I came to reformed theology because of the plain reading of the text. When I first heard of reformed theology, I had only read the bible about four or five times at that point. Reformed theology systematized what the text says with a plain reading. God speaks perspecuitously. He does not make it difficult to believe what he says in his Word. What Flowers does is make it difficult and he seems to be speaking to those looking for loopholes.

@CCShorts

2 жыл бұрын

Have you heard The Consistent Calvinism Podcast yet? He responds to Leighton Flowers. If you haven’t heard it yet, here is one of the CCShorts I made as a preview… Leighton Proves Himself To Be Inconsistent kzread.info/dash/bejne/o5mTtsOcoNPSe6w.html

@joashtunison351

Жыл бұрын

What!? Don't you know that NOBODY in history ever came to a reformed understanding on their own? That the only way anybody believes this stuff is by first being brainwashed by some mean, arrogant, bearded, cigar smoking calvinist? Seriously, though, I'm glad to hear it, amigo! Man, the whole Gospel of John is a mine field that is impossible for a Provisionist to get through alive. Leighton gives the none-reformed a bad name. He actually IS semi-palagian.

How I came into Calvinism is by me rejecting and hating it, then I checked a case for it once, read its reasoning, saw the scriptures and I was like “wait I literally believe this” … it was strange to be fair but praise God! 😂

@samvogel2368

10 күн бұрын

Me too. There were parts of it I already agreed with. I started listening to macarthur , sproul , the Lawson to refute them. Found one passion ministries. These men clearly explain the text without outside explanations ( like Flowers). One day it just clicked. A few weeks later, it clicked with my wife. With my 20 yr old son. It comes down to the " meaning of the text in its context"

I remember watching the debate between White and Flowers and James is absolutely right. Flowers was always speaking from outside the context of the passage they were supposed to be debating and was always inserting those contexts into the passage as if they directly applied. James even called him out on it mid debate and Flowers continued on with the same methodology. Could you imagine applying the same methodology of interpretation to every passage in the Bible where in order to make one verse say something you have to insert the context of about 10 different verses. That’s the interpretive methodology of Flowers in a nut shell and it’s another reason why I had to abandon him as a teacher of soteriology.

@CCShorts

2 жыл бұрын

Have you heard The Consistent Calvinism Podcast yet? He responds to Leighton Flowers. If you haven’t heard it yet, here is one of the CCShorts I made as a preview… Leighton Proves Himself To Be Inconsistent kzread.info/dash/bejne/o5mTtsOcoNPSe6w.html

@joashtunison351

Жыл бұрын

Agreed. And once called out, Flowers kind of played innocent. James really really one by default. Then go read the comments by Flowers fan boys. They're like," Leighton sure showed him!"

@pinkdiscomosh2766

Жыл бұрын

@@joashtunison351I was an anti-Calvinist before I was a Calvinist and it just comes with the territory. There is no good explanation of these passages, so you have to emended outside passages to alter the meaning. It’s abused Regula Fidei for sure.

High level discernment from James White.

@jalapeno.tabasco

3 ай бұрын

provisionism pulls sleight of hands to make it sound biblical but in reality it's more heretical than arminianism

I have to agree with Dr. White's assessment of Dr. Flowers here. Dr. Flowers does try to evoke emotion. This is something advertisers do when promoting a product; my mother wrote commercials for a living back in the day and she would tell me the key to selling a product is either making a viewer think they can't live without it (a positive) or to reject it would bring all type of problems (a negative). This was key over the actually facts of what the product was or what it could actually do. In Christianity, I see this sort of argumentation on verses like John 10:24, Ephesians 1:4, Romans 9, etc. It is very "effective" when you're discussing it with a Christian you think is a Calvinist or have reformed leanings; you attack based on your objections to the verse (emotions) rather than the context or grammar of the verse (facts). In doing so, there can be no meaningful discussion about it because you can't argue against emotion because emotion veers you away from the text. In addition, this type of argumentation doesn't help a new believer who may read John 10:24 and ask someone who is anti-Calvinist about it not even knowing what Calvinism is. What would be the response to this new believer? Would you just go to the text and explain it or would you bring up the theological system of Calvinism, tell that new believer this is the way Calvinists interpret that text (again, the negative), and then tell that new believer it can't possibly mean what the Calvinists say it is? Well, of course that believer would reject it based on emotion (plus you add that this new believer may be in a church that only emphasizes the attributes that we "like" per John 3:16) and not read the verses in context again based on Calvinism, which he never heard of until the anti-calvinist brought it to their attention. This is real because that's what happened to me twelve years ago when I asked someone to help me with my struggles with Romans 9. I was introduced to the "system" of Calvinism, told that this is what they believed about Romans 9 (same emotional, negative reaction), and then presented with a choice, do I believe that or not? Well, of course I rejected it based on emotion, but continued reading of my scriptures never solved the context of Romans 9. And to this day this still happens. I don't know how many times I've presented scripture after scripture (trying to leave it to the Bible alone) and I frequently get the same responses. 1) Calvinism is a wicked system (just an assertion, no scripture backing). 2) God is wicked under this system and people are just robots (again, just emotions without scripture). 3) Name calling. I've been called a heretic, stupid, someone that doesn't want to be sharpened, etc. Again this is just pure name calling based on emotion. Yet the Bible tells us to search/study the scriptures on all theological matters (Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 2:15), but not many believers do that. And many times when they do, they still evoke emotions and go outside a particular text to bring their own theological slant to the text instead of letting the text say what it says. I find that Dr. Flowers does that a lot, and after awhile it gets sad, grieving, and tiring.

@CCShorts

2 жыл бұрын

Have you heard The Consistent Calvinism Podcast yet? He responds to Leighton Flowers. If you haven’t heard it yet, here is one of the CCShorts I made as a preview… Leighton Proves Himself To Be Inconsistent kzread.info/dash/bejne/o5mTtsOcoNPSe6w.html

@joashtunison351

Жыл бұрын

Yes, now that I've been on the reformed side of the discussion for a few years, I'm realizing how emotionally driven the other side is. I've only heard a handful of calvinists say that arminians aren't saved, but man, just read some comment sections, calvinists are ripped on a regular basis as false, dangerous, heretical, arrogant, mean, and generally deplorable.

