Soteriology101—– Brian H. Wagner—-Freewill as Taught in Scripture

Brian is an old friend of mine who I have not talked to in a while. Here he tackles the subject of FREEWILL as he believes it is taught in the Bible. Brian is a true gentleman expect lately I have noticed he has grown a little more nasty in his assertions against those in the Reformed Faith. Brian Wagner is a consistent arminian since he serves the humanist heretical god of open theism. I have warm feeling for Brian and always will. I learned from him in our interaction back and forth. I know interact with his false error filled article “Freewill as Taught in Scripture.” My response to Brian will be in the color of Orange.


by Brian H. Wagner, Ph.D.,
instructor of church history,
theology and biblical languages
at Virginia Baptist College

How often have I read in various Facebook theological discussions the declaration of a Calvinist – “Freewill is not taught in Scriptures”?

I am sure Brian has read many Reformed Believers who have said– “Freewill is not taught in the Scriptures”?  But Brian should know that there are different definitions for the term “freewill”  Like I am sure his understanding which is probably the same as Flowers is to have the innate ability to abstain from something or go after it willingly. So when the Reformed Believer says “freewill” is not taught in the Bible he is talking about it in the sense that Brian and flowers is talking about it but only in a spiritual sense, that is having the ability or freewill to do anything to save himself, when within himself his strongest desire is to hate God and to spit in God’s Face.

John 3:19 – 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 

20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

I ask my friend Brian where is freewill in the passage of Holy Scripture above?  Listen to what John says again my friend Brian, “MEN LOVED DARKNESS RATHER THAN LIGHT, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL.”

There is no “freewill” in John 3:19 only “CONDEMNATION” as John plainly tells us in the first four works of verse 19.  Are these evil, wicked men who hate the light of Christ and love the darkness of sin able to choose between the two?

I do not think so.  Verse 19 plainly tells us that these Wicked men under the wrath and condemnation of God love the darkness.  Think about how you love God and desire to escape to that secret place to be with him and experience His holy love and intimate presence.

That they chose darkness was the act of their own will, and this act of the will was determined by the evil of their deeds. This was their habit and character that they practiced daily freely according to the will of their nature that was dark, wicked and unholy.

It is the same with the wicked men under the wrath and condemnation of God, THEY LOVE THE DARKNESS OF THEIR SIN, they hasten to indulge in it with love and pleasure.  There is no freewill only the greatest desire within these wicked men who take great love and pleasure in their sin.  They do according to their greatest desire and strongest nature within that they love.   They hasten to their sin.

In Verse 20 we read that :everyone practicing evil.”  Notice the dominance of sin in their lives.  They were so deceived by this dominating sin, loving it, taking great pleasure in it, they were not in any way trying to make a decision not to do it.  They loved it and hated Christ.  Notice verse 20 does not say they were daily making freewill choices whether to sin or not, not it plainly and with clarity says “THEY WERE PRACTICING EVIL.”  There is not freewill to choose or not to choose they were in love with their sin and it brought them great pleasure to practice it daily.  The word “PRACTICE”  speaks of something “ongoing without interruption.


I ask Brian, where is freewill in these passages.  I could actually stop here because these words actually come from the lips of our Lord Jesus, Let God be true and every man a liar.

Why cannot the Non-Calvinist see this in the passages I Quoted instead of twisting them and reading into it that which is not even there!!!!!  This is disingenuous. 


Of course, the freedom of will to go against one’s nature, even for God, is not possible. It is impossible for God to lie or to deny Himself (Titus 1:2, Heb 6:18, 2 Tim 2:13).

I must say maybe I should have read this a little closer because Brain sounds like Reformed Believer (but that I highly doubt)  I understand what Brian means when he says it is “not possible for God to go against his will or Holy Nature.  God’s nature is absolutely in every way Holy so it is impossible for Him to Sin,  

But what does Brian mean for the sinner or the Believer (if he is talking about the Believer) to be unable to go against his/her nature.

I believe completely that a sinner as shown in John 3:19-20 is unable choose against his strongest nature or disposition at any given time.  Unless God regenerates the sinners and takes out the heart of stone and puts in a heart of flesh a sinner will do as we read in John 3:19-20, Love, practice sin and will not come to the light of Christ.  When regenerated the “FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST, THE ATONEMENT” is applied to the believing sinner. Unless this happens through the sovereignty of God’s saving Grace in Christ.  A sinner will keep loving and practicing sin and hating the light and will never make a freewill choice to come to the light of Christ to receive atonement for sins.


And it is impossible for me to fly by just flapping my arms.

But the ability to freely make decisions commensurate with the limits of one’s nature and with the opportunities provided for such decision making is logically part of God’s and man’s nature and experience.

In this statement here above Brian is partly right.  God is the only Being who has Freewill.  You say, well he cannot lie.  Exactly!!  The less hold sin has on a person the more free he is.  Sin’s dominion has been broken over the believer.  But he still has remaining remnants of sin that he must kill the deeds of the body you will live. Romans 8:13.

God is the most free being in all the universe.  The sinner as we read in John 3:19-20 is in bondage to the sin he loves and takes great pleasure.  God must deliver us from the love and pleasure even as Christians if we are to become more like His son.


The exercise of that ability by God and by man is also well documented in Scripture. And I can fly… if I decide to get on an airplane and allow its power to transport me through the air! Always loved Brian’s sense of humor

The following is an attempt at a rather thorough study of words used in the OT and NT that teach aspects and examples of the exercise of freewill.


The reader will hopefully become convinced, contrary to Calvinistic dramatic false statements in opposition, that freewill is clearly taught in the Scriptures –

Brian, who is taking just a portion of scripture to prove his point is making a big mistake.  How does he compare with what he now is going to say with what I said in John 3:19-20  This is how the Non-Calvinist is deceived into twisting the Scriptures by the father of lies.  I pray that Brain, a man so intelligent God will open his eyes and save him from his sins.

