Podcasts about Calvinism

Chadd Wright joins Joe Rogan, who hosts the most popular podcast in US, to talk about his life and his faith. Chadd does well to talk boldly about his faith, but unfortunately he shares Calvinism rather than Biblical truth. Let's Discuss!   To get your copy of Dr. Flowers new book, Drawn By Jesus, go here: https://a.co/d/6s767Ey   To SUPPORT this broadcast, please click here: https://soteriology101.com/support/   Subscribe to the Soteriology 101 Newsletter here: www.soteriology101.com/newsletter   Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22/is-calvinism-all-you-talk-about/   DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: https://play.google.com/store/apps/de... LINK FOR APPLE: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/soterio...   Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software development needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!!   To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip,” please click here: https://soteriology101.com/shop/   To listen to the audio only, be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or one of the other podcast players found here: https://soteriology101.com/home/   For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism), please visit www.soteriology101.com   Dr. Flowers' book, “The Potter's Promise,” can be found here: https://a.co/d/iLKpahj   Dr. Flowers' book, “God's Provision for All” can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Provision...   To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: https://m.facebook.com/groups/1806702...   For updates and news, follow us at:  www.facebook/Soteriology101   Or @soteriology101 on Twitter   Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!   To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers, go here: https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...   To become a Patreon supporter or make a one-time donation: https://soteriology101.com/support/   #LeightonFlowers #Calvinism #Theology

Send us a textWe continue our discussion on...If we begin with the Presupposition that the Bible is our only source of Absolute Truth, then does the Bible support the theology of Determinism? www.LeagueOfLogic.com

Audio Block Double-click here to upload or link to a .mp3. Learn more

Listen to the archived services of Community Baptist Temple in Akron, OH

Steve discusses FBI Director Kash Patel's revelation that the raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago was "not lawful" and says that if something isn't lawful, it's against the law, which means people should be arrested. Then, the team continues studying Romans 9, this time focusing on the aspect of God's sovereignty, Arminianism, and Calvinism. Finally, Ana Hibbs joins the show to report on what's trending with Gen Z. TODAY'S SPONSORS: CONSTITUTION WEALTH MANAGEMENT: https://constitutionwealth.com/Blaze RELIEF FACTOR: VISIT https://www.relieffactor.com/ OR CALL 800-4-RELIEF JASE MEDICAL: https://jasemedical.com/ and enter code “DEACE” at checkout for a discount on your order BEAM: https://shopbeam.com/products/sleep-powder?discount=steve&variant=40436356710455&selling_plan=787415095&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=sponsorship&utm_campaign=steve and use code STEVE at checkout MOXIE PEST SERVICES: Visit https://moxieservices.com/steve/ and use promo code STEVE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

August 19, 2025 Jerry Duckworth,author & prison minister with Christ-Song Ministry, who will address: “7 POINTS of CALVINISM” Subscribe: Listen:

Straight Outta Chicago! The only Reformed Baptist rapper I know of: Regenerit! Who wudda thunk it? From writing rhymes as a young kid to a quiver full of kids, we discuss the art of rap, conversion, discipleship, church membership, family, theology, and 4 songs that showcase the artistic creativity possible when you have a passion for Christocentric expressions of faith combined with a boom bap sound! We are all about Christocentrism at Urban Puritano. Don't forget your wallet in El Segundo and enjoy!This episode is affectionately dedicated to Carlos (last name rhymes with gorgeous)!

Dr. Leighton Flowers plays some clips from Apologist and Theologian, Wes Huff, in order to discover and engage with his specific soteriological views.   To watch the original conversation with Wes, go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p58vknxGR4I  

