Defining Pelagianism and Semipelagianism (A Further Response to Leighton Flowers)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 май 2020
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
Publishing: www.jspublishing.org
Patreon: www.patreon/justandsinner
This is a continued response to Dr. Leighton Flowers on Provisionism, Pelagianism, and Semipelagianism. 
Развлечения
Jay Dyer also expressed an EXPLICITLY semi-pelagian view to me. He said we are born without original sin and have a free-will choice to sin or not sin every time we have an opportunity to sin. I asked "does this mean one could never sin" and all he could say is "no eventually everyone's gonna sin"
calvinists/reformed guys 🤝 confessional lutherans
Thanks for taking this on. Glad to see a Lutheran doctor entering public debate like this. We typically don't get representation in these things.
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
Fighting for the Faith with Chris Rosborough(?) Is also a great channel
Ken Wilson/Leighton Flowers camp: look at how novel Augustine’s views are in 400s, except from Gnostics etc.
Also Ken Wilson/Leighton Flowers crowd: hold novel views of own from 1500s onwards in rejecting baptismal regeneration, church is Israel of God, etc. except from Gnostics and the like.
I came to see if you saw the same simi palagian theology of Flowers that I saw.
And I noticed that you saw it too.
But the reason I stayed was for the wonderful history that you taught. Thanks!
Hi, there! There's plenty more where this came from! God bless you!
Pelagius was urbane, courteous, convincing, and liked by everyone. Augustine squandered away his youth in immorality, had a strange relationship with his mother, and made many enemies. Yet Augustine started from God’s grace and got it right, whereas Pelagius started from human effort and got it wrong.
Philip Yancey “What’s So Amazing about Grace”
Thanks. Cool quote.
Facts.
Pelagius was a moralist. And a very strict one.
Which Augustine? The man couldn’t make up his mind and waffled all over the place. The man was not stable, nor should he be revered the way you guys revere him. I think you are picking and choosing which Augustine you like. For about 20 years of his life, he was teaching things not far from what you would call Pelagianism. Just ask Fortunatus.
@Ken B
If you understood repentance you would rejoice in his change from Manichaeism to Christianity.
Instead you mock at the conversion. Who could stand up under such scrutiny? Leighton should turn away from any semblance of an apologetics for Pelagianism.
Hello, Dr. Cooper, could you do a video exegeting biblical verses that shows there is a differentiation between original sin and actual sin? Also, as an aside, what are your thoughts on Abraham Calov? I was surprised to learn that he wrote a 12 volume systematic Lutheran theology.
Calov is considered among the best Lutheran systematicians.
@@DrJordanBCooper Hello, Dr. Cooper could you do a video about the Filioque? I think this is one of the things that the Latin church got wrong in comparison to the East. Thank you.
My first exposure to Christianity was in a non-instrumental, multi-cup Church of Christ. What I hear of Flowers' soteriological position reminds me of what I heard there, at least in relation to the beginning of faith. I wonder if there will be a convergence between those two groups of anti-Augustinian baptists. Thank you for making these videos. I appreciate your irenic manner.
I love how Dr. Cooper keeps recommending these books as if the rest of us could just wade through them in our spare time-- or maybe while we're sick in bed.
And such thick tomes at that!
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
@@PeterMartyrVermigli_is_cool repeatedly
This is a great video, Dr. Cooper. Learned a good bit!
Dr. Cooper, Appreciate your knowledge, information and you.
Thanks for the clarifications and definitions. These are important topics.
How do you write the person’s name you mention at 49:48 (thomas godshock or something like thar ??)
Gottschalk of Orbais (I've never heard the Thomas part).
James Harrison I thought he said Thomas Gottschalk lol, thanks though I really appreciate it.
@@TKaramali No problem! I think that was Dr. Cooper's goof, or it's an obscure historical detail I'm not aware of.
Dr. Cooper, from your perspective would the Eastern Church (orthodoxy) fall under the label of pelagian or semi Pelagian?
Pretty much all Calvinists consider Orthodoxy to be full blown Pelagian or semi Pelagian.
Lutherans from my experience tend to view the Orthodox Church as semi Pelagian but some seem cautious to utilize that term with the significant level of support the Eastern Church draws from the Church Fathers
@@vitaignis5594but they deny Augustine's anthropology of man, Augustine is one of the most influential fathers probably the most influential
Again....Such a great video, Dr. Cooper. Thanks for engaging Dr. Leighton Flowers’ “Provisionism”. Coming up on the 1-year anniversary of this video. Maybe you could do a follow-up with some of that exegetical commentary you spoke of.
The more I listen to flowers, the more I realize it's denying original sin and trying to say anyone can choose God of their own free will ...
Aka semi pelagianism...
If you're looking for the Orthodox perspective on free will and synergy, I highly recommend reading "The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church" by Fr. Seraphim Rose. It is a short book that explores the controversies between St. Augustine thought and St. Cassian through the centuries. I cannot recommend this book enough! Very concise and informative. Great video btw.
Bro what is that music in the intro of your videos, it sounds beautiful
Herobrian seeing an eazy e pic ... say “I like just n sinner music” cracks me up. Lol lol.
It’s a rendition of “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” by Martin Luther. No idea who the artist is though.
@@WittenbergProject Lol you're the first one to recognize my pfp is Eazy-E! And yeah my musical tastes are all over the map. I enjoy everything, from Johnny Cash, to Elvis Presley, to Michael Jackson, to 2Pac, and even ancient hymns. I've got quite a mixed taste, lol
@@bethanyann1060 Thanks! I hope I can find this specific rendition somehow
Herobrian wow really. It’s a classic pic. Lol lol.
Hey! Welcome to the program people. Grab a shirt and some coffee, and hear Dr Cooper break this down!
Front row seats! Praise God for our brother who would teach against this graceless Gospel of Provisionism. May the words of his mouth bless and edify the hearers. 🙏🏽
BINGO...38:23 ... the terms! He uses terms in a context that is off from historical definition
Pat Eunuchity Hmm. The only thing I keep seeing that’s graceless is you. You’re nothing but a liar when it comes to Provisionism and you refuse to make corrections when confronted by actual people who hold that position. Go ahead and fool people. God sees exactly what you’re doing. And by the way, do you say those things about Dr. Cooper after he destroys your arguments for Calvinism? Or do you pick and choose? 🤔
@@jeremiahb9718 I know at least one Provisionist now who believes the Spirit opens hearts, so the movement is bigger than Layton.👌🏽
Pat Eutychy has denied double predestination, so that movement is broader than maybe you're giving it credit for. One potential advantage to Confessional Lutheranism is that it can affirm much good in many traditions without surrendering ground to errors. A down side is that I'm beginning to suspect that this is why it's so easy for those Lutherans who abandon the confessions to become hyperliberal universalists.
Congrats on 10k subs 🙃. I only just noticed that
Great to see a Slav here, keri jazyk rozpravas? I'm assuming south Slavic. Blessings brother.
Biblical Theology
I myself am East Slavic, from Ukraine. But my channel promotes the Interslavic language. Basically it’s an artificial language that was made to be understandable for all Slavic speakers.
Blessings from our Lord to you too brother!
@@medzuslovjansky3075 Ahh from Ukraine, sounds south Slavic to me lol , I have Slovak and bit of Czech ancestry. Are you Lutheran?
Biblical Theology
I’m strongly considering converting to Lutheranism. I agree with their take on the Crux Theologorum, and I love the monergism lol
Dr. Jordan B Cooper 17:33 are you specifically referring to Chosen By God by RC Sproul? Because that's where I first read about it from him and my mind immediately went to that lol.
Yup, thinking of Chosen by God.
@@DrJordanBCooper Nice, I actually have a copy of one of Augustine's works against Pelagius. I haven't read it but I should.
