This is why I prefer the language of fallen nature instead of sinful nature. I think it is more precise and highlights the nuance more clearly

@sharonlouise9759

3 ай бұрын

I do believe that I will begin to use the terminology of fallen nature because that's exactly what it is! Thank you!!

@huey7437

3 ай бұрын

@@sharonlouise9759 👍 I cannot claim credit tho, I heard it first specifically from Jay Dyer in a debate, and then did some research on my own to verify. Come to find out 'fallen nature' has been historically the teaching/understanding of Christianity since apostolic age, only the Eastern Orthodox rejected Augustine's conflation on the matter.

@sharonlouise9759

3 ай бұрын

@@huey7437 Good to know! Thanks very much 🙂

@TheFatTheist

3 ай бұрын

@@huey7437 that is awesome! I like it!

@tomgregory687

2 ай бұрын

I prefer the “Old Man” so that people understand that sin is destroyed when we are baptized into Christ and that old man exists no more. (Romans 6:3-7)

Paul summed up this issue with 2 succinct verses: Sin is NOT IMPUTED where there is no law. [Babies have no law, ergo cannot sin] Where no law is, there is no transgression. [ babies have no transgression, therefore have NO GUILT]

@coreyevans9543

3 ай бұрын

This makes sense to me too. Whilst personal sin and Adamic sin is not imputed to us as babies, we still have the consequences of Adamic sin applied to our lives; infant death. As we mature and grasp morality we then become disobedient and held accountable. Because we're all part of the Adamic birth our proclivity is towards sin. When we have our Christ birth we then have a proclivity towards righteousness. Adam's disobedience appointed us law breakers. Christ's obedience appointed us law keepers.

@user-dw1jp7tp6i

3 ай бұрын

I like your presentation, it fits well with: “And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him,” (Hebrews 7:9-10). This seems to be the same logic Paul is using for the first and second Adam.

@user-dw1jp7tp6i

3 ай бұрын

Also it fits well with a novel understanding I have for TULIP that applies it to babies and asks at what point do they reject grace?

@jzlove5088

3 ай бұрын

Fits really well with……Genesis 6:5 (5) Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (People don’t seem to understand, humanity had to be wiped out once already. Why was that? God literally tells us with His word…….we are unclean and impure, we are NOT holy or righteous. Our very nature is in rebellion against God)

@jzlove5088

3 ай бұрын

Fits really well with…… Genesis 8:21 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. (What did God just say about our hearts?)

James White's primary error is he misunderstands the character of God as revealed in Scripture and therefore his theology in certain areas reflects that. Either that or else he is just committed to certain traditions of a man made theological system more than he is committed to God's plain words.

@JohnK557

3 ай бұрын

@Los_JefeAmen! ”who being the brightness of His glory and the ➡️express image of His person⬅️, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,“ ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1‬:‭3‬

@JohnK557

3 ай бұрын

@Los_JefeHere is the strongs def of “express image.” Strong's Definitions: χαρακτήρ charaktḗr, khar-ak-tare'; from the same as G5482; a graver (the tool or the person), i.e. (by implication) engraving (("character"), the figure stamped, i.e. an exact copy or (figuratively) representation):-express image.

@richardjames6613

3 ай бұрын

​​@Los_Jefeand we believe that those that came to Him willingly did it, not that Jesus made them to come. Bc if God controls people to come, does that reveal love or manipulation? Which will now distort God's character

@Americanwoman74

3 ай бұрын

James White's problem is James White.

@koraegis

3 ай бұрын

James is biblical.

"Infants are not sinless because they inherit a sinful nature." What? So it's a sin to be born with a sin nature?? Isn't that tantamount to saying it's a sin to be born??

@williammarinelli2363

3 ай бұрын

Heard MacArthur say the most wicked act is that of human reproduction with no stipulation of in or out of wedlock. FWIW

@Vae07

3 ай бұрын

Yes we are accursed

@AndrewKeifer

3 ай бұрын

@@Vae07 I was being rhetorical. It's obviously NOT a sin to be born, since being born isn't a choice, but rather the result of a biological process designed by God and initiated by our parents. To be sinless is to have never committed a sin. Traducianism is false.

@myinternetname5911

3 ай бұрын

I don’t think Ps 51:5 supports a sin nature. I believe God gave us freewill knowing we could sin, and ultimately all of us do. So, we aren’t born tainted with a sin nature, but we certainly take it on as soon as we begin to make sinful choices - not because we forced to, but because we want to.

@makedisciples8653

Ай бұрын

@@myinternetname5911I would take one more step. Even the ESV puts the guilt on the mother. Also, read that verse in the NKJV. The NIV can be confusing

Our culture today teaches that whatever you're inclined towards defines who you are. Many younger people today have no category for otherwise. They've been saturated in "desire=identity" their whole lives.

Good job with the teaching from scripture! 😊

9:54 the view that physical death (removal of access to the tree of life) was a consequence of sin, but isn’t actually the punishment, rather, an act of mercy so that we aren’t left immortal in our sinful state is a good answer to this question of “why do infants die if they aren’t guilty of sin?” The first death is a consequence for all humanity, but the second death (hell) is the actual punishment for our sin if we don’t accept immortality in the presence of God offered by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi

3 ай бұрын

Spot on👍💯

When the Bible says that a person must have faith in Christ, the implication is that this applies only to those who are capable of exercising faith. From that starting point there seems to be a proverbial fork in the road as to how one interprets such verses . On the one hand, you can cite a systematic that teaches that no one can have faith, unless God grants it which would mean such verses apply to infants. On the other hand, you can consult general revelation, namely, Divine design of humans, and see for yourself that infants lack the ability to exercise faith and conclude that those verses don't apply to humans who are incapable of exercising faith.

@Tim.Foster123

2 ай бұрын

Not necessarily. The devils believe (and tremble), but salvation is not available to them. They are not capable of exercising saving faith, because that ability is not an option for them. They are literally unable to do so. You may be tempted to say "yeah, but they sinned in their rebellion, so they deserve hell", and that would be true. But let's take this to the next step: were the Nephilim (offspring of the fallen angels who married human women) capable if being saved? Or were they doomed from the womb?

@AndrewKeifer

2 ай бұрын

@@Tim.Foster123 Well, comparing angels to men with regard to salvation is an apples to oranges comparison for several reasons. Additionally, the theory that demons had sex with women is mythology and it begs the question, "If demons could have sex with women back then, then why aren't they doing it now?"

@Tim.Foster123

2 ай бұрын

@@AndrewKeifer to explore that line of thinking, we would need an actual list of comparisons between humans and angels. In the absence of that list, this is not just speculation, it's wild speculation. And unfruitful discussion. Scholars throughout Church history are mixed as to whether fallen angels procreated in Gen 6, so its not unsubstantiated myth. (They no longer do so today because 1 Peter says they are bound).

@AndrewKeifer

2 ай бұрын

@timfoster4242 your point about angels is still moot since you admit the texts in question doesn't apply to them.

