Soteriology 101 is a 501(c)3 nonprofit ministry.
Overseen by The Foundation Group
(NOTICE: ADDRESS HAS RECENTLY CHANGED)
Soteriology 101
675 Town Square Blvd
Firewheel Town Center
Building 1A Suite 200
Garland, TX 75040
Watch this message from Leighton Flowers…
I would like to make a donation via my Charitable Family Foundation, but you are not listed as an option. Can you provide me with your tax ID and any other helpful information to submit to try to get this approved.
Hello Tom – welcome – and thank you!
Let me see if Brian can help you with this
.
blessings!
br.d
Hi Tom, thank you for your desire to support Leighton’s ministry. I suggest you contact him through the mailing address provided, and include your name, address, and phone so he can contact you directly.
If you want to send me an email with that info, I’ll forward it to Leighton, which might expedite things. Blessings, Brian brianwagner@vbc.edu
Thank you Brian. I will send a letter to Leighton. Your ministry has meant a great deal to me which I will share with Leighton and want to help support your efforts to provide biblical alternatives to the interpretations of Calvinism.
Thank you, Tom, for your kind words and support!
Hello Leighton! Greetings from Fort Worth. I recently found your Youtube channel and started watching your videos. Although I was born and raised a Baptist in Mississippi, as a young man I drifted into the Charismatic/Prosperity Gospel. In 2016 I saw the error of my ways and watched a lot of John MacArthur, Justin Peters, and others who proved that much of the charismatic and the prosperity gospel was rubbish. So naturally I began to follow them and embrace Calvinism, or at least a good portion of it. I just never could totally believe in limited atonement. But now I see that it’s all rubbish too. So I really appreciate you, your ministry, your content, and your books that have helped me understand Romans 9 and other passages that were used to “prove” Calvinism. Before, I really had no answer for the Calvinists I debated online on Facebook and Twitter. Now it all makes perfect sense. So again thanks so much!
Hello Ryan and welcome
And thank you for your kind words!!
.
Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule – is typically not able to be here to interact with posters
But you may find him on Facebook if you have an FB account.
Also he regularly creates Youtube videos
And during the video there is a chat feature
And below the video are places for comments.
.
Thank you for your testimony!
I am personally thankful that you discovered the pitfalls of Calvinism
And especially that you understand the degree to which Calvinists ministries (John MacArthur for example) work very hard to make Calvinism *APPEAR* to be a doctrine of divine benevolence – when it is in fact predominantly a doctrine of divine malevolence.
.
Please feel free to stop in here any time to ask questions or say hello!
.
Blessings!
br.d
Hii Sir, can you explain how this logic is coherent.
If original sin is related to physical body or nature. Then people say that Jesus being fully human would make that Jesus desires a woman as physical body or nature is sinful. But then what’s the logic here. How is this gnostic understanding of sin and it being associated with desire. I feel if Jesus had desire of a woman, this would mean essentially and ethically that God of Bible that eternally knew that someday He would be saving humanity by coming to the earth and during his small duration trip- it’s like a rumspringa then where a God could now all of a sudden desire a woman??
Welcome Jay! I am not sure I understand fully your question. But Jesus received from Mary, and from the creation of the Holy Spirit, a human nature that was not tainted with original sin, though like Adam, Jesus was able to be tempted to sin. Yet He never yielded to temptation and thus never sinned.
As for having a desire for marriage or for sex in marriage, that is not a sin. It is certainly a powerful desire that can easily lead to sin, when curiosity prolongs the look at a woman and begins to focus on the sexual parts of her body. Once the will basically yields to saying – “If I could, I would”, or begins to fantasize the completion of any intimacy of sexual activity, which is reserved by God for marriage, the sin of adultery has taken place.
I hope this helps.
Hello Jay,
The historical classic Christian position on the nature of Jesus – is that he is both fully man and fully God.
.
The author of Hebrews tells us – Jesus was tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.
.
There is going to be a very large contrast here between what is stipulated within the doctrines of Calvinism vs what the NON-Calvinist will hold to.
.
In Calvinism – *NOTHING HAPPENS* that is not knowingly and willingly decreed.
And that decree is infallible
And an infallible decree does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees
.