You are correct at 29:30, Dr. Cooper. Dr. Flowers characteristically does not speak of sin as a condition. He speaks only of Man's ability, not his condition. And I find it interesting that you would realize this deep-seated aspect of "Provisionism" after simply watching his videos while sick in bed. You must have watched quite a few. :) Either that, or he makes it more obvious than even I thought.
I had studied Moral Government Theology and Open Theism prior to running across Leighton Flowers. His philosophy was the perfect arpeggio. Harmonizing well, giving a semblance of orthodoxy while hiding a dark distinctive narrative of Pelagianism.
Where did you get your definition of sin from?
...According to 1 JOHN 3:4 sin is specifically defined as a TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW:
1 JOHN 3:4
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.
*Sin is NOT “a nature”*
@@apilkey that is correct, sin is not a nature. It is, however, a flaw and deficit in our nature, ever since the Fall, so that our nature is accurately called "sinFUL" and "fallen."
As for the definition of sin, you quote one verse that gives us one definition. If you had quoted John 8:34, you could have gotten both definitions of sin for the price of one: "Jesus answered them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.'" The first "sin" in that verse refers to distinct transgressions of the Law. The second "sin" can't be understood that way.
@@pateunuchity884 lol You need to go back and look at what historical is defined as a Pelagian. You sir have fallen into the same grubby trap of Cooper... Name calling and misrepresentation.
@@ericphillips8268 Our fallen nature in the Bible is that which was manifested when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of *Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL*
Check out texts throughout the Bible that clearly reveal we have both elements (good and evil in our nature) like Ecclesiastes 7:29, Romans 2:11-16 etc. I think you need to tackle those texts competently before you can go about proclaiming Total Depravity as Luther and Calvin and said followers have declared (without reconciling texts such as these).
Hey Dr. Cooper, I haven't watched the last half of the program yet, so I apologize if you already answered this question. Would you consider most of the ECFs before Augustine to be semi-Pelagian? At least the Fathers who spoke on the free-will topic?
He would have to tag them with that label. Even Augustine taught freedom of the will for 20 years of his life after converting to Christianity. So, Augustine would have been a “semipelagian” for two decades. Just like every other church father. He actually debated one of his last Manichaen leaders and friends Fortuantus and defended freedom of the will. It wasn’t until later when he changed his views before ultimately debating Pelagius.
@@kenb7536 There are more than two positions here. Once Augustine became a Christian, he never again agreed with the Manichaean view of the issue.
Steven, in the Eastern tradition, more-or-less. Not in the Latin tradition, though.
Eric Phillips I stand by my comment since it’s objective historical facts.
@@ericphillips8268 So the Latin tradition held to semi pelagian?
Would you say that the Reformed understanding and Lutheran understanding of Total Depravity/Total Inability is united? Can't we share that??? We've gotta have that!
Yes though we Lutherans would add spiritually the image of God is lost at the fall.
I am Orthodox ... left Calvinism and Lutheranism. Good luck. 👍
@@TheDroc1990sorry to hear you went full pelagian.
@@YourBoyJohnny94☠️
24:26 Great video, has Dr. Flowers actually said that children are born innocent or are you drawing that conclusion from some of his work?
Yeah, I've listened to Flowers a while and I've heard him say that (and he's not alone, either, it's not an unpopular view. I agree with him).
I don't actually understand how anyone can argue against that, either. I'm still listening to the video but so far I'm not impressed by Dr. Cooper's view, since it feels like he's leaning on tradition much more than scripture.
Can you send me a citation of him saying that? I don't think I've ever heard him say that.
The P in provide stands for "people sin"
Nothing about original sin...
It's sadly true that quite a few of them are Pelagian, I had a chat to one who quoted Ecc 7:29 that men are made upright some even admit openly that they're Pelagian these people don't care about Church history nor the councils, but just simply claim to be faithful to the text of Sctipture, so no wonder their group is full of heresy. They act like the cults of 1800's they rejected the creeds and councils claimed to be biblical, guess what happened? They rejected the Trinity, they were basically were Arians, even possible Pelagians, as Charles Finney was a Pelagian. Provisionism has no historical support except for semipelagianism, it's new soteriologically with somewhat old heresy repackaged, that's what you get when you're ignorant of Church history, you become a heretic.
It would wise to read the definition of semipelagianism at the council of Orange 529 AD and change the view of ones soteriology.
Men are made upright not righteous.
The term sin nature is found nowhere in scripture.
Aaron Pilkey Lutheranism is almost all built on traditions of men. I learned that the hard way when I was legitimately looking into their beliefs.
Ken B ya I get that sense when I listen to them
Even more so than Calvinism.
It seems like a religion.
Very religious.
@Biblical Theology Are counsels your authority or is the Word of God?
@@apilkey your beliefs are religious. study, please, its not rationalism, its not being illiterate in what you say. you sound pedantic.
Dr. Cooper, have you listened to Dr. William Lane Craig and his breakdowns of the Arminian, Calvinist and Molinist views of God's sovereignty, God's knowledge, man's free will, original sin, etc?
WLC is not a good resource for theology. He is a philosopher.
@@retrograd332 He literally has a PhD in theology...
Craig tries to cover way too much, which is why he is lacking in a number of areas.
@@carsonwall2400 plus he denies the classical definition of the trinity saying that each person is just a third of the divine substance
Any chance you'll accept Leighton's invitation to discuss on his program? He seems to be speaking past you as much as you're speaking past him.
I've listened to a lot of Flowers and never heard him indicate he believes infants are born innocent. He differenciates between innocence and ability to believe. He says all men are sinners from birth (even routinely saying men are "slaves to sin"), but says that is different from the T of the TULIP outline, which says men are unable to respond positively to the Spirit-led proclamation of the gospel.
This is very good.
Actually he does say it here in this clip. ruclips.net/video/RwlLcDhakdw/видео.htmlsi=2CbRy2hK3MMvaiqn
What about “common grace” isn’t it a semi Pelagian concept?
32:00 I totally agree that this is an issue that many provisionists fall in. I am an Arminian so I don’t believe one is born with a libertarian free will to not sin. However, God draws you and gives you grace, and from then your will is , in a sense, able to chose right over sin. The Bible itself says that God provides a path to avoid sin, obviously referring to those already saved and this path is living by the power of the Holy Spirit.
I had been following leighton's provisionism and it is the worst mixed-theology ever met!
The more time goes by, the more appreciation accumulates for you, Dr. Cooper.
Perhaps your most engaging quality is a latent humility (Regardless of the online anti-reformed "emotive swirling”... John Piper is another such person.)
Dr. Flowers vacillates back and forth - though one wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt early on.
He is certainly not going to be the one who dispels Calvinism.
He is a product of "Baptist hubris" that is prominent in American Evangelicalism... and particularly in Dr. Flowers' constituency, there's a distinct "Hoot & Holler" essence (I know of no other colloquialistic description) that keeps pulling him further into his commitment. I am all for the "average guy" relatability... but the issue is in accumulating an opportunistic benefit at the expense of that banner... while simultaneously sustaining or even further concealing the ignorance of the very constituency that is to Dr. Flowers' benefit. (Whether this is intentional or not, it's an unfortunate accident at best)
From the sloppy soteriological extrapolation and clumsy recklessness of ill-prepared soil, I'm often embarrassed to claim to be a Baptist, but... "Here I stand, I can do no other"
God bless you Dr. Cooper...
-Soli Deo Gloria!
What really matters is what the Bible actually teaches. Dr Flowers and Dr Ken Wilson are essentially defending Paul's Gospel against the false notion of meticulous divine determinism. Dr Cooper's winsome personality, fine intellect and brilliant eloquence, and his willingness to stigmatize an opponent with the name of an early heretic (whether "semi" or otherwise), does not change one iota of Gospel truth revealed in Scripture.
As Jesus said, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." (Matt. 11: 25)
Excellent summary. We are all saved by the Grace of God and Grace will lead us home...God bless you sir!!
... one slight clarification-
I'm often embarrassed when others claim to be a Baptist.
And how far are you pulled into “your” commitment?