@Tim.Foster123

2 ай бұрын

@@AndrewKeifer My point is ultimately not about the Nephilim or the fallen angels. That rabbit trail was a thought experiment aimed to demonstrate the point that God can indeed (did indeed!) make creatures that fell into sin and have no option for salvation. The fact that God can/did make beings with no option for salvation raises the burden of proof on your end: you have to show how and why you believe all humans everywhere are a special category of fallen beings such that their default destiny is heaven and not hell. Succinctly: why is it that nephilim are doomed from the womb, but humans are not? Both are fallen beings, and are **by nature** children of wrath.

Imagine a little baby getting to heaven, and he's on trial, then God says, "You think you can live in heaven?? Explain...... THIS!" Then He points to a security camera recording of Adam eating the fruit 😂 Inheriting guilt is so silly

@AlexanderosD

3 ай бұрын

The baby: "Ah ya got me! And I'd do it again! Muahahaha!" Yeah it's so absurdly alien to God's character throughout Scripture.

@scienceandbibleresearch

3 ай бұрын

We all die because of Adam’s sin. But we’re punished for our actual sins. Babies who die in infancy are elect.

@argollo

3 ай бұрын

That's a bad argument cuz no Calvinist believes that. Make better argument . Ps I'm a provisionist

@fabriciofla8019

3 ай бұрын

While I agree it's silly, the idea of inherited fallen nature is also a hard pill to swallow (even though that's what I believe scriptures teach). I mean, I inherited a sinful nature thanks to Adam eating the fruit too, right? Even if I'm not inheriting his guilt, I'm inheriting the assurance that I WILL sin as soon as I can. I'm inheriting his sinful nature, which while not as bad as inheriting guilt, one could still argue it's not exactly fair.

@fabriciofla8019

3 ай бұрын

​​@@scienceandbibleresearchThen is their election unconditional, or is it conditional on the fact they are still babies and have not sinned? If all babies are saved, then unconditional election is false by definition. If unconditional election is true, then it's very possible some babies are not elect.

I agree. Augustines assertion that when a baby cries because it's hungry is a sin, because we don't cry for food when we are older is pretty silly.

I always found it interesting that the age of those that died out in the wilderness were from 20 and up. Numbers 32:11 [11] ‘Surely none of the men who came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, because they have not wholly followed me,”

@sharonlouise9759

3 ай бұрын

Yes, I too have always found this interesting and I think we do well to actually think about this.

@losnfjslefn8857

3 ай бұрын

Exactly. God seemed to think those below a specific age shouldn't be held guilty for the sins of their Fathers. Yet some people seem to think that we are all inherently guilty because of Adam's sin.

@jzlove5088

3 ай бұрын

@@losnfjslefn8857I wonder why!?!?!? Genesis 8:21 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. (What did God just say about our hearts?)

@jzlove5088

3 ай бұрын

@@losnfjslefn8857 Proverbs 22:15 “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child” (Weird bound up in the heart, I wonder when it got there?)

@jzlove5088

3 ай бұрын

@@losnfjslefn8857 Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Does this verse exclude any human by age?

Wow, just studying through this, and a new LF vid pops up!

The Orthodox Church doesn’t follow Original Sin and is one of the issues that divided the church in the schism of 1054.

@tannerfrancisco8759

3 ай бұрын

A lot of Christians don't. It's really only those damned in their religious pride and idolatry to false doctrines that make it their hill to die on--and they will.

QUESTION (please answer) Hi Dr. Flowers… I love your content. I find it thought provoking. I’m currently a student working on my Masters of Theology degree at Dallas Theological Seminary and you’ve helped me to challenge a lot of the Calvinistic doctrines that my professors use in their lessons. But on this particular topic I have a question that I need to ask you in order to clarify your view…I had to write a paper on my particular view on infant salvation and I argued that all infants are saved, because were saved by humbly accepting that which God reveals to us. In the case of infants they have never rejected any revelation of God, therefore they will be saved (my thesis goes much deeper than that and makes an argument for a form of infant faith, but for the sake of brevity I’ll spare the details). However, I first prefaced my argument by conceding that we have all fallen in Adam, and without the death and atonement of Jesus it would not be possible for infants to be saved. They would be condemned along with the rest of humanity. Would you agree this statement? I’m really trying to understand the degree to which you deny the doctrine of original sin. Your almost coming across as if your saying infants wouldn’t even need Jesus to have died for them because they’re so innocent, but I’m wondering if you’re just not realizing that it seems like this because your focused on pushing back against the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity and Inability… Love your work brother. You smoked James White in the John 6 debate! 😉

@ezekielkimosop1094

3 ай бұрын

Exactly! His argument constitutes a denial of the original sin doctrine in its entirety! My view is that it is impossible for Ezekiel 18 to be theologically at par with Genesis 2-3. If this was the case, how come no New Testament writer ever supposed so? This puts into question the necessity and impact of the works of the cross. I flatly disagree with the view advanced by Dr Flowers and Dr Howard. I must also state for the record that I am not a Calvinist.

7:55 yes it does make perfect sense.

The supposed proof texts for the claim that "faith in Christ is necessary for salvation" don't teach any necessary conditions for salvation, but instead only sufficient ones. If people want to apply Greek logic to the Bible, they should at least do it correctly.

Highly recommended Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle (Volume 5) (New Studies in Biblical Theology) If u want to understand original sin better

I believe that if you live for decades, but you never get past the intellectual capacity of a toddler, God will judge you as though you had died when you were a toddler, because you never had a higher level of understanding of right and wrong than a toddler does.

Have Tim on the show

@TheMidnightModder

3 ай бұрын

I'd love to see this!

This is really good. It also explains why Jesus had to have that same sin nature. Without it He couldn't have been tempted.

@Dawsonk300

2 ай бұрын

Jesus most definitely did not have a sin nature

@Dawsonk300

2 ай бұрын

Adam and Eve didnt have a sin nature and were still tempted

These verses below that i share clearly teach babies go to heaven as well as those who have no knowledge of Good and evil, I think its not an age but rather a mindset of accountability Deuteronomy 1:39 39‘Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. Cross reference:Genesis 2:16-17 Deuteronomy 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin alone. 2 Samuel 12:22-23 22And he said, “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23“But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” 1 kings 14:12-13 12“Now you, arise, go to your house. When your feet enter the city the child will die. 13“All Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he alone of Jeroboam’s family will come to the grave, because in him something good was found toward the LORD God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam. Job 3:11-17 11“Why did I not die at birth? Why did I not perish when I came from the womb? 12Why did the knees receive me? Or why the breasts, that I should nurse? 13For now I would have lain still and been quiet, I would have been asleep; Then I would have been at rest 14With kings and counselors of the earth, Who built ruins for themselves, 15Or with princes who had gold, Who filled their houses with silver; 16Or why was I not hidden like a stillborn child, Like infants who never saw light? 17There the wicked cease from troubling, And there the weary are at rest. Isaiah 7:16 “For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. Ezekiel 18:20 20“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. Matthew 19:14 14But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

The more Augustine you jettison, the closer to Scripture you get.

Leighton I would absolutely love to see you dialogue with Trent Horn. I used to be a Protestant but I’m now Catholic. I think Trent Horn would be great to talk to about James whites position on this. I love watching you dismantle Calvinist!