On this episode, Luke has a conversation with Dr. Jeffrey Koperski to discuss Foreknowledge, Determinism, Free-Will, Compatbilism, and basically everything related to Calvinism and Arminianism! Dr. Koperski (PhD) is a professor at Saginaw Valley State University. He is the author of "The Physics of Theism: God, Physics, and the Philosophy of Science" (https://amzn.to/455y9VE) and "Divine Action, Determinism, and the Laws of Nature" (https://amzn.to/3TZvzLT) as well as numerous scholarly articles which can be found here: https://svsu.academia.edu/JeffreyKoperski You can also find him on X: https://x.com/jeffkoperski  ❇️ Recommended John Wimber Books ❇️ "Power Healing," by John Wimber (https://amzn.to/2HiA3YV) "Power Evangelism,' by John Wimber (https://amzn.to/2TP6Nyd) "Power Points," by John Wimber (https://amzn.to/31NwqSC) "Everyone Gets to Play," by John Wimber (https://amzn.to/2Z4PJdf) "The Way In is the Way On," by John Wimber (https://amzn.to/2ZdiTCg) ❇️ Recommended Books ABOUT John Wimber ❇️ "John Wimber: The Way it Was," by Carol Wimber (https://amzn.to/2HiUFQJ) "Never Trust a Leader Without a Limp: The Wit and Wisdom of John Wimber," by Glenn Schroder (https://amzn.to/3PtHvSM) "Worshiping with the Anaheim Vineyard: The Emergence of Contemporary Worship," by Andy Park, Lester Ruth, & Cindy Rethmeier (https://amzn.to/31TDm0w) "Toronto in Perspective: Papers on the New Charismatic Wave of the 1990s," edited by David Hilborn (https://amzn.to/2L3nIsP) "John Wimber: His Influence & Legacy," edited by David Pytches (https://amzn.to/2ZfgbfC) || FOLLOW US || Website: https://sacramentalcharismatic.substack.com Luke IG: https://instagram.com/lukegeraty Luke Twitter: https://twitter.com/lukegeraty Wes IG: https://www.instagram.com/wesmac5 Wes Twitter: https://twitter.com/wesmac5 SUPPORT US BY SUBSCRIBING AND CONSIDERING BECOMING A PAID SUBSCRIBER!

Send us a textIf we begin with the Presupposition that the Bible is our only source of Absolute Truth, then does the Bible support the theology of Determinism? www.LeagueOfLogic.com

Ryan Adamsfalse

Dr. Leighton Flowers joins the program as Dr. Tim Stratton and Josh Klein discuss the philosophical, theological and pastoral importance of 1 Corinthians 10:13 in the Free Will discussion. It is NOT, something that you can just hand wave away and it only makes sense if Libertarian Free Will is true. Take a look! You can find Dr. Leighton Flowers at  @Soteriology101  and  @BraxtonHunter . Visit https://trinitysem.edu/ for more information on advanced degree programs. Support FreeThinking Ministries: https://freethinkingministries.com/donate/ ➡️ CHAPTERS ⬅️ 00:00 Introduction 03:00 Introducing Dr. Leighton Flowers 05:43 Why Dr. Flowers and Dr. Stratton View 1 Cor. 10:13 As Important 08:47 Dr. Flowers and the Biblical Data 10:18 Why We've Moved Past Divine Determinism 13:53 What Does 1 Corinthians 10:13 SAY? 22:00 Pre-Fall Freedom? 26:35 Are We Taking 1 Corinthians 10:13 Out of Context? 30:20 What Happens When We Smuggle Determinism Into the Text 33:27 A Tail of Two Pastors On Sin 38:14 How the Broader Context Makes LFW Even More Clear 50:00 What About People Who Have "Set Their Wills" Like Addicts? 57:52 Responding to James White on 1 Cor. 10:13 1:11:00 What About Secondary Causes? 1:16:00 Final Thoughts 1:20:55 Conclusion ➡️ SOCIALS ⬅️ Website: https://freethinkingministries.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FreeThinkInc Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freethinkinc X: https://x.com/freethinkmin TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@freethinkinc  