@timothyvenable3336

Жыл бұрын

@@joashtunison351 I feel that. It’s all emotion with them. Especially Flowers… it’s sad, and I hope non-Calvinists aren’t so hateful towards Calvinists and maybe try to have clear lenses when interpreting g scripture

@tomtemple69

6 ай бұрын

@@joashtunison351 yup! the emotions of the flesh hate this idea and the fact that we are all sinful and NO ONE deserves salvation in the slightest one side brings Scripture that is in context and properly exegeted, one side brings emotions and prooftexts, and a lot of reliance on the English translation of John 3:16 when it says whosoever(which turns a descriptive text into a prescriptive text)

Flowers seems to have an obsession about trying to discredit Calvinism. Why doesn't he go after the Prosperity Gospel, the NAR, the Emergent church movement, Progressive Christianity etc...etc! Why does he have a personal hate for Calvinism? Seems like he needs to refocus his sites on an actual enemy!

@YourLocalRealist

3 жыл бұрын

Because anti-Calvinists’ pride in human choice.

@rob5462

3 жыл бұрын

It's discredited by the majority of the church.

@Tanjaicholan

2 жыл бұрын

@OldEnoughToKnowBetter old enough to know nothing better than to caricature, build straw man one liners and given over to the “Me, Myself and I” Doctrine of Exceptionalism 🙄

@Tanjaicholan

2 жыл бұрын

@OldEnoughToKnowBetter old enough to nothing of biblical knowledge, doctrine or theology, but blinkered Flowerism🤭 🌷🌷🌷🌷🌷

@Tanjaicholan

2 жыл бұрын

@@rob5462 majority of the Roman church, eh?

Leighton does talkagesis, which is synonymous with bablegesis...

I have listened to Leighton and I can't deny the fact that he causes you to emote all the time. He never appeals to clear reason but to my emotions. And once I start judgment based upon emotions, you know what? I won't just have issues with Calvinism or Arminianism, I will have issues with the creation of man. Emotions are Good, but we don't interprete Scriptures based on emotions? "Unless I am convinced by sacred scripture or clear reason... My conscience is bound to the word of God I have quoted, here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God." -Luther

@h2s142

6 ай бұрын

Pure philosophy

Imagine standing before God after devoting your entire life to denying His sovereign Grace

Leighton Choice Meats Flowers----------the gift that keeps on giving.

@CCShorts

2 жыл бұрын

Have you heard The Consistent Calvinism Podcast yet? He responds to Leighton Flowers. If you haven’t heard it yet, here is one of the CCShorts I made as a preview… Leighton Proves Himself To Be Inconsistent kzread.info/dash/bejne/o5mTtsOcoNPSe6w.html

Maybe Flowers' first girlfriend broke up with him for a guy named Calvin??????????

Foreseen faith becomes problematic when the Synergist believes faith is a gift of God. Who will God elect? Those who have faith in Him, by which God grants man to have and if the Synergist believes faith comes from within man, you contradict Scripture John 6:28-29, Acts 3:16, Eph 2:8-9, Phil 1:29. Also the Apostolic fathers believed faith is a gift of God, same with St. Chrysostom on his homolies on Eph 2:8-9.

@rob5462

3 жыл бұрын

Flower's does not teach foreseen faith as the basis of election to salvation.

@CCShorts

2 жыл бұрын

Have you heard The Consistent Calvinism Podcast yet? He responds to Leighton Flowers. If you haven’t heard it yet, here is one of the CCShorts I made as a preview… Leighton Proves Himself To Be Inconsistent kzread.info/dash/bejne/o5mTtsOcoNPSe6w.html

The word sheep means the same to girls in high school today as it did to the people in Jesus day. Bahahah!!! Can't make this stuff up folks.

@pateunuchity884

4 жыл бұрын

It means sheep can pick their shepherds? Muwah haha ha haaaaa!! Dude, try harder. 🍳 👈🏽 This is your brain on provisionism....any questions?

@pateunuchity884

4 жыл бұрын

Why didn’t you leave the response I found in my feed 6hrs ago?? “No. Shepherds choose their sheep.” Such a good answer. 🙂

@billyr9162

4 жыл бұрын

@@pateunuchity884 Sorry. My bad. Yes they do. They even purchase them. 😁

June 20th will forever be "choice meats " day. Thank mr. Flowers for the bologna sandwich

At 1st I didn't think Flowers had said "sheep" meant blind follower. But after listening to it again he definitely did. How much more proof do you need that Flowers does not pay attention to the imediate text then that?

I am so grateful for Dividing Line highlights and the rebuttal summaries to the twisted rationale of Leighton Flowers.

Using and carrying through Flowers’ idea of the airplane destination analogy, if the airline were to say, Yes, the boarding gate is open, and we will GUARANTEE that all whom WE HAVE CHOSEN TO BOARD will be landed safely in Dallas would destroy Provisionalism. If that airline were sovereign - LIKE GOD IS - then of course, only those that the airline “. . . grants permission (“repentance” is the word used in 2 Timothy 2:25) to board will be landed safely in Dallas.

Flowers is just making it up as he goes along. run away from flowers, run as fast as you can!!

Thanks James God bless 😊

Dr Flowers is emotional - and working to convince his audience. It's all about Gods Grace and mercy. Those who reject the gospel of grace practice word wizardry.

