Calvinism's Big 3 Proof Texts | Leighton Flowers | Soteriology 101
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Dr. Leighton Flowers welcomes Richard Coords of examiningcalvinism.com to talk through the 3 most popular proof texts used to defend Calvinism: John 6, Romans 9 and Ephesians 1.
JOIN US FOR A LIVE DISCUSSION WITH AUDIENCE Q&A
To get your copy of Dr. Flowers new book, Drawn By Jesus, go here: a.co/d/6s767Ey
To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: soteriology101...
Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? soteriology101...
Dr. Flowers’ book, “The Potter’s Promise” and his book, “God’s Provision for All” can be found here: www.amazon.com...
DOWNLOAD OUR APP:LINK FOR ANDROIDS: play.google.co....
LINK FOR APPLE: apps.apple.com....
To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip” please click here: soteriology101...
To listen to the audio only be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or one of the other podcast players found here: soteriology101...
For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism) please visit www.soteriology101.com
To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: / 1806702782965265
For updates and news follow us at: soteriology101
Or @soteriology101 on Twitter
Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!
To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers go here: soteriology101....
Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software developing needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101.
To become a Patreon supporter or make a one time donation: soteriology101...
Thanks for watching.
#Leighton Flowers #Predestination #Calvinism #Provisionism #Calvinist #Salvation
The more I study Calvinism, the more I reject it.
Wow. I had no clue who was behind that website. Examining Calvinism was SO essential in helping me get out of that cult. Thank you so much, Richard!!! Your work started decades ago has blessed me even these last couple of years!!!
@matthewbrown9029,
So you were a Calvinist before, did you went out because you did not believe that you are one of the elect?
matthewbrown9029,
John 6:44-45 say:
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
These two verses are biblical proof that only
those brought by the Father to Jesus and those who were taught and learned from the Father come to Jesus and be saved...
Therefore those who were not brought by the Father to Jesus and those who were never taught and learned from the father cannot come to Jesus and be saved.
This is another biblical proof of election and predestination for salvation..
However dr. Flowers do not believe that God indeed predestined persons for salvation.
He believes that God predestined only group of people for service..
@JunDurias if you think I haven't ever read the Bible or never read those verses, you're fooling yourself. You quote them as if I, for some reason, missed them in my indoctrination courses. Bro, I don't need you to spew your Calvinist rhetoric in a reply to a comment stating how I left Calvinism. I am very thorough with my studies, and I can assure you there are alternative explanations to your take on John 6. Honestly, it's not even worth debating on here. You'll come around when you decide to be honest
@@JunDurias I left because I realized calvinism is incredibly wrong.
@@matthewbrown9029,
I am an honest person bro,
And my question to you is sincere, I am not a Calviniist and I know their main doctrine is Election and Predestination. So I asked you honestly if you leave Calvinism because you don't believe that you are one of the elect because those who stay in Calvinism believe that they are one of the elect.. And I never presumed that you are not reading scriptures, but I quote to you John 6:44-45, because I believe that it is one of the proof of election and predestination for salvation. So if you don't agree with me please refute what I believe..
Sorry if I offended you..
Leighton:
Refutes Calvi-view of John 6
Calvi:
Have you read Romans 9
Leighton:
Refutes Calvi-view of Romans 9
Calvi:
Have you read Ephesians 1
Leighton:
Refutes Calvi-view of Ephesians 1
Calvi:
Have you read John 6 and Romans 9?
True, but the same pattern exists for all systematics.
Yeah, this is basically how my discussion goes with my Calvinist friends.
We left our Reformed Calvinist church after 13 years. Sweet family. We can't find a solid church. There's some very strange churches out there. 😢
No joke
Similar situation here
THAT'S WHY IT IS SO HARD TO FIND A BIBLE BELIEVING CHURCH..BEEN HEARING ABOUT HOMES CHURCH...DID SOME RESEARCH ON THAT..REMEMBER THE EARLY CHURCH MEET IN PEOPLE'S HOMES..JUST TO COME TOGETHER AND PRAISE AND WORSHIP ,,READING GOD'S WORD . SOUNDS GOOD.
@@marcyoverby3817 I attend a home church at the moment and I don't like it very much. I'm sure the model CAN be good, but like any group, the results are going to vary.
Sharon, it took me 2 years to find a church.....and I confess I doubted at times it would happen. I confess at times I considered just joining any church to experience a community of Christians that I missed.
Leaving is difficult but so is waiting. You WILL find that church.
FEEL BETTER SO , LEIGHTON! PRAYING FOR YOU 😻
Calvinism has no chance at legitimacy even if you grant them those texts, as virtually every story in the Bible directly contradicts Calvinism.
Why would Christ ask the Father on his last night to let the cup pass from Him if Jesus already knew it was predetermined and immovable? Does James White understand God better than Jesus?
Perfectly stated....every story refutes the premise of Calvinism....Nathan tells David his child would die....he fasts and prays hoping God would change his mind as he did when he had mercy on the people of Nineveh... Jonah chapter 4 especially clear
Excellent 👍
Because Jesus has 2 Devine wills that contradict each other. Thus, causing him to sweat blood.. 😅
Draw also means persuade in the Greek. Sorry Calvinist, persuade is not all on one side in terms of culpability. Persuade involves the wills of at minimum two individuals.
After listening to this it appears that Calvinism is truly a different gospel. James White and others cannot see the clarity of scriptures because it appears that they have been given over to their desires Romans 1 style after consistently hardening themselves.
Very much like the Pharisees
The more I think about it, I believe it could be a doctrine of devils.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 Check out 'Calvinist Meme Complex' if you have never heard of that before.
Thank you Richard! Such a valuable resource!
“For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him. In this you have done foolishly; therefore from now on you shall have wars.””
II Chronicles 16:9 NKJV
For a Calvinist it is impossible that God would find someone loyal to Him in the earth because “there is none righteous, no not one”
@TW_LeftyGolf,
"There is none righteous, no not one"
is biblical, what are you complaining about?
Excellent comment, TW!!!