Dr. David Allen is back to discuss his new book, "Liberating Romans from Reformed Captivity: A Critical Evaluation of Calvinism's Interpretation of Paul's Letter." You do not want to miss this interview!   Get a copy of Dr. Allen's book here: https://a.co/d/5AXJgf0   To get your copy of Dr. Flowers new book, Drawn By Jesus, go here: https://a.co/d/6s767Ey   To SUPPORT this broadcast, please click here: https://soteriology101.com/support/   Subscribe to the Soteriology 101 Newsletter here: www.soteriology101.com/newsletter   Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22/is-calvinism-all-you-talk-about/   DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: https://play.google.com/store/apps/de... LINK FOR APPLE: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/soterio...   Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software development needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!!   To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip,” please click here: https://soteriology101.com/shop/   To listen to the audio only, be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or one of the other podcast players found here: https://soteriology101.com/home/   For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism), please visit www.soteriology101.com   Dr. Flowers' book, “The Potter's Promise,” can be found here: https://a.co/d/iLKpahj   Dr. Flowers' book, “God's Provision for All” can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Provision...   To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: https://m.facebook.com/groups/1806702...   For updates and news, follow us at:  www.facebook/Soteriology101   Or @soteriology101 on Twitter   Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!   To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers, go here: https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...   To become a Patreon supporter or make a one-time donation: https://soteriology101.com/support/   #LeightonFlowers #Calvinism #Theology

In this wide-ranging, rabbit-trail-rich episode, Peyton and Pete go full Loveline-meets-Lancashire-hotpot. What starts with a nostalgic nod to late-night radio quickly unravels into a theological deep dive covering Jordan Peterson's spiritual journey, why Wesleyan theology still matters, and how different “gospels” throughout church history reflect the multi-faceted diamond of salvation.Peyton shares why he moved from Calvinism to Free Methodism (spoiler: it's not for the branding) and how resurrection power is the part we've left out of modern soteriology. Pete drops a powerful recap of Free Burma Rangers—a documentary about frontline faith, radical sacrifice, and the gospel lived out under fire.Oh yeah, and they cover Comic-Con access tips, real-time church planter giving strategies, and a whole lot of this and that along the way.Resources and Links Mentioned in this Episode:Reliant Mission: reliant.org/cppNewBreed TrainingThanks for listening to the church planter podcast. We're here to help you go where no one else is going and do what no one else is doing to reach people, no one else is reaching.Make sure to review and subscribe to the show on your favorite podcast service to help us connect with more church planters.

Series: N/AService: Sun PMType: SermonSpeaker: Ryan Boyer

Ryan Adamsfalse

Calvinism. Arminianism. Election. Predestination. Even if these terms mean little to you, at some point you've probably wondered if God chooses some people to go to heaven and some people to go to hell. There are bible verses that might lead you to think so, and entire theologies have been built to explain whether humans really have free will or not. In today's edition of “You Asked For It,” pastor Dan answers the question that was submitted more times than any other: Is salvation my choice of God's? -- GIVE: Visit www.connectcalgary.ca/give to help share #LifeOverflowing across Canada.

Send us a textUnity in the Godhead stands at the core of God's redemptive plan. When we understand how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work in perfect harmony—each fulfilling their distinct role without contradiction or competition—we grasp the magnificent coherence of salvation history.The discussion begins by examining this divine unity: the Father chooses those who will be saved, the Son sheds His blood for their redemption, and the Spirit provides regeneration to the very same individuals. This perfect coordination ensures that salvation is both effective and comprehensive for its intended recipients.A fascinating exploration follows regarding the biblical use of "all"—does Scripture mean every person without exception, or all people without distinction (from every nation and background)? Through practical examples and biblical analysis, we see how context shapes understanding, and how misinterpreting this small word can lead to significant theological confusion.The concept of election emerges naturally from this conversation. While some dismiss divine election as mere "Calvinism," the discussion demonstrates how this truth appears throughout Scripture without any reference to Calvin's theological system. More importantly, we see how God's choice of Israel in the Old Testament served as a type or prototype of His election of the church—the true spiritual Israel composed of believers from every nation.Perhaps most compelling is the examination of Christ's presence throughout the entire biblical narrative. From Genesis to Revelation, Jesus is the thread that holds Scripture together. The Old Testament consistently pointed toward Him through types, shadows, and promises that find their fulfillment in His person and work. As one participant notes, "every true believer should be able to preach the gospel even without the New Testament" because Christ appears on every page of Scripture.The relationship between law and promise reveals another layer of God's consistent plan. Rather than contradicting God's promises, the law served multiple purposes: marking out a people through whom Christ would come, revealing sin, and functioning as a guardian until faith would be fully revealed in Christ. The gospel hasn't changed—it has always been salvation by faith in the promised Seed.Join us as we continue unpacking these profound biblical truths that showcase the beautiful consistency of God's redemptive plan throughout history.Support the show

To say, "I have faithfully declared all the counsel of God and now I must leave results with him," sounds very pious, but it leaves the way open for several serious questions. It is perfectly true that "results" rest entirely with God, for he alone "giveth the increase" (1 Cor. 3:7). But, have we declared all the counsel of God when we have fully expounded the "five points" of Calvinism? We think not.