Yeah, the whole "these texts here....and those texts over there" argument that Leighton (and other semi-Pelagians like him) try to use is totally worthless, and actually does great damage to the Biblical/Protestant concept of the 'analogia scripturae' (comparing Scripture with Scripture in order to understand it all as a CONSISTENT revelation from the Triune God). It also does great damage to the 'analogia fide' (comparing doctrine with doctrine in order to understand the entirety of the Christian Faith as a LOGICALLY CONSISTENT WHOLE). The Neo semi-Pelagians do NOT have a logically consistent Systematic Theology. And that, of course, is the primary problem. In fact, many of them will say that Calvinists are trying to be too "logical" in their argumentation and doctrine. As if that's a bad thing?!? No, logic is the way God thinks! God doesn't think illogically; God is not irrational; God is not insane! In fact, it is Satan who thinks, reasons, and argues in logical fallacies, and does so irrationally. When God reveals stuff, that stuff is consistent, logical, and knowable...just not believable (unless God Himself, by His GRACE ALONE, gives fallen men belief in that which He has revealed). Leighton Flowers' semi-Pelagian doctrine is that we must make ourselves "choice pieces of meat" SO THAT God then elects us unto salvation. And, yes, Leighton, God foreordained your blindness to His truths on these matters...and He did this for a PURPOSE.... *Soli Deo Gloria*

@willisfletcher6260

4 жыл бұрын

Ryan Gallmeier In my opinion, you are being rather generous calling Dr. Flowers a semi-Pelagianist. In my opinion, he’s not only a full-blown Pelagianist, but also an open theist. I’m agreeing with you, but giving my opinion.

@rangersNHL

4 жыл бұрын

Ryan Gallmeier at least Flowers is in the clear for not believing and understanding Calvinism...God doesn’t want him to believe. It’s not on him, but on God...much like all of those in hell. They’re there because God did not choose them. It’s not their fault...at least they have an excuse.

@oracleoftroy

4 жыл бұрын

@D T C / Jesse Beller Great job bearing false witness against Reformed Theology. Our confessions make clear that the offer of the Gospel is for all people, and Reformed Christians have been at the forefront of evangelism for centuries. Step out of your echo chamber and actually read what we confess so at the very least you can present better arguments against our view.

@oracleoftroy

3 жыл бұрын

@D T C / Jesse Beller _""all people" that's a good one bud. The only thing clear about those two words according to a Calvinist is that they dont mean "all people.""_ Yes, the gospel is to go out to all people. Canons of Dort - The Second Main Point of Doctrine - Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All "Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, *ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people,* to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel." _"You cant even honestly tell someone that Christ died for them because there is chance that they might not be 'chosen' to be saved."_ Yes, we try not to say things to unbelievers that the Bible only says of believers, like "Christ died for them." Nor do we make up false gospels like the common but unbiblical, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life." We prefer to follow the Biblical method, like in Acts 17 "God commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." _"Calvinism is dung. Christ is everything."_ It certainly is dung when compared to Christ,.. as is your philosophy. _"I was in your echo chamber for 30 years."_ Is this going to be yet another case of having to tell others you understand Calvinism while being unable to show that you understand Calvinism? _"Im happy for you though. When you go to church you can be thankful that your not a vessel of dishonor predestined for destruction like all those others who are. ... So good luck with believing in being chosen as the basis for your faith instead of being a sinner humbled by the cross who trust in Christ for salvation."_ I do that as often as you thank God for how you humbled yourself and caused God to save you, unlike your unsaved neighbor. Two can play word games with each others beliefs. You were a Calvinist for 30 years so you know you are strawmanning our position, right? I find joy in knowing I am completely unworthy of mercy and deserve all of God's wrath. There was nothing I could have done to merit God's grace. God is mighty to save. _"The evangelizing of the great father of your faith....So, on 27th October 1553, Servetus was burned alive. Later, in a letter, Calvin would report that Servetus had ‘cried like a Spaniard’."_ Yeah, shocking that Genevan magistrates back then didn't follow modern EU law. What's up with that? Not sure what being the pastor of a town that practices capitol punishment has to do with that, but people back then punished heretics with the death sentence. This was common practice and not unique to Geneva. Calvin at multiple points tried to meet with Servetus and show him his error so that he may repent. He was already a wanted man when he arrived in Geneva. Or are you just unfamiliar with the actual event and have been reading too much sensationalized anti-Calvinist rhetoric? _"reformers evangelizing? The rise of both Lutheranism and Calvinism created both religious and civil unrest in Europe. This unrest led to a series of wars 1524 to 1648. Deaths from these conflicts have been estimated at somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% of Europe’s population."_ And it takes two to have a conflict. I'm not claiming that the Reformers were blameless in all matters, but much violence started from the Catholic side, and much much more used religious differences as a political ploy for non-religious purposes. Laying all the blame on one side is propaganda. _"Below is a link to the actual records of the "evangelizing", I mean disciplines carried out in Geneva under Calvins influence."_ Does it mention the over 2000 missionaries trained in Geneva who went to just France? Or the missionaries trained in Geneva who went across Europe and even to the new world? Or is this book to prop up your goalpost moving away from evangelism into 16th century civil laws? _"Lastly, the famous quote of John Calvin's view toward the unsaved.. “Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death, knowingly and willingly incur their guilt. It is not human authority that speaks, it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for His Church.”"_ Yeah, personally I think every Christian should read the books of the Law. God commands unrepentant heretics who are leading his people astray to be executed. In Calvin's day, they took that seriously. Not just Calvin, but everyone. It's rather unfair to judge them by modern standards, and I'm sure they would be absolutely horrified at how secular and antinomian we are today. _"You accuse me of being a false witness, so here is John Calvins own words as a witness against him."_ Err, you bore false witness about Calvinists not evangelizing. Now you are moving the goalposts by making this about capitol punishment for false teachers. Calvin's views sound quite typical for that time, so I assume you are only using this as an emotional ploy rather than a serious argument. Personally, I'm not convinced that we in this modern times should be so confident in judging people of 5 centuries ago, not when our standard is so godless and secular and at least on the surface, their practice aligns with God's word towards false teachers.

