Philip Fuertes

@The_Idol_Killer @5Solas2 If God “permitting His own decree” sounds contradictory to you, it’s because you’re flattening the difference between decreeing and directly causing

@5Solas2 "He ordains it permissively"... You hold God eternally & effectually decreed all evil with specificity such that it must obtain, this is how He knows it, correct? If so, then saying He permits evil is a deceptive way to say He permits His own decree.

This guy has to be the biggest idiot on the internet. God decrees even evil events, yet He does not decree evil as evil, nor is He the author of sin. He ordains it permissively and purposefully, governing even sinful acts toward His holy and good ends. According to Jesse, God TRIES to prevent bad things, but He just lacks the power to stop them. How foolish to say such a thing about God.

@JohnnyVenerable Johnny, what do you think about Carson Beck as a leader? I’ve been seeing stuff about him being a loner. I just want a real leader at QB, we didn’t really have that with Kyler Murray.

👀

Infralapsarianism still keeps God’s decree as the ultimate cause of history. Molinism makes God the manager of possibilities, choosing a world based on what creatures would do. Reformed theology says the opposite God doesn’t choose the best possible world, He sovereignly ordains the world that exists.

Infralapsarians should abandon #Calvinism for the same reasons they say they reject Supralaparianism. Molinism is your philosophical safe place, if you’re looking for one. Instead of shifting the logical order of God’s reprobating decree to after the Fall, just shift it to after the individual’s decision to reject God’s revelation. Why not 🤷‍♂️

@The_Idol_Killer @ProvisionistP Scripture doesn’t say figure out if you’re elect. It says ‘believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved’ Acts 16:31.

@PhilipF1689 @ProvisionistP And that brings us back to how do you know you're elect?

It’s safe to say Paul Washer doesn’t have the gift of encouragement.

@The_Idol_Killer @ProvisionistP Matthew 7 doesn’t say I knew you once. It says ‘I never knew you.’ That’s the difference between true regeneration and mere profession.

@PhilipF1689 @ProvisionistP Matthew 7:21-23 is far more devastating to the Calvinist given their anthropology and Soteriology

@The_Idol_Killer @ProvisionistP Reformed theology never tells people to figure out if they’re elect. It tells them to look to Christ. ‘Whoever comes to me I will never cast out’. That’s where assurance comes from.

@PhilipF1689 @ProvisionistP You were created Totally Depraved and unable to rightly understand such things. As God has not made a genuine provision for all, you have no reason to conclude you're among the elect. Moreover, as God has decreed even your false beliefs, this includes your current "assurance".

@The_Idol_Killer @ProvisionistP Actually the opposite is true. Reformed theology grounds assurance in God’s promises, not human performance. ‘I give them eternal life, and they will never perish’ John 10:28. Our assurance rests in Christ’s finished work, not our fluctuating feelings.

@ProvisionistP Paul needs to say the quiet part out loud... There is no assurance in Calvinism.

God doesn’t decree unbelief in morally neutral people. He decrees to give mercy to some and leave others in their already willing rebellion. Here a question for Leighton, If God foreknew with certainty who would reject Him and still created them, how is that morally different from decree?

Yes, @Pastor_Gabe, God has predestined to save believers and destroy unbelievers. That’s not at all controversial among Christians. Did you mean to say, “God had predestined to make some people into believers and others unable to believe and thus be saved or damned for a reason completely outside their control?”

Chrysostom says God doesn’t drag unwilling people agreed. But Jesus says no one can come unless drawn John 6:44. That’s inability, not just lack of help. And everyone the Father draws comes 6:37, 45. Not “might come.” Comes. So the drawing isn’t mere assistance, it’s effectual grace that changes the will so the sinner comes freely. Grace doesn’t violate the will. It liberates it.

