his own story?

Calvinists are often accused of making God the author of sin, all because they don’t adhere to the damnable heresy of open theism. Such accusations fail to acknowledge that the human capacity to sin comes from the fact that we were made changeable, which means we fell from our original uprightness due to our changeability. “God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29). God will not make another God. Therefore, only He is unchangeable, not the creatures He has made. So when He made man, He made him changeable. Man is not God, which explains mans capacity to sin. God is not the direct and efficient cause of sin, man’s creature fallibility is, which is why man can still be held accountable by God. God is not the author of sin and He Himself cannot sin, which is one reason why He's the only One Who has an absolute free will, because He's completely free from sin. So unless one wants to claim sinless perfection, one cannot consistently claim to have an absolute freewill. But Arminians will mockingly ask: “What evil is God restraining if God decrees everything that shall come to pass? His own evil that He decreed?” Answer: That is a strawman. Because God decreed the ends as well as the means, by which He accomplishes His purposes, which includes the creaturely will of man. His decree establishes secondary causes.

@@christrescuedme2182 God is the author of sin. Some Calvinist just trying to run away from it.

What you describe isn't Calvinism, but the heresy of hyper-Calvinism. Calvinists confess that God ordains human free will and the liberty and contingency of second causes (Westminster Confession 3.1); a clear refutation of any fatalistic understanding of how God interacts in his creation. I'd recommend reading chapter 9 of the Westminster Confession for the Reformed affirmation of human free will. You might find it interesting as it affirms much of what you seem to be affirming while denying the position you claim is the Calvinist one.

@@billyr9162 _"God is the author of sin. Some Calvinist just trying to run away from it."_ I think this is too vague and it depends on how you apply the analogy. We deny that God directly controls our thoughts and deeds like an author penning the actions of a character in a novel. In that way, man, not God, is the author of their sin. But God is the creator and sustained of this world, and if 'author' is being treated in that way, yes sin would not exist unless God created the world, just as Hamlet's sins would not exist if Shakespeare had not created his play. But even then, just as we don't hold Shakespeare guilty of murder because his characters murder people, God isn't guilty for the sins of his creation (the usual conclusion those who peddle the 'author of sin' analogy want to reach).

Knowing the story and writing the story are two different things.

@@maxamos7 no Duke you are not thinking clearly. Go back to your own idea of Salvation. God could point out to you individuals who are alive today who will never believe. And then those people are doomed from the womb.... God knew these individuals before he created them. He knew their ultimate Destiny day one, even before... Doomed from the womb...your theology. Why would Christ died for sins of people who are already in Hell who he knew would never believe? And did he really die for their sins according to your Doctrine? No! He only potentially died for their sins! They have to add their own self-initiated faith to make it all work!

@@Rbl7132 I'm not arguing against what you are saying. I actually have no idea what you are arguing against. I'm merely saying knowing the story is not the same as writing it.

My perspective is that we often wand to discuss Christian views and ignore heresy, so focusing on a broad stroak 'calvinism' - 'arminianism' range acts as a good spectrum. Sure, many these days openly embrace open theism or various degrees of Pelagianism or other errors, but that has always been outside orthodoxy and there is no point to including it if we just want an in house discussion.

@@oracleoftroy Yes I agree, I think it is our duty to exclude heretic views from in-house discussions. It just appears too reductionistic to place the perspectives we are left with on above mentioned spectrum. I also think that a too simplistic view contributes to the kind of "polarisation" of theological views, resulting in disunity within the Body of Christ. Just browse the comments on this page: Some openly deem Mike Winger a heretic. I've listened to both Dr. White and Mike Winger and view both of them as dear brothers in Christ, regardless of their view on Calvinism.

Yes! Hence Traditionalism/Provisonalism which is what Dr. Flowers and Pastor Winger represents.

@@yvonnedoulos8873 I don't think Winger agrees with "provisionalism" at all and he seems very against the Pelagian implications of that system. Or is "provisionalism" just a code word for "not a Calvinist" in your mind? Winger tends towards a "No labels" position, so pinning him down is difficult and must be met with caution, but I'd say he is clearly much more in the Arminian camp than the Provisionalist camp, and may be closer to Amyraldianism. At least from what I've seen, when Mike isn't trying to explicitly not be a Calvinist, his interpretation of the Bible is rather favorable to that position.

@@oracleoftroy Then I suspect you have not spent much time listening to his teaching. Neither of these men are Pelagian or semi-Pelagian; I would recommend reading up on your history as you seem to misunderstand what Pelagian actually taught. May I suggest Dr. Ken Wilson's book, "The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism"? Or another good options is Dr. Ali Bonner's The Myth of Pelagianism (Or listen to her interview on Idol Killer's channel). Both will help you understand the truth of his teaching.