@@JunDurias Nobody is complaining Chief.
if all have “become” unrighteous does that mean they can’t have believing loyalty to God? Because I would agree, given enough time, we all become unrighteous, it is a natural part of being human, but inserting “inability to be loyal to God” is not found in the text. Even if you would say “none who seek Him” fine, even if that was the plain interpretation of the passage, it still doesn’t say God wont find people in the earth who will be “loyal” to Him. Those whose heart is “loyal to Him” is stated not as an impossibility, but a real thing that God finds in the earth, examples Abraham, Noah, Enoch, David, Jehoshaphat…. On and on. The best example of what I’m communicating would be Samson, a man who was unrighteous, but had loyalty to Yahweh. So “unrighteousness” can exist in a person and they can still be loyal to God(saved), irrespective of whatever your system tells you. Your system says “you are made righteous, then you believe”, the scriptures show people who were unrighteous believing and being loyal and their loyalty is counted as faith.
When Psalms 14 says “they” who is the one first introduced to the reader? It’s the “fool”, so an argument can be made the subject of all these statements refers to a “fool”, but leaving that aside.
When it says “they have ALL turned aside” does ALL suddenly mean ALL?
I thought ALL doesn’t mean ALL, like when Peter says “the Lord is not willing that any should perish but that ALL should come to repentance”.
You’re really okay with one ALL being applied to the “whole world” but not okay with another ALL meaning the “whole world”. You see how you do that?
Another place, “the free gift came to ALL men” so you are okay with the negative being applied to ALL men, but not okay with the positive coming to all men. Come on. Be fair.
God finds the people who will be loyal, without mysteriously regenerating them beforehand, despite their unrighteousness. This is why Jesus would say “prostitutes and tax collectors” were going to heaven before pharisees. This is the meaning of the parable of the wedding feast, God invites everyone to come, even the unrighteous. Nowhere in any of that is a mysterious regeneration that makes them irresistibly come. In fact the invitation is first given to the kings friends and they deny the invitation. This is communicated when “Jesus wept” over Jerusalem. If it was irresistible, Israel would’ve repented and accepted messiah, but because “irresistible grace” doesn’t exist Israel rejects Jesus, and this is further illustrated through the prophets, Israel continues to resist the gathering of God, over and over and over. The point that I’m making is whether someone is righteous or not, is not what determines their ability to be loyal to God. I think this is a pretty simple idea. Now we are at a place in time, where the Son has been lifted up, is drawing all men to Himself and those who’s hearts are loyal to Him will be saved, aside from their unrighteousness.
Again, nobody is complaining Chief, we only think differently, you shouldn’t immediately associate negativity(complaining) to statements that don’t paint a positive picture of your belief system. You assume I’m whining about something and I’m not whining bud, I’m expressing a point of view. Your bias is so heavy towards your own system now that even when people make general statements you believe them to be “complaining”. You’ve been training to think this way and it is not good, that means you look at everything outside of your system as negative, that’s a recipe for never learning another concept or truth as long as you live. Your immediate reaction is to label with negativity any statement that doesn’t express what you currently believe.
@@TW_LeftyGolf , Sorry I don't understand anything you said, you are like my mother blah blah blah...
@@JunDuriasyou are being rude and un-Christ-like
I look forward to the next shows discussing the other 2 proof texts. Please have him back, great show!
Good segment! Looking forward to your upcoming discussions. I too am not a fan of study Bibles. I was discipling a new convert and she had a Women's Devotional study bible. I told her I wanted her to stop reading that and get a Bible with no commentary. I told her I didn't like it because she was simply reading what someone else got from the text and I wanted her to have her own comments from the text. Christians today have no reason at all for not studying Scriptures. Study bibles have a narrow focus and may or may not actually be correct. There is a bad tendency from Christians to be talking about "particular" texts and they are commenting and saying way more than what it actually says or even implies. I think we all have to work hard to allow the text to say what it is saying and that's it.
Bible studies can be a great tool but it isn't good to start with them. I used to avoid them entirely, but once I was comfortable studying scripture on my own started consulting commentaries and Bible studies. Commentaries (which often disagree with each other, lol) were an excellent resource for cultural customs, the meaning of Hebrew/Greek words, or potential parallel scriptures I had missed. Bible studies were a little more hit and miss, as some were very subjective and feelings based or approached the text through the lens of an agenda or man-made model, but others brought up deep questions inspired by the text or brought emphasis to portions of the text I'd skimmed or been treating as of less importance.
For new believers, devotions can be nice as they help them understand (ideally) difficult texts and tend to focus on applying what they do know of God to their lives. But, they can be problematic as devotionals tend to focus too much on application or subjective interpretation and actually pull them away from the text.
The last women's Bible study I was in the teacher pulled from a lot of internet quotes (wrongly attributed for extra irony) and pop-level devotionals, though, and downplayed the text itself, so I resigned after a few weeks of that nonsense. 😅
There's a nice Bible Study out there, "Living by the Book," though, that is designed for giving the individual tools to study scripture and get past their presumptions while examining passages from the OT and NT.
@@jenairothnie8796 It would be awesome to have an actual real conversation with one another! I hate bible studies that are particularly for women. I find them to be shallow; they lack seriousness; they don't challenge us to live for Christ. Talk about nonsense Bible studies...my previous church had one for women that actually gave you recipes in it for you to make for your family!
I have been a teacher of God's word for over 40 years. We go long and we go deep. We don't start with a stop date for completion. We go as long as we need to so we can as much from the text as we can. I don't teach for "head-knowledge" but for "living." "He who hears these words of Mine and acts upon them is like the wise man.... " He who hears these words of Mine and not does not act upon them is like the foolish man..." (Matthew 7:24-27)
I want to encourage you to share with others how you've discovered to study the Scriptures. I'm sure there are many people or women that, not only need it, but would welcome it. Thanks for all you shared with me!