So on that doctrine – if it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME_T
That decree is infallible – and does not grant any ALTERNATIVE to Calvinist_A
.
In such case – Calvinist_A does not have a CHOICE to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T
Therefore – Calvinist_A does not have CHOICE in the matter.
.
For the NON-Calvinist – this is not the case
For the NON-Calvinist – ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS such as [SIN] vs [NOT SIN] exist
And man is granted choice between those options
And that choice is *UP TO* man
.
So for the NON-Calvinist – the question of sin – both for Jesus and for man – has to do with choice.
.
Paul refers to Jesus as the “Second Adam”
The “First Adam” fell into sin
The “Second Adam” had all of the same temptations as the “First Adam” but without sin.
.
For the NON-Calvinist – Jesus does not sin because he chooses to NOT sin.
.
Does answer your question?
.
blessings!
Hey Brian or Br.d., What’s your opinion on Norman Geisler? A friend who mostly disagrees with Calvinism is reading his Chosen But Free book, which I never read, and I was curious how it might lead him. No one online can agree about him.
Some say he’s a 4-point Calvinist, some say Compatibilist (which is really just Calvinist), some say Arminian. Just curious if either of you know. Thanks.
br.d
Hi Heather
.
My thinking on Geisler is somewhat similar to what you’ve indicated.
.
He appears to be somewhat confused about what the core of Calvinism is (Exhaustive divine determinism)
.
However – I appreciate his honesty concerning Calvinist language being a misleading and/or deceptive language
.
For example – in Chosen but Free – he writes:
-quote
“Some Calvinists use smoke-and-mirror tactics to avoid the harsh implications of their view” (pg 104)
“This is done by redefining terms and Theological Doublespeak” (pg 261)
.
So Geisler is open minded enough to be honest about this characteristic of Calvinism.
But I seem to recall him making other statements which give the appearance he doesn’t clearly recognize what separates Calvinism from its alternatives and makes it unique – is Determinism.
.
CONCERNING CALVINISM’S TULIP:
Imagine if you will – you are walking on a side-walk with a friend.
As you walk together you see person walking towards the two of you.
.
You notice something odd about this person.
This person is wearing a mask on their face.
The mask completely and totally covers their face
The friend you are walking with recognizes the person
.
The person wearing the mask stops to talk with your friend
This person tells your friend she is taking vitamins which have dramatically improved her facial complexion.
She asks your friend to look at her face and see how healthy and vibrant her face is.
.
Your friend looks at her closely – and says “Yes your face looks wonderful”
You are shocked – because what your friend is looking at – is a mask.
Your friend is making comments about a mask *AS-IF* it was the person’s real face.
.
Any time I find NON-Calvinists debating with Calvinists over the TULIP that is the experience I have.
How is it – that NON-Calvinist does not realize – what they are debating over is a mask?
Calvinism’s TULIP is a SURFACE representation designed to hide what is behind it.
.
So if Geisler is going to deliberate over the TULIP he simply does not recognize the core of Calvinism which remains hidden behind it.
.
So as far as I am concerned – debating the merits of Calvinism by deliberating over the TULIP is like debating the merits of a person’s facial complexion by deliberating over a mask the person is wearing.
.
Hope this finds you and yours well Heather!!!
Blessings!
.
br.d
Thank you, Br.d. As you said, “So if Geisler is going to deliberate over the TULIP he simply does not recognize the core of Calvinism which remains hidden behind it.”
Similarly, what raised a red flag for me was when I heard he was calling out hyper-Calvinism while at the same time affirming to “mystery” of God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free-will, saying that man is truly free yet God ordains everything (from what I remember).
In my mind, that’s a Calvinist-in-disguise (one who really thinks he’s not an exhaustive determinist when he really is) calling out the Calvinists who fully live out their Calvinism honestly.
And while I too appreciate that he calls out the more deceptive or extreme Calvinists, I think Calvinism-in-disguise (softened down to not appear too Calvinist) is almost more “dangerous” because it’s easier to swallow and raises less red flags, convincing those who adhere to it that their Calvinism is not the same as “those Calvinists,” the more open ones who live it out fully.