The Hebrew word [verb] נדב naw-dab’ is a primitive root that means – to impel; hence, to volunteer (as a soldier), to present spontaneously…primarily translated as an adverb “willingly” which indicates free motivation or voluntary decision. It is used 17 times in 15 verses throughout OT Scripture [also 3 times in 3 verses using the same root in Aramaic – Ezra 7:13, 15, 16]. (Most of definitions for this paper are adapted from Strong’s Concordance lexical definitions.)

Brian seems to miss who makes people willing and to give free will offerings.  He has taken it out of context,

Ezra 1:1- In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing


The Lord stirred up the spirit,(heart, will) of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he would do exactly what the Lord wanted him to do. 


Cyrus King of Persia, still under the influence of the Holy Spirit says in Ezra 1:4

Ezra 1:4 – And let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.”

Proverbs 21:1 – The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.

Notice in Proverbs 21:1 that the king’s heart (mind, will, emotions) is in the hand of the Lord, and he sovereignly turns it wherever her will.

The king is just a man and the Lord can sovereignly use the king for His holy purposes.  Since the king is just a man, the Lord can use any man this way.

Here are all the verses that translate this word, נדב naw-dab’, with the translation of it underlined. The ESV translation for each verse was chosen to accommodate Calvinist readers, so they won’t have to keep running back to their favorite translation, which is deterministically flavored. 😉  Yes we love this Bible too.  Brain before making sweeping assertions to sinfully influence others, show the evidence when this is a Reformed Bible to accommodate Reformed Believers.  I know of know Bible that is perfect.  Do you????

Exod 25:2 ESV “… From every man whose heart moves him you shall receive the contribution for me.

Exod 35:21 ESV And they came, everyone whose heart stirred him, and everyone whose spirit moved him….

Exod 35:29 ESV All the men and women, the people of Israel, whose heart moved them to bring anything for the work that the LORD had commanded by Moses to be done brought it as a freewill offering to the LORD.

Judg 5:2 ESV …that the leaders took the lead in Israel, that the people offered themselves willingly, bless the LORD!

—-[The verbal form in this last verse is an infinitive, on the Hithpael stem, which is reflexive in meaning, thus the word “themselves” is added. This Hithpael verbal stem is used 16 other times in the same reflexive way – Jg 5:9; 1Ch 29:5, 6, 9(2x), 14, 17(2x); 2Ch 17:16; Ezr 1:6, 2:68, 3:5, 7:13, 15, 16; Neh 11:2]. The reflexive action only helps to emphasize the non-compulsory action of the person’s will in the decision made in each context—-

The noun נדבה ned-aw-baw’ is used 26 times in 25 verses, mostly in connection with a voluntary – “freewill” – offering to God. With all these verses one cannot help but ask “How can you have a freewill offering without a freewill?” Calvinists reject its normal meaning, but the Bible literally uses the word 26 times. Even the Calvinist translators of the KJV and ESV freely chose “freewill” as a suitable translation. Their translation choice is telling of what they believed this original word meant.

Here are the verses in which this noun is used:

Exod 35:29 ESV All the men and women, the people of Israel, whose heart moved them to bring anything for the work that the LORD had commanded by Moses to be done brought it as a freewill offering to the LORD. —-[The idea in this verse of a sacrifice made as a free-will offering, one not commanded as an obligation, is also found in – Ex 36:3; Le 7:16; 22:18, 21, 23; 23:38; Nu 15:3; 29:39; De 12:6, 17; 16:10; 2Ch 31:14; Ezr 1:4; 3:5; 8:28; Ps 54:6; 119:108; Eze 46:12(2x); Am 4:5]

Deut 23:23 ESV You shall be careful to do what has passed your lips, for you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God what you have promised with your mouth.

2Ch 35:8 ESV And his officials contributed willingly to the people, to the priests, and to the Levites….

Ps 68:9 ESV ​Rain in abundance, O God, you shed abroad; you restored your inheritance as it languished;

Ps 110:3 ESV ​Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours.

Hos 14:4 ESV I will heal their apostasy; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned from them.

—All these OT verses clearly confirm that man, even an unregenerate man, can exercise a free-will in a manner pleasing to God. Even God is said to exercise His freewill in Hos 14:4. The translation in Ps 68:9 was obviously determined with some subjectivity. It could easily be translated – “A shower of freewill gifts, O God, you have shed abroad…”

Here are some NT words and verses to consider that also speak to the issue of the freedom of the will. A Calvinist may try to attribute all of the following examples as a result of regeneration, but that does not seem to fit this first example –

Acts 17:11-12 ESV Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.

—-[from προθυμια proth-oo-mee’-ah, meaning predisposition. See also – 2Co 8:11, 12, 19, 9:2;] The Calvinist may endeavor to suggest this willing predisposition of the Bereans was a result of regeneration, which they think is before faith is expressed. It is very difficult to convince them otherwise when their loyalty to Calvinism is so strong that they refuse to see the gospel of John clearly teaches light is freely received before faith which is before new birth life is given. See John 1:4-13, 12:35-36, 20:30-31.

Other NT verses to consider that speak to the issue of freewill are these –

1Cor 7:37 ESV But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. —-from μη ἔχων ἀνάγκην , literally – “not having a necessity”, which would be impossible if everything was predetermined eternally and immutably, making every event a necessary result of God’s decree. Notice also the verse says this man “having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart.”

1Cor 9:17 ESV For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. —- from εχων hek-own’ meaning willingly.

2Cor 8:3 ESV For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, and 2Cor 8:17 ESV For he not only accepted our appeal, but being himself very earnest he is going to you of his own accord. —-from αυθαιρετος ow-thah’-ee-ret-os – meaning self-chosen, and by implication – voluntary.

2Cor 9:7 ESV Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. —- from προαιρεομαι pro-ahee-reh’-om-ahee – meaning to choose for oneself before another thing, to prefer and by implication, to intend.

Phlm 1:14 ESV but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. —- from εκουσιος hek-oo’-see-on – meaning willingness.

1Pet 5:2 ESV shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; —-from εκουσιον hek-oo-see’-ose – meaning willingly.

The existence of a free will, even post regeneration, runs counter to the idea of an eternally immutable divine will that had completely determined everything forever into the future before creation began.

Brian makes an assertion here that is untruthful.  He knows that there are a couple of verses that say otherwise.  Others say on the day of Creation.  “the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.”

