Why Dr. Michael Brown is not a Calvinist and why Dr. James White shouldn't be either

Dr. Michael Brown recently produced a YouTube video answering the question, "Why I'm not a Calvinist?" His friend, Dr. James White responded with a video, "Why I *am* a Calvinist." Dr. White resorts to the *you too* fallacy (Tu quoque; Latin for, "you also"; or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently). I go over the problem in my back yard on a beautiful Sunday afternoon.

[CriticalThinker]

Wow, lots of thumbs down. Leighton must be doing a good job in challenging Calvinism.

[TheMirabillis]

From an ex-Calvinist on another page.…

Do we have any Calvinists here ? I myself used to be a strict 5 pointer. I had no problem believing that God created some people simply for the purpose of going to hell and burning for all eternity. The non elect have no chance at salvation because God just didn't want them to be saved.

What convinced me otherwise (while I was still clinging to faith) was that if Calvinism really is true, then the implications of it are that man is not responsible for his actions. Even though no Calvinist would argue this, it is clear that they are defying logic by doing so.

Think about it: If God predetermined everything - even actions - then our entire existence is one big charade. Take for example, the doctrine of Unconditional Election - that God chooses some people for salvation not based on anything intrinsic to the person, but rather solely by grace.

On the other side of the coin, the logical implication of that is that something called Unconditional Reprobation must also be true, meaning that God chose most people for hell not based on anything intrinsic to the person (not even sin!).

So then, man does not burn in hell because he is a sinner, he burns in hell simply because God wanted him to.

Sin was simply just the "sign" of the non-elect, whereas "faith" is the "sign" of the elect. Neither come about from man's choice (because he has none), but rather are gifted to the individual by wrath/justice and grace respectively.

Knowing this, how can anyone be a Calvinist? I want to know.

[stephenrimes]

God is Sovereign. Man is absolutely responsible. Grace is free and can be resisted.

Thank you for your videos.

[JonathanGrandt]

My wife and I were driving... well I was driving... and we pull to stop at a stop sign. There is a car coming from the right... I do a silly little tap on the brake just to mess with her... because I’m a bit nutty ok... and she laughs and says, “I knew you were going to do that...” I didn’t even know I was going to do that... I threw her out of the car for being a demon... jk... obviously she is omniscient and has perfect foreknowledge. Haha jk she preordained it all.

Jk.

SHE JUST KNOWS ME.

[SonsofIssac]

Here is a question for all you Calvinists from a former Calvinist... if you were predestined from before the foundation of the world to be saved, were you ever in danger of hell? If you answer the question logically, you should ask yourself, what were you saved from and when? You were never saved from hell because you were never going there. You are not saved by believing the gospel because regeneration precedes faith. So you have always been saved, you just need to be born again to realize it. The gospel is all an afterthought. You can only realize what Jesus did and believe it after you have already been saved... does anyone else see this reasoning as unbiblical?

[pastorart]

My two favorite theologians who are alive and kicking today are James White and Michael Brown. It is great that they can remain friends even though one is a Calvinist and the other is not. This is the first video I have ever seen created by this brother and I appreciate his views and the way he expressed his views in a loving and respectful way. By the way, I am not a Calvinist and I usually agree with Dr. Michael Brown on most issues. I plan to watch more videos by this brother in the future.

[MarkusGhambari]

The ignorance of the Calvinists who are commenting here is staggering. "Oh you believe in work salvation. Oh you save yourself. Oh your god can't save. Oh you're a heretic. Blah blah blah blah." It's really sad to have so many ignorant Christians in the church.

[Parture]

The prescriptive solution for James White is Leighton Flowers since Leighton holds White constantly accountable for the heresy of claiming oneself irresistibly selected.

[sailingvesselislandgirl]

Amen brother. Calvinist seem so determined to be right that they seem to be blind to scriptures. At the same time they claim that only they are the ones that see the truth. Their pride has made them blind. I love them but they believe in a different gospel and are therefore outside of Christ. Pray for them!