Thanks, Br.d. God bless! Hope you are well too. 🙂
br.d
Yes! I think you have that well thought out Heather!
And well said also! :-]
.
blessings
I believe, Heather, Geisler might actually call himself a moderate Calvinist in that book, if I am remembering correctly. Yes, it is of the compatibilism variety, which is just smoke and mirrors determinism, imo.
Thank you, Brian. I appreciate your help. And Br.d. 🙂
I find the interpretation of Romans 8 that it is refrrring to the “saints of old”extremely compelling. There is just one thing that I must resolve in my mind that is keeping me from totally embracing this: Why is the word “glorified” in the past tense when referring to the Saints of old? I have always believed that Old Testament saints would be glorified at the same time as the church, on the day of redemption (rapture.) can someone clear this up for me?
Welcome Richard, though I have a little different take on this then Leighton, since he does not visit this blog often and leaves responses to aids like myself and BrD, let me say that I believe Leighton thinks “glorified” in this context does not mean in resurrected bodies, but just brought into contact with the glory of God following death before the resurrection.
Brian, You write of Jesus obtaining: ” a human nature that was not tainted with original sin” This would seem to imply that the rest of us got the tainted human nature variety. If so, what is it exactly that we got that Jesus did not? What is this original sin we were tainted (imputed?) with?
Thank you Larry for the question.
Effects of Adam’s sin – a propensity towards sin in our nature from birth, not guilt.
Romans 7:9 NKJV — I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
Romans 11:32 NKJV — For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
John 1:9 NKJV — That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
Romans 2:4 NKJV — Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
The first two verses in that list. When the conscience is mature enough to be confronted by the law… the sin nature comes to life and the individual becomes guilty/dead/separated from God. God allows that to happen to all who reach that moment of accountability. According to the second two verses, God then fulfills His plan to give each sufficiently mercy/light to seek Him. They must freely and humbly respond.
We received a sin nature from Adam, not guilt, and it lies dormant until our conscience is awakened and we sin. Like Adam we need the imputation of the righteousness of God through faith. We have the ability to trust like Adam… but he became prone to sin after he sinned… we were prone to sin from birth.
I’m an atheist and just watched the video critiquing Godless Granny’s interview with a Calvinist. Wouldn’t it be interesting to have an atheist view on this debate. Let me know your thoughts. Seems like we have some common ground.
br.d
Hello Bill
.
Since the foundational core of Calvinism – and that which separates Calvinism from its alternatives and makes it unique is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) – and since there are Atheists who embrace Determinism – we have an understanding that there is some common ground between Calvinism and Atheist Determinism.
.
But since SOT101 does not represent or promote Calvinism (aka Theistic Determinism) I personally am not familiar with any common ground there may be.
.
Can you say a little about what common ground you are thinking about?
.
Thanks
br.d
Hi Bill, Lately, it seems to me like there’s a bunch of Calvinists who deconstruct from Calvinism and become atheists. I’m guessing it’s because they understand the horrible implications of what Calvinist theology really teaches when we carry it all out to its logical conclusions, or else they’re just so disgusted by what Calvi-god says and does and how untrustworthy he is, that they go “Well, if that’s the way God is, then why would I want a relationship with Him anyway?”
And that’s one reason I fight so hard against Calvinism (I am a long-time Christian, over 30 years) – because that’s not the way I see the God of the Bible. But sadly, Calvinists have been teaching “Calvinism is the gospel! It’s right from Scripture!” And so I think that since people don’t understand there is a difference – that Calvinism has hijacked the gospel and twists the Bible – they toss out God altogether, instead of taking the time to tease out and toss out just the Calvinism. It’s sad.
Thanks for commenting, Bill. Can I ask what intrigues you most about this whole thing (the video you watched – I haven’t seen it yet – and the debate over Calvinism)?
God bless. 😉
I can see a Calvinist respond to your specific comment “because that’s not the way I see the God of the Bible.”
With some snarky remark, “Well thats how YOU see it. I simply read scripture for what it is. Are you a better interpreter of the Bible than God?”
Like c’mon all things being equal you see scripture a certain way too. You’re just hiding behind the “Scripture for what it is” bit that I’ve grown tired of hearing.
br.d
Concerning the comment “I simply read scripture for what it is. Are you a better interpreter of the Bible than God?”