Before the foundation of the World–in the mind of God from all eternity

Ephesians Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him

It is a shame how Brian as other non-Calvinist do twist and put a spin on the passage of scripture above instead of just plainly reading it like they would anything else.  

2 Timothy 1: He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time,

Brian also abuses and is disingenuous about this verse also.  I love this verse so much, it brings such comfort and joy.


Calvinism is based upon that philosophical premise, making the exercise of any free-will for God or man impossible, before creation and especially after it.


Do you know Brian that even as sinners we always chose according to our strongest desire at any given moment,  Our will is never in neutral.  Hopefully you do not believe that.  I once ask a man what his favorite ice cream was.  This man was a sinner.  He told me chocolate.  I told him because he will always choose according to his greatest desire at any given moment he could not reach out and take the vanilla cone I had instead of chocolate.  You know what he did.  He took the vanilla cone and laughed and said that he had proved me wrong.  I explained to him he had actually proved me right.  I told him a stronger desire that chocolate had dictated his will.  It was to prove me wrong.  

you see Brian we never really have free will, we do according to the strongest desires of our nature or disposition.



That premise makes a falsehood out of these clear Scriptures shared here. These Scriptures and many others clearly show that free will does exist and is being exercised by God and man.

How many times do we read the “hand of God was on them”


27 Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, who has put such a thing as this in the king’s heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem, 

28 and has extended mercy to me before the king and his counselors, and before all the king’s mighty princes.

So I was encouraged, as the hand of the Lord my God was upon me; and I gathered leading men of Israel to go up with me.

From the beginning of Ezra to the end there was the blessing, favor, loving kindness upon the house of Israel. God moved the hearts of all to be willing in the day of His power. 

Psalms 110:3 – Thy people shall be willing in the day of your power

, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.


Yes they made free will offerings, all do to the hand of God and the Lord stirring their hearts!!!!


Radio Free Geneva: A Nearly Three Hour Examination of “Traditional” Anthropology

Just avoided going for a full three hours, but we reviewed Dr. Leighton Flowers’ podcast from September 26, 2016, which was ostensibly about those who never hear, but was much more about how Calvinism is a bad theology. In any case, it gave us the foundation for looking very carefully at Flowers’ views, as they are being presented to a wide audience of Southern Baptists. We likewise touched upon some of his attempted response to Romans 8:5-7 as well.

Leighton Flowers’Hypocrisy Exposed by Dr. White ! Author: Dr. James White

Yes folks, for your daily accusation of “hypocrisy” today we do not have a Mormon, a Jehovah’s Witness, an Arian, an atheist, a Unitarian, a Roman Catholic, a KJVO Cultist, or a Muslim! No, today we have a non-Arminian Traditionalist Synergistic Biblicist Southern Baptist allegedly former Reformed Baptist Youth leader—Dr. Leighton Flowers! Yes, Dr. Flowers has laid me bare in a Facebook post published just today.
Now the first thing I note is, I did not even know the Unbelievable program we did a few weeks ago, the “Grill James White” program, had appeared. But Leighton Flowers did. I must confess, I have so many things to be doing, so many projects to be working on, so much in my life, that I cannot conceive of taking the time to be hunting for ammo to use in pursuing a personal vendetta against someone. It speaks volumes to me, anyway.
So why am I charged with hypocrisy? Well, here’s the story. Justin Brierley lined up a few folks to call into the program to “ask questions.” OK, one of them seriously had a question, which I addressed. The other folks were looking for a chance to promote their personal agenda/theology (a lot like Flowers himself, I might note). One of them was an odd, one-off guy who denies the deity of Christ, and seems to base his entire argument upon a single book of Scripture, the book of Acts. His argument was that if the Apostles taught the deity of Christ, it should be the subject of, I guess, every sermon recorded in Acts.
Now, this was not a debate. It was a phone call that might have lasted ten—fifteen minutes? And my response to the caller was obvious: Acts is the second of two books (Luke/Acts). You do not isolate it from the Gospels, or from the epistles written by men like Paul, who are being quoted in the book itself! Hence, to define “Son of God” or “Lord” etc., as used in Acts, without reference to those other sources, is to create a complete mess of the New Testament as a whole, which was exactly what he was doing. For example, he insisted that “Son of God” was ONLY a Messianic title and has no relevance to the issue of the deity of Christ. Such a position is, of course, untenable in light of passages outside of the book of Acts.
So, how does this make me a hypocrite? Well, let’s let Dr. Flowers explain:
James White was on the Unbelievable? Podcast debating the divinity of Christ with an Unitarian. The Unitarian wanted to limit the discussion to the book of Acts alone and, with respect, I found White’s response quite hypocritical as it relates to his dealings with my hermeneutic.
White argued that our hermeneutic cannot be limited to just one section of the NT but that we must look at the entire context of scripture to establish our doctrines (sound familiar?). If you recall that in our debate Dr. White questioned my hermeneutic of going to the entire New Testament to establish the context (of Gods judicial hardening etc). He accused me of not doing exegesis properly because I appealed to passages outside of one single chapter (Romans 9). He even went so far as to argue that my approach would not work when defending the deity of Christ and other foundational doctrines, yet when he was debating this Unitarian he clearly had to go outside the one book the Unitarian wanted to limit the discussion to. I agreed with White in his debate against the Unitarian but his answers reveal exactly the point I was attempting to argue.
As you listen to White defend his hermeneutic against this Unitarian, I challenge you to apply his exact argument to our debate, I think the parallel will be astonishingly clear and White’s hypocrisy revealed.
There you go, folks! You know, when our debate ended, I felt sorry for Dr. Flowers. It was so obvious to everyone who had engaged the debate directly, who had presented the text, and who had consistently dealt with the debate thesis. The fact that Flowers was preaching rather than debating, that his statements were pre-written and he was simply reading them, even at the end of the debate, was not lost on the serious listener. Just last week I listened to a portion of the debate for the first time (since I was scheduled to do the same topic yesterday—a debate we will reschedule for either June or August, depending on how things go for me on the medical scheduling front), and heard Flowers admit that his presentation was not, in fact, consistent with how he would defend the deity of Christ, etc. I really don’t think Flowers knew then, and it is plainly clear that to this day he still doesn’t get it, that his answer concluded the debate. He is just so wedded to his task as the “Calvinist slayer” for a segment of the “Traditionalist” movement that he cannot understand the necessity of consistency, the necessity of using proper hermeneutics and exegesis. It also illustrates the danger that comes with mono-vision, a focus upon one topic, one theme, one issue. Flowers has, sadly, become a one-string banjo, and that one string is fraying (and out of tune).
As the fair-thinking person can see, the attempted parallel to our debate is—untenable. There was no debate on Unbelievable: it was a phone call with a clearly imbalanced unitarian who had a hobby-horse to ride that isn’t even representative of any serious scholarly position. We had not announced a debate on “The Deity of Christ in the Book of Acts.” A strong presentation could be made on that thesis, but that was not the case on the radio program. It is wide-eyed desperation to even attempt to parallel such a phone call with a specifically titled, moderated, public debate, wherein both sides had equal time to demonstrate the teaching of Romans 9. Dr. Flowers demonstrated then, and now, that his “synergistic traditionalism” or whatever he wishes to call it is a synthetic system of man’s traditions, not the result of serious, consistent biblical exegesis. He demonstrated that you cannot derive his position from Romans 9; you must begin elsewhere, cobble together passages, introduce external philosophical issues, and then apply the resultant theological goo liberally to the text to cover over the problems. And as long as he remains happily ignorant of how obvious his procedure is, he will continue to make more committed Calvinists, as his mentors at SWBTS have been doing for decades now.
Flowers wishes to now pretend that the debate parameters were, well, as wide as he wanted to make them. He knows he cannot walk through Romans 9 *in the presence of knowledgeable opposition* without first brewing up his a-contextual soup so as to provide the proper spin to the text. And this is the parallel he wishes to improperly assert (and use as a pretext of accusation of hypocrisy on my part): he wants to try to parallel the demand on a caller’s part to limit the data in the issue of the deity of Christ to the book of Acts to his expanding the parameters of a debate on Romans 9 to that of total inability or the entire NT’s teaching on this matter or that. And if that is the parallel he wants to attempt to use—I leave him to it. His recent desperation is only demonstrating he has a dangerously imbalanced view of the issue. I noted a few days ago that he sent an open letter in which he promised to contact all my future debate opponents to “warn them” about how they will be so badly mistreated! Combine that with this post alleging hypocrisy based upon a phone call with a Unitarian in London, and you really start to understand why I, and not a few others, are thinking the term “stalker” is becoming more and more appropriate in describing Dr. Flowers’ behavior.