[july]

+leighton flowers
I love your look and tone of exhausted despair as you begin this response.
However, you have to do it, "as oft as James White does it."

[charlesrhodes]

I love western movies especially the old ones. No matter how many times I see each movie I still pull for the good guys. When one is hurt or falls I still grieve. Even though I knew what would happen. Even to the lines they would speak I knew in advance I still hope in a different outcome. The love God has for man goes far beyond my love for western movies. How much more must He grieve over fallen man?

[sephardimyeshua]

The problem that I find through this issue is man trying to feel like he is so very smart. To think that we have God figured out after Paul states clearly that we see through a dark glass is a real exercise in futility. The only thing that we gain at the end of the day is to feel smart. We should just give each other golden smart badges so that we can get on with the real mission of Christ, spreading the Good News with "love". God bless you brethren.

[SonsofIssac]

I was a zealous Calvinist for about 4 years. Even preaching double predestination to unbelievers as part of the gospel message. I wanted the truth from the source, started tracing Calvinist teachings back to scripture. I learned that Calvinism originated with Augustine. He was a gnostic for 9 years. Started reading the Gnostics and realized that Calvinism and Gnosticism preach the exact same doctrines. That's enough for me. I was done with Calvinism. Read the church fathers 200 years from the apostles. They are defending Christianity against Gnosticism. One problem, they are all doctrines that I was taught were Christian as a Calvinist...

[billerickson]

great job leighton at explaining your views in a way this simple minded christain can understand. anyone who says these things are clear, one side or the either, are decieving themselves.this is why many well studied people have changed views on these issues.i believe we should always remain open minded, play devils advocate and be willing say, "i dont know" you make a good point, ' i will look into this" our sinful flesh of pride rises up and wants to be right, refuses to admit defeat or ignorance.lets come together and learn about our wonderful Creator. i thank you brother Leighton for your humility and pray th e Lord will give you more k owledge and understanding of His perfect will.God opposes the proud.stay humble my beloved brothrs and sisters.

[july]

I haven't had time to watch either Dr. Brown or this yet, but I note that "Dr." White that he blocks comments to his response to Dr. Brown -- which is telling to any objective and open-minded observer.

[timothy]

Dr. Leighton Flowers seems like such a nice guy and I liked his two dogs in the background. Unfortunately, this video exposes something very glaring in his theology; a misunderstanding of the attributes and nature of God. I just want to point out two things he said, but first I was disappointed that he didn't address the point James White made about starting your theology with man instead of God. This is key when addressing the doctrines of grace. When you start with man, you make him the determining factor instead of God. It is funny how the thought of God determining everything is offensive, yet sinful man determining ultimately his salvation (which would be "his" if he makes the final decision in his own will) is totally acceptable and agreeable. We then limit God to role of spectator and elevate man's role to one of determining participator. This does damage to God's attributes and if you take just one of God's attributes away, He is no longer God and we actually no longer have a Savior. With that, here are the two glaring points:

1) I think twice Flowers commented that he doesn't know how God foreknows. The Lord is the self-existent one (Exodus 3:14), which means He was before Genesis 1:1. God existed before He created anything, therefore, all knowledge is derived from Him. If God were to obtain any knowledge outside of Himself (particularly based on anything He created), God is not omniscient at all. This is huge because then God's knowledge is limited and He adds to it from an outside source. How can this be when God was self-existent, eternal, and infinite? And this contradicts Romans 11:33-36. If God doesn't know all things because it derives and originates from Him, then we can't trust God knows His own prophecies unless learned outside of Himself and dependent upon man. He would no longer be God.