Is this a repeat of a prior vid? It sounds like I've heard this one prior... Just curious as my Calvinistic wife seems to think I've lost my mind...😅🤣😂

Leighton Flowers at 25:16 - 26:14: "It's also interesting to know that if you read Harwood's book, there's a footnote from Piper's book where he actually speculates maybe there is a post-mortem, in other words after death, time of maturation for infants that are aborted or who die. That maybe, he's speculating, he says we don't know this for sure, but maybe there's some form of post-mortem maturation by which this person is introduced to faith or introduced to Christ in some way. Again, he's speculating, but the fact that John Piper is willing to speculate that, I guess, there's a limbo ... or what's the Catholic view of purgatory or something like that? It kind of sounds like that, what he seems to be arguing for. Again, these are things that the Bible specifically does not give us an answers to every aspect." Response: Quoting from the Catholic International Theological Commission's document The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized of January 19, 2007 that concludes with the following: 3.6. Hope 102. Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18). 103. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church. [Vatican VA webpage /roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html]

@larrybedouin2921

3 ай бұрын

The state of the dead, according to the word of God. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof *thou shalt surely die* {Genesis 2:17} Man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? ... So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their *sleep* O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, *until thy wrath be past* that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, 👉till my change come. ... His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them. {Job 14:10, 12-14 & 21} And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in *my flesh* shall I see God. {Job 19:26} Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, *nor knowledge nor wisdom* in the grave, whither thou goest. {The Preacher 9:10} Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; *in that very day his thoughts perish* {Psalm 146:3-4} Then said his disciples, Lord, if he *sleep* he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, "Lazarus is dead." {John 11:12-14} ... Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection 👉at the last day. Jesus said unto her, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet *shall* he live:" {John 11:24-25} But go thou thy way till the end be: for *thou shalt rest* and stand in thy lot *at the end of the days* {Daniel 12:13} For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him *should not perish* but have everlasting life. {John 3:16} And *the serpent said* unto the woman, *Ye shall not surely die* {Genesis 3:4} Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down *in the midst of the stones of fire* {Ezekiel 28:14} ^ (satan always turns the tables on God, for he is the father of lies.) The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. *Who* among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? *He that walketh righteously and speaketh uprightly he that despiseth the gain of oppressions that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil* {Isaiah 33:14-15} If anyone errors in their understanding of this doctrine of the dead, then they will in no way be led to the understanding of the truth, for it will be a stumblingblock unto the decernment of spiritual things, including soilterology and eschatology.

Why do we die? Because of Adam's transgression, sin and death entered the world. Yes, we die, but praise God, it's not the end, but the beginning, Hallelujah !!!

Hello Leighton, I am relatively new to the channel. Love your content. What is your view on baptism?

I suggest that what is being referred to as a "sin nature", is an aspect of human intelligence overall, which God created and knew full well was going to be difficult for us to overcome so as to live at peace with ourselves, other humans, and Him. And I suggest it's highlighted throughout the Book, and generally referred to as our "heart". "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? - Jeremiah 17:9

Your thoughts on original sin is like the Orthodox Church

@tannerfrancisco8759

3 ай бұрын

But they were spared the brunt of Augustine's demonically inspired doctrines that plagued the rest of Christendom, but they went off the rails in other ways.

excellent video

Bravo! This was excellent!!!

@ernestojlassus1354

2 ай бұрын

Sickning heretical.

Its funny how Calvinists quote that passage, do they even read what they quote? "Just as one act of righteousness brought justification and life for ALL men" Hmm, did that say all men? I thought he only died for the elect? Cue the all doesn't mean all excuse.

@scienceandbibleresearch

3 ай бұрын

If he means every single person in the world then you’re making Paul sound like he’s teaching universalism. Justification refers to them actually being saved, not simply Christ dying for someone who may not ever believe in him.

@a-aron6724

3 ай бұрын

He died for whosoever will, eat of the tree of life. The death of Christ tied us back to the father as the human race. God isn't the limiting factor in who is saved​@@scienceandbibleresearch

@ChristIsKing777-hr9ki

3 ай бұрын

​@a-aron6724 Are the words "adoption as sons" in Ephesians 1:5 referring to justification or glorification?

@benjy288

3 ай бұрын

@@scienceandbibleresearch Justification and life, if he doesn't mean every single person then you must believe that Adam's sin didn't bring condemnation for ever single person, because he uses the exact same word, and its not universalism because not everyone accepts the free gift, if I turn up to a party with drinks and say I brought free drinks for everyone, that doesn't mean everyone has to have one, some people will choose not to have a drink, but I still brought drinks for everyone.

@benjy288

3 ай бұрын

@@a-aron6724 That's not what the scripture says, he died for ALL men, and whoever believes in him will receive that free gift.

Hello Sir Leighton, How do the Bible define sinful nature? Pls. give me some references. Thank you

Dr. Flowers, I do not have a dog in the fight as I am not Calvinist. However, I do see some points at which I could rebuttal some of the things you were saying. My reason for rebuttal would be for clarity and how you would respond. What would be the best way to do that?

Also if I remember right the Eastern Orthodox don't teach Original Sin. Or rather not how the west describes it where it's inherited guilt. I'm not Orthodox though so I could be wrong.

Matthew 18:10 (NASB): “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven." Response: If Jesus is referring to little children in this verse that follows from the encounter in verses 1-6, then wouldn't His warning not to despise them, including considering them for damnation, offend their guardian angels to whom God has entrusted them?

The Amazon links in your video description don't go to your books.

Curious, maybe youve answered this before, how do you view Joshua 7 (story of Acham) in comparison with your view of infants or people being held accountable for the sins of the father"

Just enjoying that a “short” on Soteriology 101 is over 27 minutes long! I understand that these are big topics and don’t lend themselves to the traditional short of < 1 min. And I have enjoyed the segments that are 2+ hrs long. You are fair and thorough. Keep up the good work!

“And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him,” (Hebrews 7:9-10). This seems to be the same logic Paul uses concerning the first and second Adam.

Professor Flowers, are you saying that the firstborn infants of the Egyptians were not condemned, according to Exodus 12:12.

Tim Barnett @ cedar view church talk on defense of limited atonement . He claims John Calvin did not hold to limited atonement. This double talk and word twisting needs called out each time. Enough already. Comment section closed. on his youtube video of this too. I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.” John Calvin source; Calvin and Beza

@losnfjslefn8857

3 ай бұрын

Yeah, I see people say things like this regularly too. "John Calvin didn't hold to _____!" But then I'll read some quotes from John Calvin that imply the exact opposite. So like, was John Calvin just confused or? 😆

@17:06 Augustine thinking sex is evil - yikes!

To your point... Isaiah 7:16.. So there's that.

@merrickc1876

3 ай бұрын

This might be about Jesus, I dont think anyone except him fits the context when you read from Verse 13 onwards Isaiah 7: 13-17 13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah-he will bring the king of Assyria.”

@tannerfrancisco8759

3 ай бұрын

I would say it's specifically referring to Jesus but generally could be applied to all humans--that we learn right from wrong as children.

@scwienert

3 ай бұрын

⁠@@merrickc1876it actually magnifies it if it’s about Jesus. If Jesus has an age where He, the Son of God, will know to refuse evil and choose good… then we definitely do.