When can we get together and talk this out?
I'm sensing a pattern. Once again he forms an opinion on Dr. Wilson and then says he didn't read his dissertation. Just as he formed an opinion on Flowers and then watched all his videos. It's okay Dr. Cooper to not form an opinion at all.
Great stuff. Subscribed!
Dr. Flowers always alleges ad hominem attacks and missrpresentation. You will never deal with his position fairly, according to Dr. Flowers. This is standard par for the course. Sorry, Flowers is just an inept theologian
Yeah his obsession with anti calvinism is concerning, trying so hard to downplay God's sovereignty and elevating man's goodness 🙄
@@tomtemple69The irony is that by leaving this comment you show a misunderstanding of his position. You can disagree, but at least disagree with his actual position. I’ve never seen a Christian individual straw manned by other Christians as much as Flowers.
@justinhawes1593 nice opinion
@@justinhawes1593I about shot water out of my nose after reading this. 🤣 😂 🤣
@@kryptic8956 I’m sorry you forgot how to drink. 😭😭😭
Thank you for taking the time to do this. Many in the Provisionist system are either unaware of the controversy are being openly lied to. God bless you for your efforts. 🙏🏽
Pelagianism is a terrible, graceless doctrine.
Pat Eunuchity And you are the chief liar concerning Provisionism, and you call yourself a Christian. Got it. 👍🏻
The issue is not what label is given.
The issue is what does the BIBLE say and not some counsel.
Reformed theology is a graceless doctrine and a graceless gospel.
We believe what God’s Word says about God’s Grace and that is it has appeared to ALL men.
...According to Titus 2:11 God’s SAVING GRACE has appeared to ALL:
TITUS 2:11
11 For the GRACE of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to ALL men,
@Aaron Pilkey
Arron, didn’t you say yourself you disagreed with Leighton’s use of “prevenient grace”?
@Jeremiah B
Are you here to sing accusations or make a point? Cheap shots make shallow points.
I guess James White isn’t a Christian and Jordan Cooper isn’t a Christian as well? what about Al Mohler? He is a Baptist. Can he be a Christian by your standard? Leighton denounced all these men publicly for coming against heresy. The very thing a Christian is called to do...teach sound doctrine.
Pat Eunuchity I’m not sure of all the ins and outs of what Leighton believes I can only speak for myself and what I believe.
But if I know for sure he doesn’t believe something then I sill try and clarify as best I can.
I dint advocate for Pelagius but I’m saying that “IF” he was alright and a so-called “Counsel” of buddies who got together and deemed him a heretic doesn’t mean he’s a heretic.
A heretic is not based on what some group of dudes decide on.
A heretic is a heretic based on the Word of God and nothing else.
It’s not based on someone’s “opinion” of the word of God.
Thank you brother
1:02:52 saving this for later. Important point to compare Flowers and Cooper’s definitions of grace.
I wonder if Dr. Cooper would be willing to debate the foremost authority, as far as I'm aware, on Pelagius and all of his existing writings which she, as a scholar, Dr. Ali Bonner, has read and studied in the original language/languages. See her scholarly book "The Myth of Pelagianism.". I've yet to see or hear any Calvinism adherent challenge her and her scholarly work on Pelagius. She is a scholar on English writers and Pelagius is the earliest of them.
Just and Sinner ...
"If I examine myself I find enough unholiness to shock me. But when I look at Christ in me I find that I am altogether holy." - Luther
I don't know why but I read the title as "defending Pelagianism" and I got worried for a second 😂😂
Thank you for this
Consider the view that sin is NOT just the breaking of God's Law but rather sin in anything in the thoughts or actions of the human creature that is contrary to the character of God. We agree and believe that men are made in the image of God, and that the Scriptures define the image of God as being included under the categories of Being, Wisdom, Power, Holiness, Goodness, Justice and Truth (Westminster Confession). Adam was created with ALL those same attributes. However, when Adam sinned he lost the attribute of perfect holiness. That was just not a mere "slip" but an infinite descent, or dis-valuement, for the difference between absolute perfection and imperfection is infinite. The attribute of "holiness" as applied to God is also an adjective modifying the other six: i.e, holy in being, holy in wisdom, etc., etc. Thus, when Adam lost his holiness ALL the other attributes of the image of God in man were affected and suffered the immediate consequence of "spiritual death." Since spiritual death CANNOT bring forth "spiritual life", then as Ephesians teaches all men are "spiritually dead". Dead men cannot act UNLESS God chooses to "quicken" them, for ONLY HE has the capacity to restore life, in all its fullness to those who are dead. The consequence of us being born spiritually dead is that we have NO capacity to obey the command to be "perfect" or "holy". Furthermore, since God IS sovereign, He has the prerogative of "imputing" the GUILT of Adam's sin to all his progeny. IF there is a denial of God's sovereignty to "impute" Adam's sin to humanity, then, to be consistent, it must be denied that God can, does, or will "impute" our sin to Jesus AND can, does, or will "impute" the righteousness of Christ to us though faith. Yes, Jesus was a "true" man for the man Jesus was born of a human mother. Adam was a"true"man because God created him. However, Jesus was NOT one of Adam's progeny because his was conception was attributed to God, the Holy Spirit. Thus, Adam's sin was NOT imputed to Christ by birth. Furthermore, Jesus WAS in his humanity God incarnate and therefore "holy". In fact, Adam's sin WAS imputed to Jesus Christ by God the Father when Jesus died on the cross. "He became sin for us" includes Adam. Yes, it is agreed that "all" human beings are sinners AND also that all human beings are sinners because they DO sin as a result of holiness being removed from our attributes. Augustine has it correct, Pelagius is in error. Semi-pelagianism doesn't work either. More could be said, but perhaps you get my drift.
Imagine going to the hand surgeon/philosopher as a source for Augustine and Calvinism 😂
Expect Leghton Flowers to do that. Its how he interacts with scripture often. Grabs a text out of context to make his argument.
Stop projecting accusing others of what calvinists reformed people like you do.
I wonder if Leighton hears him seriously. I doubt he does since he repeats the same mistakes till now!!!
Where is your stethoscope?
Cooper sure seems quick to judge. He's not the first lutheran I've know to quickly judge someone. I hope it's not trait of lutheranism.
I really don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about leighton’s position. And Dr. Cooper thanks for being so gracious and articulating where you’re coming from.
All Leighton claims is that according to the scripture, the pre work of God in a sinners life is the Holy Spirit convicting all men of sin and Jesus ACTIVELY drawing all men to himself (which we can resist according to Leighton’s view which I also agree with). So this drawing and conviction of sin, with the gospel, message creates faith which leads to salvation. So God is doing all the drawing and convicting, preparing all men’s hearts so that when they hear the gospel it’s like taking a drink in a desert. In their hearts they know it’s the truth because God is actively revealing them their sin along with Jesus actively drawing them according to John 12, and the spirit will convict the whole world John 16. If this is considered a semi pelagianism then idk how anyone can NOT be a semi pelagianist. Honestly this is so clear it hurts me that people reject this. Much love
Well said! 👏
Leighton also calls grace “hocus pocus”, “zapping” and “pixie dust”. I don’t think Leighton understands grace even a little. This is why so many Open Theists, naturalists and moral government theologians are supporting PROvisionism. It reeks of self righteousness ambition and the intrinsic goodness of man which does not exist biblically. Man is fallen an will not choose to follow unless aided by grace.
@@pateunuchity884 Leighton says that God is the first mover. Why are you purposely trying to misrepresent him? Jesus is drawing all men to himself, and the Holy Spirit is convicting the whole world. John 12 and John 16. You are correct in saying that men will not seek after God unless God goes after them. Which is why he did, according to these two passages in John. Why do you reject this?
@@joedejesus4603 I didn’t. I quoted him.
Why not go on Leightons show to discuss?
What is Provisionism?