@oracleoftroy

3 жыл бұрын

@Jesse Beller _"First off my initial comment wasn’t talking to you Mr. Troy."_ Nope, it wasn't about any actual person, as no Reformed Christian advocates mass killing of people to let God sort them out. I pointed out that our view is that we should spread the gospel to all people and let God sort them out. It might look similar in your eyes, but we see murder and spreading the gospel as very different activities. _"Secondly my initial comment had nothing to do with your beloved Reformed Theology."_ Funny, why'd you quote Calvin and reference various reformed people? Sounds like you had exactly that in mind. _"It had to do with two individuals who were knocking on other believers who don’t believe like them, referring to them as “full blown” Pelagians, when the individual has taken a clear stance against Pelagianism."_ Eh, to me, taking a clear stance against Pelagianism would look like Leighton walking through the Canon of Orange and spelling out why he sides with the church against the Pelagian. Instead, Leighton has acted dishonestly; he has claimed that the accusation that Provisionalism / SBC Traditionalism is Pelagian is only made by Calvinists, yet one of the earliest critics I know of is the Arminian Roger Olsen, and concerns have been raised across the theological spectrum. It shouldn't matter who raises the concern, but whether the concern has merit. He will point out that Pelagianism is sometimes used as a pejorative term (it is), but that doesn't mean that the word doesn't have a well established meaning in church history that is concrete and well known (it does). Plenty of people across various denominations have raised the concern with ample evidence to merit a clearer examination, yet Leighton tends to avoid clarity and dismiss the charge as a 'boogeyman' without tackling the charge head on. For me, two concerning beliefs is his denial of Total Depravity and his assertion that we have Libertarian freewill post fall in the same way as Adam and Eve did in the garden. For example: kzread.info/dash/bejne/Y5h40ZVvlKvMZsY.html 27:00 - "Adam and Eve had a liberty of the will to refrain or not refrain from eating of the tree. That's what we mean by libertarian free will or liberty of the will, that's what we mean by that, that they had that freedom." kzread.info/dash/bejne/rGeLzMuLg9q7h8Y.html 4:03 - [Leighton reading from LBCF Chapter 9] 1. "God hath endued the will of man with all[sic, text says 'that' instead of 'all'] natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil. 2. "Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well-pleasing to God, but yet was unstable (or some might say mutable), so that he might fall from it. [Leighton begins his commentary on the above] "Now so far so good, we are all on the same page. In fact, I would say that these first two points establish the doctrine of libertarian free will as I define it. Now maybe some people define libertarian freedom in a way that Calvinists don't like, but what he just said here establishes the way I would understand and affirm libertarian free will: The categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from any given moral action. The ability- the liberty of the will to do that which is well-pleasing to God, yet able to fall from it. That is libertarian. that is the ability to do otherwise. He is able to restrain or refrain from sinning, but he was also able to sin. That is libertarian free will. That is the ability to do otherwise. In other words, Adam could have not sinned, you know. That's what this seems to be affirming, that he could have resisted the temptation to sin; he had the ability to do good or evil." _"Nothing in my initial comment said that they said that “reformed theology” doesn’t say that the gospel should not be GIVEN to “all people”."_ It's rather hard to give the gospel to dead people, wouldn't you think? _"Again I stand by everything my initial comment said, I disagree with how you took it though."_ Pretty hard to take something well when you imply we are all murderers. You set the tone for this conversation. It's pretty clear you are hostile towards Reformed Theology and won't let the facts get in the way of your feelings. _"...You’re over here enjoying your (online bible knowledge fight), while people are going to hell."_ God is mighty to save. I'm unworthy, yet I imaging God can use even my pathetic words online to bring people to himself. I have a harder time seeing how a Christian could think that God would want his people accusing each other of being murderers though, if you want to talk about attitude. BUt it's ok, you saved yourself through humbling yourself, so I'm sure you've earned a few boasts here and there.

Leighton Flowers will just make up stuff along the way, just so won't be a Calvinist. Whatever you end up being doesn't matter, just don't be a Calvinist. I have seen in Flowers's comments sections, that some of his folks even said that they consider Roman Catholics as brothers, but not Calvinists.

@oracleoftroy

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I find it highly disturbing that Leighton will take the side of anyone as long as they are against Calvinism. He never makes his own positive case, it always turns into denigrating Calvinism. He'll side with Arminians, Mormons, Catholics, Open Theists, Muslims, Atheists, etc, and at most will in passing tell us that he doesn't agree with everything they say, with no more detail than that. Some of those groups are outside of Christianity, and given that Leighton claims Calvinists are brothers, one would think he should witness to some of those other groups instead of buddying up to them.

@oracleoftroy

3 жыл бұрын

@Steven Irizarry Leighton says that, yes. Others have claimed that people close to Leighton claim he was never a Calvinist. Unfortunately, I don't know any definitive source that can resolve this. What I do know is that the Calvinist churches I've been to affirm the confessions that have unified Reformed theology for centuries (specifically, the Westminster Confession and the Three Forms of Unity), and the 'Calvinism' Leighton seeks to refute is noticably different and contrary to those confessions. Maybe Leighton is arguing against beliefs he had in his younger days, but they don't look very Calvinistic to me.

@oracleoftroy

3 жыл бұрын

@Steven Irizarry Meh, that's just a feature of the English language and not worth disunifying over. I didn't name it 'Calvinism' nor did anyone friendly to that side. I prefer 'Reformed' if we need a historically accurate term. But people opposed to Reformed theology called it 'Calvinism' and the name stuck. If anti-Calvinists want to stop using the term, I'm all for that.

@Acek-ok9dp

3 жыл бұрын

Steven Irizarry Not an argument.

@Acek-ok9dp

3 жыл бұрын

Steven Irizarry Everybody has isms. The question is if they are biblical.

I love you brother james.keep it up.

So grateful I had no initial understanding of reformed or arminian terms due to rather sequestered upbringing..found out after I discovered in scripture..how exciting it was to see the term reformed for what was so apparent beforehand in scripture!

There has to be moments where Leigjton says to himself, “Ya know, James has me on this.” He’s smart enough to recognize that, at least periodically. Yet he persists.

It's weird that Leighton Flowers devotes his whole channel to attacking Reformed theology. If there was a Reformed teacher who devoted all their time to attacking Arminianism I would worry about that person's faith. He seems to take the whole issue personally and almost always misrepresents his opponents arguments.