Soteriology101 Brian Wagner Says No One Could Have Been Elected From Eternity Because No One Existed. Is He Right? Let’s Check His Theory and See if it is Correct or Man-Made to Escape the Truth of Reformed Soteriology

I soon hope to talk about “LEIGHTON FREE WILL.  But it looks like I am going to continue with Mr. Wagner for a while exposing his total dislike for the Reformed Faith.  Now he would never call it the Reformed Faith, to him, it has to be caaaalllviiinnnnsssmmmm.  That old dirty curse word full of false doctrine.  I read what Brian writes on soteriology101 about reformed believers and it comes out a pretty rough and straight forward oftentimes.  He simply does not like the Reformed Faith but must believe we are preaching the gospel if he is calling us brother and sisters in Christ.  But then after I read what he writes about the reformed faith I want to say, “Brian, why don’t you tell us how you really feel.

First of all, I must always remind people that while Brian is refuting the Reformed faith while he himself is in great deception by Satan himself worshiping the diminished humanistic heretical god of Open Theism.  (I am sure this why he will not talk with me any more which is OK with me he has given me plenty of Anti-Calvinism stuff of His understanding to talk about.)  I explained to Brian that when I discuss these issues I am not discussing  Calvinism or what I call the Reformed Faith I am really just discussing the false teaching of man called Anti-Calvinism. This is very troubling in itself and I have tried to engage this issue with him but he is very sensitive about it. (Open Theism that is)  Brian did not even wanted to discuss it on Soteriology101 but wanted to move the conversation to private email.

Ephesians 1:4 -even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

2 Timothy 1:9 -who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,

Brian has a very ambiguous and confusing understanding of these two verses that I or Dr. Sean Cole who did emphatically did refute Brian Wagner soundly (and Brian does not seem to be able to respond or refute Sean) have ever seen. I do not think he wants to tangle with Dr. Sean Cole he would rather stay on Soteriology101 in his comfort zone where he can sound intelligent (I see right through it, though) and condescending to those interacts with.  No, I do not mean Brian is wicked or evil. He is very Christlike but uses wordplay and word games to confuse. I have always told him is intelligence is his greatest weakness maybe that was a mistake. I will not take the time to exegete these verses as I have done and Dr. Sean Cole has done but Brian although presented with the truth the Holy Spirit has not opened his eyes to that truth so he remains stubborn with his own personal understanding of these verses although Dr. Sean Cole said his Greek is terrible when it came to Ephesians 1:4.  Is Brian maybe being disingenuous as he accused Calvinists of maybe being disingenuous on the translation of Revelation 13:8 on Soteriology101? I admit the traditional translation is more reliable, but I have found many scholars argue for the other translation although they are more than likely wrong but Revelation 17:8 pretty much covers it.

Ok, in a nutshell, this is what Brian’s says about individual’s or a particular people being elected in Christ from eternity, before the world began, before the foundation of the earth.  He says this because “no one existed in eternity to be elected in Christ so it is an impossibility”

Now I personally think Brian forgets who we are talking about, the God whom nothing is impossible for but remember Brian worship a diminished humanistic heretical god of Open Theism.  He tries to make Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipotent infinite whose understanding is infinite and that implies his knowledge is exhaustive without limits, in Christ in whom is all wisdom and knowledge, Brian seems to try and make a god in man’s own image, to make the High and lofty one altogether like one of us, just much more intelligent than us.

Professor Brian Wagner forgets that God thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are much much higher than our ways.  We are just poor pitiful creatures of the Almighty Creator.

