HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- Stumbled on a Soteriology 101 video asking if I am “right” about Matthew 23:37
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio... for more of A&O ministry's content
For James White's political content, click here:
www.bitchute.c...
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Leighton Flowers should be working at a used car dealership.
Hahaha
But he’s doing so well. He even has merch now. 😂🤣😂
I would not buy a car from him.
@@franciscusgomarus5086right, he’ll tell you why “a Calvinist wouldn’t buy this car…”
The most Christ-like behavior.
Its quite odd that this man seems to almost exclusively address calvinism.
They don't call him the one string banjo for nothing.
@@billyr9162 ha, later on in the clip he claims to not know how a calvinist deals with a certain text. I'm thinking, isnt that the only you focus on is calvinism and you say "idk".....
@@SolaScriptura21
Yep. It's ridiculous.
Calvinism lives rent free in their head because they know they're wrong deep down.
@@firingallcylinders2949 super interesting hypothesis.
Leighton desperately needs a fact checker.
Until then…James White is happy to help out.
😂👍🏽 #getReformed
All I know is God saved me I didn't do it...
At the time of my conversion, I don't recall a long search for truth or dabbling in different philosophies. I was reading the bible with 3 other old friends around a table in friend's kitchen. Each of us would read a chapter of the bible. Through this experience and exposure to God's electrifying Word, everyone of us became saved. That Friday night in the bars, Sunday in Church. ba-boom. A new life had begun. that was 47 years ago. God still has control of my life.
Leightonists see God seated at the right hand of their idol, libertarian free will.
😬
Well said
What a childish argument
@@MrDLiver It’s a statement, not an argument. And it happens to be true.
@@PaDutchRunner
I'm sorry saying something is true doesn't make it so & it's just a childish and immature remark. Some reformed folks really need to grow up and mature a bit with their arguments
I think defining exegesis would be really helpful. Seems to me the way LF uses the term is ‘I read the text and this is the meaning I took from the text when I read it.’
"This is what I want the text to say and this is therefore what it says"
@@hondotheology Pretty much.
The word defines itself...Exe = out of...aka "out of the text"...
Leighton cannot or will not do that....he cannot.....every arminian I've ever seen cannot. If they attempt it...at some point, they ALWAYS..run out of the text to get some meaning not in the immediate text itself.
@@rpavich I don’t agree with Leighton obviously but he is not an Arminian. He does not claim that label either.
@@Postmillhighlights I realize that and I didn't mean to imply that he was...I guess I wasn't too clear.
I don't think Flowers is saved. And therefore not a Christian.
Thank you Dr. White. God bless you brother.
Genuine question: at what point is it acceptable to call Leighton Flowers a heretic? Is it possible for a regenerate person to be such a nuisance and to consistently lead people away from the truth? At what point is it appropriate to discuss these things?
I'm willing to call him that for his pelagianism, which he hasn't adequately answered and seems to just dodge the question or redefine the issues involved.
Calvinism lives rent free in Leighton's head...
@Sage of Synergism _"pelagianism is the gospel."_
Disagree. There is no gospel in pelagianism, you save yourself.
_"The gospel is not Jesus may or may not have died for you and youll just have to wait and see if God regenerates you."_
Agree. That's why Reformed Theology is better than hyper-Calvinism.
_"If you were really a christian you would want everyone to be saved"_
Agree. That's why Reformed Theology affirms the well meant offer. I like the way the Canons of Dort, Second Main Point of Doctrine, Article 5 puts it
*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.
*Article 6: Unbelief, a Human Responsibility*
However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, _but because they themselves are at fault._
I included article 6 as well since it speaks to you strawman.
@Sage of Synergism _"how do you know jesus died for you?"_
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 16
1. Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.
2. *These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith:* and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the Gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto; that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.
3. *Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.* And that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will and to do of His good pleasure: yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty, unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.
So in short, we look for the fruit of God's work in us. Both Paul and Jesus bring this up a lot.
_"And do you tell people that Jesus died for them?"_
I preach the same gospel the Apostles did. For example Acts 17: 30f "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he 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."
Notice how the actual message preached didn't have any of the tropes modern evangelists like to say to non-believers, like: "Jesus died for you" or "Jesus has a wonderful plan for your life". Where the Bible say anything like that, it is only directed at believers.
_"Why do you want all people to be saved but your god doesnt?"_
What do you mean? Romans 1 indicates that God has given all people sufficient revelation such that they are without excuse for their unrighteousness. Are you equivocating the call the Father does in John 6 with the gospel call?
And how do you answer this question? Your God doesn't save everyone (he doesn't save anyone, he leaves man to save himself). Why doesn't your God want to actually save anyone and instead leaves his children to play in the street while hoping really hard that they decide to come back to safety before a truck hits them? Your answer is worse than mine, so even if I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't want to go to a worse position.
My god actually runs out into the street giving his very life to save every single one of his children without fail. You don't like that he leave the devil to raise his children in his own way, but I don't have a problem with that.
@@oracleoftroy Almost every single objection to reformed theology can be boiled down to an inability to distinguish between God's eternal decree and his prescriptive will. Almost every objection this guy^ has offered misunderstands that distinction.
Freewill Provisionalism has believed the “Lie” whispered in Eve’s ear by the serpent ... NASB, Genesis : C3. V4 “You will be like God” ...Man has a will but it is not “free”!