@philblagden

4 жыл бұрын

@@r.rodriguez4991 Flowers is obsessed, and he lies about what the other side teaches. I don't think it reflects well on his character. His efforts to explain away the teachings of John 6 and Romans 9 were in my opinion deceitful. I realise he has many followers who dislike Reformed theology as much as he does, but I have much more respect for A W Tozer, or Michael Brown than for Flowers, both in their integrity and their handling of scripture. They don't misrepresent what Reformed Christians believe.

@ethanhocking8229

4 жыл бұрын

I don’t know of any major ministry that is entirely devoted to teaching Calvinism and/or attacking Arminianism. A ministry like John Piper’s Desiring God certainly has Calvinism as an important theological position incorporated into it, but it’s not the overall focus! What benefit is Soteriology101 to the average unbeliever if the big issue is “refuting” Reformed theology? I’m also a fan of Mike Winger’s BibleThinker. I know he isn’t a Calvinist. But he addresses a wide range of issues, and he’s very good at exposing cults and actual heresies.

@oracleoftroy

4 жыл бұрын

@@r.rodriguez4991 I'm with Phil. There are so many youtube channels out there that are against Reformed Theology yet have so much other valuable stuff out there that I benefit regularly from and recommend them to others, and even in the Reformed camp, there are those I think are wrong on some subjects, yet still find them valuable in other areas (e.g. James White's version of covenantalism isn't very covenantal or Biblical in my view). Leighton's entire internet presence is dedicated to tearing down and divide from a particular group of Christians: the so called 'Calvinists'. Now I love a good challenge to my position, so frankly that attracted me to his channel at first, and his tone initially strikes as very genuine and reasonable. I was willing to give him grace when he made some false claims about Reformed Theology. But after having seen him continue making the same mistakes for at least four years now even after being corrected multiple times, and seeing that he is willing to indiscriminately side with anyone who is against Reformed Theology, be they Open Theists, Atheists, Muslims, Mormons, or whatever just makes the tone look like a shallow facade. He makes enemies of those he claims are inside of the camp and is buddy buddy with those outside the camp. And his Pelagianism is a clear problem he has refused to address head on. He could walk through church statements against Pelagianism like the Canons of Orange and make clear that he sides with the church against that herasy, or he could very clearly make a positive case for his theology that leaves no wiggle room, yet instead he has deflected and claimed only Calvinsits raise this concern (false, it has been raised from many different perspectives, including Arminians and Lutherans), that it is just a boogyman (the word is well understood in Christian circles) and that Pelagius never taught it (irrelevant, the meaning of the word doesn't change if Pelagius was falsely accused, though that would mean the word isn't the best). In contrast, I always think of Jerry Walls. He has his own issues, but I've only ever heard him in the context of opposing Reformed Theology, and I love his lectures there. When he describes 'Calvinism', I can 'amen' most of what he says. With Leighton, the best I get is 'that's not quite right...' Walls understands that you can't even begin to refute a system if you can't describe it accurately; Leighton takes lazy shortcuts and argues against an easier to disprove version that no one confesses. If he really wanted to refute Reformed Theology, he would be much more careful. As it is, his channel only seems to attract those looking for a two minute hate and not any sort of robust refutation of Calvinism, and the comment section bears this out.

@ethanhocking8229

4 жыл бұрын

R. Rodriguez What groups are you talking about? Bethel? NAR?

@ethanhocking8229

4 жыл бұрын

oracleoftroy I’ve listened to Mike Winger’s exegesis of Romans 9, and he does do a reasonable exegesis in my opinion, even though I don’t really share his thinking in that area. But he still makes valid observations. But Leighton Flowers I personally find to just be disorientating! I mean with all of his analogies. Mike Winger, on the other hand, doesn’t do that to that sort of level. Rather, he makes reasonable points that offer genuinely good food for thought. Like his objection concerning faith not being a work. My response to him would be that, yes, faith is not a work but without God granting repentance, we would have no desire to put our faith in Christ. Even so, I enjoy considering his thoughts.

Priceless!! Thanks for your channel!

@billyr9162

4 жыл бұрын

@Sage of Synergism John 10 does not say that the sheep are followers. Read it very carefully. Flowers use the analogy of his high school kid to say that sheep meant blind followers. John 10 doesn't say that. Read it very very very very very very very very carefully.

@billyr9162

4 жыл бұрын

@Sage of Synergism No one ever said that. That's another subject

@billyr9162

4 жыл бұрын

@Sage of Synergism So you think that people are chosen because of who they are? Some other verse in the Bible does not overturn another. 2nd Peter does not say they are chosen "because" they followed. Read carefully and don't imply or assume.

@billyr9162

4 жыл бұрын

@Sage of Synergism You read 2nd Peter incorrectly. It says be diligent now because of what has been done. Because of what Jesus did. There is not one single part of 2nd Peter that says because of what they did. Not one single word about Jesus choosing them because of what they did. It's the opposite of that. It's what they should do because they were chosen. It's what they should do now because of what Jesus did for them previous. You are not reading carefully. Jesus has chosen you so act like it.

@billyr9162

4 жыл бұрын

@Sage of Synergism In grammar there are things called paragraphs. Paragraphs are groups of sentences that convey a single meaning. It takes the paragraph as a group to convey the meaning. Therefore the entire paragraph should be read and discerned for the meaning. The Bible is not a random set of verses out of order. Therefore taking a verse from one section or 1 paragraph and then cobbling it together with another sentence from another paragraph is not proper reading. That's not how you would read a book of any kind. So don't read the Bible like that.

Analgesis is a better term because Leighton pulls his arguments out of his butt.

@CCShorts

2 жыл бұрын

Have you heard The Consistent Calvinism Podcast yet? He responds to Leighton Flowers. If you haven’t heard it yet, here is one of the CCShorts I made as a preview… Leighton Proves Himself To Be Inconsistent kzread.info/dash/bejne/o5mTtsOcoNPSe6w.html

Flowers is always mad at his wife because her grocery lists are to Calvinist 😂😂😂

I COMPLETELY understand your ‘speechlessness’ when Flowers speaks to the “3,000 . . . army” followers of Christ. Such an illustration that somehow the Cross would have been hampered or vitiated in some way because of a PRACTICAL impediment against crucifixion due to an ‘army of followers’ is just rank ‘adolescence.’ THIS is why I have mentioned previously Flowers’ . . . (trying to be kind, here) rather dull mentality. I’m not being mean, really, I am NOT. I’m being merely ‘observant’ technically.