The terms Provisionism and Provisionist are new by the standards of Christian theology. These labels have only been formally defined and used in the past few years. In broad terms, a Provisionist-someone who holds to Provisionism-holds a generally Arminian view of free will and salvation, with notable differences such as positive belief in eternal security. The main gist of Provisionism is the idea that the gospel is the Word of God, which is sufficient in itself, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to enable a response in all who hear God’s appeal to be reconciled to Him (John 6:63; Hebrews 4:12).
The clearest differences between Provisionist doctrine and classical Reformed theology are seen in the concepts of total depravity and limited atonement. The doctrine of total depravity suggests all people are inherently sinful, such that they could not even want to be saved without a direct, predestined act of God. Provisionism counters that all people are sinful and responsible for their sin, but they are also responsible for answering God’s universal call for men to be saved (Titus 2:11). Limited atonement is a doctrine teaching that Christ only died for those God had designated as the elect. A Provisionist would reject this, saying that the Bible teaches that Christ died for all people (1 John 2:2), which is why God promises to save any who come to Him in faith (Romans 10:11-13; Revelation 22:17). The Provisionist holds that Christ genuinely desires all of humanity to be saved (Luke 5:32; 19:10; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; ).
In effect, this means a Provisionist would also reject other Reformed doctrines such as irresistible grace.
The main use of the term Provisionism comes from the writings of theologian Leighton Flowers. The term is also meant to describe the general approach to salvation held by most Southern and Independent Baptists. So far as Reformed doctrine is concerned, this means narrow disagreement on the subjects of total depravity and limited atonement, as well as the exact meaning of words like predestined and elect.
Similar to the TULIP in Calvinism, Provisionism can be summarized with the acrostic PROVIDE
Responsible: Able-to-respond to God’s appeals for reconciliation.
Open door: For anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to His open arms.
Vicarious atonement: Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ’s blood.
Illuminating grace: Provides clearly revealed truth so that all can know and respond in faith.
Destroyed: For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit.
Eternal security: For all true believers.
you left out the P, the point that denies original sin
38:25 Leighton loves to say that Calvinists and "Provisionists" have the same vocabulary but a different dictionary. As a monergist, I couldn't agree more. He redefines terms by necessity: 1) it gives his view plausibility, and 2) if he didn't, the whole "Provisionism" house of cards would fall.
Just wait until you hear his doctrine of Election. Hoo boy!
Ironically reformed theology redefines election, predestination, sovereignty, love, grace, will, etc etc.
@@apilkeydefine those terms as they are used in the Bible then
@@tomtemple69 Predestination is mentioned 4 times in the Bible in 3 separate verses and NOT ONCE IS IT REFERRING TO SALVATION.
In each case the passage clearly says WHO is being predestinated and TO WHAT they are being predestinated to.
In all those passages ask your self WHO is being predestined and WHAT are they being predestined to?
*Not once is it an unbeliever.*
*Not once is it predestined to salvation.*
BELIEVERS are chosen to be Holy and blameless IN CHRIST, are predestined to be adopted children of God BY JESUS, predestined to be to the praise of His glory and predestined to be conformed to His image
EPHESIANS 1:4 - BELIEVERS chosen to be Holy and Blameless IN CHRIST.
EPHESIANS 1:5 - BELIEVERS
are predestined to be adopted children of God BY JESUS:
EPHESIANS 1:11,12 - BELIEVERS (who first trusted in Christ) are predestined to be the PRAISE OF HIS GLORY:
ROMANS 8:29 - BELIEVERS (those who are in IN CHRIST) are predestined to be CONFORMED TO HIS IMAGE (through sanctification).
@@tomtemple69 Election in the scriptures is:
1) Jesus Christ the Elect One
2) The Elect nation of Israel
3) Believers IN Christ for Christian SERVICE
4) Individuals chosen or elected to SERVICE not salvation.
The Augustinian doctrine of election is incredibly man-centred in that it’s all about them being elected.
Whereas scripture also has Christ as being the Elect One and Israel being the Elect Nation.
When asked what the doctrine of election is why do they default to themselves instead of defaulting to Christ?
... According to Isaiah 42:1 Jesus Christ is God’s elect servant who shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles:
ISAIAH 42:1
1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; MINE ELECT, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
************************************
... According to Isaiah 45:4 the nation of Israel is God’s elect:
ISAIAH 45:4
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and ISRAEL MINE ELECT, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
************************************
...According to Titus 1:1 BELIEVERS in Christ are called Elect and again they are elect to SERVICE.
TITUS 1:1
1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the FAITH OF GOD’S ELECT, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
You can’t have faith from before the foundation of the world.
@@tomtemple69 *Sovereignty does NOT mean determinism, it means GOD IS IN CONTROL and His ability to do whatever He wants.*
Sovereignty is translated from “LORD, LORD” and is not even found once in the KJV.
(It’s only found in the ESV 3 times).
Reformers wrongly define the concept of divine sovereignty as meaning “meticulous deterministic control over ever thing, including the evil intentions of creatures.”
The scriptures simply never teach this concept.
Instead, divine sovereignty is reflected as God’s ability to do whatever He is pleased to do (Ps. 115:3)
even if that may include giving the world over to creature’s free dominion (Ps. 115:16).
Calvinists can make up their own definition of sovereignty all day long but scripture won’t bend to it and the dictionary is not going to re-write itself on their behalf either.
*************************************
Here’s the definition of sovereignty:
MIRRIAM WEBSTER- SOVEREIGN
SOVEREIGN - noun
sov·er·eign | \ ˈsä-v(ə-)rən
1a: one possessing or held to possess supreme political power or sovereignty
b: one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere
c: an acknowledged leader : ARBITER
2: any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom
SOVEREIGN - adjective
1a: superlative in quality
b: of the most exalted kind : SUPREME sovereign virtue
c: having generalized curative powers
a sovereign remedy
d: of an unqualified nature : UNMITIGATED sovereign contempt
e: having undisputed ascendancy : PARAMOUNT
2a: possessed of supreme power a sovereign ruler
b: unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE
c: enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT sovereign states
3: relating to, characteristic of, or befitting a supreme ruler : ROYAL
a sovereign right
God’s Word and the BIBLICAL DEFINITION of sovereignty will not bend to the Calvinist’s lower view of His sovereignty.
God will not be put in a man made box.
Sovereignty = Supreme Power and Authority
God is definitely sovereign by the BIBLICAL AND TRUE DEFINITION OF SOVEREIGNTY and not by man’s definition imposed upon it in order for it to suit a certain systematic.
God is in complete 100% control of everything.
That doesn’t mean He’s meticulously controlling everything.
Deep.
In all these discussions why is the concept of the gnomic will not mentioned.
28:00 - 33:00: Eastern Orthodox are Semi-Pelagian as well. It's a matter of degrees. Or perhaps I would want to say, EO are "Pelagian-influenced." If your view of what happened to man during the Fall is lessened, then you are more likely to lean Pelagian. I think there is this view in EO of a more efficacious will than we have in Reformed thinking. Because EO also don't believe that the image of God within man was marred by Adam's sin, only the likeness of God.
It is odd to me that the EO view sin as an illness, which IS a condition of being. But they reject Augustine 's concept of Original Sin, as well as his interpretation of Romans 5!? This is one of the frustrating things about Eastern Christianity; they have no problem with Paraconsistent logic (logic that allows for contradictions). Only they won't call it that; they'll call it "their penchant for abiding in mystery and paradox."
You nailed it. Augustine realized that he needed God's grace to obey God. It's the same as what you said about conversion: of course, our will is involved but it's because our will is being changed and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
I think it is this concept of the will needing to be empowered or enabled in order to obey God that really doesn't much exist or at least isnt talked about in Orthodoxy.
This may be an outgrowth of their Energy / Essence distinction, actually. To the Orthodox, one never obeys God without God's working, because the very act of obeying God is an energy *of* God that God is "energizing or working with" the person (their concept of synergeia, synergy). The EO don't really have a concept of "dead work" or "legalism" because anytime you obey the law you are being "energized with God" to do so.