Today's Podcast is for the spiritually mature, because we'll be discussing a few subjects that many of us including me agree with in principle, but fall way short in practical application. Our two main topics today center around the now-approved plan by Israel for a military takeover of all of Gaza, and the wave of Christian Nationalism brought to use by the New Apostolic Reformation adherents that dominate the Trump administration. If you believe the Bible, both these things will end in bitter failure, there's a reason for that, and we're going to talk about it.“And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.” Genesis 49:1 (KJB)On this episode of the Prophecy News Podcast, we are here on Day 1,971 of 15 Days To Flatten The Curve, and the end times activity continues to pin the needle on the prophecy meter. In the Middle East, Israel is walking into a very unpopular takeover of all of Gaza condemned by Germany, Saudi Arabia and England among others. Even many Israelis in Israel are not happy with this new direction. Over in America, a different problem is taking shape, the ‘apostles' of the New Apostolic Reformation that make up the majority of the “Christians” in the Trump administration want to create a theocracy. Launched back in May with a blog post entitled ‘Mission To Babylon', a church has been planted in Washington, DC, that says they are ‘a Conservative, Reformed, & Evangelical church in D.C. We affirm the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, and the Westminster Confession of Faith.' Calvinism, NAR and Evangelical all rolled into one, big, fat mess. Oh, boy, is that ever a recipe for Laodicean disaster. But into the breech we go on this edition of the Prophecy News Podcast!

National Book Week … GUEST Dr Richard Mouw ... professor of faith & public life at Fuller Theo Seminary in Pasadena, CA, where he served as president for 20 yrs ... written numerous books, incl “Adventures in Evangelical Civility,” “Uncommon Decency,” “Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport,”“The Smell of Sawdust,” and the newest “Restless Faith: Holding evangelical beliefs in a world of Contested Labels” Who created God? ... GUEST Astrophysicist & author Dr Hugh Ross … senior scholar & founder of Reasons to Believe, an organization that researches & communicates how discoveries about nature harmonize w the words of the Bible … his books include “The Creator & the Cosmos,” “Why the Universe Is the Way It Is,” and “Improbable Planet” It’s So Unfair … GUEST Anne Kennedy ...author of “Nailed It: 365 Sarcastic Devotionals for Angry and Worn Out People” ... She blogs everyday at her substack “Demotivations w Anne”.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“What is the Church's teaching on predestination?” In this episode, we explore the nuances of predestination, examining the perspectives of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas in relation to Calvinism. Additionally, we address whether practicing “chair yoga” is acceptable for those with disabilities and delve into the question of why Jesus descended into hell as stated in the Creed. Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: Click Here Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit Catholicanswersspeakers.com Questions Covered: 03:00 – What is the Church's teaching on predestination? It seems like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas seems to be in agreement with Calvinism? 34:47 – I'm disabled. Is it ok for me to practice “chair yoga”? 50:20 – Why did Jesus go to hell as stated in the Creed?

What drives a brilliant 27-year-old humanist scholar to abandon his promising legal career and pen one of history's most influential theological works? Join Dr. Alan Strange as he unravels the early life of John Calvin and explores the unexpected twists that led from French nobility's secretarial service to revolutionary religious thought.We'll learn how a father's excommunication, a sudden conversion, and a chance encounter in Geneva shaped the man whose theology would "exalt God and abase man" like no other system before it. From his humanist education alongside future Jesuits to his reluctant partnership with the fiery reformer Guillaume Farel, this episode reveals the human story behind the formidable intellect.Dr. Strange also addresses the question: Why does Calvinism provoke such strong reactions? His answer might surprise you. Plus, learn about the political intrigue of the Placard Affair that forced Calvin's dramatic flight from France, setting the stage for his world-changing work in Geneva.