That's right. The Hebrew word law, nomos, Means spiritual food for animals.
It all started with food. Is what we feed ourselves. God-made Adam of corrupt dust. The flesh. The flesh is attracted to the wrong food. That tree in the garden. The lust of the flesh. Pleasing to the eye. And the pride of life.
@@billyr9162 nomos is greek, torah or mitzvah are the hebrew words.
@@louiscorbett3278
It comes from a Hebrew word.
@@billyr9162 You said the Hebrew word law is nomos, it's not.
@@louiscorbett3278
I meant to say Greek word. It comes from a Hebrew word. Or I should say it comes from a Hebrew idiom.
Leighton Flowers has been stuck on the one note of "I have to refute Calvinism and elevate the free will of man" for years. And White is correct, 98% of his ministry is all about that. It doesn't matter whether it's Matthew 23:37, Romans 9, Ephesians 1:4, Acts 2:23, or any verse that he thinks he can reinterpret to fit his narrative, he will continually do so. And notice his ministry method consists of quoting Calvinists (Piper and Sproul are favorites when it suits him), not going through a whole section of scriptures to get the context of the text, using analogies, and finding any high profile person preaching or teaching a verse about God's sovereignty in salvation to critique in videos. This is this whole man's ministry.
No offense, but this man is an undercover open theist that reinterprets God's sovereignty, omniscience, and omnipotence to fit the great power of man's "free" will. Years ago I wrote in a comment section that I was frightened for Leighton Flowers and I'm even more so frightened for him now. His theology is bad and continues to get worse.
If I'm not mistaken hes been stuck on the same note for about 8 years.
That's a long time to do 3 videos a week on nothing but Calvinism.
There has to be a medical term for that kind of a defect. Because that's not normal
@@billyr9162 Yes, it's called obsession. Obsession is defined as "an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind." Leighton Flowers is can obviously be defined as someone who suffers from this because practically every video on his RUclips channel and article on his website is about refuting Calvinism and elevating man's free will. Jesus said that of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Luke 6:45). Flowers may think he's doing God a "favor," but in reality he's made the God of the Bible into a god that has weak attributes.
@@2timothy23
I think what hes made is a fool out of himself.
Be good chaps, you are cordially invited to, rub all three brain cells together, come over to Dr. Flowers RUclips channel, watch the video for 09/23/21, titled "James White's High Calvinism" and make every effort to say something intelligent.
@@JohnQPublic11
Tell choice meats to add another string to his banjo. We've heard that one note enough. Same note for 8 years.
I pray that Leighton never writes a systematic theology.
An Elder at my church once said "We are made in the image of God, but we like to make God in our image" its so true especially Soteriology 101 with libertarianism free will.
I haven't heard any exgesis with him. It's a hit job
Flowers just needs to pray for wisdom and understanding lol
Instead he merely prays to himself, the god of his itty bitty "free will."
He's so hardened against the doctrines of grace, its sad
Calvinism lives rent free in Leighton's head.
Leightonism disdains reformed theology because it stresses Gods sovereignty. Hmmm? See the connection???
Having come to the understanding of gods sovereignty, coming out of the spiritual bondage of the NIFB movement, seeing the astounding pride of so called believers deny gods sovereignty, it's utter blasphemy and heresy.
I had to eisegete all problematic verses when I was in the nifb. My view of the scriptures was disjointed. I thank the Lord for drawing me to salvation, and drawing me out of the nifb heresy to come to the understanding of who God really is.
Is NIFB the same as IFB like Jack Hyles ?
@@Kenneth-nVA It's descended from him. Steven Anderson is the head of the nifb movement.
@@Terror1Void gotcha! 24 years ago I had a close family friend heavily entrenched in that cult… I literally went to a revival meeting in Virginia where Jack Hyles was teaching. We only went to the starting Friday night meeting because by the second message, my friend saw the horrific errors of this mans teachings… this is the second teaching verse that he used (Mat 13:44 “The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure, hidden in a field, that a person found and hid. Then because of joy he went and sold all that he had and bought that field. ) Hyles taught that the treasure was your pastor and tithing above and beyond plus doing everything your pastor says, is the point! Blessings brother that you have left 🙌🏻
@@Kenneth-nVA That echoes very similar to my experience. Worship of the man, more than Christ. My ex pastor was caught using tithe money to spend upwards of 8 grand a month on junk food (very large man). I couldn't ignore that, and confronted him about it. He gaslighted and basically said the laborer is worthy of his hire etc. The holy spirit shoved me out of that church after 8 months.
@Sir Isaac Newton I wasn't lead to salvation by a nifb church. God gave me a new heart, and at the same time I was listening to preaching by some nifb pastors. Since I was newly saved, I had a bonfire of excitement to want to serve god. Since I was a spiritual babe, my knowledge was limited, and didn't have anything to compare biblical truth v nifb heresy.
I did eventually attend a nifb church, for 8 months before a scandal erupted and was led out. I can't explain for you why god ordained me going into such a bad environment, but his true nature was only revealed after I left that church.
All things worked together for good for me, and I'm closer than I've ever been to him. Seems you have an issue with gods sovereignty, funny coming from the thing formed by God.
Calvinist arguments that seem to go on forever that false teacher White keeps dragging up.