Above is not my defense, I just wanted to celebrate the True and Living God of heaven and my Salvation and remind Brian that nothing is impossible with God but Brian’s rejects that Statement when he says no one could have been elected before the foundation of the world because they did not exist.  Brian Limits the Holy one of Israel with his understanding that is absolute nonsense.  Now for my two examples as to why Brian is wrong, one is positive and the other is negative the way Brian would see things.

Jeremiah 1:5 -“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Now I am sure Brian will try and find away to twist this text as he often does to avoid Calvinism but it is as plain as the nose on your face.


Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee,…. Not merely by his omniscience, so he knows all men before their conception and birth; but with such a knowledge as had special love and affection joined with it; in which sense the Lord knows them that are his, as he does not others, and predestinates them unto eternal life; and which is not only before their formation in the womb but before the foundation of the world, even from all eternity. The forming of the human fetus is God’s act, and a curious piece of workmanship it is; see Psalm 139:15

Now for the reverse way of refuting Brian, in a sense of being on his side but showing him that his way is just irrational ridiculous and nonsense and nothing but his mere man-made philosophical idolatry of Open Theism.

Revelation 13:8 -All those who had become settled down and at home, living on the earth, will worship it, everyone whose name had not been written in the Book of Life belonging to the lamb that had been slaughtered since the foundation of the world.

Speaking as Brian would on the latter half of this verse I have come to the conclusion that this verse is faulty and should not be in the scriptures.

It says “that the Lamb had been slain or slaughtered since the foundation of the world or before time began, or from all eternity.  This is impossible, according to Brian Wagner.  This verse does not say it is a prophecy or a prediction.  But it just cannot be because Christ was still pure spirit. The incarnation had not happened yet.  No cross, no Roman soldiers, No Pharisees, No Judas, No reason to die.  But it was in the mind of God before the foundation of the world has had already happened.  Look at it again.  THE LAMB THAT HAD BEEN SLAUGHTERED SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.  WAS THE LAMB SLAIN WHEN THE WORLD WAS MADE?  I DON’T THINK SO, BUT IT WAS IN THE MIND OF GOD SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD AND I BELIEVE FROM ALL ETERNITY.  BUT IT SAYS IT IS ALREADY DONE.  HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE BRIAN?



Soteriology101 Debunking Professor Brian Wagner Understanding that God only gives the Wicked Sinner One, or Two or Three Chances to be Saved. Job 33:29-30

I in no way am trying to persuade Brian Wagner of the truth. I am giving him the truth only with the hope faith and prayer God will bless it to his heart and he will come to  the knowledge of the truth.

Job 33 – 29-30 – Behold God does all theses things, twice, three times, with a man, to bring back my soul from the pit, that he may be lighted with the light of life.

To put it bluntly and clearly as I can and hopefully not misrepresenting Brian who I respect very much Brian believes GOD GIVES EVERY SINNER ONE TO THREE CHANCES TO BE SAVED.  Now just an ordinary understanding of the character of God brought me to the rejection of this man-made understanding of scripture.  No I don’t think Brian is purposely trying to deceive anyone, he has just locked on to this understanding and has not thought it through the same as he could find something that I believe wrong and shed light on it a none of us are perfect in our understanding of the knowledge of God’s truth.

You notice Brian talks of up to three chances the sinner gets to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.  This is POSSIBILITY SALVATION ULTIMATELY DEPENDENT ON MAN.  SO YES WE ARE STILL DISCUSSING NON-CALVINISM. THAT CHRIST ONLY MADE SALVATION POSSIBILITY.  CURIOUS THOUGH THAT BRIAN BELIEVES THAT GOD WILL NOT VIOLATE YOUR FREE WILL, AND THAT SALVATION IS ULTIMATELY OF MAN EVEN IF CHRIST MADE 99% OF IT POSSIBLE THE WICKED SINNER HAS TO WITH HIS FREE WILL ENERGIZE AND EFFECT THIS SALVATION BY REPENTING OF THEIR SINS TOWARD A HOLY GOD AND HAVING FAITH IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.  If he the wicked sinner does this he will be saved and IN CHRIST which he cannot get out of according to Brian Wagner.  My question to Brian is this, did the sinner lose his free will once he got saved?  Did God violate his will so that he will never walk away from his salvation?  The Holy Angels walked away from their estate?  Adam and Eve who were created upright without any sinful desires whatsoever and their heart and will were predominately toward God fell away?  So what happens to a sinners will if God does not violate according to you because for it to be free love as you say it cannot be a puppet on a string so even in heaven with the sinners free will like Lucifer and the other Holy angels could not man stop loving God in sinful wicked rebellion if his will is really free?  Really interested to hear a response to that but it seems you are no longer responding to me.

So chance, possibility salvation, Christ makes salvation possible and man holds the trump card is what Brian believes in. God giving man one, two or three chances.  I intend to prove this wrong along with proving chance is a farce itself.

So let’s start with Job 33:29-30. As I said before just a casual reading of God’s word brought me to the conclusion that Brian Wagner’s understanding of these two verses were wrong, that being God gives the wicked sinner one, maybe two, maybe three chances to be saved. I will deal directly with the two verses but want to give a few proof texts of God’s tender mercies and loving kindness and willingness to be saved.

Exodus 15: 11-13 – Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, going wonders?

12. You stretched out your right hand, the earth swallowed them.

13.You have led in your steadfast love of the people whom you have redeemed and guided them by your strength to your holy abode.

Notice the steadfast love of the Lord for His people and God declares he is the one who REDEEMED AND GUIDED THEM BY HIS STRENGTH TO HIS HOLY ABODE.

Exodus 33:5-7 – The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord, A God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,  keeping steadfast love and faithfulness, 7. keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and fourth generation.

Psalms 69:16 – Answer me, O Lord, for your steadfast love is good, ACCORDING TO OUR ABUNDANT (MULTITUDE) MERCY TURN TO ME.

God’s mercy is abundant, there is a multitude of it, it comes from the infinite God, so God’s mercy is indefinite and infinite itself. Why would the God of heaven who is slow to anger, long suffering only offer (according to Brian’s understanding of offer) is saving mercy maybe once, maybe twice or maybe three times?