"The Manichaeans spring upon these words, saying, that nothing lies in our own power; yet the expression shows that we are masters of our will. For if a man comes to Him, says some one, what need is there of drawing? But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implies not an unwilling comer, but one enjoying much succor." - John Chrysostom

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” Which comes first, the drawing or the coming?

Reformed theology isn’t above the Bible, it’s an attempt to summarize what the Bible teaches. Jesus said no one can come unless the Father draws him John 6:44, and that we must be born again to even see the kingdom John 3:3. That’s where “regeneration precedes faith” comes from. Calling names isn’t an argument.

@The_Idol_Killer @MattTestifies James 1:13 denies God tempts, not that He sovereignly ordains history. Acts 2:23 shows the pattern: God decrees, men act wickedly, and are responsible. The Fall wasn’t good in itself, but it was within God’s eternal plan to display His mercy and justice Rom. 9:22–23 Rev. 13:8.

@MattTestifies No. God does not tempt anyone, let alone effectually decree and bring about sin. The work of Christ is REDEMPTIVE, restoring creation back to God's intended plan.

It was part of the Plan all along, friends.

@thechurchsplit @5Solas2 If your view denies penal substitution and spiritual inability, it aligns more with Pelagius than with the fathers. History doesn’t help you there.

@PhilipF1689 @5Solas2 My view agrees with the first 400 years of the church. Cope.

Mic drop moment from Jeremiah Nortier during his debate with Leighton Flowers.

@thechurchsplit @5Solas2 Deny substitution. Deny new birth by the Spirit. Then call others heretics? That’s bold.

@5Solas2 Ah yes. The unsubstantiated claim of proof texting. White and Nortier are jokes. Also, they’re heretics.

@PProvisionalist What channel is this on?

Our 3 Open Theist Rangers who believe God does not know what will happen 5 minutes from now humbly attack Romans 8 and election . They are very much in charge🙏 amen

@SillyOldPops @ProvisionistP “Word games” is usually what people call theological distinctions they don’t like.

@PhilipF1689 @ProvisionistP “Others, not elected” are unable to seek, correct? Their condition is ALSO described in your doctrine of election.

Therapist: Reformed Ms. Rachel can’t hurt you, she doesn’t exist. Reformed Ms. Rachel:

@SillyOldPops @ProvisionistP All fallen people are unable to seek God on their own Romans 3:11. That inability isn’t unique to the non-elect, it’s the universal condition of humanity in Adam. Election doesn’t create inability, the Fall did.

This paragraph isn’t saying God blocks sincere seekers from coming. It’s simply describing what Scripture already teaches, that outward exposure to the gospel, religious experience, and even certain works of the Spirit do not necessarily equal true saving faith Hebrews 6:4–6, Matthew 7:22–23.

@PhilipF1689 @ProvisionistP ?

@ProvisionistP Election doesn’t stop anyone from coming, it explains why anyone comes at all John 6:37, 44. The doctrine isn’t about keeping people away it’s about God graciously drawing sinners who would otherwise never come.

In the comments: youtu.be/39kMUU0dFEI?si…

@jdpritchett You got me 🤷 I took the bait. Well played.

It’s neither. I actually like Reformed Baptist scholars. And Puritans too. I also like to rage bait insecure Reformed Baptists (especially the ones with Presbyterian-envy) on social media for fun because they do this sort of thing all the time about non-Reformed scholars and theologians.

Rule of thumb regarding Evangelical scholarship. Remember, “Reformed” Baptists have nothing to teach you about the Bible or theology because they are almost always wrong, and whenever they are right about something, it is on something other Christians have already said elsewhere and much better. However, when Presbyterians have something to say on things besides soteriology, it is usually interesting and often times, helpful. I offer this as an act of kindness to theology nerds to cut down on useless reading. 👍

Used to have some respect for Jonathan. But I guess when @TheDog620 had @Soteriology101 for lunch, it left a mark. Strong disagreement is one thing, pretending an entire stream of Reformed Baptist theology has nothing to offer just sounds like someone still processing a debate loss.