In my 20s, I was aware that there were different denominations and doctrines within the church. People would give me a book, or tell me to listen to a certain pastor to convince me of their systematic theology. Now a days, it's podcasts. I decided back then, that I wanted scripture to guide me, and not commentaries, systematic theologies, etc. I would listen to any and every systematic I hear. But I would always test it with scripture. I refuse to lock myself in any systematic theology. I want to be correctible as I study the bible and pray through it.
In listening to this in depth, detailed and long discussion, I understand why Calvinists stubbornly stick to the same few talking points.
Thinking, examining, exploring, and studying scripture requires time and energy. If a person has never been required to do anything other than to accept what he/she has been taught, resistance to a deep dive into scripture would require significant time and energy.
I get it.
However if we examine the calvinist premises about Adam's sin and the resulting consequences, it is not found in Genesis 3.
We are Adam, minus the benefits of Eden. Human nature has never changed. Gods commands and promises have never changed.
The problem with a study Bible is it presents a point of view.
Trust that God has provided His written word for ALL to understand, independent of "teachers."
So well said. Like - it isn't the "power" of prayer - it is the power of the One we pray to!
I noticed something as these gentlemen were discussing John 3:45 and 46, in verse 44, which seems to me to indicate that "all the glory" is not intended (by God) to go to Him;
"How can you believe, when you receive [j]glory from one another and you do not seek the [k]glory that is from the one and only God?"
I have several times tried to get Calvinists to realize/acknowledge that glory is a relational something, like friendship or love, not an independent something. Such that others giving glory to God is required for Him to receive. And here I see that it can't be His intention that all the glory is intended to go to Him, if He intends some glory to go the other way, from Him to those who glorify Him.
I usually use the KJV, which translates those occurrences of 'glory' in the NASB, as 'honor', so I never noticed the clear implication of the "reciprocal" quality of "glory", and saw it only as a reciprocal quality of 'honor', in the Book. Thinking (foolishly) that there was something peculiar/special about the term glory, indicated somewhere in the Book, which Calvinists were aware of that I was not. Nope, just another "special meaning" Calvinists infuse into a term, like they do with 'sovereignty', I now think.
(No wonder they never responded to my attempts to get them to discuss the relational quality of glory. They don't want to see it ; )
Need a show on Romans 13.
Way to lay the axe of truth to the root of error! Great episode!
Praying for you Leighton!
Enjoyed the broadcast! Looking forward to the next ones. Thank you for the resources as well!
Another excellent work. Thank you.
@orangepeel3465,
Ephesians 1:5-6
"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."
Note: Who did God predestinated unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Hjmself?
Are all people? or only the elect?
I discovered long ago that Richard Coord's website is a great resource for answering Calvinism (as Flowers said he is the OG). It provides arguments to refute Calvinism using the context around their own "proof texts" and occasionally dipping into remote passages. It is crucial to view scripture from the context provided by the surrounding verses. Also this resource bolsters anti-Calvinist arguments with extremely strong arguments from what Calvinist's consider Provisionist "proof texts".
Too bad there is no similar resource to answer modern day Judaizers.
I remitted my diabetes by changing to a low carb diet. Just wanting to put this out their for anyone else who may be interested. This is not an advertisement for anything and I'm not selling anything myself. It's just about letting people know that it is possible to do without drugs. I didn't know if it would work but decided to try it and it did work. I've also gone from 80kg down to 58kg without even trying.
Are tulips low carb? ;)
@@randyburrill2340 Bulbs, flowers or leaves?
@@randyburrill2340 After my other reply I looked up whether tulips can be eaten and found out that the petals and the bulbs can. I've didn't know that. (I thought you were joking!) If you have a glucose monitor you could use that as a guide.
@@jobrown8146 I was totally joking. Tying in the Calvinistic TULIP with your post...My failed attempt at being clever 😁
Thank you to both of you for explaining the Callvanistic scriptures. I was not a Calvanist but did come across someone in my church which my church was not Calvanist but the Bible study person was. When I heard about this, my spirit struggled because there was no way those scriptures could be interpreted that way since they contradict the rest of scripture. So sad this doctrine exists. I had to study because I needed to be able to explain it better to others, and was so happy to find soteriology 101. Praise God for those who have come out of Calvanism and are helping others to see!
Bring Him Back.
I saved many of richards answer in calvinism through soteriology 101, never knew that he is a writer too..:).. wow..
This was awesome! I can’t wait for the next 2 parts!
11:33 I agree...when I am evaluating churches to see if they are a Calvinist church (since a great deal make no mention on their website of their Calvinistic positions), I search for sermons covering John 3&6, Romans 8&9, and Ephesians 1&2
Why would these churches NOT want everyone to know exactly what they believe and teach? Hmmm
@@clelladams2326 It is often the pastor, not the church itself. If a church is part of a denomination like SBC, their statement of faith will be BFM2000, which is neutral. Each church and pastor is free to have their own beliefs within that framework.
I think many churches don't take a position officially though a pastor may lean one way or anther. If it isn't a position of the church then members are free to take either position since it's non essential.
Richard please offer the verse by verse as a printed book. Thank you.
I think John MacArthur’s study Bible is what helped lead my brother into Calvinism 😢
Thank you. The website contains a lot of information. Great to have for reference when needed.
That was really good. Looking forward to more.
That was my problem with Calvinism. I couldn't understand how God can hold someone accountable when they were born incapable. There might be an answer, but I've come to the conclusion that i will never be able to understand. I know God has everything in his control, and i just do what is commanded; preach the gospel to every creature, and God will accomplish his will in that. I see both sides of this debate in scripture.
The reason Calvinists assume that because someone is faithful they are 'good & righteous', is because that's how they see themselves.
Thank you for doing this. I really am thankful for the content y’all put out.
The question of whether any OT saints were regenerate is a fascinating one that I never considered because I never thought of regeneration as essential to seek God. But the question becomes essential for Calvinists. If total depravity is true then they must show that every single OT saint was regenerated, otherwise there is no way anyone in the OT could have come to God. Since OT saints came to God, then we have to conclude that total depravity is false.
