 Layton, let me just put it this way, you're not cut like that. You can't determine what's good for God. You can't determine what's just and what's unjust. Who are you Layton? Hey everybody, welcome back to the Smart Christian Channel. My name is Corey Miner and again, if this is your first time, please hit the subscribe button as well as the bell notification button. That way you'll always be notified of any videos we have in the future. Also remember to share this video if it's been a blessing or benefit to anyone. Please remember to leave a comment or suggestion also. If you look at YouTube and you see a lot of different commentary back and forth about armenianism and Calvinism, you're probably going to come across a name by the name of Layton Flowers and his channel, Soteriology 101. I am somewhat familiar with what Layton Flowers has done because most of what he does isn't just limited to the Soteriology 101 channel. But there's something about Layton Flowers or something that he is saying that it's kind of not sitting right with me and it's a bit troubling. Layton Flowers does not hold to Calvinism and I'm not here to argue whether which system of theology is correct, whether it is armenianism, whether it's Calvinism, which form a branch of it, whether it's covenant theology or whether it's dispensationalism and which type of dispensationalism you are. That's not really what I'm here to talk about. But I want to discuss something that he seems to be, that is Layton Flowers seems to be promoting that is without question in error and is troubling. I'm not really bothered too much by the fact that he does take a narrow focus on going against or refuting Calvinism. The problem with that is that so many people if they don't know and many of them don't know that there's more than just these two different systems, Calvinism and Armenianism. And what ends up happening is if you promote one or the other solely then those who listen to you who aren't as educated or as informed in terms of systematic theology and so forth, they end up staking a claim also and it becomes us versus them sort of bantered back and forth. Both have some good people and both have some people who they go a little too far. And I wouldn't dare accuse Dr. Flowers as being one who promotes that because he's even talked about how there needs to be some civility between the two and he believes that there is a lot of commonality between the two. But it does tend to bring about some offsprings and it sometimes produce some unhealthy dialogue from people who would say that Calvinists aren't Christians or have this vitriolic way of attacking Calvinists. There's one guy I think of, I can't think of the guy's name, but beyond the fundamentals or something like that, I'm not sure what his name is, but silliness, foolishness, but this guy would get on here on YouTube and argue that Calvinists or not all of them or many of them aren't stopping. I'm not talking about him, but that's the kind of things that happen. Those are the kind of fruits that are produced when you take a really, really narrow focus on one particular part of soteriology. I mean, that's the name of the channel, soteriology 101. And so some people think that that's what the battle is about. And it's not. But that's not so much what my bigger point is. I mean, if that's what you want to, if you want to spend time focusing on whether Calvinism is true or not, no problem. I think arguing for sound doctrine, if you think that's sound doctrine on the other side, if you think the other side of sound doctrine, that's fine. I think you ought to be more responsible, but I think people ought to be more responsible with what they say and how they lead people. But I'm not even bothered by what seems to be latent. I think misunderstanding of what some people believe election is, whereas he says that he thinks that Calvinism teaches that election chooses some to be safe and naturally chooses God naturally chooses some to go to hell. God destined some for heaven and then God also destined, necessarily, destined the rest for hell. But that's not at all what election teaches. And I've heard him quote 2nd Peter 3 where it says that God is not willing that any should perish. And I'm not sure how familiar he is with Greek, but the Greek word that's used in that passage is the Greek word bulamanos, which means not willing in the sense that he wants to, but is that he has not planned or determined anyone to go to hell or anyone to perish. So he can't say, no one can say that election means that God has predetermined those to go to hell, because what he doesn't understand or seems to understand, I might be wrong. But it's not that God has started off people from this neutral standpoint and that everyone is on neutral footing and now they have to either go to heaven or they have to go to hell. No, we start off the default position is on our way to hell. That just is what it is. Because of the sin, the default position is that God will see us in hell if nothing else happens. But even with that, I'm not too bothered because of what I see might be a possible misunderstanding of what election is. No, what bothers me about soteriology 101 and latent flowers is, well, first of all, soteriology 101 would seem to imply that this is the basics or the building block of salvation. What is the beginning of salvation? Certainly God, he is the beginning and end, but the beginning of salvation must necessarily start with the condition of man and where he's going to, why there is a need for salvation. And so we have to start off with this premise about God and what God is going to do, since he is the one that's saving us. And here is where I've got a problem with latent flowers, where I have to say, latent flowers, you're just wrong on this issue. The things that God does, they are good, obviously, and I think everyone would agree with that. But are they good because it's what God does or God only does the things that are good? In other words, are we determining what is good or is God determining that? Latent flowers has taken the premise that, let's say, and I'm not arguing this point right now, but if God wanted to send some to hell and some to heaven, would that make him unjust? What was happening here, and I'm not sure if he's catching this, is that latent flowers is now becoming the arbiter, the judge of what's good, what's just. No, whatever God deems he wants to do is good. Whatever he does is just. He's not obligated to anything