A Calvinist responds to Ruslan & Leighton Flowers

#Calvinism #TotalDepravity #DoctrinesofGrace

You can watch Ruslan and Leighton's entire uninterrupted video here:

[Soteriology]

Brother, you commend me for representing Calvinism fairly and then you proceed to misrepresent my position continuously. 😣 Then instead of answering an argument you accuse me of not ever really being a Calvinist, which means you question my character (ad hominem). By the way, there is a sermon on my broadcast that I re-posted from when I was a Calvinist.

You also accuse me of not responding to James White with regard to Romans nine in our debate, but I have produced a video with timestamps showing that I actually spend more time in Rom 9 than he did. I’m happy to send you a link to any of those videos if you would like to actually see the facts before you make accusations. Anyway, I’m sure you mean well, I just hope and pray that you will do more homework before you post videos in the future about positions you’re not aware of.

If time permits this weekend I may produce a response video to point out some of the most blatant inconsistencies. Maybe that will help.

God bless, and I wish you well despite our theological distinctions.

[iansmith]

Leighton is not an Arminian, he's a proponent of "Provisionism" which is a Soteriological position of his own design. Therefore, when you attempt to denigrate his position by bringing up Arminianism I feel as if it doesn't sufficiently address the issues he brings up.

During minute 52, Leighton brings up the greater blameworthiness of an individual that is granted evidence and free will ability to accept the truth of God, yet still rejects God. You respond by attacking his character, and assuming he wasnt a "passionate Calvinist."

Thus is one thing I keep identifying with Leightons Critics. I notice that when Leighton brings up valid points, Calvinists would rather resort to attacking his character. This may be satisfying, however it is unhelpful to the listener wanting a genuine understanding of how a Calvinist approaches answering these questions.

If anything, unemotional loyalty to truth is more admirable than passionate bias.

Can you elaborate on the point he was Making? Doesn't it make make man more responsible for sin, if he had the ability to accept God but chose not too? Isn't such a man, more blame worthy if he had a choice, relative to the man that rejects God and has no other choice?

In addition, isn't this just a great excuse for those intent on rejecting God? They could just say, that unless God causes them to believe, if they remain unbelieving it is God's fault.

[willbrown]

The biggest problem I see is that Arminians agree men are slaves to sin, but forget that by definition that means inability.

[timothyjannsen]

I am not a Calvinist but I agree with most everything they say but I don’t pay attention to the debatables I just read the Bible and follow gods word and preach I don’t like arguing pointless things

[thomaskanke]

I was interested in seeing more interaction between leighton flowers and James white before watching the Romans 9 debate.
Then I realized that leighton flowers doesn't build his theology on biblical exegesis and consistency in hermeneutics. The debate was a mess. Jumping in and out of the chapter and using constant analogies... then james white asked flowers if he would use the same hermeneutics he uses for his view on soteriology to prove the trinity and he said no, at that point I couldn't take him seriously.
Now I know why james white doesn't waste his time debating a second time. It couldn't end up being a meaningful debate if they tried

[---bbqz]

Are you not one of those who believe that God wanted Adam to sin?

[otiscorn]

Under Calvinism the gospel isn't what actually saves you. What saves you is the effectual call that can't be resisted. The gospel just informs them of their salvation.

[MariusVanWoerden]

Limited atonement cannot be found by Calvin.
1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
There is nothing showing that John Calvin or Martin Luther or any of the reformers believed the doctrine of Limited Atonement. It sure has nothing of it in his commentaries and a full discussion of the scope of the atonement is not found in Calvin’s writings. It was a counter reaction on the Synod of Dordrecht against the Five articles of the Remonstrants [Arminius] 60 year after John Calvin had passed away. Calvin sure believed that the wrath of God came on Christ for the sins of the whole world which is Biblical. The belief of limited atonement is unbiblical, however minor and hypothetical.
We find support that John Calvin did not concern himself with Thoughts of Limited Atonement in some of his commentaries.
BY JOHN CALVIN
“Also we ought to have good care of those that have been redeemed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If we see souls which have been so precious to God go to perdition, and we make nothing of it, that is to despise the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” [Sermon on Ephesians 5:11-14]
“The four reasons, whereby Paul doth carefully prick forward the pastors to do their duty diligently, because the Lord hath given no small pledge of His love toward the Church in shedding His own blood for it. Whereby it appeared how precious it is to him; and surely there is nothing which ought more vehemently to urge pastors to do their duty joyfully, than if they consider that the price of the blood of Christ is committed to them. For hereupon it followeth, that unless they take pains in the Church, the lost souls are not only imputed to them, but they be also guilty of sacrilege, because they have profaned the holy blood of the Son of God, and have made the redemption gotten by him to be of none effect, so much as in them lieth. And this is a most cruel offence, if, through our sluggishness, the death of Christ do not only become vile or base, but the fruit thereof be also abolished and perish ...” [Commentary on Acts 20:28]
“He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.” [Commentary on Romans 5:18]
“True it is that the effect of His death comes not to the whole world. Nevertheless, forasmuch as it is not in us to discern between the righteous and the sinners that go to destruction, but that Jesus Christ has suffered His death and passion as well for them as for us, therefore it behoves us to labour to bring every man to salvation, that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ may be available to them ...” [Sermon CXVI on the Book of Job (31:29-32)]
“The word many is not put definitely for a fixed number, but for a large number; for he contrasts himself with all others. And in this sense it is used in Romans 5:15, where Paul does not speak of any part of men, but embraces the whole human race.” [Commentary on Matthew 20:28]
“For he intended expressly to state [in John 3:16] that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour of God, YET HE SHOWS HIMSELF TO BE RECONCILED TO THE WHOLE WORLD, when he invites all men without exception to faith in Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.” (Commentary on the Gospel of John)