Please bring Richard back 🙏
Great show leighton, don’t know if you pushed back enough as the “Calvinist”, when Richard was talking about the Old Testament faithful believing Moses and God, I think you should’ve said what would’ve been on the mind of every Calvinist which is “there is none who seeks after God no not one”. This is also a massive hang up
No hangup for me (a calvinist). Old testament believers were saved by grace through faith just as NT believers. Therefore they were not righteous until they were regenerated by God.
@@jeremywolffbrandt7488 when were they regenerated ?
@@TW_LeftyGolf simultaneously when they believed.
@@jeremywolffbrandt7488 believed then regenerated or regenerated then believed?
@@TW_LeftyGolf simultaneous.. you can't be regenerated without believing and you can't believe without being regenerated.
Im here..... you can start the stream now 😂😂
4:57 ...When he said God doesn't "play dice with the cosmos" it reminded me, I've often suggested that in accordance with Proverbs 16:33 and "The lot is cast into the lap".... a series of Determinist Dice should be developed (I'm an entrepreneur at heart)... They could come in handy for assurance one is always making the right decision. They could have the faces of the 'heroes of the faith', Calvin, Beza, Spurgeon... or maybe Servetus or Pelagius as spoilers🤔. A holiday series; the manger for Christmas and the Cross for or the Empty Tomb for Easter. They could give them out as welcome gifts to visitors with their church logo on one side and a Joel Osteen on the other.😎
We have determinist dice already, called gamblers dice or loaded dice! Lol
@@Elmarias777 LOL, I guess in that sense Calvinists are playing with 'loaded dice' and always waiting to see what God has determined for them to experience.
@@R.L.KRANESCHRADTT only if God determined them to anxiously wait to find out. Lol
@@Elmarias777 😎
How do non calvinist interpret that passage?
I don’t think Dr. White is listening to your arguments in those debates.
"As a Calvinist, I assume you don't read your bible." 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@lark8356 Typical calvinist response
@@HopeOnTheStreets394 can't help it. God decreed it. LOL
Ad a provisionist, I assume you don't listen!😂😂😂😂😂😂
I'm pretty sure the Chiefs are going to be going to the Superbowl this year 😂 😬
Only if it's God's will!
The Holy Spirit indwelling believers is definately a New Covenent phenomenon. If Holy Spirit regeneration was in the Old Covenant, then why is He prophesying in Ezekiel 36 of the future giving of His indwelling Holy Spirit? It is clearly a prophesy given at that time about a future fulfillment. So, Old Covenant saints would not have known this indwelling.
26 "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." Ezekiel 36:26-27.
So that prophesy describes being New Testament born again and receiving His Holy Spirit. Also having a new heart and a new desire to obey and walk with Him.
Great discussion today, brothers. And appreciate the website. GO TELL!☝️
The Holy Spirit indwelling and regeneration aren’t the same thing. Only certain believers in the OT got the temporary indwelling of the HS to fulfill important functions for God, like prophets and kings. Your average Joe blow believer didn’t have the indwelling, but they were regenerated and the HS dwelled WITH them but not IN them (John 14:17).
I'm no Calvinist, but people were absolutely regenerated in the OT:
Jer 4:4,14 God told them to "circumcise the foreskins of your heart" and "wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved"
And Jesus in John 13:8-10; 15:3 called his apostles clean before the cross and Acts 2.
In 1 Samuel 10:6,9-10 King Saul was "turned into another man" and "God gave him another heart"
In 1 Samuel 13:14 and Acts 13:22 King David is said to be a "man after God's own heart". If that's not regeneration, then I don’t know what is.
Very good point and catch....tfs.
That same verse I believe puts a bullet in infant baptism or baptism as saving you......when He says you must be born of water and The Spirit....this Ezekiel verse is what Nicodemus would have understood.
The gnostics come out to play.
The King James Study Bible (full color) published by Thomas Nelson is a non-calvinist study Bible. Actually it's not arminian either. The commentary is still just commentary but the point is that not all Study Bibles are calvinistic.
It depends on which one.
There are several Study Bibles with the same name, by various publishers.
The original though, has Calvinistic leanings
the more I read and watch the more i get confused
42:21 Is this discussion contrasting the way the OT people were drawn a basic difference between Covenant theology and Non- covenant theology( I don't know what to call it)
Perhaps it’s because the Calvinists do not believe Moses so as to Believe the Son.
Is Acts 10, the story of Cornelius the Centurion, proof that God drew a gentile to Him while he was yet a sinner, who believed in God wholeheartedly through his choice and reverent devotion so that God sent an Angel to command both Cornelius and Peter to come together that the first time the Holy Spirit may be recieved by the gentiles? So before he was saved he had a desire to seek God in his life.
The only thing that proves what you claim is your own sophistry - not Scripture.
Seriously, is this how Calvinists have taught you to do exegesis?
Some argue that if God knows the future, it means He directly determines everything that happens. But there is a problem domain and range problem with this. I mean Domain and Range in the sense that most of you probably learned in high school math or maybe middle school.
If this were true, it would mean that God could "pre-program" everything at some point in the universe, and essentially "walk away" and let it all play out to His "algorithm" [physics, etc] and every single event would happen exactly as wanted with no compromises. Perhaps He wants tomorrow Sally at noon to crave Strawberry ice cream. So at some initial input of the universe he adjusts a few molecules a few nanometers over and adjusts some other attributes etc, but oh no He also wanted John to crave Chocolate Ice cream that next day, and that just messed that up, OK so He adjusts a few other initial conditions, and so forth, but oh no then this doesn't work out on a different day the way He wanted, and so on.
The problem is, without some sort of constant divine intervention, God has to keep adjusting and adjusting because the inputs [domain] are far too small for the outputs [range] of the universe over time. Not only does the domain at the very least have to be multiplied by the moments in history which by itself there makes it give far too many "outputs" than "inputs" in the universe to meticulously control every moment of everything in the universe without compromise and trade offs, even if you wrote the physics of the universe [the algorithms], there is even more as more things develop.