We open up our new series diving into Romans chapter 9! We discuss some of the deeper perspective on an ongoing debate within our faith. Calvinism, Arminianism, personal address?

In this episode, we welcome Joby Martin back to the show. In this interview, we discuss what it's like rolling with Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and MMA legend Royce Gracie and how Royce made him “panic tap”, whether or not he thinks Artificial Intelligence coupled with quantum computing will spell the end of humanity, what he thinks about pastors using AI to write their sermons, why he doesn't specifically preach about Calvinism, his argument as to why we should not preemptively murder evil people like abortionists, whether something can be sinful for one person and not another, if Jesus knew that He was the Son of God as a child, and much more. Let's get into it…  Yes Episode notes and links HERE. Donate to support our mission of equipping men to push back darkness. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Recently someone on X used Grok to refute Dr. Tim Stratton's DoD (Deity of Deception) argument against Calvinism. In this episode we discuss this attempt, why it failed, and why when we use AI we need to be VERY careful how we use it. Join the team! https://freethinkingministries.com/donate/ The original Grok prompt and response: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_f1239435-2f06-4419-8592-35cecae10edd Josh's prompt and Grok's Response: https://x.com/i/grok/share/QObRjeEtsEl7d1G1BoWiPHjMy AI Study Josh Referred to at the beginning: https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/ The non-X version of Grok and its response to the same prompt was similar because of the prompt: https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw%3D%3D_2c5171be-08e9-425f-bda9-dcf04460c080  ➡️ CHAPTERS ⬅️ 00:00 Intro 02:11 How Should Christians Do Theology? 03:42 Why AI Prompts Matter 09:46 Grok's Attempt to Refute the DoD 11:15 What Is the DoD Argument? 13:37 Grok Misunderstands the Internal Critique 23:28 Why People Abandon EDD When Challenged 28:34 Grok Misrepresents Tim on Decree vs. Providence 35:57 Grok Misuses Free Will in His Critique 37:02 Grok's Assumptions About Classical Theism 39:03 The Real Issue: How Should We Use AI? 47:37 Josh Live-Demonstrates Prompt Sensitivity in Grok 53:33 AI Isn't the Final Authority 57:45 The Tu Quoque Fallacy Explained 1:00:17 A FOURTEEN Step DoD for Clarification 1:04:22 Conclusion ➡️ SOCIALS ⬅️ Website: https://freethinkingministries.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FreeThinkInc Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freethinkinc X: https://x.com/freethinkmin TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@freethinkinc  

Guest preacherfalse

In this episode of The Cordial Catholic, I'm joined by Piece Benefield. A fierce defender of Calvinism, Pierce converted to the Catholic faith after a long and fascinating journey – including going head-to-head with Catholics in a group chat, fulling intending to convert them to Calvinism, but being challenged by their through and thoroughly biblical responses to many of his objections to Catholicism!This week, we talk about Pierce's evangelical upbringing, his shift to the serious and intellectual strand of Calvinism, and what eventually drew him into full communion with the Catholic Church – as a former anti-Catholic evangelist! Plus, we tackle objections like Mary, understanding the Early Church Fathers, and the amazing story of other converts Pierce has met along the way!For more from Pierce check out two of his other appearances on YouTube.Send your feedback to cordialcatholic@gmail.com. Sign up for our newsletter for my reflections on  episodes, behind-the-scenes content, and exclusive contests.To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our YouTube channel.Please consider financially supporting this show! For more information visit the Patreon page.  All patrons receive access to exclusive content and if you can give $5/mo or more you'll also be entered into monthly draws for fantastic books hand-picked by me.If you'd like to give a one-time donation to The Cordial Catholic, you can visit the PayPal page.Thank you to those already supporting the show!Theme Music: "Splendor (Intro)" by Former Ruins. Learn more at formerruins.com or listen on Spotify, Apple Music,Become a supporter of Former Ruins on Bandcamp Today! A very special thanks to our Patreon co-producers who make this show possible: Amanda, Elli and Tom, Fr. Larry, Gina, Heather, James, Jorg, Michelle, Noah, Robert, Shelby, Susanne and Victor, and William.Beyond The BeaconJoin Bishop Kevin Sweeney for inspired interviews with Christians living out their faith!Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the showFind and follow The Cordial Catholic on social media:Instagram: @cordialcatholicTwitter: @cordialcatholicYouTube: /thecordialcatholicFacebook: The Cordial CatholicTikTok: @cordialcatholic