@merrickc1876

3 ай бұрын

​@@scwienert i dont think that can be applied to everyone in the way that you think. Jesus is fully man and fully God, cause it may be that its his omniscience taking part here. besides that, knowing from right and wrong is not a sin, its acting on the wrong thing. even if the newborn has an inclination he cannot act upon it

@scwienert

3 ай бұрын

@@merrickc1876 how does His omniscience take part there? I didn’t say knowing right from wrong was a sin. I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing here.

That this is even a topic...

This is something I sincerely struggle with…The fact that all of humanity inherits a sinful nature passed down from Adam…The ability for the sinful nature to be passed down to all people like some genetic trait, was that God’s idea or the result of natural laws in which He must contend?

@tannerfrancisco8759

3 ай бұрын

Romans 5 explains that God allowed the punishment for Adam's sin which was mortality/ physical death to go on to his descendants and gives the law (Romans 5:20) so that more will fall and grace can be even greater, but that the spiritual death is incurred through our personal intentional sin (Romans 7:9-12). Romans 7:9-12 explains explicitly that babies are born spiritually alive and only die when they know right from wrong and choose to do wrong. So infant damnation is literally unbiblical in every way. It's impossible for a baby to go to hell because they don't have any sin which separates them from God. They are in right relationship with Him. They are counted as righteous because they still have a perfect spirit in them. They have no sin. They are in flesh inclined to desire sinful things but they literally are not capable of sinning. Now in terms of grown people who have sinned, they are all damned for their sin and condemned unless they believe on Christ. So Jesus or Paul or anyone preaching to thinking, listening humans and trying to show them the way to salvation, the only way is through Christ. But babies and little kids don't even qualify to need to receive that message--Jesus said the kingdom of heaven belongs to the little children and specifically says you're in big trouble if you hinder them (make them sin, do sinful things to them like molest or beat them, and make them hate God for allowing bad things to happen to them).

@ryanmajors6582

3 ай бұрын

@davidsmith2942 The Bible never says we have a sinful nature, it actually says the opposite: ”For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are CONTRARY TO NATURE; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.“ ‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭26‬-‭27‬ ”For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, BY NATURE DO WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.“ ‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭14‬

@tannerfrancisco8759

3 ай бұрын

The law is written on our hearts. People inherently know right from wrong because we are made in God's image as thinking and feeling beings. But a consistent calvinist would deny that God has feelings or emotions because that would mean God is not immovable. But that attribute doesn't belong to the God of the Bible. It belongs to the false god of stoicism and that's where the calvinists got it from along with a lot of false doctrine about who God is.

Matthew quotes Jeremiah concerning the children Herod killed. He did not quote all of it tho, I assume because the second part has not yet occurred. But Jeremiah says those children who were killed will return "to their own land". So I they will return WITH Christ at His second coming. Not one child killed by Herod was "non elect", as they will ALL return. read below Jeremiah 31 This is what the Lord says: “A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.” 16 This is what the Lord says: “Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded,” declares the Lord. “They will return from the land of the enemy. 17 So there is hope for your descendants,” declares the Lord. “Your children will RETURN to their own land.

@williammarinelli2363

3 ай бұрын

In Italian we call this account La strage degli innocenti.

I’ve been gone for a month, came back, and flowers is still harping on about White🤦🏻‍♂️

what do you make of Psalm 51 where David says in sin was I conceived? he wasn't saying his mother sinned conceiving him he was saying he was born with a sinful nature. Other parts of scripture as well talk about the sinfulness of our estate after the fall. This doctrine is so offensive to the corrupt nature of man we will do anything and say anything to fight it.

So is he saying an infant has a fallen nature, but is not guilty until he sins?

@misselizabeth269

3 ай бұрын

That's my understanding. We all have a natural propensity to sin, but infants make no conscious choices to sin. Until we're able to choose between moral and sinful acts, there is no guilt of sin.

@NuManXplore

3 ай бұрын

@@misselizabeth269 I think I’m in agreement. One thing I’m thinking through is that since an infant has not sinned do we still consider them a sinner? Might sound like a funny question… I agree they have the propensity to sin and a fallen nature, but In my thinking a sinner is “one who commits sin”, the breaking of Gods law. They will of course one day sin, but are they not yet a “sinner” until they realize their guilt?

@misselizabeth269

3 ай бұрын

@@NuManXplore I would agree with that. Infants are born innocent. Not perfect, but definitely without "imputed guilt".

@NuManXplore

3 ай бұрын

@@misselizabeth269 👍🏼

I just love God's in genius Providence that Tulips are being trampled by Flowers.

@sphtu8

18 күн бұрын

😂😂😂

* Did Christ partially erase Adam's sin? Is a sin partially paid for? * --- NEVER ANY CALVINIST COULD RESPOND THIS. Question for Calvinists: 1. (a) If Adam is not in hell, then his sin was paid for. How then do other children and people pay again in hell for something that was already paid? Did Christ partially erase Adam's sin? Is a sin partially paid for? (b) Or seen the other way around, if Adam is in hell but you are saved, it means that you were also forgiven of Adam's sin (Since according to Calvinism we are all guilty of adam sin) consequently if you are saved, it means that God also forgave you of Adam's sin and if you are forgiven of Adam's sin it means that Adam's sin was paid for on the cross since there is no forgiveness without death on the cross, then how is it that Adam is in hell? IT IS THAT By (a) or (b) you see that Calvinism not only claims that someone pays for an uncommitted sin but also that the blood of Jesus PARTIALLY erases a sin (see example (a) or (b) ). 2. How does one repent of Adam's sin that he did not commit? 3. When God has judged all things, when specifically Adam's sin was paid for, if it was paid again and again by thousands of people in hell. When specifically was sin extinguished? To be judged, a sin needs to be judged more than once (see point 1 also). 4. Did Israel have an offering or sacrifice that they had to make for their sin of being born as a descendent of Adam? When it happened or its in the scriptures? It is incredible to believe that these people believe that we are guilty of an uncommitted sin and that the blood of Christ partially erases a sin (see point 1).

@argollo

3 ай бұрын

We're talking about consequence of the sin.

@thm8521

3 ай бұрын

@@argollo I know. This is just a correlative thing. Ignore if you want.

So you are saying that when a baby is born-it is not tainted by sin and considered to be in a neutral or none condemned state because a baby has not committed a sin. Am I correct on how I percieve this? If correct, how is it so that I do not remember being in one state (no sin therefore no sin nature) and then later added to the next state-a state where I am now a sinner. Besides not really taught in any passage I am aware of-can you name some people who teach this and also people who remember experiencing this? On a similar ideal, we know the wages of sin is death. So how is it a baby can die like anyone else? If the wages of sin is death, should not be able to abort babies, right? Pharaoh should have not been able to see every Jewish male infant drowned to death-the wages of sin is death. This is all really out there. Don't worry, I do not agree with James White either. What does the scriptures teach about this? I do not think they really do so I do not worry about it. At best when Jesus told others it would be better to have a stone to be fastened around your neck and thrown in the ocean-if we offend children. That is closest that I think of and tend to lean to age of accountability. On this ine I would say stick to the scriptures which means do not speculate about what the bible does not teach. About creation and imputed guilt...are animals imputed with guilt? No. What about plants? 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to us. 19 The eager expectation of the creation waits for the appearance of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but by the will of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan within ourselves while eagerly waiting for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. Modern English Version. Thinline Edition. Lake Mary, FL: Passio, 2014. Print.