.
This comment has multiple problems.
1) For a person to say “I simply read scripture for what it is” is a very immature understanding of scripture.
.
Any person who claims they do not “INTERPRET” what they read is not being honest with themselves.
.
In Luke 10 – Jesus is talking with a lawyer (teacher of the law) and Jesus asks him 2 questions:
1) What does the text say?
2) How do you read it?
.
It should be obvious – Jesus places an emphasis in both of these questions.
Jesus’ 2nd question makes it obvious – different people are going to read scripture differently.
.
We human beings – interpret data in accordance to what we hold as unquestionable truth.
Years ago – people were taught the sun orbits around the earth.
So those people held that as unquestionable truth.
They are not going to interpret scripture as contradicting what they hold as unquestionable truth.
So that is going to strongly affect how they interpret the text.
.
.
But then this statement ‘Are you a better interpreter of scripture than God” is an idiotic question to ask
No Christian in his right mind is going to claim he does anything better than God.
The idea is totally absurd!!!
.
.
The foundational core of Calvinism – and that which separates it from all of its alternatives – is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvin’s doctrine of decrees.
.
The Calvinist mind becomes conditioned to hold EDD as unquestionable truth.
The Calvinist mind is quite naturally going to be looking for verses within scripture – to affirm what he holds as unquestionable truth.
.
For example – when the Calvinist reads “God works all things for the good” his mind is looking to affirm EDD (Exhaustive divine determinism).
.
What the Calvinist mind will do in this case – is interpret the word “works” as “Determined”
So the word “works” becomes synonymous with “Determines”
And this makes perfect sense to the Calvinist -because Calvin’s doctrine of decrees stipulates a god who “Determines all things”
.
However – this becomes a problem for the Calvinist.
Because “All things” includes sins and evils.
And since the Calvinist holds Calvin’s god “Determines ALL THINGS” it follows – he determines ALL sins and evils.
.
Now in order for Calvin’s god to “Determine” something – he must CONCEIVE it in his mind.
Thus it follows – ALL sins and evils are FIRST CONCEIVED in Calvin’s god’s mind – and them made to infallibly come to pass.
.
This brings up a problem for Calvinists which is called the AUTHOR OF EVIL problem.
.
And the AUTHOR OF EVIL problem is where you will find the Calvinist starting to play TAP-DANCE ROUTINES with words :-]
.
Blessings!
br.d
Hey all. First I want to say thank you for having this website. It’s been a great tool for me to understand the provisionist view.
I’m having a discussion with a “reformed” Christian who has told me the bible teaches predestination. As in God Chooses whom he saves. Verses he used Eph 1:4-5, John 8:44, John 6:44.
“Your own free will cannot draw to God period. There is no way around it.”
I used most of this sites articles to try to explain the context and more theologically sound meaning behind them.
And he responds with
“Simple question you are using scripture which is great but you are missing one thing are unbelievers taught by God? When Christ went into towns of unbelievers did he do miracles there, yes or no?”
I said yes to both questions. and he responds:
Show me scripture of Christ doing miracles for unbelievers please 🙏🏾
My question is: Where is he going with this question? Is it some kind of gotcha? He literally ignored all my reasoning about the book of John and just went straight to that reply. Not sure where to go from here. Should I continue the discussion or just leave it as it is?
br.d
Hello cjineda and welcome
.
I always hate to have to inform people like yourself – that “Reformed” Christians do not operate in honesty.
.
The “Reformed” doctrine evolved from John Calvin
So the term “Reformed” is simply *CLOAKED LANGUAGE* for Calvinism.
.
These people will sometimes try to tell you they are not followers of Calvin
But under scrutiny – you will find – they are in fact Calvinists – who simply are not honest enough to acknowledge it.
.
So there is a very critical issue of dishonesty that you have to be aware of with “Reformed” people.
.
They will *OBFUSCATE* critical aspects of the doctrine
These are aspects of the doctrine which they calculate if they *TOLD YOU TO TRUTH* about – you will reject it.
.
So you are dealing with a certain degree of dishonesty.
.