Leighton double downed on his Flesh-o-getical emotion-esis on his podcast yesterday with fellow Dr. of Flesh-o-getical emotion-esis, Dr. Allen. Their good old "negative inference fallacy" rebuttle, meaning.....nothing. Lol😅😅. The clown show over at Soteriology/Psychology 101 continues on.

25:23 i have heard some of the looniest things come out of the mouths of arminians speaking without a trace of irony

@samueljennings4809

2 жыл бұрын

I don't think Flowers is even Arminian.

This is a particularly how chapter to defend for Dr. White and it show by his reversal of positions and constant strawmanning and question begging. The question begging get turn up to 11 at about the 12:30 mark.

@oracleoftroy

4 жыл бұрын

Could you explain why John 10, one of the goto Calvinist chapters, is a difficult passage for White? As for the question begging, you link to a portion where White plays Leighton and points out statements Leighton makes that aren't supported by the text. Did you mean to highlight question begging on Leighton's part? I'm honestly wondering if you meant to type 'Leighton' instead of 'White' as that is his typical mode of argumentation. Or is this just one of those times where the anti-Calvinist has no argument, so they just reverse all the criticisms even though they don't symmetrically apply?

@christopheravery9585

4 жыл бұрын

Quite simply John 10 doesnt fit well with a reform systematic. You have a problem of order, with the sheep and thier "knowing". Simply the question of when. If the chapter simply stated the Shepherd choose them and knew them that would fit. But it speaks of a relationship between the Shepherd and the sheep. That cant be predetermined before the foundation of the world. And they certainly theybdont know the shepherd while in a spiritual dead , hater of God state. Also completly ignored is Jesus as the door. Those that come by him are his sheep. Again this sound relational. At the time stamp I gave onward he is assume his presuppositions to be correct in interpreting this passage. Using john 6 calvanistly understood to support John 10 is question begging. Also reference to old testament with a calvinist understanding intact is the same. Also he seems to be fine "running off" to other scriptures when it suits him.

@oracleoftroy

4 жыл бұрын

@@christopheravery9585 What order problem? Even if we ignore the rest of John's book and focus on chapter 10, there is no order problem unless we fill in the gap with something that creates an order problem. But John isn't silent, we have the rest of his book. John already addressed how they come to know; the Father calls them draws them and teaches them per chapter 6. I fail to see how John assuming his reader is paying attention to his whole book means that his silence in chapter 10 means he is contradicting chapter 6. Why should I toss out other things John said just because it doesn't fit what provisionalists need John to teach? I say we should submit ourselves to the full word of God and stop picking and choosing.

Well said on his post modern nauseating emotionally

It really is hilarious to hear someone say they’re not about bringing a philosophy to the text to interpret it and then applying what their teenage son defines a term as to the biblical text. Flowers can’t make sense of the text so he uses smoke and mirrors as well as emotional arguments. Sad excuse for a theologian.

Flowers is on that Analogesis to max

@electronicMI

4 жыл бұрын

​@Sage of Synergismwrote: "Did Jesus use analogies or no ?" Yes, He did. Why did Jesus use parables? - Sage of Synergism wrote: "1tim 3.15 "scripture is sufficient to make you wise unto salvation" Did you mean to cite 2 Timothy 3:15-17? - Sage of Synergism wrote: "cornelius was an unregenerate man dead in his trespasses and a slave to sin so how did he seek god pray fast and do good deeds?" Do mean like many, if not most proselytes to the Jewish faith, God-fearers and Jews of that period?

@rjayOso

3 жыл бұрын

@Sage of Synergism Don't compare Jesus' analogies to our human analogy. Every words of Jesus are "Divinely inspired", same as the Bible itself. Red letters. We are talking about exegesis here, because we're human. We don't have access to God's attribute of omniscience. Jesus is truth, we are not.

"Down from heaven" is in close keeping with what Lord Jesus said about Himself to Nicodemus. That's nothing to get snobby about.

God eleminated choice when He sent His ONLY eternally begotten Son.

Flowers is a dangerous soothsayer

Thanks brother!

Flowers denial of the text(s) plain meanings demonstrates that he should not be teaching.

He says, “when people become reformed.” Reformed from what?

Everyone knows what sheep means. It means what my high school girls say it means. Bahahaha!!! You can't make this stuff up folks!!! Don't try this at home.

The more LF stuff I listen to the more sinister and intentionally manipulative it seems. 😬

There is no defending what Leighton does in this clip.

THe problem with heart that never thinks. So sad for dr.flower.

Love the vids James! Leighton’s method is sad. Sometimes it’s just laughable. I’m not trying to be mean but it’s just the truth.

@CCShorts

2 жыл бұрын

Have you heard The Consistent Calvinism Podcast yet? He responds to Leighton Flowers. If you haven’t heard it yet, here is one of the CCShorts I made as a preview… Leighton Proves Himself To Be Inconsistent kzread.info/dash/bejne/o5mTtsOcoNPSe6w.html

I listen to both flowers and white and like to hear them both, not being critical or wanting anyone to argue with me either but Ephesians 1 when you get down to verses 12,13 it seems that none of the things take place until you trust and believe. Anyone with explanation I’d appreciate hearing. Thanks!!

@billyr9162

3 жыл бұрын

None of what things take place?

@erikiversen6607

9 ай бұрын

It says the events took place before the foundation of the world. So before God founded the universe and all that we know to be in it.

@crisen_

7 ай бұрын

🫠 I know it's been two years, I hope you have read it carefully that everything happen starts with God. You have completely read it upside down like Leighton

Flowers kills his own arguments by not sticking to and explaining the text. His arguments are all external analogies..