Dr. White has made a plenty of good points about Dr. Flowers' teaching, but this matter about Flowers' focus almost exclusively being on Calvinism is a truly critical aspect of this ongoing, uhhh ... "brouhaha." Regardless of ones' position- it's not a healthy sign to do obsess over this one thing. Soteriology is, of course, is certainly not a minor area of theology, but still... this and only this?? And it's not really even just soteriology he focuses on ... but rather just anti-Calvinism.
Yep. For about 8 long years or more.
Seems like a psychological problem.
Another fine example of James “The Professor” White schooling, refuting and chastising Leighton “Choice Meats” Flowers with wisdom, knowledge and exegetical mastery over the topic. I, for one, wonder how Leighton climbs his provisionist self from his bed every morning for yet another day of getting spanked by both Calvin and The Professor. I can only imagine that he goes to therapy 4-5 times a week to tell his therapist why Calvinism is wrong. His opinion of himself could sway both ways, I guess….solving his cognitive dissonance. He might think that his superior exegesis, smooth southern drawl and dignified graying hair makes him the obvious intellectual champion…..OR…..or…..he might despise himself so badly, that he imagines that his hellish existence is a certain curse from God because when he signed his college employment contract, he signed away all ability to speak the truth of Reformed Theology and agreed to the attempt to thwart clear Bible passages proclaiming God’s Sovereignty…..
Please do a live q&a. God bless you Brother James!
The one key question which Leighton Flowers and all his Autonomian cronies have to answer, is just this… is GOD ABSOLUTELY SOVEREIGN OVER ABSOLUTELY ALL THINGS (which includes the will of man - Phil 2:13), or is He ‘merely sovereign’, or just ‘nominally sovereign’, or only ‘kinda sovereign’? Because, either God is God over all (2Kin 19:15, Isa 37:16, Rom 9:5…), or He is not God, no different to Allah, or Shiva, or Zeus, or Brahma, or Baphomet, or Shirley McLane…
When they insist upon asserting the ‘sovereignty of man’ over the sovereignty of God, do they not realise that their denial of the Lordship of God only impugns the doctrine of grace and all what was accomplished by Jesus Christ on the Cross! They are “always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” - 2 Tim 3:7
While they are “zealous for God, their zeal is not based on knowledge”, preferring instead to “seek their own righteousness, rather than submitting to the righteousness that is entirely of God” - Romans 10:2,3
in his sovereignty God ordained freewill.
@@donhaddix3770 You clearly have no idea what is meant by either ‘human free will’ or ‘divine sovereignty’!
@@osks
This Scripture text clearly shows God's divine sovereignty, ensuring Jerusalem's rejection of the Lord Jesus happens so His salvation plan may be fulfilled. His plan of salvation goes beyond Israel but for all the nations, including the restoration of His whole creation through His elect, the church made up of Jews and Gentiles who are all one in Christ Jesus.
Who are oh man ( flowers) too answer back to God who can counsel God in his ways of bringing his sheep to salvation
On Calvinism God doesn't even have ways of bringing sheep to salvation, he just chooses them and end of story, they are saved whether they like it or not.
@@Isaaaaac please just stop it’s exhausting truly exhausting 🤫
@Sage of Synergism you have the right to be wrong friend keep studying, you do not have because you do not ask… ask him for his wisdom and understanding goodnight
@Sage of Synergism read All of 1 Timothy slowly
@Sage of Synergism Yes you did quote scripture like I said read the whole book and just to let you know every epistle was written to believers ALL man does not mean every single person You have to read it in context go back and read
Flower's freewill hates God's sovereignty.
I don't understand how James, Jeff and many other reformed men can consider Flowers and Brown brothers in Christ? How can someone deny a large percentage of the scriptures, deny the sovereignty of God and still be considered regenerate. The fact that James continues to try to correct and refute Flowers and Brown shows me that they are trying to convert them. No different than them debating Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists and Catholics.
Because the profession Christ as their Lord and Savior. That's enough.
Leighton and Brown just don't understand how Grace works. But believe that Grace works. I believe they are saved.
What did White mean (27:54) about Flowers when he said "now I know you're not in a Southern Baptist context anymore"? Did Flowers leave the SBC or something?
I was wondering the same thing.
It's an ad hominem attack
@@MrDLiver I"m not processing what you mean . . . are you saying he's being sarcastic - i.e. that Flowers really is still in the SBC, but White's saying his theology doesn't really fit with the SBC? Is that what you mean?
@@Henry._Jones
No I'm saying its got nothing to do with calvinism being true whether Leighton is or is not in SBC and it is purely an argument that attacks the man
@@MrDLiver Well, I understand what an ad hom is, that's not my question. I get that if something is an ad hom, then it is side-stepping the substance and attacking the person in lieu of the argument. But in order to identify an ad hom, there needs to be more than a unspecified claim of substantive irrelevancy, there needs to be the identification of an actual attack on the man. So, then, what is the attack on Flowers, exactly? Even if the claim is false, and even it is ad hom, it has to be an attempt to say something with particularity. So, what negative thing is he saying about Flowers? (even if it's false or irrelevant)
The only two things I can figure are this (although there could be others, I'm not identifying, maybe(?)):
1) There's been some sort of movement away from or friction with SBC either formally or informally by Flowers- his ordination or his ministries, etc.
