Benjamin Joseph

BERIT - New videos every week.

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

Corrections and additions**

Satan has us all.

He continues to blind us to the truth.

But, say’s scripture, God has chosen many for mercy.

He offers salvation to all but the world will not and cannot believe apart from divine intervention. God in His mercy powerfully & effectually brings His elect to saving faith in Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit.

In His sovereignty He has also chosen to pass over many, allowing them to remain in their sin and under the power of Satan.

God does this because His saving grace is a free gift in Christ to be dispensed as He chooses, His mercy is not obligated towards anyone.

God desires to reveal wrath on judgment day as well as mercy so that His glory might shine forth more completely.

God is God, welcome to Christianity.

[Dinesh D'Souza @DineshDSouza]

Satan wants us all.

He uses all his power to get us.

But, say Calvinists, God doesn’t want us all.

He could offer everyone salvation, but won’t.

In fact, God predestines many people created “in His image” for Satan.

To prove His “glory.”

Is this Christianity?

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

Wesley Huff - “God's love is grounded in His sovereignty. God would commit no injustice in condemning all sinners, yet in His love He sent His Son and grants saving faith to some through the preaching of the gospel. God's love is therefore real and genuine, but it operates within the framework of His just governance and free election, not in opposition to them.”

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say” - Martin Luther

Every other view other than Calvinism is a watered down version of God’s grace in the gospel.

👍🏼

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

The Arminian says that God has a general but not a specific plan; but the Calvinist says that God has a specific plan which embraces all events in all ages. In recognizing that the eternal God has an eternal plan in which is predetermined every event that comes to pass, the Calvinist simply recognizes that God is God, and frees Him from all human limitations.

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

@Sonshipintl Happy birthday for yesterday Eric. God bless you! You mentioned you were studying election a few months ago. Did you come to a better understanding of your position, how’s that study going?

[Eric Gilmour @Sonshipintl]

The honey that gratifies his taste is not found in angels' visits, or miraculous signs, or officiating priesthoods, or special revelations, but in the words of God's mouth, and in the testimonies of Holy Writ. Let us, then, dear brethren, prize this Book of God. Be not ambitious, as some are, of seeking new revelations, or enquire for the whispers disembodied spirits, but be satisfied with this good household bread which God has prepared for his people; and while others may loathe and dislike it, let us be thankful for it and acknowledge with gratitude the bread which came down from heaven, testifying to us, as it does, of the Love of Jesus, the Word of life that liveth and abideth for ever.”
-Spurgeon

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

@1984_nate He calls some people earlier in their life and others later according to His own purpose which He set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time. God does as He pleases, when He pleases… He’s sovereign. That’s the answer :)

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

You asked for it @Soteriology101

Dr. Leighton Flowers Vs Jeremiah Nortier : Conditional or Unconditional Election?

Claude ai Opus 5:

Verdict: Nortier won on execution; the resolution itself stayed unsettled.
Where Nortier landed real hits
His cross-examination on Romans 8:30 was the single best argument of the night, and it wasn’t merely a gotcha. Flowers’ whole case for the “past saints” reading rests on the aorist verbs implying completed past reference. Nortier showed that Flowers has to treat edoxasen as not fully realized even for Abraham — which means the aorist doesn’t carry the weight Flowers’ argument needs. If the aorist can describe an incomplete reality on Flowers’ view, it can describe prospective certainty on Nortier’s. That’s a genuine internal defeater, not a trap.
His treatment of proginōskō as covenantal knowing (Amos 3:2) was also stronger than Flowers’ “those formerly known,” which Flowers never really defended lexically.
Where Nortier underperformed
He spent nearly his entire 20 minutes on one link in the chain and left Flowers’ actual arguments standing. Flowers’ complaint about this was fair. Specifically:
•Ephesians 1: Nortier correctly caught the “by faith” misquote, but never engaged the corporate/headship reading of en autō, which was Flowers’ real argument.
•Matthew 22: “it’s an analogy within time, God is beyond time” is not an exegetical answer.
•Under Flowers’ best question — which text states election is unconditional? — Nortier answered “Romans 8:29–30.” But a classical Arminian accepts the chain entire and disputes only proginōskō. The chain establishes certainty; it doesn’t by itself establish unconditionality. That gap went unclosed.
•“Man is not God” and “which view glorifies God more?” are assertions, not arguments, and Flowers’ special-pleading charge stuck on those.
Where Flowers underperformed
Badly on preparation — “I’d have to study that” a dozen times on the passage his own book treats at length is damaging. His tassō handling in Acts 13:48 was thin. The Augustine-as-innovator line is genetic and historically contestable. And several of his conditions aren’t conditions in Paul’s sense — 1 Cor 1:27–28 lists the weak and foolish precisely to exclude qualification.
Where he did well
His asymmetry challenge was the sharpest thing he raised: if God decrees the fall, He decrees the condition for reprobation as surely as the condition for salvation, so the conditional/unconditional labels do real work only if the mercy/justice distinction is defended. Nortier gestured at it but never developed it. Flowers also correctly pressed the infra/supra tension, though Nortier’s logical-versus-temporal-priority answer was the standard reply and Flowers never engaged it.
Net
Nortier controlled the room, chose favourable ground, and dismantled Flowers’ distinctive reading of a key text. That’s a win on points. But dismantling one minority interpretation isn’t the same as demonstrating the resolution, and the positive case for unconditional — as opposed to certain — election was never fully built under pressure.