Dr. White, in all seriousness, why would you characterize Leighton's listeners as people who have been "taught to emote rather than think"? That's no argument for your position at all sir. Surely you can do better.

@billyr9162

4 жыл бұрын

Actually it's somewhat true. Only I'd say they're taught to think wrong. Only the wrong thinking comes from the feeling. It's a thinking that's driven by the feelings. There's a comment by a person called sage of synergism here that proves it. He said this... The context of John 6 and 10 is John 5:40. This in a nutshell is the problem with Flowers and all the people that come from him. All of them do it. And I mean all of them. Including you with all due respect. If he can't see what the problem is with that sage if synergisms statement then that's why there's a problem.

@TrueLifeAdventures

4 жыл бұрын

@@billyr9162 By "all the people" do you mean all without distinction or all without exception?

@pateunuchity884

4 жыл бұрын

If you have any experience with Leighton’s followers then you’d know. It took me one week visiting his KZread page to realize this.

@pateunuchity884

3 жыл бұрын

Well, from our conversation earlier it seems that is pretty accurate.

@elishaisarinde6462

3 жыл бұрын

I have listened to Leighton and I can't deny the fact that he causes you to emote all the time. He never appeals to clear reason but to my emotions. And once I start judgment based upon emotions, you know what? I won't just have issues with Calvinism or Arminianism, I will have issues with the creation of man. Emotions are Good, but we don't interprete Scriptures based on emotions? "Unless I am convinced by sacred scripture or clear reason... My conscience is bound to the word of God I have quoted, here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God." -Luther

Flowers is not good in a debate. Or this type of exchange. It just makes him look silly. I think he'd do better in a dialogue.. Where he actually has to listen you, and can't hide behind an audience. It's painful to listen to him tug at people's hearts to try and bring them along. I would love to just hear a dialogue between you two... Some kind of talk where he's not in an echo chamber.

@lineinthesandministries7873

3 жыл бұрын

James white refuses to debate him again.

@timwinn5834

3 жыл бұрын

@@lineinthesandministries7873 Yeah, the first debate on Romans 9 was embarrassing enough for Flowers. I wouldn't debate him either. It's a waste of time. He used emotional arguments instead of pointing to the text... And it was a debate on Romans 9!.. Which means you should probably use the text you're debating on. I was embarrassed for him.

@timwinn5834

3 жыл бұрын

@Sage of Synergism You're reading you own meaning into the text. Also, I usually watch the whole thing, because context is important to me, but it was a nice try, anyway. I've heard Flowers more times than I care to. Nobody is taking him out of context.

@timwinn5834

3 жыл бұрын

@Sage of Synergism I know no such thing. I know God has given you the capability to read it correctly. I just wish you'd start. lol jk A lot of context problems would disappear if people would look at a whole book of the bible in context. For example, how would you ever understand how dynamite 1st Corinthians 14 is, if you don't understand that it's all one letter, and it just came after chapter 13? I'm just sayin' It's good stuff.

All leighton flowers is doing at this point is making himself the poster child for everything wrong with arminianism.

As a neutral, I was listening to the opening remarks you made about the audio of LF. I hear you that he does jump around to other texts quite a bit. But it would be great if you could provide the proper text interpretation verse by verse rather than simply telling us what was erroneous about his theology. Arguably, it is ok to cross reference other texts in the Bible as long as they relate to the same concept in the Bible- For example, it would probably be worthwhile looking at Jesus' parables of the sheep and goat to understand what he meant by calling his followers his sheep, and what that meant in the OT. Furthermore, you said that Jesus was addressing a particular group of Jewish audience in Matt 23 which were the pharisees. But the quote which was mentioned in Matt 23:37-39 was one where Jesus opened saying "JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM" and was unambiguously redirected to the greater audience of Jerusalem itself than just the teachers themselves. It would be great to engage in a textual debate than a critique on the person's character.

This is a classic exposure by Dr White of shear stupidity from leighton flowers. Sad thing is i have friends just as deceived and parrot leighton flowers, try to correct them or challenge them and you have a barrage of insults flung at you. Lord have mercy.

People can think and feel, James.

Is it really just "emotional" Dr. White, or is it true per Calvinism? Why not deal with the content of what Dr. Flowers said instead of ignoring the issue? That should be easy for a scholar such as yourself. Better yet, why not go on Leighton's program or have him on yours and engage him face to face? Would that not be more edifying for yourself and all of us as well?

@electronicMI

4 жыл бұрын

James White and Leighton Flowers had a formal, moderated debate on Romans 9 on May 7, 2015. Here is the link to the KZread video of that event: kzread.info/dash/bejne/kaupps6og7OThrg.html

@TrueLifeAdventures

4 жыл бұрын

@@electronicMI I'm totally aware of that debate, but I appreciate your comment nonetheless.

@pateunuchity884

4 жыл бұрын

@TrueLifeAdventures Then why ask for a rematch. Flowers isn’t up to the challenge. Though he professes his great need of another debate. His everyday challenges need only little video rebuttals. Guy would be toast.

@pateunuchity884

3 жыл бұрын

@Steven Irizarry Are we still talking about Leighton or is the moving on a clue to your admittance?

@TrueLifeAdventures

3 жыл бұрын

@@pateunuchity884 I just now saw this comment. I'm not asking for a rematch of the Romans 9 debate. I'm simply stating my desire to see them interact with one another in a friendly discussion instead of through video responses.

Lay ton 🌺...

He’s not called Leighton story time Flowers for nothing .

@electronicMI

4 жыл бұрын

@Sage of Synergism wrote: "Did jesus ever spin a story or two?" Yes, He did tell stories, but He did not spin them. Why did Jesus use parables?

I....am not sure Im comfortable with the title. Sorry.