... And on and on. EO is just a totally different system, hard to pin down. In fact Dr Constantinou says that Eastern Christianity "resists definition." (See her book, "Thinking Orthodox.")
I do think the Eastern Orthodox got a lot right, and theirs is a rich and beautiful tradition. But at the end of the day, like you Dr. Cooper, I'm just too "Augustinian" in conceptual orientation. I'm Western, for good or ill!
The East just has a different anthropology than we do. But I am coming to believe that the Lutheran / Reformed Anthropology is more scriptural than the Orthodox. I think the Orthodox do tend to view the Christian life as a series of libertine free will choices in synergy with God towards salvation.
Could someone live without sin? Well, the EO say that Theotokos lived without sin (transgression) at least from her dedication at age 3 in the Temple, according to Orthodox tradition. And She is to be "the example for all of us to emulate," according to Orthodox teaching.
It's all, if not outright Pelagian, "Pelagian Sweetened."
I've listened to Ken Wilson and I mean maybe someone out there somewhere said you couldn't challenge him if you haven't read as much as him, but I've never heard that argument from any of Leighton's listeners. No serious listener would say that to you anyway. Challenge away if your arguments are good. If they're bad please do so anyway so we can see that too.
Ken Wilson and quite frankly a lot of his followers do absolutely make those blowhard type claims.
@@Tron4JC Can you provide some kind of reference for what you're talking about? I'd be interested to hear what Wilson said if you're being truthful.
23:15. How is that not a fatal problem for this issue? Serious question
I'm glad you pointed that out, I almost missed that. How can one say someone is pelagian if you don't even hear out what Pelagius himself believed?
Perhaps I'm projecting my own views onto Dr. Flowers in an overly charitable way, but as someone who watches both your channels and agrees with a lot of what you each say, I would say that the bulk of the problem is that neither of you are reading each others' responses correctly. You read and respond to Flowers as if he is speaking in an educational mode. You see him always downplaying sin nature, so you respond by showing verses which affirm it. But he is not a soteriological educator trying to teach soteriology to the average Joe. (In that way you were giving him a little too much credit based on his channel's name.) His channel is almost entirely anti-Calvinist polemics, and the way he responded to you shows while he was trying to make an effort to acknowledge and consider the fact you aren't a Calvinist, he still responded to you with knee-jerk reflexes as if you were a Calvinist. I'm sure you noticed he responded to you with the exact same strategies and wording he would to a Calvinist.
A Calvinist will read the verses you brought up to "prove" total depravity, or complete spiritual blindness and deadness. Flowers was responding to you as if you were bringing up those verses in that context, so it sounded like he was entirely dismissive of those verses. But I think he was dismissing the Calvinist interpretation which he assumed was being leveled at him by reflex, not dismissing the orthodox view which you were actually espousing. Like that's still a serious mistake, he should respond to actual you and not the Calvinists he's used to talking to, but that doesn't mean he would actually spout Pelagian heresies if he did a from-square-one presentation of soteriology to a non-Calvinist. And because Calvinists don't need to be persuaded humanity has a depraved sin nature, I wouldn't expect him to spend much time talking about it in his videos, which explains why you couldn't find any. He refutes bad views and only explicates correct views insofar as they are opposed to the bad views.
And while YOU might be well-read about Pelagianism, consider the fact that you are probably one of the first educated people (and almost certainly the first non-Calvinist) to call him a semi-Pelagian. I would bet good money that he is constantly bombarded with the phrase by cage stage Calvinists in his comment section who would call anyone who is not a Calvinist (including yourself) a Pelagian/semi-Pelagian for denying total depravity or espousing any measure of libertarian free will. If that claim isn't leveled at you very often, it's because you don't spend all your RUclips time refuting Calvinism. If you are correct that he really is a semi-Pelagian, the trolls were almost certainly only correct by coincidence, not because they know much about the subject. So I don't blame him for getting defensive about the term.
TL;DR: You're both talking past each other. Dr. Cooper is giving Dr. Flowers too much credit (treating him as if he's primarily a RUclips educator and not a RUclips polemicist) while Dr. Flowers isn't giving Dr. Cooper enough (for not being the Calvinists he's always railing against).
in debate you need two sides, Cooper only presents his side. I hear a lot of Calvinism from him.
ruclips.net/video/TzslGsHPCfI/видео.html
Cooper is a Lutheran. They are not Calvinists. They have some big overlaps and big disagreements.
I would say that Pelagianism is a denial of any form of original sin at all and that man today is not different than man prior to the fall except maybe mortality and possibly the denial of the need for some sort of prevenient or preceding grace. I would say Semi-Pelagianism is the belief that prevenient grace is needed for the increase of faith, but not the beginning of faith, however Semi-Pelagianism would acknowledge some sort of original sin. This is what I have been able to find on this subject.
@FightPeople Look up what a Racovian is and there you go.
Fyi I'm not one but was confused as you were until I checked out the website he has attached in his channel info lol.
Didn't the Eastern Orthodox church participate in the Council of Ephesus? Did they go from condemning Pelagianism/semi to now embracing it? seems to me that a baptist trying to latch on to Eastern Orthodox theology to defend his semipelagian view is wild.
Seems like Flowers and his fans are grabbing on to whatever saves them.
and yeah, his redefinition of grace is just absurd..feels like Flower's is clowning us with these games.
Grace means unmerited favor.
How would you define it?
Yeah, one of the things that puts me off about Leighton is that he will side with anyone as long as they are against Calvinism, be they Arminian, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Open Theist, Mormon, Atheist, Muslim, or whatever. He doesn't say much more than a passing remark about how he disagrees with them, but as long as they can attack particular Christian groups together, he is chummy with them.
@@oracleoftroy in rejecting calvinism he went as far as embracing semipelagianism..you're right...a Baptist clinging to supposedly Eastern Orthodox theology..that's entertainment I needed during this shut down
Many Eastern Fathers such as Chrysostom, Cassian, and the Desert Fathers are accused of being semi Pelagian. They do not exactly appreciate the reformed efforts to throw this label at them and effectively, the early church
No. Eastern Orthodoxy still anathematizes Semi-Pelagianism in the Council of Ephesus
At 57:00 Dr Cooper identifies Leighton's position by reading "the beginning of faith is up to human beings". Except that from what I have seen and heard, that is not his position. Mr. Flowers never identifies faith as coming before hearing the Gospel. Therefore, the gospel being the power of God unto salvation would, from Flowers perspective, be an act of grace, hence God acted first for someone who responds to the gospel. So I can only conclude that the Augustinian position is that the gospel is not considered to be grace.
At 1:06 Cooper seems do deny that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation by referring to it as simple information. The suggestion being that God needs to do something else although the Gospel has been identified in scripture as God's power. One would think that God's power is sufficient. As such, this is really a conversation about the nature of Grace.
No semi-Pelagian denies the gospel message comes before faith. That isn’t the issue. The issue is does the Holy Spirit works internally on the human will to move it when it was bound by sin.
@@Tron4JC Thanks.
@@Tron4JC this isn't an issue for those who affirm the gospel is sufficient by itself, so it is still a question about the nature of grace.
@@brucegolston6507 semi-Pelagians were not accused of denying gospel revelation first regardless.
32:08 that’s a great question and I differ with him on this point for that reason. I think he’s being inconsistent there
Why is Pelagianism/semi-pelagianism so stubborn to rear its head throughout church history? Because the original sin is offensive to prideful men! If we cannot accept our plight, we will not see Christ as savior.
I guess because a) it feels like we have free will in every day decisions, so we think we do in spiritual ones, and b) a well meaning concern to retain human responsibility for wrongdoing, and c) pride which points us to the idea that our salvation depends on us, is centred on us.
@@SeanusAurelius I think this is certainly true for many people. What I am concerned about personally, is the univocal predications of many who emphasize human responsibility.