Now this matter has formed into a mind and you have outputs of thoughts that you didn't even have initially at the start and so forth to even further deepen the complexity of the output. The point is there simply are not enough inputs to necessitate that God could determine everything simply by creating the universe, knowing what will happen, and adjusting the initial conditions till they are "just right" without extreme compromise, trade offs, and other such things short of further divine intervention. The problem of inputs and outputs to the universe show that there was no necessity for future knowledge and through creation that all is determined by that alone. If all is determined [and I mean ALL, as in the actual deterministic sense of ALL], God would have to use constant divine intervention to do it, as there are not enough natural inputs to the universe that could do it without divine intervention being constantly applied.
Perhaps determinism is still true, but if it is then it is not due to foreknowledge as that argument won't work due to a domain and range problem, but due to constant divine intervention, which means it is not a necessity that future knowledge = determinism.
The key point is that the domain (initial conditions) is limited, while the range (all possible future outcomes) is vast and complex. Even if God knows how the future will unfold based on the initial setup, that doesn't mean He’s actively controlling every single event and actually could NOT do so simply by that but would have to constantly and divinely intervene, which of course is in God's power but that is not the argument being stated here.
If it is true that God can make a universe and "walk away" and let it "play out" without having determined every meticulous future event of every molecule, every thought even everyone had, then future knowledge does most definitely not HAVE TO mean determinism. I bring this up because this is how many people think that if God created the universe and set all the initial conditions, it means He had to determine everything, but that just isn't possible without further divine intervention.
To Every Man a Reason
@soteriology101 Leighton, my wife over the course of our marriage, has let go of her Calvinist beliefs, particularly by (obv God's grace) but observing me as I came out of it and seeing the kind of behavior/fruit Calvinism was producing in her and ppl we know. (Pride).
But she pointed out to me a few days ago that I must have been brainwashing her because we have an organic honey brand called "Leighton's honey!"
Just thought you might get a kick out of this.
I think this is insanity. Prayers for you
Labels have trends.
Narcissim and cult are trending now.Can we please stop labeling Calvinism as a "cult."
First, we have not agreed to a definition of cult. Each person seems to have their belief on what constitutes a "cult." Catholics has been labeled as belonging a cult. But so have Trump supporters.
Second a label is not evidence; it's merely a claim.
Third, how does any label persuade anyone?
A response should be a specific argument, a declarative statement that is a counter argument, supported by what is considered to be our scriptural evidence for our counter argument.
Notice most labels have a negative connotation, intended to devalue those given the label.
No one who is demeaned by a label is persuaded to reconsider their belief.
I disagree that regeneration is new testament alone thing. Belief brought new belief in the coming Messiah and the sacrifices.
Salvation and eternal life has always been be faith alone
When the hat is on, it's the return of Feighton Lowers!
Hello! The headship order 1Corinthians 11:3 KJV
I love Leighton’s work. My problem is that Scripture is open to interpretation. Who’s the authority? I could start a cult right now with Scripture. I’m tired of people saying, “This verse means this”. The Roman Catholic says the same. Am I RC? No. The problem is that the interpretations are endless. So, on the “Sola Scriptura” model every interpretation is valid.
Well that’s why you need church, tradition, and scripture. So basically if you want to solve this issue (which wasn’t an issue until Martin Luther came lol) then you would have to become orthodox or Catholic
Who’s the authority? The Author, of course.
" Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?"
@@johnknight3529 you kinda missed the point, he was talking about how do you know who’s interpretation of the Bible is correct because so many different people disagree on literally so many things that the Bible talks about.
I think there are "reasonable" interpretations and unreasonable. Some examples of reasonable interpretations are calvinism, provisionism, and arminianism. Unreasonable views (imo) are open theism, anti-trinitarian views, and hyper-calvinism. We should be able to have unity on the essentials and friendly yet vigorous debate on the "reasonable" non essentials.
@@user-lj3ku5yd1h Exactly. I’m going Orthodox.
Love this segment. Only thing I'd push back on is the reference to John 2:23, the passage says they believed. The followers witnessed the signs and believed he was the Christ, Jesus knew "all men's hearts" not "some men's hearts with twilight faith" but all men's, even the apostles standing by, he knew the hearts of the world because he created them. John's purpose statement for his account: John 20:31 NASB1995
[31] but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
The people showing up for the signs and believing in Christ's coming placed their faith in Christ as the bible says. Let's not fall into the trappings of fruit inspection. This same concept is trans-dispensational, it happens today.
Hello! Praise JAH! Psalm 68;4 KJV and his name alone is the most high Psalm 83;18 KJV
A truly enormous amount of energy and debate on this. Centuries worth of struggle, mental and even physical. God is sovereign. Humans have a real choice. It is a paradox. It is not the only paradox in Christian theology, the Trinity being another one (and a perhaps an even bigger and more ‘troublesome’ one). There are paradoxes in physics and even in mathematics, some of which do not show the faintest hope of resolution and which physicists and mathematicians seem to have accepted, as paradoxes (that light is both particle and wave, for example). A relevant matter that is, in my view, very much in the background but never talked about (at least that I have heard talked about) is the nature of God’s personhood. I am certain that God is a Person. The backdrop of the combination of my experience (heart knowledge) and my head-knowledge for that statement would take me quite some time to put down on paper. Perhaps suffice to say that I am more certain of God (and that He a Person) than my level of certainty about myself having a soul. Yet, I cannot explain why this Person (God) reacts negatively (or positively) to anything. He was displeased with the Israelites because they did not want to cross the Jordan River. Numbers 14:11 says their reluctance “provoked” the Lord. If He knew one million years ago that this is how the faithless Israelites would react to His command to cross that river, why would He or how could He be upset about that? (The resulting punishment of banishment to a trackless waste served a purpose but must also indicate that He was displeased.) God was not pleased with Job’s friends. God was pleased with David’s Psalms. A complete list of documented (i.e. Biblical) clear expressions of ‘emotion’ by God Himself would be quite a long list. If I were an atheist I would use this against the theology of evangelical Christians. From a human point of view it makes no sense. If God has known for a billion years that all these sad events would take place, why and how could He be upset about them? Part of the answer must lie in the nature of God. It is impossible for the human mind to imagine a condition in which time is not passing. (Physicists have explained that outside of the ‘envelope’ of the big bang, some kind of an expanding thing, time and space did not yet exist. This is also impossible to imagine - but perhaps I should speak for myself.) If God is timeless then He can see everything at once: the present, the past, the future. However, the Bible also portrays God as being very much inside of the time-space continuum, I would say He is portrayed more as being inside of it than being portrayed as being outside of it. Our faith portrays this that like no other faith on earth, the ultimate example being the Incarnation. Now my conceptual problem with the ontology and nature of God has just become even more difficult - it seems to me that God is both outside of the time-space continuum and inside of it. As for the latter, we can at least affirm that the Bible shows Him as sometimes inside of it in terms of His interactions with mankind, and yes even literally entering it, in the Person of Christ. Should I be surprised that I do not understand some things about God? If someone affirms that “I understand God completely” I will walk away from that silly person, that person does not understand himself, much less God.