So let me tell you about the *FOUNDATIONAL CORE* of the doctrine.
.
1) The foundational core of Calvinism (aka Reformed) is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD)
as enunciated within Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
So in Calvinism (aka Reformed) you cannot have an impulse in your brain – unless that impulse is knowingly and willingly decreed.
.
Calvinist R.C. Sproul
-quote
If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God.
.
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but *EVERY TWIST AND TURN* of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
.
Calvinist Louis Berkhof
-quote
God is immediately operative in every act of the creature. Everything that happens from moment to moment is determined by the will of god – and in every instance the impulse to action precedes from god (Systematic Theology)
.
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
-quote
“God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives and actions”(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)
.
.
SO if a Calvinist (aka Reformed) person tries to tell you – the reason you do not read scripture the way he does – is because you don’t understand – or because you have been taught wrong – etc etc – he is lying to you.
.
In Calvinism (aka Reformed) the reason you do not read scripture the way he does – is because Calvin’s god decreed *THE PERCEPTIONS IN YOUR BRAIN* and he decree what you would perceive when you read scripture.
.
.
Now to your question
You will find Calvinists use *TALKING-POINTS* as a strategy to ensnare people.
So you are wise to suspect a Calvinist is using a question as a “gotcha”.
.
Concerning the question of Jesus doing miracles for unbelievers
.
Remember – the underlying doctrine stipulates – you cannot have an impulse in your brain unless Calvin’s god decrees it.
So for a Calvinist – a person cannot *BELIEVE* unless Calvin’s god decrees it.
A *BELIEF* impulse cannot come to pass within a person’s brain – unless Calvin’s god decrees it.
.
That is why that Calvinist is asking you that question.
.
Now for a NORMAL Christian – every human being has the capacity to believe things.
A baby learns – when it cries its mother will feed it.
That baby believes – when it cries its mother will feed it.
.
So for a NORMAL Christian – every human being is born with the capacity to believe things.
When that baby grows older it will believe other things.
At some point in its life – it will be introduced to the Gospel.
And at that point – it will have to make a choice about whether it will believe the Gospel.
.
But for the Calvinist – that person *CANNOT* believe unless Calvin’s god decrees that belief will come to pass within their brain.
.
Please feel free to return here with any other “gotcha” questions a Calvinist tries to trick you with.
.
We’ve been dealing with Calvinist tactics for a very long time!!!!
.
Blessings!
br.d
Thank you! I don’t know why I didn’t see your reply. The notification might have been sent to spam. Ironically the person I was talking to and I just agreed to disagree. Every time I answered a question, Another one came up and none of my rebuttal questions were answered. Best to leave it alone. Though for some reason they kept asserting that Jesus ONLY did miracles for believers. As Heather Mentioned like I did, He did miracles for the Pharisees.
I asked : My reverse ask to you. Is everyone who was healed by Jesus a believer?
he responded
“Yes! He commanded some he healed to not tell anyone while he told others to tell people. Even the ones who told not to tell anyone they did.
Pharisees and the Sadducees killed Christ therefore they were condemned like Judas except for the ones who were saved like Paul and others. When he went to places to heal and there was mostly unbelievers he would either heal a few or just leave. Places where there was unbelief is under God’s judgment”
I don’t know. The mental gymnastics was a bit too much for me. Then proceeded to tell me he’s going to MOODY Bible College. I just gave up on even trying to get any point across.
I could post the whole conversation but I think you have your hands full.
br.d
Hello Cris,
Yes – I totally agree with you concerning the mental gymnastics! :-]
.
But one of the things you may want to be much more aware of with Calvinists – is their use of language is quite often equivocal – and/or misleading.
.
For example – concerning the question of whether a person whom Jesus healed was a “believer”
The term “believer” in this case – can be interpreted as a “believer” in Jesus as the Messiah
And “believer” conversely may be interpreted as faith that Jesus can heal them.
Those would be two very different types of “believers”.
.
In Matthew 5 – a woman touches Jesus because she believes if she touches him – she will be healed.
And she is healed.
Jesus is surrounded by many people whom we would assume may be inadvertently coming into physical contact with him.
But when this woman touches him she is healed.
.
Jesus asks “Who touched me” because he knew someone had been healed.