Dr. Cooper, I have a question for you. Only you. Would you have believed that man is so fallen that he cannot respond positively to God’s call if you weren’t told that by commentators? Would you come to that conclusion just by studying the Bible without biased sources? Be honest.
Yes.
Dr. Jordan B Cooper I doubt that. Please explain how. Even the apostle Paul in Acts 17 when preaching to the Athenians said God determined times and habitations so that man would seek God and perhaps grope for Him and find Him. Was Paul spreading a false doctrine? Over in Acts 28, he’s preaching all day and night trying to convince his audience of the truth. Many, many more places in the Bible when the gospel is preached, it was preached with the belief that those people being spoken to could have believed and repented. I don’t think you’re being honest. Only a commentary outside of the Bible can convince someone that man cannot respond positively to God’s appeals to be reconciled from the fall.
So why did you ask if you already decided you know the answer?
Dr. Jordan B Cooper OK. Sorry. But please explain. And I’d like to get your take on Acts 17. Based on the things you’ve been saying, Paul preached a heretical message to the Athenians. If anyone today preached that exact message, you would label it Pelagian. How do you get around that?
Dr. Jordan B Cooper Or will you be like a Calvinist and pretend like Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill doesn’t exist? 🤔 Either Paul was revealing truth or he was spreading a false doctrine. There’s no way around it.
So you found out that Leighton Flowers and his trolls are less than forthcoming.
You are not the first. teacher.
Leighton Flowers does not hold to the standards for the office of Elder.
What's interesting is the total disingenuous misrepresentation of Flowers. He even admits that he hasn't listened to Flowers that much, but he still feels like he can shoot from the hip and make false claims that he explains in other videos. One of those being that Flowers and other provisionists do not deny original sin and they are not synergistic BY DEFINITION. He states multiple times in many different videos that Salvation is 100% God's choice and God's decision and nothing we can do will change that. When we accept God's grace, that is not a work, but a response. We are offered something (grace) and we can either accept or reject. That does not affect our salvation through faith in Christ by the grace of God. Once we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, we are then saved, not because of anything we did, but because God has chosen in His grace and faithfulness to adopt us into the family and He gives us the right to be called children of God.
Again, this is not synergistic and the two decisions cannot be conflated. One is a response to God. The other is God's decision to save.
God is the only one who chooses who to save and who to condemn.
We are the ones who choose to either accept or reject Jesus.
God is still sovereign even though He gives His creation the ability to make choices for themselves.
We are not sinners only when we sin, but we sin because we are sinners. This is what synergists ( = semi-pelagians, arminians and pelagians) can't accept. And this is why synergism is an ideology, philosophy and ''christian'' islam, not the Gospel at all.
Arminians don't deny original sin fam, please don't say this. Classical Arminianism affirms the total depravity and inability of human beings
Wrong. Sin is transgression of the law.
We are sinners when we transgress the law.
...According to 1 JOHN 3:4 sin is specifically defined as a TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW:
1 JOHN 3:4
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.
*Sin is NOT “a nature”*
***************************************
... According to Romans 5:12 death comes BY SINNING and not by birth:
ROMANS 5:12
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and DEATH BY SIN; and so death passed upon all men, FOR THAT ALL HAVE SINNED:
Sin entered the world and death BY sin.
This passage couldn’t be more clear.
Death comes WHEN we sin.
Nature does not necessitate sin.
You CAN choose contrary to your nature.
ADAM AND EVE DID!
Well put! Are you still lonely in Greece, or am I thinking of the wrong person? I hope you're finding people to fellowship with.
@@apilkey
King David states that in sin his mother conceived him.
Psalm 51:5 English Standard Version (ESV)
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Man by nature is man a child of wrath. Why? Because of being born in sin. What else could occur the wrath of God?
Ephesians 2:3 English Standard Version (ESV)
3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
My problem with this "people sin because they are sinners" view is that it's obviously unfair. If I didn't choose to become a sinner, and if, being a sinner, I never had any real ability to avoid sin -- how can I possibly be held responsible?
Since people in this thread are already appealing (albeit mistakenly) to the David and Bathsheba story, I'll use that as my example, too. God told David, through Nathan the prophet, that David was guilty of murder - that he had used the Amonites' sword to murder Uriah. The same principle applies here. Whoever caused me to become a sinner is guilty of the sin that my status as a sinner eventually produced. I'm just one of the colored balls on the billiards table bouncing around. The cue ball is the one you should pin the blame on.
And I think that the view that people are bent by nature toward sin because of what Adam did ultimately makes God the one who must shoulder the blame. After all, he could have made us otherwise - why should I be held responsible when all I did was have the misfortune of being born -- I didn't ask to be born! Perhaps you could argue that Adam is responsible - but even then, only Adam should be held responsible. Why should I be punished for sin I had no ability to prevent or avoid or abstain from? And then wouldn't that make Adam the most vile sinner imaginable? Why, then, is he so rarely spoken of - and even more rarely spoken of in a negative light?
I'm not even trying to say that you're wrong - only that, unless you frame your opinion extremely carefully, with attention to detail and a willingness to question your convictions - you will run into problems like what I wrote about.
Dr Leighton Flowers unequivocally refutes the allegation of semi-pelagianisn in his book "God's Provision for All". Since he denies it and distances himself from it, it is surely disingenuous, unhelpful and potentially divisive to the Body of Christ (1 Cor 3: 3-11) to persist in calling him semi-Pelagian. The term is too loaded. Rather, please humbly reflect on Dr Flowers' sincere appeal: "I would rather avoid such demonising labels altogether... Rather than appealing to ancient Catholic labels..., how about we approach each other with patience, kindness and the principle of charity?" (p. 137).
I agree with Dr Cooper that Dr Flowers does not sufficiently affirm the internal work of the Holy Spirit leading up to conversion (1 Thess 1:5), but I believe that is because he is defending the inviolable role of the human will in exercising faith in Christ for salvation (which I also defend).
You've read his book. Good. Help me out here:
www.britannica.com/topic/semi-Pelagianism
_Unlike the Pelagians, who denied original sin and believed in perfect human free will, the semi-Pelagians believed in the universality of original sin as a corruptive force in humanity. They also believed that without God’s grace this corruptive force could not be overcome, and they therefore admitted the necessity of grace for Christian life and action. They also insisted on the necessity of baptism, even for infants. But contrary to St. Augustine, they taught that _*_the innate corruption of humankind was not so great that the initiative toward Christian commitment was beyond the powers of a person’s native will._*_ ... In later semi-Pelagianism, _*_divine help was conceived not as an internal empowering graciously infused by God into a person but as purely external preaching or the biblical communication of the gospel,_*_ of the divine promises, and of the divine threats._
Provisionism
soteriology101.com/about-2/statement-of-faith/
P - People sin - which separates all from fellowship with God.
*R - Responsible - (Able-to-respond) to God's appeals to reconciliation.*
O - Open Door - for anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to his Open Arms.
V - Vicarious Atonement - Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ's blood.
I - Illuminating Grace - Provides *clearly revealed truth* so that all can know and respond in faith.
D - Destroyed - For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit.
E - Eternal Security - For all true believers.
*How the words in bold in each summary not teaching exactly the same thing?*
@@Mygoalwogel
It will probably be easier if I reply by simply re-posting what I posted yesterday in the Soteriology 101 Facebook discussion group, in response to Leighton Flowers' latest video:
ruclips.net/video/9NcjT-55MZ4/видео.html
THE ROLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN SALVATION
I think this addresses your concern. My post is as follows:-
- Does Dr Leighton Flowers' Pneumatology go far enough?
I have listened to Leighton's video defence of the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation. My original concern remains, and indeed is confirmed, by what I believe to be the inadequacy of Leighton's understanding from a Provisionist perspective (I speak as a Provisionist). He made many valid points, but in my view does not go far enough. Some key elements and explanations seem to be missing.