I found the dancing around John 6 (and 5, and Matt 11) by Leighton Flowers and Richard Coords here to be unconvincing, just for starters. God has saved the widest imaginable spectrum of people. The average and nice Nathaniel-type of Jew, but also the hyper-knowledgeable Jew who was known as Saul of Tarsus (who became our beloved Apostle Paul). Evil men like the slave trader John Newton (died 1807), like Saul saved ‘out of the blue’ (Amazing Grace indeed). Brilliant people, stupid people, hard-hearted people, tender-hearted people, crafty people (combining intelligence and hard-heartedness), and even rebellious simpletons have been saved (or not saved). I went through about a two-year period of being Calvinist’, about 45 years ago. I eventually became a lay teacher, but long ago pragmatically decided that (1) Limited atonement is an inference. (1) I will never teach limited atonement.
John 6, Ephesians 1, and Roman's 9 are indeed parts of scriptures that we can find the biblical truth of Election and Predestination..
"When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48) Why did they believe? Because they were appointed to. They were not appointed because they believed or because God knew that they would believe.
Hello! God Almighty Exodus 6;3 KJV
There is nothing wrong in the interpretation of RC & John, they emphasise heavily in the sovereignty of God undder God’s justice & mercy. Bear in mind that God was justice at the beginning to wipe out everyone . Therefore, what He wants to do in this time & way, is no ne of your business because His way is not your way, so what🙏🙏🙏
His ways are *higher* than our ways, not lower. God revealed to man in scripture what He considers to be mercy and justice. So which is better - to read God's words for understanding what justice is? Or take the word of a couple fallible men on it and just say, "oh yah, that must be right. It's not our business to test those claims?"
God's not saying that everything that happens (including the sinful thoughts of man) *is* His purpose. He's not saying that the thoughts and way of the wicked were Decreed by Him. He's saying that His word does not return to Him void, and what He plans will be accomplished - so all the thistles and evils we experience now will one day be restored according to His plan.
"You there! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters;
And you who have no money come, buy and eat.
Come, buy wine and milk
Without money and without cost.
“Why do you spend money for what is not bread,
And your wages for what does not satisfy?
Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good,
And delight yourself in abundance.
“Incline your ear and come to Me.
Listen, that you may live;
And I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
According to the faithful mercies shown to David.
“Behold, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
A leader and commander for the peoples.
“Behold, you will call a nation you do not know,
And a nation which does not know you will run to you,
Because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel;
For He has glorified you.”
"Seek the LORD while He may be found;
Call upon Him while He is near.
Let the wicked abandon his way,
And the unrighteous person his thoughts;
And let him return to the LORD,
And He will have compassion on him,
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it produce and sprout,
And providing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
So will My word be which goes out of My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the purpose for which I sent it.
“For you will go out with joy
And be led in peace;
The mountains and the hills will break into shouts of joy before you,
And all the trees of the field will clap their hands.
“Instead of the thorn bush, the juniper will come up,
And instead of the stinging nettle, the myrtle will come up;
And it will be a memorial to the LORD,
An everlasting sign which will not be eliminated.”
Isa 55
Is His purpose in these passages the wicked *not* abandoning their way, or that every unrighteous thought happen? No! His purpose is the fulfillment of the Covenant, mercy on the Gentiles, the restoration of His people, etc. And His revealed will is for us to seek Him, delight in God's abundance, and the wicked repent. What we see of God's mercy is that He's ever ready to forgive the unrighteous and wicked who repent. The implied justice is that God does not pardon the unrepentant wicked.
While we can never fully comprehend God, we *can* evaluate when men make claims about God that do not align with God-inspired scripture.
Free will worshipers lol
elect complex much? lol
@@Jin-n6snever bother with arguing with a determinist
How is choosing to worship Christ the same thing as worshipping the self?
Says the Luciferian...
Being an elect is not by luck.. one qualification of an elect is faith, the elect are born with faith, that's why they believe God and the gospel of salvation.
This is not Calvinism, this is biblical as revealed by Jesus Himself...
Where does Jesus say what you have just said?
@@andrewtsousis3130, I don't know, I never said that..
@@JunDurias ??
Where in the Bible does Jesus say what you said he says?
@@andrewtsousis3130, ??
Grow up bub. Silly
John 6:44-45 say:
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
These two verses are biblical proof that only
those brought by the Father to Jesus and those who were taught and learned from the Father come to Jesus and be saved...
Therefore those who were not brought by the Father to Jesus and those who were never taught and learned from the father cannot come to Jesus and be saved.
This is another biblical proof of election and predestination for salvation..
However dr. Flowers do not believe that God indeed predestined persons for salvation.
He believes that God predestined only group of people for service..
First, nowhere in the chapter does it say "saved"
That's a Calvinist prsuemption.
Second, drawing/choosing doesnt't equate to "saved", bc as Jesus states, "Have I not chosen you 12, yet one of you is a devil."
In the Calvinist mind,
drawing/coming = IG, Regeneration, Faith, in that order.
So Jesus regenerated Judas whom He literally says in a "devil (demon)".