2) He's simply saying in a tongue-in-cheek way that he (i.e. White) doesn't consider Flowers' theology to be in accord with SBC standards, and so, in a manner of speaking, he's no longer "in a Southern Baptist context."
I guess it's the second one, as best I can tell, but sometimes White speaks in a choppy disjointed manner and I can't discern all of his references.
Who was it that said "Judas White and Jeff Dirtbin"? I'd like to find a full video of that
Gene Kim I think
White said something about Flowers is no longer associated with their Southern babtist convention?
Does that mean he left the Baptist church?
The Southern Baptist convention is no longer associated with the Southern Baptist convention!
@@Wood424
What's that mean?
We can only hope he will finally join the Open Theists instead of pulling more into the Baptist camp. They are incompatible.
@@pinknoise365
Why would you hope that?
1st Timothy 2:1 says that we should pray for the kings and the rulers in the church that they be saved and come to truth.
@@billyr9162 How many times has Leighton been rebuked? Yet he rages on. He supports Open Theists within the Provisionist camp such as Brain Wagner, Drew McLeod and Warren McGrew. It would be more honest of Leighton to call himself by what he truly is instead of presenting himself as a Protestant. The title is deceptive.
Proverbs 11:21
“Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished: but the seed of the righteous shall be delivered.”
Proverbs 10:7
“The memory of the just is blessed: but the name of the wicked shall rot.”
There is one proof in all creation.. God has not chosen to deliver everyone equally😮
Sorry if you say that you preach a different gospel😮
So what Jesus was saying is: "I wanted to give you a kind of grace that is not irresistible, it's not a saving faith (because if Jesus actually said that he wanted to save the non elect by irresistible means, it's over for the reformed and we don't want that), but you did not want to receive the resistible grace or keep my prescriptive will?
Was it the prescriptive will speaking? "I wanted you to keep my commandments (prescriptive will) but you did not obey me (because of a lack of grace that I did not want to give you).
Matthew 23:37 is a difficult passage for presbyterians. Let's face it.
No, it's not difficult. Jesus is admonishing the Jewish leaders for hindering and subverting His word and in so doing making it more difficult for those under the authority of the Jewish leaders (their children) to understand how to come to Him.
Just like false teachers hinder the understanding of newborn believers and the undiscerning.
@@doulos9828 Do you understand that the free will-predestination debate has been one of the most important issues during the history of the church, right?
Do you actually believe soteriology is simple given the complexity of multiple passages that seem to show tension between grace, the atonement, faith and works, the love and the extension of salvific grace, and so forth?
Give me a break, brother.
The reformed dont even believe the Lord's sacraments are efficient means of grace, they believe that it is so only for the elect. So reformed theology is a theology of the hidden will of God.
Defend perseverance of the saints or limited atonement. Or irresistible grace. Come on. I'm just tired of reformed brothers thinking they are superior as if they are the only ones that make distinctions, or believe in predestination, or God's Sovereignty. All christians believe those. Preach a sermon like a calvinist and tell your audience that probably God does not love them salvifically. I hope you are consistent with your own protestant tradition and don't dare to say that God loves a reprobate salvifically, because that would be blasphemy for your tradition.
@@SantiagoAaronGarciais your position that Jesus Christ died for the sins of every man?
Past, present, and future?
@@dustincampbell4835 I don't even know. I'm studying "Religious Studies", I'm 24, currently protestant (anglo-lutheran leaning), and preaching at a Nazarene Church here in Argentina. Christ's sacrifice covers all sins of his people, and we are saved by his grace and mercy, through faith, which is a gift from God. I don't have all the answers.
I understand that there are many wills in God, but I have difficulties with the tension that arises with some biblical passages on the topic regarding the atonement, grace, predestination and God's love and purpose for the world.
23:00.. Leighton thinking he's had a point, "You still have God wanting something that isn't happening" ; so clueless, on man's part.. This is what happens when you don't accept the Scriptural position that God does everything that's being done, by Compatibility Mystery, in order to Determine His Own Ends ; (Deut.32:39) " I Kill, I Make Alive, I Wound, I Heal ; all of the Convincing ; all of the heart hardening ; all of the "putting into the mouths of men to lie" ; all of the "putting into hearts to do His will" ; all of the "putting into hearts to reject His will" ; all of the "stopping men from sinning against Him" ; theatrically doing all these unstoppable things ; that he Might ultimately however, accomplish His will in every circumstance.. Only when taken aback by the Grand Creator, can the observation of any of men's actions and reactions, make sense ; yes, only according to the Divine Decree of Yahweh.. NONE CAN THWART HIS WILL!!.. So yes ; even though we see God wanting something that clearly isn't happening ; the mysterious answer, is that it's been "Divinely Scripted Play" ; i.e., leaders influencing others, or Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery to prevent a prophesy ; or any such seemingly humanistically interpreted, free-will action, intended from observation, to be inhibiting God.. The foundational understanding, is that Yahweh has been orchestrating those exact perceived opposite Determined actions.. Yes, just as with Moses, it appeared that god wasn't getting what He'd wanted, which was to "Let My people go!".. "please, please.".. Ten times begging ; It'd appeared that He wasn't getting what He'd wanted.. Why???. "For I will harden Pharoah's heart, to not let them go".. Our humbling to it, however ; to observe Yahweh hardening and judging simultaneously ; using Determined means to accomplish His Will ; has all been meant, in order that we Glorify Him for His Amazing Predestinating Power ; Just like the early church had. (Acts.4:27,28) "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together ; For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel Determined before to be done.".. Remember Pilate though?" "Don't you know that I have the"free-will power" to crucify you or release you?".. Yeshua : "You have no power, except it be Determined from Above.".. And get this ; talking about observing Yeshua wanting something, that He's not getting ; for even Yeshuah's three time prayer attempt, to not die, yes, wanting not to die, and getting rejected, to continue ; all of that perceived scriptural contradiction ; has been clearly Yahweh, again, Demonstrating, that He's Determined, that not even His Will, thwart His Will.. For He has exalted His Word (written Will) Above All His Name.. (Psalm. 138:2).. "But somehow man can thwart it, according to this guy's free-will doctrine.".. Nope!!.. "For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him?. His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? (Isaiah 14:27)... (Prov.12:1).."For the kings heart is in the hand of The Lord, as the rivers of waters, He turneth it whithersoever He wills.. Yup ; all we see can in no wise, otherwise be..