@davidemme2344

3 ай бұрын

@@simplearthling Thanks for your reply. when I say this-both sides have many who will rip and snort and many times act like they are lost. If you have a title for the article-love that kind of stuff. Only thing am thinking about Heiser was to bring the ideal to the Jewish elect in the OT. Not sure I agree. Whether I agree or not-he was a good man. A friend of mine from my youth group who was more of a hard core Calvinist than I. I-he was very good friends with him. I am looking at one book and have to decide which one of David Allen's book to chew into. The other about Limited Atonement-From Heaven He Came. Will be looking at Romans 5 later

So interestingly the distinction between original sin and guilt of personal sin in the realm of innocence 'generally' heads into the direction of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. Check it out!

@losnfjslefn8857

3 ай бұрын

What's the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox church in this regard? Or are they the same?

Am I wrong to believe that I’m a sinner by choice not birth? I’m a sinner because I chose to sin like my father Adam.

John 9:41 [41]Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. Babies are blind in the sense Jesus is talking about here in this verse. His death on the cross took care of Adam's guilt that was passed on to all mankind. Had Jesus not died on the cross for the sins of the world, even babies that died would go to hell, even though they are blind. Not knowing any better wouldn't make any difference if Jesus had not died for our sins. Those who are not blind and know better must repent of their sins and be saved.

@larrybedouin2921

3 ай бұрын

That is nonsensical. God does not see an infant before Christ sacrifice any different than he did before his sacrifice.

@bobbyadkins6983

3 ай бұрын

@@larrybedouin2921 Babies still went to Paradise before Jesus went to the cross, because Jesus was going to go to the cross, just like Moses went to Paradise before Jesus ever went to the cross and paid for his sins, for example. If Jesus had not died on the cross, Moses would have went to Hell along with all of mankind. The law didn't save him, Jesus did. Jesus isn't just the Savior of those who repent and become born again believers. He's the savior of babies, before and after he died on the cross, also. Jesus was already the Savior before He ever went to the cross because He was going to go and did go to the cross.

Leighton, quit defending those vipers in diapers! 🐍👶🐍 😂

Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. According to CHRIST himself, if a man does not eat his flesh and drink his blood (ie - *ENTRUST* themselves in faith) to him then they have no spiritual life in them. For my Catholic friends, infant baptism is useless because they neither believe nor chew the bread and drink the wine! So 2 seconds after their infant baptism takes place, they too have no life in them. This issue is not about how to lose your spiritual life through sin, but how to gain it when you weren’t born with it.

This belief makes Planned Parenthood the greatest filler of Souls into heaven lol

@gk.4102

3 ай бұрын

As opposed to what? Filler of souls into Hell? Are you an advocate of infant damnation like James White?

@TheMidnightModder

3 ай бұрын

Well that's how it ought to work. Babies, who never had the opportunity to accept or deny Christ, who are killed, are shown grace and welcomed to heaven.

@scwienert

3 ай бұрын

That’s a very twisted view point.

@losnfjslefn8857

3 ай бұрын

Even if you murder someone, and they end up going to heaven, that doesn't make your murder any less of an evil act. All that matters is you murdered someone...

I agree with Dr Flowers that God will hold a sinner guilty for sins they consciously commit. I however disagree with his attempt to conflate Ezekiel 18 with the import of Adam's transgression in Genesis 3 to imply that sin is not imputed on sinners. My view is that Ezekiel 18 does not refute, amend or override the original sin doctrine taught in Genesis 3 and affirmed in several passages of Scripture including Psalm 51:5. There no writer of New Testament Scripture that considers Ezekiel 18 as a modification of Genesis 2-3. I am not a Reformed or Calvinistic Christian but I am persuaded that Romans 5:12-21 clearly affirms and amplifies the original sin doctrine taught in Genesis 3. The impact of Adam's sin on humanity is beyond having a sin nature. Scripture reveals that sin is imputed on the sinner right from conception (Genesis 2:16-17, 3; Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12-21). The import of Dr Flowers' argument is to draw the regrettable conclusion that men are born sinless. This violates several passages of Scripture including John 3:16-17; Romans 3:23, 5:12-21 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. I respectfully disagree with his view.

@tannerfrancisco8759

3 ай бұрын

The verses you cite to support your claims literally do the opposite. Maybe you should set aside your false presumptions and read those verses again in context without assuming all are born sinners and do some additional research into the specific context. For example: ​​Ps 51:5 says nothing of the sort unless you're using an unfaithful paraphrase. It says, "‭Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me." It's referring to the sinful state in which he was conceived--in lust or adultery or deception and not the actual act of intercourse or conception in general or imply being a human is a sin. This word used for "conceive" in the Hebrew is יחם /yâcham which refers to animals in heat. That word is only ever used right here to refer to the act of humans mating to imply that there was something carnal, visceral, and animal-like about how his conception occurred. Hebrew tradition says that Jesse thought his bloodline was corrupted and didn't want to have a baby with David's mother so she pretended to be one of the servants and had sex with Jesse (her own husband but under deception) conceiving David and that Jesse always assumed David wasn't actually his son which is why he gave him little consideration when Samuel came looking for the anointed one.

@scwienert

3 ай бұрын

I’d like to challenge you in your statement about “the original sin doctrine taught in Genesis 3”. Can you elaborate on how Genesis 3 teaches that?

@ezekielkimosop1094

3 ай бұрын

@@tannerfrancisco8759 I respectfully disagree with your view. There is nothing in my reading of the text that suggests that I am using unfaithful paraphrase. I have made no assumptions. My view is that you are attempting to introduce suppositions rather than offering a constructive criticism. Your treatment of Psalm 51:5 is not consistent with a faithful hermeneutic. Finally, I submit to you that nothing in the text or in any passage of Scripture suggests that David was an illegitimate son of Jesse or that his mother was a servant of Jesse. Your argument flatly fails the test of Scripture.

@ezekielkimosop1094

3 ай бұрын

@@scwienert I have belabored in outlining my view in considerable detail and have cited the relevant texts of Scriptures in Genesis 2-3, among others. I will not repeat myself.

@scwienert

3 ай бұрын

@@ezekielkimosop1094 you have not cited anything in Genesis aside from a vague reference to Genesis 3. Edit - I see now that you did cite Genesis 2:16-17. Your explanation tied to the citation is that sin is imputed to the sinner at conception and the verse has nothing to do with that. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, I am asking you to do what you haven't done yet, to show how Genesis 3 (and 2 if you want to include it) teach the doctrine of original sin. I ask this because you use use that as the main crux of your argument.