I have made copious notes and will try to prepare some kind of "gentle critique" in the next few days. I shall also be interested in the views and comments of others, especially if you have watched the video or read the article referenced.
Bear in mind that I align myself with the theology of the late Billy Graham (with which I am more familiar), which I assume is best described as Provisionist.
To summarize my concern at this stage:
1) The truly supernatural element in the work of the Spirit leading to a person's salvation seems to be downplayed by Leighton in order to preserve the natural ability of man to repent and believe, yet Jesus described conversion as impossible with men but not with God - with whom all things are possible (Luke 18: 27).
2) The means are not sufficient of themselves "per se". The knowledge of the Word prepares the mind, but without a supernatural awakening, a divine intervention, the letter of the word is dead to the hearer.
3) If you have ever tried to lead someone to Christ, you will understand the sheer impossibility of the task. Why? Not necessarily because their hearts are hardened or calloused, but because the god of this world has blinded their eyes. It takes more than ordinary means to open blind eyes. It can take sometimes years to see their resistance broken down before they believe.
4) The ability to believe is not the issue with regard to, say, the Koran vs the Bible. It is the deceitfulness of sin (spiritual blindness, etc.) that makes it easier for many people to believe in a falsehood than the truth. There is not therefore a parity. People are captives to Satan in their unbelief.
5) It is a spiritual work to lead someone to Christ, and can only be accomplished by divine intervention, hence the need for fervent intercessory prayer, etc. 1 Thess 1:5 reminds us of this.
The means alone will accomplish nothing unless accompanied by a gracious work of the Holy Spirit.
It is not a question of people simply exercising their will to say yes or no to Christ. Because the unregenerate are captives to Satan and enemies of God, it requires a mighty work of the Spirit to set them free.
This in no sense undermines the will, nor negates the importance of ordinary means. When confronted with the truth, the captive will not willingly be set free until their eyes are open. In other words, there is frequently a period of resistance until every last barrier is overcome by the gracious operations of the Spirit of God. Then, at last, when the unbeliever is cut to the heart, he or she must either surrender to Christ or refuse Him.
If we downplay the miraculous in conversion; if we seem to reduce it to a mere natural decision of the human will and nothing else, then it is difficult to see how the unwelcome charge of semi-Pelagianism can be avoided. The capacity to believe is not in question, but the obstacles in the way of belief are so formidable that it requires a supernatural work of divine grace to overcome - yes, even in the soteriology of Provisionism without violating the independence of the human will. Such was the apostle Paul's conversion.
@@Mygoalwogel
Dr Leighton Flowers is doing a new video on Semi-pelagianism which premiers tomorrow:-
ruclips.net/video/sREZYX171sE/видео.html
@@paulbarnes7211 I very much like what you've written here and agree heartily. You needn't apologize for copying and pasting this well-written bit. It's a very helpful habit to keep your best ideas ready to reuse on the fly.
Thank you very much!
@@paulbarnes7211 After searching looking through some historical Lutheran Confessional documents that established our pneumatology of conversion, I've extracted a few verses that I hope may save you a bit of work in your "gentle critique."
Genesis 8:21 (ESV)
The intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.
Deuteronomy 30:6 (ESV)
And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
Jeremiah 17:9 (ESV)
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?
Ezekiel 11:19 (ESV)
And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh.
Luke 24:45 (ESV)
Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures
John 8:34 (ESV)
Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin
Acts 16:14 (ESV)
One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
Romans 8:7 (ESV)
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.
1 Corinthians 2:14 (ESV)
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
2 Corinthians 3:5 (ESV)
Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God.
Ephesians 2:2 (ESV)
You were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-
Ephesians 2:5 (ESV)
Even when we were dead in our trespasses, he made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved.
Ephesians 2:8 (ESV)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this [faith] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.
Philippians 2:13 (ESV)
For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.
2 Timothy 2:25
God may perhaps grant them repentance wleading to a knowledge of the truth,
Now do semi-Manichaeism and semi-gnosticism.
Pelagius threw up terrible doctrine and leighton flowers came and licked it up
"I'm not a pelagian but..." * Proceeds to argue for literal pelagianism * 😂
Orthodox Christianity also affirms that infants are born innocent. We inherit the tendency to sin from Adam and Eve, but not the guilt of their sin. We become sinners when we commit our first sin, but of course only God knows when that is for each person. We are only guilty of the sins we commit, for which we will be asked to give an account before God.. It would make no sense for us to be asked to account for Adam's sin, for which we are not responsible. Augustine has given Western Christianity an incorrect view of original sin.
Flower fan bois are all over the comments and malding .. seethe 😘
Let me make things easy for you, L.Flower's beleifs are easy to figure out: Dr James White takes a position, Dr Flowers will take the opposite 😂
Maybe I believe it’s Titus to verse 11 for the grace of God to bring salvation as a burden to all men instructing us. Is grace come through macro are micro application from God. If it is macro application then it is attained by choice. I don’t have time to develop this sorry.
let's boogey, man :-()
29:36 To take a line from a poem, strip it from all context, and then apply it literally to all people from all time, forever, is scriptural lobotomy. Was David trying to teach us about the "condition of man from birth" ? Or was he writing a poem about how terrible his personal guilt was and how deep his contrition was, his gratefulness for God's forgiveness?
Now, to be fair, the New Testament authors have definitely plucked verses out of the psalms to show their messianic content. But is that appropriate here? I'm OK with Peter or Paul doing what I consider to be bad Bible-study, since they have the Spirit's direct guidance... I'm not so sure about this case.
But it's entirely unfair and unreasonable to make this verse about anyone besides David. Is it possible that David was engaging in hyperbole because he was writing a poem? That possibility should at least be taken under consideration when deciding if this verse is even true of David (when taken literally).
I would not allow for anyone to call me part heretic. Period. If anyone uses a term like semi-pelagian and knows what that languistic construction means from its structure, they are using it as slander. Either I am a heretic or I am not, to say I am part heretic is just as good as calling me a full blown heretic. I know this is not a personal attack, I am speaking from the perspective of the average person who is labeled this way.
This is 3 years now, and Dr. Flowers is still teaching Semi-Pelagianism sadly. He is sinking the good ship Calvin, but I'm afraid taking on water in his own aging hull.
Look, saints, two wrongs don't make a right.
The problem is not a soteriological one primarily. It's anthropology.
Who is man?
What are we capable of?
How is the natural man different from the spiritual man?
And the rest of the matter is probably dispensational:
What is the difference between mankind's access to grace before Christ and after the cross?
Finally the Provisionists lack a good explanation of the provision. What provision? Where?
If we place the power (right, ability, authority) to believe in the Gospel message itself we're on solid ground:
"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."
But if we place that power in the natural man we err.
Grace must always be affirmed.
The Calvinists got around this problem, at least the English ones did, by affirming "common grace." It's a sloppy doctrine but a step in the right direction.
How do we reconcile the desire of God to have all men saved and their blindness to Him?
(I hesitate to use terms like depravity or utter inability because they're easily misunderstood, misapplied, and frankly God can make exceptions. I do affirm sin, and original sin, another thing brother Flowers and his antiAugustine bros are tossing out.)
Brother Cooper please revisit this issue. It's about time for these congregationalists to be corrected. This isn't their only blunder.
First Corinthians 1013 there is no temptation you have been given that you cannot bear. That is you can choose by your created nature when God made you in the womb to either do it or not to do it. Are we not dealing with a theological cop out in Augustine.?
If you haven't read Pelegius in his own words... how you do know he is all that you condemn him for? Is it not a common facet of debates and disagreements that people mishear what the other indeed is saying? That we hear others from our own lived experiences and backgrounds, rather than from theirs. Moreover, ought we not try our hardest, especially with our Christian brothers and sisters to listen to them carefully and try to understand what they are indeed saying and where it is they are coming from? Would that not be in the spirit of love and unity?