God is fair and just. Calvinism is not.
The first 400 years of the church prior to Augustine was full of Christians preaching, teaching, and defending human free will. And btw, they were reading the same Koine Greek as JW, and coming to wildly different conclusions. 🤷
Leighton is Pelagian
Gods sovereignty is to give man freewill.
Nonsense
@paul.etedder2439 Are babies vipers in diapers or as RC Sproul said worse than rats? Ever met a calvinist that believes God has chosen to damn him forever in hell? Since according to you man has no free will, that makes God guilty for all who go to hell not man who have no free will to choose God.
@paul.etedder2439 Why are you limiting Gods power and will? You don't tell God what His will for His creation is.
There is no gospel with flowers. It's just his ego and made-up view of synergistic Grace
25:50-26:20 sounding brass, clanging cymbal
Genesis 2: Freewill began
Freewill is a myth
Come home brother we will always be here
Leighton, please stop talking.
A movie should be made with him played by John Malkovich
Or the guy who played "Zod" from the original Superman 2 movie in the 80's.
How long have leighton and James been going at this??😂😂😂
Years now but the difference is James actually does other stuff. For Leighton this is it.
@@danielomitted1867 Leighton only does this on this particular RUclips ministry. FTFY
@@jackdabbs1633 is there anything else hes putting out not related to calvinism?
@@danielomitted1867 On this particular RUclips ministry or in all of his ministries?
@@jackdabbs1633 anywhere. Like James deals with Islam, Mormonism, JWs, Roman Catholicism and I could easily keep going. The only thing ive ever seen Leighton deal with is Calvinism. I dont think hes capable of venturing into other issues.
The children in verse 37 are the scribes and Pharisees mentioned earlier in the text. I have listen to Dr. whites message twice now and I still have no idea why he says 37 is only to the leaders. That’s just inaccurate.
wrote: "The children in verse 37 are the scribes and Pharisees mentioned earlier in the text."
In Matthew 23, Jesus begins His _Seven Oracles of Judgment_ (The 7 Woes) against the Scribes and Pharisees with this:
_“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.”_ (Matthew 23:13)
There are two sets of people in this verse:
1. The Scribes and Pharisees who _"shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces"_ and who themselves would not enter in; and,
2. The people who have had the Scribes and Pharisees _"shut the kingdom of heaven"_ in their faces, denying them entrance.
These are the same two groups Jesus addresses in verse 37, and as Danny McMullan correctly pointed out.
Verse 31 says you are children of them that kill the prophet. This is clearly speaking of the S and P.
@@christopheravery9585 wrote: "Verse 31 says you are children of them that kill the prophet. This is clearly speaking of the S and P."
Who in Israel had the "legal" authority to put someone to death?
I just don’t see it. The only group Jesus points to as killing the prophets are the fathers which as you said the S and P are their children. I can’t see how Jerusalem Jerusalem would not point to the sins of the past making the children the current leaders then S and P. Remember the S and P are said to be those who will crucify and scourge. The fathers are those who have killed (past tense)
@@christopheravery9585 wrote: "I just don’t see it."
Okay. Grace and Peace.
Leighton seems to think that if the plan of history is a formal outline, God only covers the Roman numerals and the capital letters, the regular numbers and lowercase letters are up to man… I mean what could go wrong?
I don't know. What?
@@jackdabbs1633 Yeah especially seeing as how he has written his law on our hearts. Clearly gives us a slight advantage in my opinion. What great provision...
Well said. Great mental picture of pretty much the only consistent way to make sense of Arminian "foreknowledge".
I hear you James he is a celebrity now
They didn't like the biblical text james
Ive actually never understood James' interpretation here. I think what we have here is a passive/active will case here the same way RC Sproul interprets it, but maybe someone else could explain Dr. White's view better to me because I've heard him talk about this so many times and still don't get it.
Matthew 23 is a judgment oracle against the Jewish leaders. Jesus prophesies against the “scribes and Pharisees” because they are hypocrites. They demand others to keep the law but do not keep it themselves… although they pretend they do. They should have recognized their own guilt and lead the nation in repentance. But they don’t. If they had… then God would have “gathered His people as a hen gathers her chicks”. If the scribes and Pharisees had lead the nation in repentance, rather than legalism, then God would have shown them mercy. But they don’t… they are not willing because they want to maintain their pretense… and so they and the nation will be judged. That is God’s plan. God will use them to devastate the pretense and demonstrate our need to confess and repent of our sin.