Some solid points for sure. However, 12:00 where you’re speaking of God “not abiding” by a law, doesn’t make much sense to me if you consider the Bible as a whole. God certainly has moments where his actions are unique, enigmatic, and do not resemble what we as humans have the right to do. At no point in scripture would God teach us that it is ok to drown the earth in water, as a result of people’s behavior, resulting in the deaths of most of humanity. God would not likely allow any of us humans to kill every first born son of our town (which in the Old Testament, very well could have included young children) however, this absolutely occurred through God’s decree. God alone, in His omnipotence and omniscience possesses the divine perspective necessary to take actions that may seem harsh to us as humans. Unfortunately, I just feel that this harshness could very well include judging the souls of all, not just those we as humans deem to be “sentient enough to know better” I’d rather NOT believe this, but I just simply cannot get past how subjective the idea of an age of accountability is. I’ve met 2-3 year olds. They may not understand the full gravity of what they do, but they absolutely have the capacity to know right from wrong. Does this mean they’re judged the same as an adult? I have no idea, only God knows. I pray for the safety and salvation of all infants and young children. Love your content Leighton, God bless you brother.

Where did man’s sin nature come from? Why did the infants in the flood have to die? What happened to their souls? What about the young boys that Herod murdered in his attempt to eliminate Jesus ie’ Rachel weeping for her children! I believe their names have been written in the Lambs Book of Life from the foundation of the world, Ask yourself who had the authority to write anyone’s name in the Lambs Book of Life? Was not the author Almighty God! Something to ponder. God Bless!

@suganemmenaul

3 ай бұрын

Good one. So babies also enter through Christ? Or without Christ? 🤔

@losnfjslefn8857

3 ай бұрын

Where did man's sin nature come from? Well, what *exactly* do you mean by sin nature? Before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, most would say they didn't have a "sin nature", and yet they sinned all the same. So, the propensity to sin has always been there. What exactly did Adam's sin result in happening according to Scripture? One thing we know, according to Romans 5, Adam's sin resulted in death entering the world.

Would someone be able to help me understand how the distinction between infants being “sin-stained but not guilty” and infants having Adam’s guilt imputed to them actually makes a meaningful difference in the conversation? I understand the concept, and can even see how the reading of the text is justified. What I don’t get is: what difference does it make? As I understand it, Dr. White’s position is, “Infants are guilty in Adam, therefore God exercises the same freedom in saving infants as He does in saving anyone else. It is His right whether to save or condemn an infant.” But on the position represented in this video, the best we get is an infant who is neither positively righteous nor positively guilty-somehow judicially neutral? In which case, it would be no more or less just for God to save an infant than for God to condemn an infant, which means He would still have absolute freedom to save or condemn infants. Clearly, infants still need to be saved-they have a sin nature which needs to be replaced with a sinless nature. If an infant doesn’t have a positive righteousness to merit salvation, then God must freely choose to save them on the basis of His grace, or else we are left to maintain that there is something inherent about human beings that makes them worthy of being saved, which is a patently unbiblical place to land. So as far as I can tell, whether infants are guilty in Adam, or not yet guilty until they sin volitionally, either way you are left with infants who need to be saved by the power of God, and God free to save them as an act of grace (which must, by necessity, be something He does freely, not out of obligation or necessity). What am I missing? Does the distinction actually advance the discussion in a way I don’t recognize, or is this just about Calvinists being wrong, even if it doesn’t make any practical difference? I’m hoping someone can help me understand that. In exchange, I’ll happily respond to a question/challenge presented by Dr. Flowers regarding the Ezekiel passage. The easiest answer would seem to be that Ezekiel is talking about punishing children for their parents’ sins, whereas Paul in Romans 5 is talking about federal headship, and people being counted as guilty or righteous NOT on the basis of their parent’s sin or righteousness, but on the basis of their federal representative’s sin or righteousness. In other words, Cain and Able weren’t punished because their father sinned, they were punished because their federal head sinned-he just happened to be their father. If you don’t like this distinction, or think that the federal headship notion somehow violates a principle established in Ezekiel, I would simply point out that Dr. Flowers himself quoted from Ezekiel 18:20 which makes it plain that the discussion in Ezekiel is about both guilt and righteousness. If the principle you draw from Ezekiel 18 is, “God will only ever count people guilty for their own sin” then you must also draw the principle, “God will only ever count people righteous for their own righteousness.” The latter claim, of course, renders impossible the very hope of our salvation, that we are counted righteous not on the basis of our own righteousness, but the imputed righteousness of Christ. But if you allow in any sense for the imputation of righteousness, then a consistent reading of Ezekiel 18:20 must also allow in at least some sense for imputed guilt.

Babies can not be righteous because they are as subject to Paul’s “dirty rags” comparison of righteousness the same as all men. It is man’s distorted/unsanctified mind that creates this impression of cases of “innocence”. All fall short of the glory. How else but by the realization that we can’t even imagine how difficult it is to see and think fully sanctified that someday we could rejoice fully in heaven without any tears while our earthly loved ones may burn in hell at the same time.

@allanbarnwell7601

3 ай бұрын

We all make the mistake Abraham did and think we know better than God as we try and pluck more souls of Sodom from the fire. There were none righteous and God had already determined their fate, but for the sake of Abraham, he entertained the conversation as one does with a child. At the day of judgment, there will be those who see themselves as more “loving” than God wanting to save “just one more”. But they themselves will be turned away and told “I never knew you.” Filled with self righteousness, they created a God in their own image.

@tannerfrancisco8759

3 ай бұрын

You are demonized, sir. Repent and ask Jesus to save you from these demonic delusions--the real Jesus --not the idol you've concocted or the demon acting as a counterfeit "holy spirit" in your life. The stink of religious false humility and religious pride demons oozes off you even through the internet. Be free in Jesus' name!

@losnfjslefn8857

3 ай бұрын

​@@allanbarnwell7601 But in Psalm 106, in reference to the people that sacrificed their children to the idol of Canaan, it's said they shed "innocent blood".

We are all guilty before God. How can we, in our sinful and fallen nature, understand the nature of God and his judgement of children or those who cannot understand right and wrong. We sound arrogant in our attempt to assign character to a God who we cannot begin to fathom. We know God is just. He is righteous and He is loving and kind. Steer away from assigning our reasoning to a God who is far beyond our ability to understand.

@tannerfrancisco8759

3 ай бұрын

We can understand if you actually have the Holy Spirit. It's not a mystery unless you're an unsaved idolater in a demonic delusion of false religion. Jesus said children the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to children, Paul says in Romans 7 that we are born spiritually alive and only die when we willfully sin. Repent of your deception and regurgitation of these doctrines of demons and believe on the Lord Jesus.

what amazes me is that an educated Christian man like flowers goes to such great lengths to avoid two simple Questions. The first question he purposefully obfuscates by mentioning infants and those not mentally capable of thinking for themselves. The 1st question he refuses to address is " Is every human going to sin? " The 2nd question is "Why?" The Bible says ALL have sinned. Every human since Adam ,save for Flowers' pet groups , IS GOING TO SIN! and Why is that? We all inherited a sin nature from Adam that forces us to sin. We can not not sin. The singular reason Flowers refuses to let go of his silliness in this matter is because when he admits that ALL humans will sin and the have no choice in the matter the stink of determinism gets in the Air. The entire argument of do we or not inherit Adam's sin circles around the question of why is it All sin if they are determined to do so? Here is the real Biblical time line of us all sinning with no choice in the matter. Adam sinned. He Died. We all die because he died. Dying is an inherited trait. We die and have no choice in the matter. Oh how Cruel of God to make us suffer that fate when it was Adam who did the no no. Adam sinned. We sin because just like we inherited death and have no choice in the matter we in herited sinning with no choice in the matter. Everyone dies. Everyone sins all because of Adam. Ah smell that stink of determinism wafting through the air. No one can not die. No one can not sin. All of us have been destined to die. For it is appointed unto every man once to die. ( against his will Boo Hoo ) All of us are destined to sin. For all have sinned. But unlike dying we all choose to sin just as soon. as we can. And we can not stop our selves from making that choice no more than an eagle can choose to not to fly. It is its nature inherited from its parents before it. I love the smell of determinism in the morning. Quote from the movie Appocolypse Soon. Remember when you are boo hooing over this to think of those two basic questions. Are all going to sin? Why? No God did not determine us to die and sin Adam did. Or maybe It was God who did it because He determined that If Adam sinned he would die. So will any of you be brave enough to answer the two questions?