@1:16 onwards you’re saying Leighton adding on “I don’t want you” is an emotional thing thrown in there. And what’s wrong with the TRUTH being emotional? That’s exactly what your position holds. In your view they’re not of His sheep because He didn’t choose them. So do the math. He’s pointing out the logical conclusion of exactly what you believe and you call it an appeal to emotions? Even if it is, so what? Christ not dying for you or choosing you is probably THE most emotional thing I can think of. So in your view you’d rather skirt around it deceptively and not be open and honest and upfront? Why don’t you just own what you actually believe and say it how it is? Also IRONICALLY in your view if people are going to reject reformed theology it’s not going to be because of an emotional argument from someone but it’s going to be because God predestined it. So I’m confused at why you care about an emotional argument that God has predestined? Are you somehow worried that some people who were predestined to believe reformed theology will now no longer be predestined to believe in reformed theology because of his argument? In your view it will not matter one bit either way. What God has predestined for them to believe WILL come to pass either way. So not quite sure why you really care or even mentioned it... Then you said, “Just quote what Jesus said; because you are not of my sheep.”

@TrueLifeAdventures

4 жыл бұрын

Boom! 👍

@billyr9162

4 жыл бұрын

We've already established firmly that you like to imply things that aren't there. You did it again. You do it every time. You'll never quit doing it. "I don't want you:"is not in the text. It's not implied. It has nothing to do with the text of John 10. It is just an emotional response that is not true at all. It's meaningless and irrelevant. Claiming it's relevant doesn't make it relevant. If it's in the text it would be relevant. But it's just in your theory. Which makes it irrelevant.

@TrueLifeAdventures

4 жыл бұрын

@@billyr9162 It's implied per Calvinism...prove us wrong.

@billyr9162

4 жыл бұрын

@@TrueLifeAdventures Because it's not in The Bible. There's no text in The Bible that says "I don't want you. "

@apilkey

4 жыл бұрын

Billy R and YOU saying it’s irrelevant doesn’t make it irrelevant. Do you wanna know what also is not in the text? It’s also NOT in the text that they can’t ever believe. That’s what’s also not in the text and yet you assume that. Just because something isn’t explicitly stated doesn’t mean the logical conclusions aren’t there. But you would have ti be an honest person to admit that.

Where is this guy coming from in his misrepresentation of others? It is blatantly untrue that blinding has been claimed to only happen pre the cross.

So you say we deny the sovereign decree of God. That is the most foolish statement! Creation declares a decree of God and no Christian denies this. "And God said and there was ...". What we deny is that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass and we deny that God decrees the rapes and atrocities that James White blasphemously attributes to God.

@billyr9162

2 жыл бұрын

You just refuted yourself. God said he caused atrocities. He called it evil or calamity and he caused it.

@Terror1Void

Жыл бұрын

Isaiah and Amos are clear that God creates evil. Stop being emotional and submit to the revealed word. God does what He does.

FYI: sound exegesis does not mean reading the passage and YOU saying what it means. Your OPINION of what scripture says and means is not called exegesis. So basically anyone who does not agree with your opinions of scripture means they’re not exegeting the text and you somehow are? 🤔

@electronicMI

4 жыл бұрын

Aaron Pilkey wrote: "FYI: sound exegesis does not mean reading the passage and YOU saying what it means." Then please, by all means tell us what, "sound exegesis," is and how it is done. You know, without reading the text and then explaining it-as you imply. [Edit: Forgot state who I was addressing, i.e., Aaron Pilkey.]

@billyr9162

4 жыл бұрын

Flowers knows what proper exegesis is. It's an actual system that's taught in Bible school. There's a video on his channel where he explains all the aspects of proper Bible exegesis. The only problem as he doesn't follow it. I remember the 1st time I found his channel I saw the video I got real excited that he was going to do something great because he had just listed all the aspects of proper exegesis. Then he started reading and he abandon it all. I think his biggest error is his perception of what is called historical context. He thinks any other verse in The Bible is historical context. That's not what is taught in seminary about historical context. That's why he thinks he can go to any other verse in The Bible that he thinks contradicts the Calvinist and use it as proof text. Hes doing it under the banner of historical context. But just citing other verses in The Bible is not historical context. When you look to other verses in The Bible you look for what's called parallel. A parallel verse is another verse somewhere else would the author is saying the exact same thing. Historical context would be this... In Jesus day there was a law that said if a Roman soldier asked you to carry their backpack you had to by law carry it one mile. Jesus said go the extra mile. It is that historical context of which he said it. Knowing the historical context gives more meaning to what Jesus said. THAT Is historical context. Flowers totally botches it.

@apilkey

4 жыл бұрын

eMI Exegesis is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text. Proper exegesis includes using the context around the passage, comparing it with other parts of the Bible, and applying an understanding of the language and customs of the time of the writing, in an attempt to understand clearly what the original writer intended to convey. In other words, it is trying to "pull out" of the passage the meaning inherent in it. The opposite of exegesis is eisegesis, which is an approach to interpreting a Bible passage by reading into it a meaning that is not evident at all by the passage. So you giving your OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS of what passages mean based off of reading then through reformed lenses is NOT sound exegesis.

@billyr9162

4 жыл бұрын

@Sage of Synergism It doesn't say sheep are followers. Nor does it say sheep are blind followers. The high school girls that Flowers referred to refer to sheep as blind followers. That's the modern high school girl meaning. That's not what Jesus described. Jesus said they hear his voice they know who he is and they follow him. And they don't follow the people they don't know. They're not just blind followers. They're people that know him.

@billyr9162

4 жыл бұрын

@@apilkey There you go. You do it every single time. You just can't help yourself. You throw in your little words to change things. No. Exegesis. is not meant to pull out what's "inherent". The only goal was to figure out what the author meant at the time he wrote it. Application and your own life of course is different. Reading The Bible through a synergistic lends is not proper exegesis either.

It has been shown to James White many times where it comes from. This man James White has a despicable attitude towards some that disagree with him.

Hilariously ironic that James white is pointing out the OT background to John 10. Reformed theology is guilty of ignoring cultural context all the time.

@oracleoftroy

3 жыл бұрын

Is it? I've never heard that objection before. Could you flesh it out? I find it funny as a lot of Christians these days treat the OT as if they could rip it out of their Bibles and it wouldn't change anything, whereas Reformed Theology is one of the few groups that harmonize the whole Bible.