Was Jesus really saying in Matthew 23:37: "I wanted to give you common grace (it's not a saving faith) but you (Jerusalem) did not want to receive common grace (resistible)?
Was it the prescriptive will speaking?
Did he really mean "I wanted you to keep my commandments (prescriptive will) but you did not obey me (because of a lack of grace that I did not want to give you in the first place)?
These "two wills" in Christ (though Chalcedonian Christology is right) that believe different things are hard to harmonize.
Matthew 23:37 is a difficult passage for us, reformed. Let's face it.
@@SantiagoAaronGarcia
Huh?
That made no sense at all.
@@rpavich Not at all? I'm talking about Matthew 23:37 where Jesus basically said he wanted to save Jerusalem but they did not want to.
So I was kind of "mocking" the reformed view (I'm reformed), because I'm literally trying my best to say that somehow there are two wills in Jesus.
One that is superficial, which wants to save, and the hidden/supreme one, that does not want to save.
My first comment makes no sense because that's the kind of mental gymnastics one has to do, to make the passage fit with systematic reformed theology.
Jesus says A (i want to save), but somehow he meant non A (I literally don't want to save).
I think that's a problem.
The reason it makes no sense is because that was the intended purpose, to show the puzzle.
By the way, I'm reformed, so there is no need to be rude or anything. I'm ridiculing my own view because I can't find a way to harmonize Matthew 23:37 with reformed thought.
Try reading my comment again, english is not my first language so try to understand the point.
Please, if you know about the canons of Dort and the tulip, and why Matthew 23:37 is hard, share your thoughts, maybe you can clear things up for me.
@@SantiagoAaronGarcia But the "they" in that verse is the Jewish leaders. As James has said, this verse must be taken in context with the whole of Matthew 23, which contains a vitriolic indictment against the Jewish leaders. It starts off with, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do." In verse 13 Jesus describes how the Jewish leaders hinder the Jewish people: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in." And in verses 29, 31 Jesus goes on to say, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ " Jerusalem, as the capitol, represented the seat of the Jewish leaders, the ones who killed the prophets. It was not the people en masse of Jerusalem whom Christ said were not willing, but rather the Jewish leaders. Jesus was not making an appeal to "free will" on the part of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but was blasting their rulers for shutting "the kingdom of heaven" in the Jewish people's face, obstructing them from entering in.
In summary, if you don't complete exegesis like James White does, you don't do exegesis.
EDIT: I listed to complete videos by James White to continue to grow in patience. Thank you Lord for men like James White that have a place in Your ministry. ;-)
Not really, in summary: Leighton doesn't understand what exegesis actually is or how it's done.
@@louiscorbett3278 Interesting perspective. Cheers!
@@jackdabbs1633 It's not a perspective, it's literally the definition of exegesis. But no problem, glad to educate ;)
@@louiscorbett3278 Haha. I see what you did there. Touche.
15:47 - Mr. white, I have personally listened and read so many of your responses on the DL, in your books and in debates and heard you dismantle so many seemingly good arguments from your opponents. Unfortunately, this is not one of those times.
Leighton’s point here is dealing directly with what we see in the text. It speaks to the fact that from the mouth of Christ Jesus we are given a clear statement of “His desire”.
The context of judgement does not change that statement.
The context of it being the “your children” does not change that statement.
In fact, the context of it being “your children” actually demonstrates one of the reasons WHY the judgement is being brought. You have missed this in your response and instead bushed off this critique by focusing on the context of God’s judgement (which as stated above does nothing to change the statement of desire) and then shifting to your own thoughts on Leighton’s overall strategy.
Please prayerfully consider addressing the actual statement of the desire of Christ for the children of Jerusalem and how it fits within the framework of the resistance seen from the Jewish leaders in in this passage.
The fact that God preplanned at all back at the end of deuteronomy doesn't change either.
The context starts there.
I agree that this passage promotes a “ freewill “ position, yet it clearly shows the total depravity of man. “but you would have none of it!” Here in the Greek for the translation “ have none/ ou “ you have a word that’s an absolute negative. It’s translated elsewhere as never or cannot. I do think and agree with you that JW attacks the person rather than the text at times. LF doesn’t correctly exegete this passage and constantly looks for the smoking gun passage and ends up in eisegesis
@@Kenneth-nVA
No it doesn't "promote" free will
@@billyr9162 may I clarify… unregenerate mans freewill is in bondage to sin therefore places the freewill of man in a totally depraved state ( Ephesians 2) Their will is dead to God
@@billyr9162 btw: I hold to compatiblism as it’s biblically exegeted
Flowers should just work as a massage thereapist.
Me and james could start a cult.. twisting the truth.. but we don't because we are saved by the lamb
Jehovah does not have 2 wills, He has 1 will, and it is done in Heaven as well as on Earth. Does God works everything after the counsel of His 2 wills ? Eh, no. What God desired in His eternal state, that He decreed, and it will infallibly come to pass. God's commands to the creature are not at odds with His decretive will.
Yeah he's quoting you
Where is the guidence in the new testament Dr white if u remove Jesus words in new testament there's no guidence and you preach everything else but jesus
That voice of flowers man Lord forgive me 😂
I don't understand this guy he doesn't understand God chooses to save people that he chooses
The hardest argument is the truth
Got a kindergarten question for you. Should a Christian wear a mask during a pan Demic?