[MariusVanWoerden]

No-one will come to Christ without first the conviction of sin by the Holy Spirit
Justification is a work of God the Father and the Holy Spirit in us and without us. Justification and faith do not have a sequence in time but in order Faith- Justification but are simultaneously in time. Sanctification is a work of The Holy Spirit in us but not without us. Justification and SANCTIFICATION cannot be separated. There is no sanctification without justification or justification without sanctification, this even when sanctification is just a begin of regeneration through all our life. Faith is by Grace and the free gift of God. The Bible teaches us the Justification of the UNGODLY. [Made/ declared Righteous. Based only on the righteousness of Christ] Not a believer is justified. The UNGODLY chooses SIN by nature
James 2: 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works [read FRUITS] is dead? Faith First then Fruits of Faith
There is a general working of the Holy Spirit in the hearing of the Word that convicts and precedes faith but not always leads to salvation. See the parable of the sower. The plow is needed to make the soil good to receive the seed. Conviction is a work of the Holy Spirit and without no-one will come to Christ. Never lost is never saved. Jesus came to save the lost.
THIS IS HOW CALVIN PREACHED THE GOSPEL (Calvin's Wisdom p119-120)
He calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illumined by him. When we pray, we ought, according to the rule of charity, to include all. God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, BUT THE INGRATITUDE OF THE WORLD IS THE REASON why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few.
Other than the result of men’s refusal. Calvin as you can see and put the responsibility by men.

[OliverToal]

Leighton has many times agreed with your statement that "God saves sinners." He also would agree with you that no is just a super amazing person that bridges the gap with God themselves.

The distinction is that someone has to realize that they ARE a sinner (through God's call to be reconciled) and can't come to God on their own. Many times in the Bible, God tells sinners to "humble themselves", like in 2 Chronicles 7:14. God will then provide the saving/healing.

I hope you'll really look into what provisionists like Leighton believe with an open mind. Though the term is new, most of the beliefs were held by early church fathers before Augustine. Even some Reformed scholars have backed this statement up.

I need to work on my humility as well brother and I hope you will too. Leighton gave a really accurate depiction of Calvinism (which you admitted) and then you almost immediately misrepresented his beliefs. I'm sure you didn't do this in bad faith, but it's only fair to try to present him in the best possible light, like he did for Calvinism.

[andrewmjohnson]

From what I’ve watched of Ruslan he has a very poor understanding of Reformed Theology and Calvinism

[maximiliandefelice]

Brother you literally didn't represent provisionism correctly at all....You also kept saying we think we are "so amazing".... That is just absurd and you won't find anyone believing that. #strawman

[delontebrown-dockery]

Brother, love your channel man. It's needed, they hate us

[mjsabie]

I find it interesting that you talk about the power of the gospel when Calvinism devalues the power of the gospel. In Calvinism the gospel has no power as you have to be regenerated first to respond positively to hearing the gospel.

[dw]

DW: Mark at minute 6:12 your statement infers a god who -quote "overcomes human rebellion/resistance"
I find this logically incoherent with Calvinism's core propositions.

In Calvinism the state of nature at any instance in time is 100% meticulously predetermined.

So then:
At Time-A the state of your nature is predetermined to entail some kind of "resistance" to infallibly come to pass.

Then at some point later - lets call it Time-B - a divine decision is made to "overcome" that state of nature which was predetermined to infallibly come to pass at Time-A.

Why would a perfect being need to "overcome" the very thing he decreed to infallibly come to pass?
Did he make a mistake when he decreed "resistance" to be your state of nature at Time-A?

Firstly:
I fail to see why a perfect being has to create something that he must later "overcome"

Secondly:
I don't think its logically coherent to claim an omnipotent being - has to "overcome" anything.

Thirdly:
In Calvinism all impulses come to pass within the human brain infallibly. And it is logically impossible for a human to resist something that comes to pass infallibly.

It appears the statement is designed to create a facade of Libertarian Freedom which doesn't really exist for humans in Calvinism. If so - why does the Calvinist need that?