Imagine, Judas was a regenerated devil.
He wound up in Hell
So much for Perseverance of the Saints.
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi, Please don't conclude immediately without analyzing carefully the 2 verses. In verse 44 Jesus said: "And I will raise him up at the last day."
Don't you think Jesus did not save the guy when He will raise him at the last day?
Did you forget about John 6:40?(which proceeds this).
“For it is my father’s will, that everyone who looks to the son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day”.
Who is drawn? Those who believe
Who is raised up on the last day? Those who believe.
Who are the ones given to Jesus from the father?
Those who believe.
Does God make them believe? No, doesn’t say that anywhere.
@@andrewtsousis3130 , I've already answered that, maybe to another people..
I said these people are special with the same attributes, They are born believers and faithful to Jesus and they are the elect of God. Only the elect of God have that attributes...
@@JunDurias Right? & how can someone be predestined for service but not for salvation. There is no service without first, salvation. Someone who is not saved is not going to serve God. They can’t. So if they are predestined for service, they have to be predestined for salvation. That should be common sense
He gives His elect the faith to believe - everyone else is enmity against Him. That's why they have channels like this - to vent their hostility.
You can’t believe the Bible and be a Calvinist at the same time. You have to modify the Bible’s meaning for that to work. Why not modify your theology to match the scriptures?
Incorrect, the faithful are the elect, not the elect are provided or given faith.
Yes, that must be it, hostility and enmity toward God, expressed in such manners as praising Him for His bountiful grace and provision for mankind through the salvation that comes by trusting Jesus Christ and being found in Him. The hostility is just dripping out of that, don't you think?
But seriously, don't you think? Maybe you should think.
I'm presuming that you presume that you are one of the deterministically "elect".
Given Calvinism's soteriology, Total Depravity means that you can never know that you aren't still TD.
How do you know that God hasnt determined you to be wrong?
Calvinism is an evil religion that will be wiped from the earth by God himself!
Hello! Jesus is the son of the highest Luke 1;32 KJV he is not God
How did I know you were going there by the pattern of your previous comments? It's always the same pattern for people who deny that Jesus is God, every time. Misunderstandings, ignoring the clear teaching of Scripture, and the inability to separate the idea of a single triune God from the idea of 3 separate gods.
All of your proof texts do not counter the concept of the Trinity simply because you do not understand the basics of the concept. So you push back against claims that are not being made, hold up verses as if they counter it when they do not, and knock down a straw man of your own invention. Are you sure you want to go there?
Since I'm assuming KJV is the only version you'll accept, let's refute your claim using that version, though any will do nicely.
John 5:18 KJV
[18] Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
The Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be equal with God, and since there is no other God, that meant He was claiming to be the very same God of their ancestors.
John 10:30 KJV
[30] I and my Father are one.
Jesus claimed to be one with the Father. Not a not-god, not a different god, but the very same One God.
John 1:1-2, 14 KJV
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
So, follow carefully. The Word was with God. The Word was God. So God was with God. This is not talking about 2 different gods, but about 2 persons within the same one God. Who was this Word? Keep following. The Word became flesh and we beheld His glory (the glory of the Word, the glory of God) as of the only begotten (or Son) of the Father. Jesus, the Son, the Word, God Himself, not a different God than the Father, but a distinct person of the same, unified, one God.
@AndrewJohnH Hello ! John 1-3 KJV is God's own word Psalm 33:6 KJV and the Lord scripture speaks of is Isaiah 26:4 KJV and Isaiah 12:2 KJV
@trinny881 The Word is clearly represented as the Son, and yes, as God's own Word. The Son is the Word (God's own word), and the Word IS God. The Son is God. And if He wasn't, why would God EXPLICITLY call Him God in Hebrews?
Hebrews 1:8 KJV
[8] But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
@trinny881 Can you please copy out your verses in the comment, so I don't have to do the legwork for both of us? I have to look up yours, while I provide you with mine. I would appreciate being able to read them together to see what you are trying to say.
Ephesians 1:5-6
"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved."
Note: Who did God predestinated unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Hjmself?
Are all people? or only the elect?
This is taken out of context, Ephesians 1 refers about the group Paul was a part of that is why there is a distinction between "We" and "Us" referring to the group paul belongs to and "You" Referring to the Ephesians.
Ephesians 1:1-12
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To God’s holy people in Ephesus,[a] the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed "us" in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose "us" in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he[b] predestined "us" for adoption to sonship[c] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will- 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given "us" in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on "us". With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he[d] made known to "us" the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment-to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
11 In him "we" were also chosen,[e] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that "we", who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
Take note on Verse 12 " in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory." The Ephesians are not the first to put their hope in Christ. they are not included in those before UNTIL they believe as in verse 13
Ephesians 1:13
13 And "you" also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When "you" believed, "you" were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
@@merrickc1876,Paul indeed was talking to a group of people, the saints at Ephesus, BUT election for salvation is still individual because he said in verse and to the faithful in Christ Jesus. This faithful in Christ Jesus is not in the group but of the same attributes with them. Faithful in Christ Jesus.. So you think that "faithful in Christ Jesus can only be with a group not by individual? Please think Spiritually..
@@JunDurias you misunderstand the context, if the first part of the verse (Eph 1:1-12) indicates a specific group not including the Ephesians the questions you posed means that the predestination applied to the first group (Apostles) is a bit different than the second group (the gentiles). Both are in Christ but the Apostles where decided by God before hand for the gospel and the rest are applied by belief in Christ through the Apostles
This is described in Ephesians 1:13 how was the previous verses applied to the 2nd group was "When you believed" so 1st group election through God's election of Apostles who will be "...the first to put our hope in Christ" as described in Eph 1:12 and the 2nd group who the Apostles went out to are also marked not by election but by hearing and believing in Christ.
Ephesians 1:13
13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
simply put the context helps us understand who and how salvation is applied to the groups being talked about in the passage.
Who did God predestinated?