or anyone. As a matter of fact, let me just give you all just a basic definition for what it means for God to be sovereign. Means that he can do what he wants, when he wants, to whom he wants, just because he wants. No one is old in explanation because remember, we don't start off in the rightest position deserving anything good. And so whatever God decides to do, it's automatically good. It doesn't mean that God only has the ability to choose from this category or that or that or that. Only these things that we think are good, only God can do these things, but he can't do those things. Because if he does those things, I don't think that's just, but that's good. And if he does those things, then that would make him unjust. So what I'm saying is this. And Layton Flower says that if God were to choose some to go to hell, if God were to be the reason or the cause, as some may say, for others to go to hell, that would make God unjust. Or as you would put it, if God passes by some people on their way to hell, he not only says that would make God unjust, but make him unbiblical, unChrist-like. No, Layton, you don't get a chance, you can't do that. And let me just put it this way, you're not cut like that. You're not cut like that in the sense that you can't determine what's good for God. You can't determine what's just and what's unjust. Who are you, Layton? Matter of fact, let's just look at the same issue brought up in the very beginning. Now I don't know if this was the first book or the second book, but one of the two, that is the book of Job. We haven't really determined which book was written first, but look at the argument that's going out in Job. In Job and his three friends and this other one, this younger one, Elihu, who tells Job about himself because Job is trying to figure out, is God unjust for doing certain things? God, you can only do certain things because I'm just, I haven't done anything and look at what's happening to me. And Job doesn't get it. As a matter of fact, Job's friends, they don't get it either. But here comes Elihu and let's look at what he says. God had rebuked not only Job, but also Job's three friends. But he did not rebuke Elihu. Why? Because Elihu had a proper perspective of God's sovereignty and how just God is. Look at chapter 37 of Job and let's see what Elihu is saying about God. And let's see what it is that I think Mr. Flowers, as well as others, need to understand about God first and foremost. Look at verse five. He says, God thunders marvelously with his voice. He does great things which we cannot comprehend. Verse six, for he says to the snow fall on the earth, likewise to the gentle rain and the heavy rains of his strength. He seals the hand of every man that all men may know his words. The beasts go into dens and remain in their layers. From the chambers of the south comes the whirlwind and cold from the scouting winds of the north. By the breath of God, ice is given and the broad waters are frozen. Also with moisture, he saturates with thick clouds. He scatters his bright clouds. Verse 12, and they swirl about being turned by his guidance that they may do whatever he commands them on the face of the whole earth. Look at verse 13. He causes it to come whether for correction or for his land or for mercy. Listen to this, O Job, stand still and consider the wondrous work of God. So for whatever reason God does what he does, it could be, as he says, for correction or for his land or for his mercy. The reasons that God would do what he does, God, I mean, the reason why God will do what he wants to, there are different reasons. It could be because he just wants to show how loving and how kind he is. It could be for correction. It can be to bring about another part of his will. It could be for a lot of different reasons. But the thing is, whatever he does, he's good and just for doing it. He doesn't have to do it so that it makes sense for you or for me. Because Layton, you don't determine what's good for God. Just like I don't determine what's good for God. I'm a mere man who whatever he wants to do. Think about this. Man starts off in the category, at least since Adam and Eve's fall, on their way to hell. And if God decides that every single person born on the planet goes to hell, is he just, is he good for that? Yeah, he is. I don't get to determine what's good for God to do. If God determines that he's going to save some, is he just? Sure he is. If God determines, then determines that most, 99% of the people, he won't save. Is he still just? And I'm just, I'm not picking aside, right now I'm not. But if he only, if he does that, is he just? Yes, he's just. Stop saying that he does, if he doesn't do the thing that you think he ought to do that he's unjust. Consider this, Mr. Flowers or anyone else. If God sent a snake into a peaceful garden that caused chaos, would he be just? Because that's what happened. Satan is kicked out of heaven, comes into the garden and God knows full well what is going to happen. Adam and Eve are going to succumb and they are going to sin and sin will enter into the world. Did God know that was going to happen? Yes, could God have prevented that? Sure he could have. Why didn't he? I don't know. Is it okay to say I don't know? It absolutely is. As a matter of fact, you better, because if you can tell me why he allowed that, I'm your follower now. But you can't. And he didn't owe me that explanation, just like he didn't owe you that explanation. But what we do know is that God still makes a way for us to be reconciled to him. Why do all this? I don't know. I couldn't tell you. But I do know this one thing. Regardless of whether you side on the God of Arminianism, or the God of Calvinism, or the God of covenant theology, or the God of dispensationalism, or the Baptist God, the Methodist God, the Episcopalian God, the Church of Christ, Church of God, and Christ God, it doesn't matter. I don't care what the result or the conclusion that you come to, but where you're wrong at is trying to conclude, it looks that way, trying to conclude that if God is the God of this particular system, then he's unjust and God is an unjust God for that. No. No. No. You are wrong on that point. Now again, I might be wrong. I may have misunderstood your point, but if I have understood it properly, and if your point is to say that if God behaves in a particular manner, then he is unjust, that's the issue I take. Because however he behaves, whatever he does, he's good. He's unjust.