[Soteriology101 🩸 @Soteriology101]

I want to test the objectivity of AI. Can some of you ask this exact same question and see if you also get a similar answer that I have or is Grok bias on my account?

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

Wesley ‘Limited-Atonement’ Huff. Good stuff brotha. @WesleyLHuff

[Wes Huff @WesleyLHuff]

Mediating on Ephesians 5 today. Christ “gave himself up for” the church (Eph 5:25), and he is “himself its Savior” (Eph 5:23), language suggesting a defined body for whom the sacrifice was specifically made. In a same way, Jesus tells us that the good shepherd “lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11, 15), and these sheep “hear my voice,” are known by Christ, and “will never perish” (John 10:26–28). The shepherd metaphor distinguishes between those who are Christ’s sheep and those who are not, those who “do not believe” are “not among my sheep” (John 10:26–28).

The language of substitution reinforces this particularity. Jesus “will save his people from their sins” (Matt 1:21), he won’t try to save, make people saveable, or attempt to save, but will accomplish the act for his people specifically. Jesus does not desire to save people and fail. He accomplishes the act of salvation and restoration. The church was “obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28), suggesting an actual acquisition of a defined people. Christ “gave himself” to “redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession” (Titus 2:14); language indicating the accomplishment of redemption for those redeemed, not a mere offer extended to all.

Christ’s intercessory work further illuminates this pattern. In prayer, Christ states: “I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me” (John 17:9), and he “consecrate[s]” himself “for their sake” so “they also may be sanctified” (John 17:19). His self-consecration corresponds to those for whom he prays, a specific group, not humanity universally.

The sacrificial terminology employed throughout Scripture, redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation, implies actual accomplishment rather than mere potential.

The servant “bore the sin of many” (Isa 53:11–12), and the Son of Man gave “his life as a ransom for many” (Matt 20:28). When Scripture speaks of Christ’s death achieving these effects, it describes completed realities for those included, not conditional possibilities for all.

[𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡 @HwsEleutheroi]

I would like to make a few quick comments on the @DineshdSouza anti-Calvinism crusade going on right now.

First, Mr. D'Souza just indicated he is ordering one of the most basic books on Reformed soteriology, one that every Calvinist I know owns and has read: Sproul's _Chosen By God_. That's a great first step, but it also illustrates the problem. Dinesh has not given any of us any reason to believe he actually understands the position he is vigorously denying. That's what caught my attention. So, first...

Let's stop talking about a debate for now. Debates are great: I will list some of my formal, public, moderated debates below on this topic. But some of them are not useful, such as the one I did with Steve Tassi. OK, entertaining, but not overly useful in the long run. And I don't want to invest time in such a debate at the moment. Here is my suggestion. Let Dinesh read Sproul. Think about it. Work on it. Understand it. I think he would find _The Potter's Freedom_ even more useful, given its apologetic orientation, but for now...Sproul will do. And then, let's give him room to...back track. Realize that all of his objections are basic, and have been addressed by our side again and again and again at a very deep level. Give him the room to grow, to learn, and to go, "OK, sorry...much more to this than I originally thought." Dinesh is a smart man . I've profited from much of what he has written and produced. I'd like to see him given room to take a step back and go, "OK, let's rethink this."

Secondly, I would like to invite Dinesh to consider this: if I were to all of a sudden show up start haranguing his most recent book, and he asks, “When did you read it?” and I answer, “I haven’t,” how much credibility would I have? In the same way, I have written three books on this topic, one of which is very widely used and very popular. Yet it is clear Dinesh hasn’t read it yet…he will dismiss my “videos” as just surface level proof texting? I will hazard a guess: he has not listened to a full debate on this topic, not even the ones with Flowers, let alone the more serious ones with Bryson and Brown. I’d like him to consider what this might mean for his conclusions.