By the context of the passage These are the Group Paul Belongs to (Apostles) "...the first to put our hope in Christ"
Are all people? or only the elect? No, gentile are not elected to anything but we are Included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit the gospel of your salvation (Eph 1:13)
"when" indicting the promises applying on the moment of belief not before
other people can probably explain this better than me in English since this is not my first language.
@@merrickc1876, You did not understand what I said, please read it again properly..
@@JunDurias No brother i understood it and did not follow your line of thinking cause it isolates a passage out of context
Here is what you typed:
,Paul indeed was talking to a group of people, the saints at Ephesus, BUT election for salvation is still individual because he said in verse and to the faithful in Christ Jesus.
My Response:
This is a letter, the 1st part is an introduction to who is the writer and who the letter is addressed to, the faithful in Christ simply the people who are faithful (no where does it say elect in the first verses).
Ephesians 1:1
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,
To God’s holy people in Ephesus,[a] the faithful in Christ Jesus:
You typed:
his faithful in Christ Jesus is not in the group but of the same attributes with them. Faithful in Christ Jesus. -
Response:
yes The passage say that the "US"/"WE" (1st group ) and "YOU" (2nd group the Ephesians) all share the attribute of "Faithful in Christ" what i was addressing is Who are the 2 groups once identified it shows that the proper context the Elect are the 1st group and the attributes are only applied to "YOU" (the 2nd group) when they believed
This is described in Ephesians 1:13 how was the previous verses applied to the 2nd group was "When you believed" so 1st group election through God's election of Apostles who will be "...the first to put our hope in Christ" as described in Eph 1:12 and the 2nd group who the Apostles went out to are also marked not by election but by hearing and believing in Christ.
This shows the order the YOU Ephesians were only elect WHEN they heard and believed. Faith Before regeneration :)
Ephesians 1:13
13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
The Ephesians were NEVER the first to trust in Christ this excludes them. The church came into picture at Acts 19 how was that first?
Eph 1:12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
This proves the distinction between the 2 groups in the chapter
you also typed:
So you think that "faithful in Christ Jesus can only be with a group not by individual? Please think Spiritually.
My response:
No I did not say this. this is a strawman or a misunderstanding of my point
Romans 9:11-13
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
These 3 verses is no doubt a proof that only the elect can be saved in this case Jacob as the elect and Esau as the reprobate..
According to dr. Leighton Jacob whose name was change to Israel was chosen only for service not for salvation. Will God chose a person for service and not save him? Leighton believes that if a man is elected for salvation he bypassed the neccessity for salvation that is believing God.. and he don't have a free will to chose which is also a
neccesity for salvation.
But the elect of God is born a believer of God because the elect are children of God.. They will always believe and choose God.. The old testament saints are also saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus, because the scripture says that Christ died once and for all..
God chose Judas. Was he saved?
@@yvonnedoulos8873 , God chose Judas to betray Jesus, not to be saved.. Besides, Judas do not have the ability to believe and to repent.. He hang himself instead of repenting, he also cannot believe so he betrayed Jesus...
@@JunDurias - You are making claims out of thin air. None of what you just said can be backed up with Scripture except that Judas committed suicide. Your comments reveal a clear example of imposing your systematic onto Scripture (eisegesis) as opposed to allowing Scripture to inform your theology(exegesis).
@@yvonnedoulos8873 ,
Lady, before you accuse me of making claims out of thin air, show me any of my claim that is not biblical. Thank you...
@@JunDurias - Sure!
You said, “God chose Judas to betray Jesus, not to be saved.” No Scripture says this. It is conjecture.
You said, “Judas do not have the ability to believe and to repent.” No Scripture says this. It is conjecture.
You said, “He hang himself instead of repenting,” No Scripture says Judas did not repent. In fact, some theologians believe Judas did repent and that is why he committed suicide.
You said, “he also cannot believe so he betrayed Jesus...” No Scripture says Judas could not believe Jesus and therefore he betrayed him. Also, this is conjecture.
We must be careful to allow Scripture to speak for itself and not bring out presuppositions to the text. We all are guilty of doing it but it leads to a misunderstanding of God’s Word.
May the Lord guide you into His Truth, friend.
One REALLY has to be blind to believe man has free will.
When you lust after women is it the Calvinite god making you do it or is it your free will?
Projection alert! Calvinists are just like the Sanhedrin, who shouted this line at the man whom Jesus had healed from blindness from birth just a few hours before: “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” Here is what Jesus has to say to determinists who falsely accuse others of being "born in sins" and falsely accuse others of blindness when they themselves are blind: “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains."
So when God tells us to make choices in the Bible is he lying or is it one of his secret wills or analogies etc?
So strange how people think differently. I have always thought exactly the opposite. Free will is such a fundamental human intuition that to deny it is akin to denying that I even exist. It seems to me that you could not come to the conclusion that you don't possess free will without possessing free will. If free will doesn't exist, then you didn't weigh all the evidence and reason to the conclusion, because without free will, the whole process of reasoning to a conclusion is an illusion. It's not something you do; it's something that happens to you. God simply determined you to believe determinism.
I shall let the early Church refute you.
"But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end; nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made." First Apology of Saint Justin Martyr
"This expression [of our Lord], How often would I have gathered your children together, and you would not, Matthew 23:37 set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, But do you despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But according to your hardness and impenitent heart, you store to yourself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God. But glory and honour, he says, to every one that does good. God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do."
"And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, According to your faith be it unto you; Matthew 9:29 thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, All things are possible to him that believes; Mark 9:23 and, Go your way; and as you have believed, so be it done unto you. Matthew 8:13 Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, he that believes in Him has eternal life while he who believes not the Son has not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon him. John 3:36 In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, How often have I wished to gather your children together, as a hen [gathers] her chickens under her wings, and you would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate. Matthew 23:37-38"
"Those, again, who maintain the opposite to these [conclusions], do themselves present the Lord as destitute of power, as if, forsooth, He were unable to accomplish what He willed; or, on the other hand, as being ignorant that they were by nature material, as these men express it, and such as cannot receive His immortality." Against Heresies Saint Ireneaus