Now I will use one last verse in the NT as Brian would understand (not as I would) to refute his understanding of the verses of Job 33:29-30

Once again I stress the following understanding is noncalvinistic which is false teaching and should be rejected, Brian’s understanding of this verse.

2 Peter 3:9 – The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward us, not willing any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Can we honestly say that the Lord whose mercy is abundant in multitude,  and he is infinite in mercy, slow in anger, great in compassion, is patient toward sinners (Brian’s understanding) and not willing that any should perish and come to repentance would only give wicked sinners maybe one, maybe two or three at the most chances to be saved.

2 Peter 3:15 says “the patience of the Lord is salvation”

I don’t count the Lord very patient, steadfast in love, abundant in mercy and patient if he only gives the sinner maybe one to three chances to be repent and be saved.

You see just a casual reading of God’s word makes Brain Wagner’s understanding suspect.  Much more could be added, but now we turn to the verse itself and see what others (Brian believes he needs no one and but most definitely does)

Let’s remind ourselves of the verse Professor Wagner holds so dogmatic too. 

Job 33 – 29-30 – Behold God does all theses things, twice, three times, with a man, to bring back my soul from the pit, that he may be lighted with the light of life.

I begin with the Popular Commentary of the Bible OT Job same passage as Brian Wagner used and let’s compare what these two men have said.

“Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man

My words, “notice immediately where it is said one, two or three times, here in the popular commentary it is called OFTENTIMES AND MANY VERSES TRANSLATE IT THAT WAY BECAUSE IT IS NOT THREE CHANCES BUT THREE MODES OR METHODS GOD USES TO BRING THE WICKED SINNER TO REPENTANCE AND FAITH IN CHRIST.

Popular Commentary – “dealing with him repeatedly and in such a manner, in order to impress His warnings upon the mind of man.

30. To bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living -instead of being overshadowed with the darkness of death.

Benson Commentary

Job 33:29-30. All these things worketh God — All these ways and methods does God take to awaken, convince, and save sinners; oftentimes with man — One way with one man, and another with another; or, using these several methods with the same man, trying by various means, one after another, to lead him to repentance, and prepare him for deliverance. To bring back his soul from the pit — That he may save men from being for ever miserable, and make them for ever happy. “Lord, what is man, that thou shouldest thus visit him? This should engage us to comply with God’s designs, to work with him for our own good, and not to counterwork him. And this will render those that perish inexcusable, that so much was done to save them and they would not be healed.” So Mr. Henry. Excellent words! But utterly irreconcilable with the doctrine of absolute, unconditional predestination.

Barnes Notes on the Bible

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Lo, all these things worketh God – That is, he takes all these methods to warn people, and to reclaim them from their evil ways.

Oftentimes – Hebrew as in the margin, twice, thrice. This may be taken either as it is by our translators, to denote an indefinite number, meaning that God takes frequent occasion to warn people, and repeats the admonition when they disregard it, or more probably Elihu refers here to the particular methods which he had specified, and which were three in number. First, warnings in the visions of the night, Job 33:14-17. Second, afflictions, Job 33:19-22. Third, the messenger which God sent to make the sufferer acquainted with the design of the affliction, and to assure him that he might return to God, Job 33:23-26. So the Septuagint understands it, which rendered it, ὁδοὺς τρεῖς hodous treis – three ways, referring to the three methods which Elihu had specified.

Matthew Poole’s Commentary

All these ways and methods doth God use to awaken, and convince, and save sinners.

Oftentimes with man; either severally, one way with one, and another way with another; or with the same man, trying several means one after another to bring him to repentance, and prepare him for deliverance.

Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man. This is a summary or recapitulation of what goes before, from Job 33:15; God is an operating Being, he is always at work in a providential way: “my father worketh hitherto”, John 5:17; sometimes on the minds of men in dreams and visions; and sometimes by affliction; and sometimes by his prophets, messengers and ministers of the word; he works with and by these, and all according to the internal workings and actings of his mind, his eternal purposes and decrees, which are hereby brought about: and these he works “oftentimes”, or, as in the original, “twice” (w); therefore when once is not sufficient, he repeats it in dreams and visions; when men are not admonished by one, he comes to them in another: and afflictions, when one does not bring men to repentance, or answer a good purpose, he sends another; and continues the ministry of the word, in which he waits to be gracious, till all his people are brought to repentance, and all his ends answered by it: and all this he works “with man”, his darling object, the special care of his providence; and for whom his great concern is in redemption and salvation. He works with men distributively considered, with various men, in the several ways before expressed; and with men personally and individually; to one and the same man he has often appeared in dreams and visions, and on the same person has laid his afflicting hand again and again; and to the same individual has given line upon line, and precept upon precept. And because this is certain and to be depended upon as truth, and is worthy of notice and consideration, as well as is very wonderful and astonishing, that God should thus be mindful of man, and work with him and for him, “lo”, or “behold”, is prefixed unto it: the ends for which all this is done follow.

Lo, all these things worketh God {x} oftentimes with man,

29, 30. Elihu sums up his doctrine regarding the gracious purpose and effect of God’s methods of speaking unto man.

Verse 29.Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes (literally, twice and thrice) with man. Elihu, from this point to the end of the chapter, speaks in his own person. God, he says, thus works with man, through visions or through chastisements oftentimes – not in the latter case, taking vengeance on them for their sins, but graciously leading them on to a better mind and a higher spiritual condition. This is part of God’s ordinary moral government, and Job has no need to suppose himself exceptionally dealt with. Elihu has reason on his side in all this, and his words may have given Job some comfort. But they did not exactly fit Job’s ease. Elihu, unless supernaturally enlightened, could not possibly penetrate into the special circumstances of Job’s trial. He could only try to bring his case under general laws, of which it was not an illustration; and so, though well-meant and probably of some service, his argument was no complete answer to Job’s difficulties.

I will deal with Brian’s understanding of “chance” at a later date and disprove that that sinners have chances to be saved that fall under what Brian believes as “possibility salvation” or that Christ is not a real Savior who came to save his people from their sins but only makes salvation possible with the sinner taking opportunity of the one to three chances he may or may not get and with his free will repent and believe in Christ.