We will not repent until we are moved by a consideration of who God is in Christ. New Testament Lesson: Luke 15 http://media.urclearning.org/audio/tm-repent-07-27-2025.MP3

In this sermon we introduce the doctrine of election. Scripture Lesson: Ephesians 1:1-14 http://media.urclearning.org/audio/tm-decree-07-27-2025.MP3

Rev. David W. Hall has been married to Ann since 1980 and is the father of three children and nine grandchildren. He has served as the Senior Pastor of the Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Powder Springs, Georgia, since 2003. Previously, he served as Pastor of the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1984-2003) and as Associate Pastor at the First Presbyterian Church in Rome, Georgia (1980-1984). In addition to pastoring, David Hall is the author or editor of over 40 books and numerous essays. He was also the Founder and Senior Fellow of the Kuyper Institute in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In addition to his work as Executive Director of Calvin500 (Geneva, 2009), his Calvin500 series contains the following works: The Legacy of John Calvin, Calvin in the Public Square, Calvin and Commerce, Preaching Like Calvin, Calvin and Culture, Tributes to John Calvin, and Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes (with Peter Lillback). His most recent writings include: Irony and the Presbyterian Church in America; On Reforming Worship; Questioning Politics; Declaring Independence; Summer Reading: Christian Classics; Election Sermons; Lux: Essays on Calvinism (vols. 1, 2, and 3), Practicing Christian Marriage, Twenty Messages to Consider Before Voting, and Theology Made Practical: New Studies on John Calvin and His Legacy. All titles are available at Amazon. Pastor Hall writes weekly at Cheering Folly's Demise.

Ryan Adamsfalse

Welcome to another episode of Patterns of Truth — a podcast where we explore challenging questions through the lens of Scripture. We've got a big topic on the table: Calvinism. In today's episode, we'll be unpacking the major ideas behind the five points of Calvinism — commonly remembered by the acronym TULIP. But what do […] The post TULIP or no TULIP appeared first on Patterns of Truth.

This was originally posted by  @TruthfulHope  and host Jacob Vazquez engages with Dr. Tim Stratton of ‪@FreethinkingMinistries‬ to explore significant theological issues surrounding free will, predestination, and the contrasting views of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism. The conversation delves into the complexities of God's sovereignty and human freedom, highlighting the importance of understanding these concepts in the context of Christian faith. Tim shares his personal journey through various theological perspectives, ultimately arriving at Molinism, which emphasizes God's middle knowledge of all possible human choices. The discussion aims to clarify these intricate theological debates and their implications for believers. Tim Stratton and Jacob also delve into the complexities of libertarian freedom, divine sovereignty, and the theological implications of Molinism. They explore how these concepts relate to the problem of evil, predestination, and key biblical passages, using pop culture references like the Avengers to illustrate their points. The discussion emphasizes the importance of systematic theology in understanding scripture and the nuances of divine knowledge and human choice.  

Warren McGrew, @idolkiller, and Leighton Flowers respond to a recent message put out by John Piper about pleading for the salvation of the lost.   To get your copy of Dr. Flowers new book, Drawn By Jesus, go here: https://a.co/d/6s767Ey   To SUPPORT this broadcast, please click here: https://soteriology101.com/support/   Subscribe to the Soteriology 101 Newsletter here: www.soteriology101.com/newsletter   Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22/is-calvinism-all-you-talk-about/   DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: https://play.google.com/store/apps/de... LINK FOR APPLE: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/soterio...   Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software development needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!!   To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip,” please click here: https://soteriology101.com/shop/   To listen to the audio only, be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or one of the other podcast players found here: https://soteriology101.com/home/   For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism), please visit www.soteriology101.com   Dr. Flowers' book, “The Potter's Promise,” can be found here: https://a.co/d/iLKpahj   Dr. Flowers' book, “God's Provision for All” can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Provision...   To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: https://m.facebook.com/groups/1806702...   For updates and news, follow us at:  www.facebook/Soteriology101   Or @soteriology101 on Twitter   Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!   To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers, go here: https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...   To become a Patreon supporter or make a one-time donation: https://soteriology101.com/support/   #LeightonFlowers #Calvinism #Theology

This podcast is done to help you see how Calvinism is a serious twisted belief. Thanks for listening! 