Pelagius is very concerned with the image of God in people. and from that good image, he sees mankind's nature as able to do good and able to good wrong. much the same as C.S. Lewis's moral law argument. That every human is created in God's image and endowed with the freedom to choose good or evil. Pelagius affirmed the nature of humans to be thus. Not bound to only sin, nor bound to never sin, but free so far as able to sin or do good.
Perhaps [speculatively speaking] he pushes this imago dei position strongly, bc he is dealing with Celtic druids up in the British Isles and their practices of human sacrifice and specifically offering infants to the "spirits" around them, by burning them on wickerworks or leaving them in trees for changelings, etc. Ought we not to try and see Pelegius's adamant position of the goodness of every child, man, and woman for they bear the imago dei. and from that nature, more aperpo, we conclude that we are to choose good and holiness so far as we are able with that free nature.
Pelagius doesn't use the language of "justification" but of "nature" and "morality". Augustine, simply cant see or hear Pelegius, removed from his[ Agustine's] own Manicheanstic background, or from his dealings with the Donatists. Perhaps Augustine should have followed the Pope's council at the time to "love that neighbor"...
Heresy! Pelagius heretics still in the world
Pelagius the individual is irrelevant, the doctrine named after him is what matters. Same for Nestorius.
42:05 but so what? The comparison to nazism is ridiculous because we all know intuitively that is wicked and wrong. We do not all know “pelagianism” is wrong. That is the point. It doesn’t matter if he taught what Pelagius taught. Is it true or not? That is what matters and should matter most to any follower of Jesus.
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
This was a very long way of saying Leighton should just own the title "Semi-Pelagianism." It has absolutely nothing to do with whether he's right or not.
Eastern Orthodox "synergism" is the truth: (so I am persuaded) Neither Augustinianism nor Calvinism, nor Pelagianism nor semi Pelagianism. Grace from start to finish but without the determinism which corrupts the logical definition of human freedom (choice / acts of will and the energy proper to our nature (see the 5th and 6th Ecumenical Councils and their definitions)
This guy talks for OVER AN HOUR before getting to the point. Skip to 1:02:00 to hear why he calls flowers a semipelagian.
28:00 minutes in he makes some really good points about the audience Flowers has influence over in the chat.
Yeah it's annoying when he defines and specifies his terminology, establishes credibility, and generally addresses the efforts he's made to understand the subject and the people involved. Gosh! Why can't he just curse all their mothers out, say they're misunderstanding him, and be done with it in like a minute & ten instead of an hour & ten.
26:16 .. and now you're just agreeing with Leighton Flowers!
26:18... and now you're just being inconsistent.
I am no disciple of Dr. flowers, I’ve never interacted with them, but this whole thing cracks me up. You keep saying he’s not a pelagian because he doesn’t come to the same conclusion as Pelagius but he’s definitely a semi pelagian because he talks like Pelagius. Come on Dr. Cooper…conclusions matter! You can’t be a Pelagian or a semi Pelagian unless you have the same conclusions as Pelagius. Why don’t you just drop the name calling and the effort to label Dr. flowers and just have a conversation with him about the issues. My question is what are you afraid of? Just go on his program or have him come on yours and then you can get rid of the “he said he said” and it will be out in the open to both of you and to all of us. No more untrue accusations on either side. And you can’t use that I don’t have time excuse because in the time you made this video you could’ve had an hour long discussion with Dr. flowers. When people refuse to have a conversation but they will make videos trashing the other person it seems very suspicious to me.
you don't like that there is such a thing as a "boogey-man fallacy", do you? :)
Is that when someone accuses you of believing some system that happens to be named after a person, instead of addressing the accusation head on, you postulate about whether the man it is named after actually believed it, or just call the system a boogey-man?
The bigger question in this is, if he is even full blown pelagian, who cares? Is it wrong or not? That is what should matter.
Someone can not be a Christian and a pelagian!
After 15 minutes of endless chatter this airhead still hasn't even reached the beginning of the substantive argument. It's not even about "getting to the point", it's about beginning the argument leading up to the point. To paraphrase Churchill, after a quarter of this exceedingly long video, we're nowhere near "the end of the beginning"; we're not even at the beginning of the beginning. It's incredibly annoying as there is presumably some needle inside that 1+ hour haystack of hot air. Not to mention that maddening voice where he tries to "sound cute" like American girls do by ending every other sentence on a crescendo. It gives the whole exercise even more of a "gossip-over-the-phone" vibe. At the same time, the guy is obviously well-read but apparently not intelligent enough to organise a simple presentation in a professional and accessible way, let alone control his speech and intonation.
If you are so worried about form and business level presentations, you should go to some channel which has more of your style. This is not your theological digest. He has his own style and he is himself, he is at least not fake in his personality, he is a human being, while some of the calvinistic arminian derived theologians look more like sophisticated money making pastor personalities.
So you don't believe the Gospel, the living Word of God, is "living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart"?
You have a very low view of a supernatural message. The Gospel is NOT information, it is so much more than that. The Gospel is NOT external, it works internally. Defining semi-pelagianism as something different to include only your specific versions of grace is petty. Either you believe in absolute inability or you're a boogeyman! Semi-pelagianism is the belief that man takes the first step towards God. Believing that God calls us through his diving inspired living and active Word, the Gospel is NOT Semi-pelagianism.
Uh, semi-Pelagians weren’t condemned for denying gospel revelation comes to us first. They affirmed that. They were condemned for denying necessity of prevenient grace to accompany that.
Olson believes in irresistible grace? REALLY?
Do you ever talk about the lord Jesus in lutheranism and not just about distinctives about Christ in his offices or the grace of Christ or preach those things that might actually draw a Person 2o Christ
Read the MYTH OF PELAGIANISM, by Dr ALi Bonner.. it will help you..
Thanks
I heard Ali Bonner in one interview. Her claims are pretty cringe such as 1) Ambrose and all prior fathers denied prevenient grace, 2) prevenient grace is same as irresistable grace, and 3) Jerome was forced to oppose to side with Augustine on that issue to avoid being called a heretic (irony of that claim was that Jerome, not Augustine, went after Pelagius first on that)
Flowers is arguing Calvinism
? Is man so lost they cannot call out on the Lord for Salvation when confronted with the Gospel
Pelagius looks like Iron Maiden's drummer so he's okay in my book.
man he talked more about his uninteresting life than about theology
I'm kind of annoyed at how all of Cooper's rebuttals seem to be appeals to traditional views without attempting to support them. If you're gonna go back to tradition, tradition, tradition -- why not be a Catholic?
I really want to see some defense, especially rooted in the historical context of the New Testament and before - that sin is a "condition" rather than personal moral guilt.
Calvinists also like to point out that, “Pelagianism has been condemned as heresy by councils all throughout Church history.” I always find it amazing when the so called “Reformed” and “Sola Scriptura” crowd will point to Catholic councils about Pelagius. They are not very reformed if they appeal to Rome, and they are not sola scriptura if they appeal to councils.
There were three councils that condemned Pelagianism; the Council of Ephesus in the year 431; the Council of Carthage in the year 418; and the Council of Orange in the year 529. This is because Pelagius was not invited nor present to defend himself but his opponents and adversaries stated his doctrine for him. When Pelagius was able to defend himself, the Council of Diospolis in 415 declared Pelagius orthodox. And Pope Zosimus also declared Pelagius’ orthodoxy in 417. He was always acquitted when present to clarify and defend his views. If these are our authorities to determine orthodoxy, do we accept the ones in favor of Pelagius or the ones against him?
Not so fast with Pope Zosimus. When he realized he was duped by Pelagius, he ended up condemning him.
Other things: 1) this page isn’t Calvinism and 2) sola Scriptura as historically understood don’t mean denying founding and creeds.
There were three councils of Carthage condemning Pelagianism: in 411, 418 and 419.
And Pope Innocent condemned PelagianIsm before Pope Zosimus (eventually) did.
You don’t understand sola scriptura
what a disappointment to find you talking on this issue.