2) Mr. Flowers had a problem with God getting glory from His sovereign decrees, yet grieving over the outcome of the decree. First, Ephesians 1:5-6 shows that God gets glory in election and predestination. Romans 9:22-23 shows His election demonstrates His wrath, power, long-suffering, and the riches of His glory for those that are "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" and "on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." Yet Mr. Flowers backhandedly described the verbs the Bible uses to describe God's actions in all things (particularly salvation) as something Calvinists made up or use. These verbs are used because the Bible uses them. Yet Mr. Flowers and Dr. Brown have a problem with God's decrees because they can't reconcile it with God's emotions. God is God. His emotions are not based on the reaction of an event alone, but more importantly, on His absolute attributes. God can certainly grieve over what He predetermines or He would be a soulless robot, but since God, as self-existent one, has created all things based on His attributes and power, why wouldn't we expect Him to be emotional since emotions derive from Him? We are made in His image; our emotions come from the source, God. We just pollute and misuse those emotions based on our nature of sin (which is totally depraved, yet I know Mr. Flowers doesn't ascribe to this though Romans 3:10-18, Jeremiah 17:9, John 3:19, 6:44, 15:18-23, and Ephesians 2:1-3, among other verses, clearly show this). God can certainly weep over the sinfulness of man while causing them to act out their sinfulness in His purposes because He is not devoid of emotion, yet His emotions don't override His sovereign will the way humans emotions dictate our will.

I have heard Mr. Flowers speak repeatedly on this subject, but his appeal is always to inference; basically ascribing to man abilities based on implication and inferring more than the declarative statements of God (those verbs that the Bible declares God does without the help of anything; this makes God self-sufficient by the way). Like James White rightly said, we can't look at any verses about God and man and start with man. We can't view anything from finite man's way of thinking at all, we must start with God first in all things. When we do so, these doctrines don't frighten us, but give true glory to God. Without it, we are left changing verses to fit our own theology because hidden pride makes us say, "God would be wicked if He did it this way and man would have no free will." The Bible declares that God is righteous and man's will is not free, but bound by sin.

[july]

Too bad!
I just had a newly-converted Calvinist (Louis Unger) posting on this page about how unfair the criticisms of Calvinism are.
I asked him how his attitude toward Anne Frank had changed now that he knew God had crafted her for temporal and post-mortem (if not eternal) suffering for His glory, and he deleted his thread.
Come out, come out, wherever you are, Louis Unger....

[TheChristianNomad]

Whenever a Calvinist says "We have the same issue. How can God grieve if He knew already?" I always say, "Do you have a child? Have you ever told them not to eat the cookies but they sneak in and eat them anyway, and you had to confront them, and ask them 'did you eat a cookie?' knowing full well they will lie about it. And knowing once they do you have to punish them. And once they do lie, you feel frustrated and slightly grieved that you now have to spank them, even though you knew they'd lie. Imagine that, but with God, He knows not because of experience like us, but because He is in all places at all times."
It makes sense to me.

[a.k.]

The level of offensiveness of a doctrine is not a test nor a guarantee of it's objective truth. Agreement with the reformed system of theology is not a requirement for salvation recorded in scripture, (in other words, the Bible does not say "if you don't believe God predestined you to heaven you won't be allowed into heaven.") if it was then all of the church fathers for the first 400 years would stand condemned, because the church knew nothing of Luther's or Calvin's (really it's Augustine's) interpretations on free will and predestination during that time. Calvin cites almost entirely Augustine solely to support his theology. It's a shame that we as Christians judge one another's eternal state based on belief in a system of doctrines not essential (in my opinion) to the church. Don't Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that Christ is God come in the flesh? That He died for our sins so that we could enter into eternity in God's presence? Don't we all affirm Jesus was crucified, raised on the third day and is the only path to heaven? Let's reason with one another in truth and love and try our best to leave all the non-productive emotion and dialogue out of our discourse. The Lord bless us all.

[presbyteriandog]

At 2:44 Dr. Flowers states we don't know how God gains knowledge. Where in the bible does it posit that God is learning anything. Isaiah 46:11 states he knows the end from the beginning and if that is the case he is not learning anything or gaining knowledge.