Ben Cogginfalse

Almost every Christian denomination accepts that God is sovereign--which is interpreted to mean that He always does precisely what He pleases, and everything that happens on earth has either His explicit or implicit stamp of approval. So when we find ourselves in a crisis--we or someone we love gets a terminal diagnosis, or we don't have enough money to make the mortgage and may lose the house, or we're in the direct path of a natural disaster, etc--we pray for a miracle, because we all know that God can do anything He wants. And who knows? Maybe He'll say yes. But if He says no, the common theology goes, it's because He sees the bigger picture. He knows more than we do, and we have to just trust that He knows best. That sounds so spiritual, doesn't it? Some believers manage to weather these trials of faith, pointing to Job as their example, when he said, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21) and "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him" (Job 13:15). (One side note. When you hear of a great saint who loses everything and yet clings to their trust in God anyway, certain that He has a greater purpose for their loss, does that inspire you to praise God--or to praise that great saint? Who actually receives the glory for that?) This theology has its roots in Calvinism, which espouses an extreme form of predestination (meaning that God chooses whether each of us will ultimately be saved, or damned, before we're ever born. He has to do this, they argue, because it is God who gives us the faith even to be saved, Eph 2:8-9, and if He withholds that faith, salvation for that individual is impossible.) So God, in this theological persuasion, decides a priori who will be saved and who will not, and then punishes those to whom He has not given the faith to be saved for their sins. They do have scriptures to back up their argument--if you take them out of context. One of the big ones is Romans 9:18-21, which says: "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?' But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?'" In this passage, Paul was comparing Israel's hardness of heart in rejecting the Messiah to Pharaoh from the time of the Exodus (Romans 9:15-17). The reason it took ten plagues and the decimation of Egypt for Pharaoh to finally release the Israelites was because Pharaoh's heart was hardened, far beyond reason. Paul's point in this passage was that God did this so that He could display His power to the Israelites, delivering them with great signs and wonders (Romans 9:17). If Pharaoh hadn't resisted, it would not have taken great miracles to do it. (In the same way, Paul argues, the fact that Israel had rejected Jesus gave the Lord the opportunity to bring the Gentiles in to the New Covenant, too.) But if God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, is Pharaoh still responsible for his own actions? If we go back to the original source text, we can see that this isn't quite the whole story. God did tell Moses in advance that He would harden Pharaoh's heart before the plagues ever began (Ex 4:21, 7:3). But for the first five plagues, Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex 7:22, 8:15, 8:19, 8:32, 9:7). It was only by the sixth plague that the scripture says God hardened Pharaoh's heart (Ex 9:12). Pharaoh still made his own choice first; God just enforced it and used it for His own purposes. I love the analogy Charles Capps uses to explain this. If one sets clay and wax out in the hot sun, the sun will harden the clay, but melt the wax. The sun adds the same heat to both, but the substance (wax or clay) determines its effect. A potter chooses whether to make “noble or ignoble” vessels from clay not arbitrarily, but on the basis of the quality of the clay. If the clay is supple and pliable, it can be made into something beautiful; if it is brittle, it might not be fit to shape into something worthy of display. God works with what we give him. In the same way, in Jesus’ Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:1-23), the sower sows the Word indiscriminately, but it is the condition of the soil that determines the harvest. Luke later writes that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), and Peter writes that He is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9, more on this later). Likewise, any reasonable person would have been terrified into obedience by the plagues, long before they progressed to the death of the firstborn. And some of the Egyptians did believe and take refuge in Goshen, and the final exodus included “a mixed multitude” (Exodus 12:38), meaning some of the Egyptians were convinced, converted, and left with them. God gave the Egyptians the opportunity to escape the plagues that might otherwise have caused death, telling them to pull their livestock and their servants inside before the hail (Exodus 9:19), and to paint their doorposts with the blood of the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:22-23), which was symbolic of and foreshadowing the blood of Christ. Again, the Lord is “not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). He