I'd be pissed off to somebody was quoting me
Good job James
If you listen to God it's not confusing
God chose us we didn't
*Instead of answering the questions James White attacks the person asking the question*
There was no question. Leighton just spit out word salads and James White properly exegeted the text.
@@ethanmulvihill7177Flowers used supporting scripture to prove Unconditional Election is Impossible, Therefore John 6:44-45 can not be what White says it is....
CS Lewis was an Armenian
I didn't know that. I had assumed he was native British of some sort. Did his parents escape the Young Turks? :)
I like Norman he is cool 😎
However little you think of an opponent's postion and method, you do not belittle and slander him.
Dr. White owes Dr. Flowers an apology for slander. He's not only embarrassing himself, but those who listen to him too.
It depends, there is a time for all things. Even Christ belittled ppl at times
Flowers answer this. Why would a good God give agency (libertarian free will) to creatures He knew would abuse it and do horrible sinful things like sex trafficking and the holocaust?? He had the power to stop it because He knew what they would do with the agency He would give to them beforehand. Is your understanding that God's choice in giving us agency was a good thing? If so, you can't escape the very accusation you're accusing the Calvinist when we appeal to God's Sovereignty in doing all things for His glory. Because if giving agency to humanity, was a good thing then humanity having the agency would be because of His good will and purpose which in the ultimate since would be good despite the secondary acts of evil they choose to do. That means God would have a good purpose in giving humanity agency (libertarian free will), although knowing how they would use it.
Why would a good God destine people before they were born to go to Hell?? And decree all sorts of vile sins ??
@biagiomaffettone1497 for the same reason in your position His Glory! If He chose to give humanity agency, knowing they would abuse it for the sake of love. Was it good for humanity to have the ability to choose evil? If so, it's better for them to have the ability to choose acts of evil like the Holocaust than for them not to. God saw all that humanity would choose beforehand and decided it was good anyway to give them agency. He did it for His good pleasure and the love for His creatures, knowing that a good mass of them would take the agency He gave to them and do all kinds of evil.
@biagiomaffettone1497 now can you answer my first question?? I answered yours, but you just answered mine with a question.
@@isaiahanddakotamartinez7730 The difference between your position and mine is that, Yes, God does ultimately, create man for his glory, but your position has God decreeing all sorts of evil. Man doe not have the ability to do otherwise. He is "Forced: to SIN. He can not do anything other than SIN. It was decreed before time.
*Man is a Victim* God gives man the perfect excuse for not believing. Yet he is sent to Hell for what he had no control of
This is not found in the pages of scriptures
Whereas, My position, God gives man libertarian Free Will. Man can freely chose to obey God or not. He is responsible for his Sins not God. He has *NO* excuse before God !!
@biagiomaffettone1497 do you not understand that man's destiny in your position is pre-determined by God also? He knows the end from the beginning. His divine plan in eternity past is that He is going to give humanity agency. He then allows them to make choices according to His foreknowledge. He sees and His knows all that He will allow them to do from the beginning. Every choice humanity makes is because God allows them to, be it good or bad. Therefore His plan can't be thorted because in Divine wisdom It was His predetermined plan to give agency. Without God Determining to give freewill to humanity, there would've been none. If we believe that in the End (the Apocalypse) that God has prophesied that He will have the victory over all in the consumption of His Kingdom. The end has been predetermined, and since God has determined the end from the beginning, all things must work towards that end Goal of His. For His Glory.
Joshua 24:15
Love that verse. It's doubly ironic when anti-Calvinists cite it, as the choice being offered is to worship any false god they want if they refuse to serve the Lord.
James he got old I mean that's why you wrote a book poor guy defending Christ
RC would not approve of this message
Jordan Peterson Exclusive
Procelain
Nabeel Quraishi(Christianity)
Butterflies On Lotus.
If we had John and rc what would say... that would say he is confused christian
It’s exhausting to hear his voice
Don’t be too hard on Leighton. His saccharin approach can be nauseating but perhaps he will heed the correction…this time?
I hate his voice
I'm seasoned too.. 😄
It sounds like Hit job
It's not cool now
Listening to Leighton is listening to a rabbler babbler deceiving themselves.
I haven't heard a bible verse
Dear Mr. White, Mindlessly misquoting Bible verses out of context *ISN’T AN ARGUMENT!*
Dear Mr. White, Telling people they don’t understand Calvinism *ISN’T AN ARGUMENT!*
Dear Mr. White, Rolling your eyes and haughtily dismissing people *ISN’T AN ARGUMENT!*
Dear Mr. White, Calling someone a heretic *ISN’T AN ARGUMENT!*
Dear Mr. White, Acting exasperated *ISN’T AN ARGUMENT!*
Dear Mr. White, Ad hominem *ISN’T AN ARGUMENT!*
Dear Mr. White, Straw-manning *ISN’T AN ARGUMENT!*
Dear Mr. White, Gas-lighting *ISN’T AN ARGUMENT!*
Dear Mr. White, A Red-herring *ISN’T AN ARGUMENT!*
Dear Mr. White, Condescension *ISN’T AN ARGUMENT!*
Dear Mr. White, Snickering *ISN’T AN ARGUMENT!*
Dear Mr. White, Demonizing your critic *ISN’T AN ARGUMENT!*
Dear Mr. White, Assuming you are infallible *ISN’T AN ARGUMENT!*
Dear Mr. White, *You’ll have to try harder!*
Dear Mr. White, *Do what you never do, drop all of the Vaudevillian schtick and actually address the issues being discussed.*
In order to have an intellectually honest understanding of what is going on here all you have to do is go to Soteriology 101 RUclips page for 09/23/21 and watch the video "James White's High Calvinism".