She spoke up and acknowledged it was her.
Jesus said “Go in peace woman – your faith has made you whole”
So in this case – there is no indication that she believed Jesus as the Messiah
But she did believe that if she touched Jesus she would be healed.
So that is the extent of what the text tells us – concerning her belief.
.
Once you understand – how Calvinists tend to play games with words – you will eventually learn to be wearing in your conversations with them……. but that takes time, because as Christians we don’t normally anticipate other professing Christians are going to use language in a misleading manner.
.
So NON-Calvinists tend to not be suspicious and take Calvinist statements at face value.
But over time – one eventually learns Calvinist language is COSMETIC in nature.
In other words – it is language designed to create an *APPEARANCE* rather than language designed to tell the truth.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Hello, Cjineda, I’m not sure where he’s going with that. I’ve never heard a Calvinist make this the focus of their arguments. But yes, Christ did miracles for unbelievers. He did miracles in front of the Pharisees, who rejected Him and demonized him.
And in John 12:37, Jesus did miracles in front of people, and they still would not believe in Him. And this “would not” explains the “could not” in John 12:39. Because they would not believe in Jesus even after seeing the miracles, they were hardened and then could not believe. So don’t let Calvinists convince you that they could not believe because God hardened them first. No – first “they would not believe” (verse 37) which led to “they could not believe” (verse 39).
Matthew 11:20-24 even says that if He did miracles in wicked cities that were destroyed, the people of the wicked towns would have believed, unlike the Jews who resisted him despite seeing the miracles. This opposes Calvinist predestination.
Maybe ask him why this matters and what his point is. Let him explain first before you give an answer. YOU ask the questions, instead of just answering his that are intended to lead you to Calvinism.
Just an idea. God bless! 🙂
I tried. I really tried to ask. He only points to one question and proceeds to answer that. If I ask 3 clarifying questions only one gets answered. I Appreciate the reply.
He never revealed what angle he was getting at. He just found a question he could answer from a more “Calvinist” perspective and gave statements like:
It is not intention to prove you wrong or right. All I can do is speak the word of God by way of Christ. This isn’t about the elect per say its simple scripture reading and understanding. Christ did not do miracles because God’s judgement was on the unbelievers. Jesus also says…
“And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.””
Matthew 13:57 ESV
Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, and say, “Do not prophesy in the name of the LORD, or you will die by our hand”- (Jeremiah 11:21, ESV)
who say to the seers, “Do not see,” and to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions, (Isaiah 30:10, ESV)
I read my Bible with a commentary which I have been doing over 20 years. I also read books that give contextual information and references. It seems that you want to prove me wrong, if this is the case than you win.
I am also in seminary as well. I attend Moody Bible college where I am studying theological studies with the goal is becoming a professor.
br.d
There is another example to take into consideration concerning miracles.
The feeding of the loaves and fishes – is a miracle.
But it is not a miracle of healing of course.
But Jesus did perform a miracle for those people
.
Later Jesus would be followed by many of the same people
And Jesus told them – the only reason they followed him was he fed them with loaves and fishes.
.
Concerning an individual’s belief whom is healed.
We know at least that person did believe Jesus could heal them.
So to try and claim there is some other kind of belief would be going beyond what the text indicates.
.
blessings
br.d
Cris, Yes, God’s judgment is on unbelievers. But it’s because they harden their hearts against Him and resist Him, not because He created them to be some sort of non-elect.
Zechariah 7:11-13: “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or [the Lord]. So the Lord Almighty was very angry. ‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the Lord Almighty.”
But of course, you won’t be able to get your friend to see that. And it sounds like you won’t be able to get him out of his echo-chamber either.
And like Brdmod said, Jesus did do miracles for unbelievers. He even did the ultimate miracle of rising from the dead and appearing to hundreds of people. And He even predicted to the Pharisees (those who don’t believe in Him) ahead of time that He would rise from the dead, so they should have believed it when they saw it come true. They had more than enough chance to see and admit the truth about Him. But no miracle is enough to cause someone to give up a belief they want to resolutely cling to. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
God bless!
So if we Support Dr. Flowers can we actually have chats with him or is he too busy with the YT channel and such?