If the Holy Spirit convinces Brian of the truth of this, I would ask that he publically recant and repent on Soteriology101 of this false misunderstanding as I know he has espoused it at least two times on that site.

God Bless Brian and all who read this, if I am wrong, more than willing to receive correction.


Soteriology Contributor Brian Wagner Mistaken Misunderstanding and Misrepresantion of God’s Word Exposed. John 1:9

Before I begin to let the scholars show you Brian’s mistaken misunderstanding and misrepresentation of  John 1:9 and other verses in John Chapter 1.  I want to say, Brain is a good man, his character is very Christlike.  Soft gentle and forgiving.  Hc can be somewhat condescending at times but so can we all.  He actually was patient with me when I was rude to him and has helped me to not be so offended when interacting with others, it is just iron sharpening iron. Brian does hold to one teaching that I think is a heresy which is the diminished humanistic heretical god of humanism.  I still believe Brain to be in Christ only deceived by this heresy. He is stubborn when it comes to what he believes about God’s word which I can say again we all fall to in that category. But Brian sees himself going alone against the popular scholars and thinking he is for the most part always right. Which I think is a weakness within himself because he is a very intelligent man.  So here we go!!!

William Hendriksen

John 1:1 – In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was God.

1:1 In the beginning – when the heavens and the earth were created (GEN 1:1) – The word already existed. This is another way of saying that he (Christ) existed from all eternity. He was not what certain heretics claimed him to be, a created being.

Was the word – Already in the Old Testament the Word of God is represented as a Person. Note especially Ps. 33:6: By the Word of Jehovah were the heavens made. What is probably the best commentary on John 1:1 is found in Prov. 8:27-30

When he established the heavens, I was there;
When he set a circle upon the face of the deep.
When he made firm the skies above,
When he gave to the deep its bound
When he marked out the foundations of the earth;
Then I was by him, a master workman
And I was daily his delight
Rejoicing always before him

As a New Testament designation of the Christ, the term Word occurs only in 1:1. 14;  1 John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13. A word serves two distinct purposes: a. it gives expression to the inner thought, the soul of the man, doing this even though no one else is present to hear what is said to read what is thought and b. it reveals this thought (hence, the soul of the speaker) to others. Christ is the Word of God in both respects: he expresses or reflects the mind of God; also he reveals God to man (1:18 cf. Matt. 11:27, Heb. 1:3).

And the word was God – the meaning is that the word existed in the closest possible fellowship with the Father and that he took supreme delight in this communion. (Cf. 1 John 1:2.) So deeply had this former joy impressed itself upon the Logos that is was never erased from his consciousness, as is also evident from the high-priestly prayer

“and now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self or, in thine won
presence, which the glory which I had with thee before the world existed”

Thus the incarnation begins to stand out more clearly as a deed of the incomprehensible love and infinite condescension.

And the Word was God – In order to place all the emphasis on Christ’s full deity the predicate in the original precedes the subject. Over against every heretic, it must be made plain that this Word was fully divine!!!

2. He was in the beginning with God. – The fully divine Word existing from all eternity as a distinct Person was enjoying loving fellowship with the Father. Thus, the full deity of Christ, his eternity, and his distinct personal existence are confessed once more, in order that heretics may be refuted and the Church may be established in the faith and love of God.

3. – All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. –  All things, one by one, came into being through this divine Word. Thus, the great truth that Christ created all things (for in the external works all three Persons cooperate) is first of all stated positively and from the viewpoint of the present, it is expressed thus:  “Apart from him, not a single thing that exists came into being.”

Two facts are here stressed:  a. that the Christ himself was not created; he was eternally (in order to convey that thought the imperfect tense is used four times in verses 1 and 2); and b. that all things (viewed distributively one by one without any exception were created by him (here the aorist tense is used.

4. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. – Not through but in, just as in 5:26, 6:48, 53, 11:25. The clause “in him was life” means that from all eternity and throughout the entire old dispensation life resided in the Word. Hence, the best reading has was, not is.

But what is meant by the term “LIFE”, as used here? Does it refer dieectly to every kind of life, physical as well as spiritual, the life of the butterfly as well as the life of the archangel?

Physical life, however, does not reside in the second person of the Trinity. God is not physical in any sense (cf, 4:24) Besides, it is a good rule in exegesis to see whether a term is explained when one reads on and on. When the rule is applied in the case, the result is as follows:

The life is characterized as the light of men (1:4b). This light shines in the darkness and is not appropriated by sinful man (1:5).  (MY words, it seems as if Brian Wagner’s understanding of John 1:9 is already being exposed as faulty) With reference to this light, the Baptist bears testimony (verses 6, 7) The latter was not the perfect and original light, in whose radiance all other lights seem dim, but he came to bear testimony with respect to the light (verses 8. 9). THIS LIGHT IS NOW REJECTED BY GOD’S CHILDREN VERSES 10-13

John 1:9-11New King James Version (NKJV

That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.[a]

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

11 He came to His own,[b] and His own[c]did not receive him.

From this context, it is clear that the terms life and light belong to the spiritual sphere. Moreover, both in the Fourth Gospel and in the First Epistle the term life always (54 times ) moves in that realm. When one really possesses this life, he experiences close fellowship with God in Christ (17:3) The meaning is similar in the book of Revelation  (book of life, the water of life, the tree of life, crown of life).

And the life was the light of men – When life is manifested, it is called light, for it is characteristic of light to shine forth. Since the fall, which is implied already here in the last clause of verse 4, that light was proclaimed to men. Mankind was characterized by DARKNESS, EVIL, AND HATRED, WHICH ARE THE ANTONYMS OF LIGHT. To them (especially Israel; see the explanation of verses 10, 11 throughout the old dispensation the truth and the love of God in Christ were proclaimed. Truth and love are synonyms of light. (For both antonyms and synonyms see 3:19-21; 1 John 1:8-10) Of course one should not limit the meaning of the term light to just these two attributes (truth and love); they represent all God’s attributes. In the work of salvation all the divine attributes were displayed.  They were proclaimed to sinful men.