.
Whining about Calvinism is an argument either.
And that's the only string the banjo player has to play.
Off you go.
Exegete the Scripture John Q…show everyone where White is wrong….quiet time for John Q starting in 3…2…1
I see you did not view the video.
I think he's trying to like make money like Joel
You're using RC name to say your blasphemy
Leighton is a one trick Pony
Go james😎
Let me read someone praising me, which proves that I am right!
Yeah he isn't being right
Lot of problems
Debate him u will be found wanting
Norman is 😎 stop it
Lol now John piper
James its 😞
You might wake.
The gospel, which appears to be a little secular story, is truly a mystery to be known only by revelation.
In the 16th chapter of John we are told: “I came out from the Father and came into the world. Again I leave the world and I return to the Father.” In these four short phrases we find the pre-existence of Christ, his incarnation, his death, and his ascension. I could put this in the first person, plural sense and say: “We came out from the Father” for we are told in the 1st chapter of Ephesians: “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world.” So all of us were chosen in him. That is why I can say, “We came out from the Father and came into the world. Again we are leaving the world and are going to the Father.”
Free Will of man we could just look at history and see how well that did
Yeah he is a liar... may God save him
Gosh may God forgive you
But James White, YOU know that Leighton does other things other than talk about Calvinism. Soteriology 101 is specifically about addressing Calvinism. You know this. I’m so disappointed at this type of response.
Thanks also for not playing the part where he actually spoke about the exegeting of the text.
That's the sort of claim that is better to show than tell. Everywhere I look on the internet, Leighton's presence is dedicated to opposing "Calvinism". He doesn't have a second channel covering other topics, his "soteriology 101" channel doesn't cover other soteriological systems, his websites and podcasts don't cover other topics. I don't see any sermons or online lecture series covering other topics. I just see blurbs on the internet that claim he does other things, yet where he can reach the largest number of people at once, he only has one thing he wants to show the world.
@@oracleoftroy actually, if you were a regular listener, you would realize he’s addressed Arminianism, open theism and the like. He may not do it as much as he does with Calvinism because that was not the intention of his podcast. The show is about addressing Calvinism. If it is about that why are people asking Leighton to dedicate the podcast to something else, it’s ridiculous. Everybody also knows he works at Texas baptists as the director of evangelism, he’s a father, a husband and so on. So to me it’s just clear persons haven’t really watched his show long enough or even considered him seriously
@@dexterlaurencejnr5293 That is true, but has he ever done a full episode on another topic without mentioning Calvinism?
From what I've seen, when he drifts into topics like Arminianism, it is an aside from the main topic of anti-Calvinism. The closest I've seen Leighton come was when he was responding to a Lutheran, and there he still mostly just used his same anti-Calvinist arguments and confessed ignorance of Lutheran distinctives. Even his episodes trying to define provisionism spend half the time showing why it isn't Calvinism.
@@oracleoftroy again, that’s because that’s what the podcast is about. For example, if you start a podcast talking about wrist watches. Different types, different things to look for and what have you when buying a wrist watch. Somebody could very well accuse you and say “all you ever talk about is wrist watches”. Well duh, that’s what your show is about!
It’s the same concept here with soteriology 101. The man started the show to talk about Calvinism and that’s what he’s doing. What’s the big deal?
@@dexterlaurencejnr5293 The "big deal" is that it is all he seems to be doing, a least as far as can be objectively demonstrated. Point me to an episode where he never once mentions Calvinism.
Wow that's lie
Flowers is a butthead! I am tired of his antics!!
The verse is too clear that Jerusalem has a free will. You need to put blinds on not to see that!!
I wish james would stop straw manning his opponents
People wish Flowers would study the Bible Instead of studying what Calvinist say.
Flowers cannot properly exegete scripture. White has training in Exegesis & when it is brought to light how uneducated Flowers is on a systematic understanding on how to read the Bible, you have to cry Straw man….it’s your only defense & a sad one at that.
@@Mattissaved idk how you've come to this conclusion. You've bought the straw man arguments from white. Get outside the echo chamber
@@Mattissaved"uneducated" in "systematic understanding". This is insane. Calvinists have more respect for man then scripture . The Bible doesn't have a systematic theology hand book attached to it. I think it's enough to read scripture in context and believe what it says. Like when we're told "Jesus is the Savior of ALL people ESPECIALLY those who believe" I believe that. There's no reasonable way to make this mean anything else. The calvinists do though because they're fidelity is to doctrines of man, not scripture
@@coryalbright9798
Well Cory…you used one of the 4 principles of Exeigesis, the literal.
Historical, grammatical, and synthesis are the other 3. Your claim this is an insane way of understanding scripture and then turn around and use part of the insane method ( literal ) shows just how uneducated you are on what you’re even talking about. Thanks for the laugh 😂
Lol hyper 😄