@losnfjslefn8857

3 ай бұрын

Actually all this talk of original sin and sin nature has brought back to my mind a question regarding Enoch from Genesis. As far as I understand it, he's the only one in Genesis 5 who didn't die? It says God took him. So, did Enoch not die? And if not, why didn't he die, like everyone else, considering he was Adam's offspring like everyone else?

@bock1965

3 ай бұрын

@@losnfjslefn8857 lol... he will die... Enoch has not died nor Elijah.. they will though. In the streets of Jerusalem as the two witnesses in Revelation. It IS appointed unto every man once to die. If Enoch had been sinless as you are suggesting He would likely have Bern the messiah prophesied in Gen 3. Romans says all have sinned. Enoch will die. But suppose He does not die til we get glorified bodies. His has to died in order to get a new one. When we talk with Enoch in heaven He will not have the same body he was born with. It will die at some point. No lies from the Bible. All men even Enoch and Elijah are appointed once to die.

This video presupposes that only one's actions - and not one's nature - is judged on Judgment day. But the Bible says we are "by nature children of wrath". - Who has the wrath? - How didn't come to be aimed at children? A proper discussion of the topic cannot be had without mentioning these points. (This video also disregards the possibility that some infants can have saving faith. There are a handful of passages in Psalms and Luke that imply it's possible) Calling someone "absurd" for not considering other views... Pot, meet kettle.

0:30 strange those who accepted jesus as their saviour. Yet suddenly they think about the concepts of babies born with severe disabilities or those murdered for no apparent reasons. Yet they think they have the mind of God.

Could an infant crawl into the presence of God and witness His full glory? Y’all are leaning on your own fallible understanding. WE ARE ALL INFECTED WITH SIN AND EVIL……..IT COMES FORM WITHIN US……THEREFORE INFANTS ARE JUDED AccordinglyBY GOD!

Little innocent baby Adolf Hitler….. Hypothetical scenario here: Humanity now knows the history and life of Adolf Hitler, we know exactly who little baby Adolf grew up to be, and we know exactly what little baby Adolf grew up to do, right? This man was one of the most wicked and evil men to have ever walked this planet. It is almost certain Adolf Hitler never repented of his sins or accepted Christ. Adolf Hitler was a pantheist who believed nature was the only true “god.” He is on record many times refuting Christianity and denying the deity of Jesus Christ. Agreed? Now then, let’s say little baby Adolf died at birth or was even aborted. Since God is omniscient, He knows ALL! Meaning, God knew what Hitler would do if he were to live a full life(my grandparents got to experience exactly what little baby Adolf did), and today the world knows of what little baby Hitler did do….. Does God just ignore little baby Adolf’s future sins? Does God take little baby Adolf into His arms full well knowing exactly what he grows up to do, God is going to take this baby into His arms full well knowing that Adolf will never accept Jesus Christ as His Lord and Savior? It just doesn’t make sense that God wouldn’t judge baby Hitler the same as adult Hitler, since God knows ALL. I think y’all greatly underestimate and misunderstand the concept of omniscience……….. God knows everything (1 John 3:20). He knows not only the minutest details of our lives but those of everything around us, for He mentions even knowing when a sparrow falls or when we lose a single hair (Matthew 10:29-30). Not only does God know everything that will occur until the end of history itself (Isaiah 46:9-10), but He also knows our very thoughts, even before we speak forth (Psalm 139:4). He knows our hearts from afar; He even saw us in the womb (Psalm 139:1-3, 15-16). Solomon expresses this truth perfectly when he says, “For you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind” (1 Kings 8:39). Little baby Hitler was never innocent. How could he have been? We know exactly what he grew up to do and be. So, does the fact that he’s a baby change what he will do in the future? Was it not Hitler’s destiny, fate, or whatever you wanna call it, to do what he did to be one of the most evil men that ever walked this planet, was that not his destiny from birth? How would little baby Hitler not be responsible for what God knows he will do? Gods like: “ok little baby Hitler, since you died before you did all those nasty and evil things you go directly to paradise and Me” God: “don’t worry little baby Hitler, even though I know for certain you would have grown up to be one of the most evil men in history, as well as reject me. I will ignore all of that!” God is transcendent of time, He is not bound by time like humans are, He can see the past, present, and future all at the same time. He has seen the story/documentary of ALL of our lives. His omniscience allows Him to see the unborn babies future. He knows every choice someone could have and would have made, He knows ALL! God is just, fair, and righteous I am 100% confident that God will judge and hold even unborn babies accountable justly and righteously. He can see with His omniscience every sin that baby would have committed if it were to live a full life. He would know if that child would reject or accept Him. Of this we are certain: God is loving, holy, merciful, just, and gracious. Whatever God does is always right and good, and He loves children (Matthew 19:14). I trust that God will judge the unborn correctly. And I do believe many babies and children will go to hell. Because scripture tells us that the majority of the world will reject God. This includes babies and children.(Matt 7:13-14)

@filmscorelife4225

3 ай бұрын

You sound like the movie "Minority Report." God doesn't judge us for anything we might do/or will do in the future. That's a weird Grecian philospophical mixed with molonism middle knowledge bs. We are judged based on committing sin. It's an active action....not passive nature. For the WAGES of sin is death. For a baby to be guilty would have to mean they commit sin knowingly to be held liable. Until they know....they aren't guilty. You just keep spamming the same comments here as you did on other channels.

@jzlove5088

3 ай бұрын

@@abuelb, so little baby Adolf would have been saved if he died as an infant?

@scwienert

3 ай бұрын

@@jzlove5088so what you’re saying is, up until a certain age God treats babies different from the rest of mankind. You’ve got your own form of “age of accountability” you just don’t realize it. And you have no scriptural support for it. Please show scripture that backs up God looking into the future to see if a baby would have accepted or rejected Him.

@jzlove5088

3 ай бұрын

@@scwienert,wrong…… Please show scripture where abortion is directly condemned….. Please show scripture the specifically address the rapture, please show me in scripture where it says trinity……. Weak argument my friend try again

@jzlove5088

3 ай бұрын

@@scwienert, you make an irrational and illogical assumption with the “age of accountability” view. This view is also very dangerous. And that’s why I rebuke it.

sin nature is real. it does not mean knowingly sinning.