5. And the light shines in the darkness – Cf. verse 9: the light illumines every man. Note the change from the imperfect to the present tense: not only was the light shining throughout the old dispensation; is is shining still, for it is the very characteristic of light to shine. Moreover, whereas the Word (Christ) is the One in whom the life resides and by whom it is made to shine forth as light he is also himself called the light (Cf. 1:9 8:12, 1 John 2:8)  Like the sun in the sky this light shines forth in the mother-promise (Gen. 3:15) in the book of Exodus with its Passover Lamb and all other types, in Leviticus with its offerings that point forward to the shedding of Christ’s blood. in 

The sad response to this communication of the light is stated in the second part of verse 5: BUT THE DARKNESS DID NOT APPROPRIATE IT.

The darkness to this evangelist refers has a concrete meaning, it refers to fallen mankind, darkened by sin and unbelief. This darkness is the antagonist of Christ, the light. IT is an active personal darkness: it did not accept or appropriate the light.

Then comes verses 6, 7, and 8 where John the Baptist is introduced who was commissioned by God for the purpose of testifying of the Christ the true light.

Now for John 1:9 and the actual literal understanding of it found in God’s word. May my acquaintance Brian take note and as he has espoused this misunderstanding publically, may he have truth in his inward parts that will flow out with truth realities, that being speaking the truth in love and humility and recant and repent and give his listeners the correct understanding of John 1:9

9. The true light which enlightens everyone, was coming in the world

Christ is here called the true light (for the reason, see under verse 5). The word which has been translated is (alethinos) which means real, ideal, genuine. The Word is the perfect light in whose reliance all other lights seem dim.

This light illumines every man. Among many interpretations which have been given and must be considered are the following,

a. Christ who is the light actually grants spiritual illumination in the highest and fullest sense of the term, to every human being dwelling on earth without exception.

b. He grants spiritual illumination, which renews both heart and mind to every covenant child (elect or not) Some lose it again.

c. He grants this supreme blessing to every man who is saved; in the sense that not one of the saved receives his illumination from any other source.

d. He bestows upon every human individual, without exception the light of reason and conscience.

e. He illumines every man who hears the Gospel; he imparts a degree of understanding concerning spiritual matters (not necessarily resulting in salvation) to all those whose ears and minds are reached by the message of salvation The majority, however, do not respond favorably. Many who have the light prefer the darkness. Some, however, due entirely to the sovereign, saving grace of God receive the word with the proper attitude of heart and mind and obtain everlasting life.

Interpretations a. and b. can be rejected at once. The fourth gospel teaches a limited atonement (I challenge anyone to prove otherwise, The Father gave all authority over all flesh to Jesus, that he should GIVE ETERNAL LIFE TO ALL THE FATHER HAD GIVEN HIM.  AND THIS WAS SAID BEFORE HE HAD STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE DISCIPLES. I think the non-calvinist at times are willfully blind because they will not interact with a verse like this John 17:2) Not everyone is saved, but those who are saved remain saved (John 10:28)

Although d is favored by eminent conservative exegetes and proclaims an element of truth that must not be denied, we do not believe that is this context—-the reference is specifically to the light of reason and conscience. We accept the position that the light of which John speaks is the life of God in Christ, —and therefore Christ himself—-made manifest to the world by the preaching of the gospel.

Our only answer can be e or c and we prefer the latter being C.  Christ is the Light Who came into the world in order to give light to all whom God intends to enlighten. (vv. 9, 10; cf. 3-19-21)  ( I think this is where Brian has misunderstood has I have in the past myself, we see it as “every man coming into the world Christ enlightens” but if we really look at the context it is Christ who is coming into the world and enlightening everyone. Does this mean every single person without exception; In no way, experience and scripture advises and teaches us otherwise. (but it is Christ coming into the world enlightening all whom God intends to enlighten) Frequently, from the wording of the King James Version, people think that John is saying that Christ enlightens every man coming into the world. That is not what the passage is saying. The phrase coming into the world refers not to every man but to Christ.  It is He Who is the subject of the context, and the subject has to do with His entrance by the light coming into the world. John wrote that all were actually enlightened, but this does not necessarily mean all without exception as we see from scripture John 17:2 and experience down through history. The word “lighteth” or “enlighten” has the form of the future. 

“This is that light so long expected and predicted, which as the result of its coming into the world will ultimately enlighten universally in a limited sense.”

John 3:19-21New King James Version (NKJV)

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

Rev. 5

Worthy Is the Lamb

Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us[d] kings[e] and priests to our God;
And we[f] shall reign on the earth.”

May revisit Brian Wagner’s Hyper Light of Christ Theory/Fallacy again

Dr James White Shows how Amateurish and Sophomoric Dr Leighton Flowers is when explaining Soteriology when using playdough or stickmen.

Dr White was at the top of his game yesterday as he systematically tore down Dr Leighton Castle of playdough and stickmen,  Leighton the sticker on your homepage on facebook about getting the old man to lay down and play dead because the Calvinist will not know the difference shows me that you definitely do not understand that illustration and you never were a real calvinist of any sorts.  When the Calvinist say the wicked sinner is dead like Lazarus they are saying their is no spiritual life but spiritual death in Him and all he can do is that which is what spiritually dead sinners do and that is spiritually dead sinful things.  So when God called Lazarus from the tomb he was no longer dead and when he effectually calls the wicked sinner from his spiritual tomb he is regenerated and their is life, conviction of sin, repentance humility, faith toward God in Christ,  He is now Spiritually alive and will do things that are pleasing to God through Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

I know you really like debating Dr. White, but as you can see what he did with you illustration that you were so confident with yesterday, Dr. White is a different Breed and you  not want him exposing you and your false teachings for what they are.  Dr/ Allen spent 6 or 8 years writing that book on the extent of the Atonement and James white Cast a huge shadow of doubt on his credentials yesterday.

I know you will not be able to restrain yourself, you will strike back at Dr. White.  I only ask that you seriously watch and listen to what he said about you and Dr allen at least 5 times and pray that your heart will be opened to the truth Dr. Flowers.

God bless in the love of Christ