Next, I would like to ask him if he has read any, or all, of the following:

The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. Fundamental reading for Western Civilization, truly, let alone for Reformed theology, and for “Calvinism.”

Institutes of Elenctic Theology by Francis Turretin. At least the relevant sections on soteriology. Height of Reformed scholasticism, and surely sufficient to keep a person from making off-hand comments about how surface-level Reformed teaching supposedly is.

Jonathan Edwards, The Freedom of the Will. Classic Reformed treatment that would disabuse Dinesh of every one of the rather silly statements he has made about man not being able to make choices, etc. (Reformed theology says we make choices, obviously: the issue is the bondage of the will to sin, and hence the options from which to choose in making said choices).

The Existence and Attributes of God by Stephen Charnock. At its base, the debate over “Calvinism” is a debate over theology proper. I have always said, a consistent Arminian is an Open Theist. There is a reason why that is a very defensible proposition.

And let’s let ol’ Luther have his say. Has Dinesh read the first written debate of the Reformation, that between Luther (On the Bondage of the Will) and Desiderius Erasmus?

So look…a debate would be great, but, I am simply stating this honestly: I have not seen Mr. D’Souza make an objection so far that shows he has a CLUE what the other side is actually saying. And I say that with standing: I know how to debate. I’ve done more than 200 moderated, public debates all around the world on dozens of topics, not just this one. I’ve gotten pretty good at being able to tell who has done their homework and who is making it up as they go along. Want evidence? OK, let’s start with a few debates on Calvinism, going back over a quarter of a century:

https://t.co/t8PRfzX1tH
https://t.co/6aROuHGd7F

And the Tassi debate which, while entertaining, was not exactly edifying in the long run:

https://t.co/RZQJZZSlKU

And a few others simply demonstrating that formal, public, moderated debate is something we have been engaged in for, oh, let’s see…as of this month, I just realized…36 years (started August of 1990):

Vs. Bart Ehrman: https://t.co/IWNY5DSafr

Vs. John Dominic Crossan: https://t.co/35tPzoQKtI

Vs. John Shelby Spong: https://t.co/uVCuVT5h3D

Vs. Shabir Ally (Abu Bakr Siddiq Mosque, Erasmia, South Africa: https://t.co/jZxPSqniKw

Vs. Dr. Abdullah Kunde, Australia: https://t.co/gnk5EmV57A

Vs. Atheist David Silverman: https://t.co/x2SulRpdlV

Vs. Atheist Dan Barker: https://t.co/hCmZC1Y4C5

And, of course, all the debates with Mitch Pacwa, Gerry Matatics, Patrick Madrid, etc. and etc.

So, let’s let Mr. D’Souza do some reading…and then we can talk about formal debate. As for me, I have been working for months in preparation for my next such debate October 17th in Gilbert, Arizona vs. Eastern Orthodox representative Craig Truglia. Thesis: “Icon Veneration as Taught by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II) in 787 is Apostolic” (I am, of course, taking the negative).

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

It’s not enough to say “i follow Christ” and think all is well. You must lose your life for Him, pick up your cross and follow Him, you must obey Christ or you will not be saved. There is no “we should” or “we ought”… we MUST. And we must do it heartily. #christisking

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

Salvation isn’t a ticket to heaven. It’s a gift of God, justification is a work of God alone. Sanctification is Gods working in and through us. Entering the kingdom on the day of judgement is all because Christ died for our sins, but we will be judged according to works on that day, and these works are required/necessary in the believer, without which they will not enter the kingdom. These works are the works God has worked in us by His spirit. There is far too much going on to boil it down to “your ticket to heaven”. This poll is unanswerable. And to those who think “what?! Ofcourse it’s the goodness of Jesus and nothing else”. This person needs to go a bit deeper. Read the judgment passages and see how all of them teach a judgement according to works. We must think more deeply about these things than simply pick one of three options with an unhelpful question.

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

@rootcausesleuth I denounce this comment. I praise God for working both good and evil for my good and His glory, but not for the evil itself.

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

Christian YouTuber Examines Joe Weller's
Conversion

Watch full video here 🙏🏼
https://t.co/f2SdOcxlx9

#joeweller @joe_weller_ #christian #jesus #bible #reformed

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

@The_Idol_Killer @WesleyLHuff What an embarrassment

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

@jtftweets @MikeWingerii You kinda just proved his point

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

@datechris Very excited

[Benjamin Joseph @BeritBible]

This is not our home, we are simply travellers until He returns.