@gk.4102

3 ай бұрын

And it doesn’t mean "guilty of someone else's sins" either.

So Leighton is now denying original sin? I'm not surprised. Heretics going to heresy.

Ugh LF making me side with White on this? 😂 LF brother, you're conflating the sins of the father and Adam's sin. 😂

@larrybedouin2921

3 ай бұрын

Grow up!

@losnfjslefn8857

3 ай бұрын

So we are guilty of Adam's sin?

The son shall not suffer for the sins of the father. So why were the Canaanite children killed alongside the adults? Show us how you make this fit your system and how you’re guilty of the same thing you accuse Calvinism of. I’ll wait🙂

@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi

3 ай бұрын

Really You guys need to get some new arguments. This gotcha question has been refuted a million times already. But I don't really think in this day and age, what with the internet, the answers are a few keystrokes away, You're not really wanting an answer, but a fight. Sorry to disappoint. Here goes.. That passage about sons not being punished for the fathers sins was spoken to and for Israel - Only😮 Pretty exciting, right? And the killing of men, women and children. That "kill" order was only given for the clans that lived in the hills. The descendents of the Nephilim - the giant clans. They were hybrids. Not human. The rest of the (human) population? They were given a choice between capitulation, leaving or death. Next time, ask a better question 😮

@ryanmajors6582

3 ай бұрын

@Vae07 Judgment in this life is different from judgment in the next life. In this life, God can and does judge sons for the iniquity of the father (Ex 20:5-6, 34:5-7, 2 Sam 12:14, Isa 14:21, Lam 5:7, Matt 23:35-36, etc). However, in the final judgment, each person is judged individually for their own sin (Jer 31:29-30, Ezek 18:20, Eccl 12:13-14, Matt 16:27, John 5:28-29, Rom 14:10-12, 2 Cor 5:10, Col 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17, Rev 20:12-13, etc). Since babies have never done anything bad (Rom 9:11), they are innocent (Ps 106:37-38) and the kingdom of God belongs to them (Luke 18:15-16). You have to harmonize the whole Bible, not just give one mic-drop example that supposedly disproves the other viewpoint. I’ve seen countless people take the lazy approach on both sides of this debate (and really any debate).

@losnfjslefn8857

3 ай бұрын

​@@ryanmajors6582Good points

The nature of the fallen being is incompatible spiritually to Gods Spirit. This is why one must be born again, born of Christ.

If all people are sinful inherently because of being descendants of Adam (which I disagree with) why wouldn’t we all now be born with righteousness since God restarted the world through Noah?

@markmesser-qe9fl

3 ай бұрын

Noah is still the progenitor and he is of Adam. So imputed sin.

@williammarinelli2363

3 ай бұрын

Very interesting. It's suggested that one be open (I'm often called the boogey man epithet of open theist, and don't care) to the Lord changed how He deals with sinful man. Gen 6:5,6 paraphrased - man is evil and it repented the Lord the He made man. Gen 8:21 - "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

@gk.4102

3 ай бұрын

Because Noah was fallen since he was also Adam's descendant.

@peterfox7663

3 ай бұрын

Noah would still be guilty of Adam's sin in Calvinism

@ZachFish-

3 ай бұрын

And we inherit the good side of the coin (counted as Gods child) if we are descendants of Christ/born again.

Did Israel have an offering or sacrifice that they had to make for their sin of being born as a descendent of Adam?

@thm8521

3 ай бұрын

Excellent point.

@suganemmenaul

3 ай бұрын

It’s that mean infant doesn’t need Christ to enter into heaven?

@thm8521

3 ай бұрын

@@suganemmenaul What do you mean?? Every person needs God, but a person who did not sin does not need the blood of Christ since it only applies to sinners, which specific sin will the blood of Christ cover in infants? Which one did he commit specifically? Tell me.

@suganemmenaul

3 ай бұрын

I am confused now. Because Christ is foreordained by God for salvation to all from the foundation. You telling me infants doesn’t need Christ to enter into salvation because they haven’t committed a sin? Where it’s says in the scripture? Can you provide for me?

@thm8521

3 ай бұрын

@@suganemmenaul No. Christ is predestined for the salvation of sinners who sinned, from what does Christ save infants who did not sin? What sin does he forgive them of if they did not sin? The blood of Christ forgives them of what specific sin if they did not sin?

How does Christ’s comment on even looking at a woman with lust is adultery. Or that being angry is murder? It does seem that thoughts count.

Follow this thought process. Is this possible?: 1) God (father,spirit,son) is incapable of sinning 2) God creates man, with a free will to choose God or self, but while man is good upon creation is NOT God and therefore susceptible to sin 3) give man enough enough time and man will choose self as that is their innate desire because they aren’t robots nor are they God or god-like 4) Adam’s sin breaks the union with God and all of man is seen as what they are: self seeking and choose self over God, thus they get what they want 5) God, in his mercy and grace, saves some from themselves Think of it like setting a bunch of ants loose in a room by a man. In the room is the man and a piece of food. Give it time, where will all the ants end up? The food. They are free to choose but really, what’s the ants nature? Only way any of those ants end up with the man (God) is if the man picks them up. Whoever God chooses for him will be in heaven and whoever he doesn’t won’t. Doesn’t matter what age they die. Is this hard to stomach, yes. But it is biblical. It is consistent. No where in scripture does it talk about age of accountability. This is assumed and read into the text. BUT the scriptures clearly use words like chosen and predestined. Clear and simple. Finally, it is not faith that precedes salvation. Ephesians clearly states, “By GRACE you have been saved”

@losnfjslefn8857

3 ай бұрын

Ephesians 2:8 KJVS For by grace are ye saved THROUGH faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: You forgot the "THROUGH faith" part. Also, Scripture says that God saves them that believe, it doesn't say He saves people which then *results* in them believing.

@BenGallagher-jj4up

2 ай бұрын

(Don’t forget the rest of the verse too) And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.“ ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2‬:‭8‬-‭9‬ ‭ESV‬‬ In the context of a chapter using words: chosen and predestined

@losnfjslefn8857

2 ай бұрын

@@BenGallagher-jj4up 100% correct. Salvation is all God's doing, no one, especially not me, is disputing that. As Titus 3:5 says "He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Titus 3:5 tells us HOW God saves an individual. Now WHO does God save? 1 Corinthians 1:21 KJVS For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to SAVE THEM THAT BELIEVE. Belief is the prerequisite to salvation, not the result of it. This sentiment is shared in John 1:12-13.

👏👏👏👏👏

Dr. Flowers do you reject Penal Substitutionary atonement? Because it kinda seems that if we logical take your position to its conclusion then it follows that Jesus didn’t impute my sin upon himself, or in other words he is not taking upon himself my sin … correct me if I’m wrong .

It’s amazing to me how Dr flowers is a PhD in divinity and he misses the whole carnal sin principal i.e. he misses the whole gospel and what the cross meant sin is not what we do. Sin is who we are we inherit that from Adam I still consider him a brother but wow, it’s amazes me.

@ezekielkimosop1094

3 ай бұрын

I concur with you.