didn't want to harm the Egyptians, but neither did he want them to keep His people in bondage. So, did God harden Pharaoh’s heart? Yes, but perhaps only in the sense that God performed the miracles, and Pharaoh’s heart was such that those miracles caused him to dig in his heels. We’ve all met stubborn people like this, with whom any direct attempt at persuasion will cause them to double down on their original position. God does not override our free will, so in this case, He worked with it, using it to His advantage. Our choices do matter. But He's so amazing that He takes those choices and still manages to work “all things together for good to those who love God, who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). As a result of Pharaoh’s stubbornness, God’s people had a legacy of spectacular stories to remind their children and their children’s children of His might on their behalf. My point in saying all that is just that the argument that God sovereignly controls everything that happens is inconsistent with the overall teachings of scripture; even the individual verses that seem to suggest that don't stand up to scrutiny. But a larger problem is that, taken to its logical conclusion, the theological position that God's will is absolute, and will come to pass no matter what we do, leads to a sense of futility. Why pray--why even evangelize--if God is going to do what He's going to do, regardless? To their credit (though against logic), most Calvinist denominations recognize that the scriptures are very clear that we should still both evangelize and pray, and they therefore preach that we should do both, just because God said we should. (Sort of the equivalent of a parent saying, "Because I said so, that's why!") But historically, many Protestant denominations stemmed from or were heavily influenced by Calvinist doctrine. As a result, until about the late 18th and early 19th century, almost all missionary activity around the world came from the Catholic church, which I suspect was precisely because it held no doctrine of predestination, so they thought their efforts could make an eternal difference. Motivation matters. (Protestant missions largely date back to William Carey's work in India in 1793. The London Missionary Society was founded two years later, in 1795, and in 1810, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions was founded.) Even if we're not ultimately each predestined for heaven or hell, God is still sovereign, though, right? He knows way more than we do. So doesn't that mean sometimes He'll say no to our prayer requests, and when we all get to heaven, we'll understand why? Yes, God is sovereign in the sense that He is all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing, but He is not all-controlling (and I covered this extensively in this podcast https://www.drlaurendeville.com/podcasts/why-bad-things-happen-from-a-biblical-perspective on why bad things happen, from a biblical perspective). God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; they did anyway. Was that God's will? Certainly not! He did everything He could to keep them from doing it, short of making them automatons, when He told them, don't do it. Likewise, any sovereign can set laws that his citizens may not necessarily obey. The US is a sovereign nation and in 1974 the administration set the "National Maximum Speed Law" of 55mph. But many drivers exceeded that speed limit daily. The New English Translation has the word “sovereign” appear more than any other biblical translation (368 times). Not one of the original Hebrew or Greek words connotes the idea that He controls everything that happens. Most of the time, "sovereign" is just the way they render God’s names. The word sovereign is often translated from Shaddai (meaning Almighty) when it’s part of God’s name (48 times in the OT). Other times it’s translated from ‘elohiym: supreme God, as a superlative, or ‘elyown, meaning High or Most High. Sometimes it's thrown in as part of the transition of ‘Adonay: an emphatic form of the Lord. Sometimes it's translated from tsaba’, also translated the Lord of Hosts, meaning one who commands an army. In some cases the word sovereign is used to describe God's characteristics, but in context, it doesn't mean what we typically mean by the word (that His will always happens). The NET version of 1 Chronicles 29:11 says, "O LORD, you are great, mighty, majestic, magnificent, glorious, and sovereign over all the sky and earth! You have dominion and exalt yourself as the ruler of all." Only this translation uses the word sovereign; the others , translate it Head. This word connotes the idea of a supreme ruler, but not of one who always gets His way. Psalm 84:11 says, “For the Lord God is a sun and shield (magen: shield, buckler, protector).” The same verse is translated in NET: "For the LORD God is our sovereign protector." Clearly the word magen does not indicate that He always gets His way, either. Sovereign power is also translated as holiness from qadash: "to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy, be sanctified, be separate." This word is used in Ezekiel 28:25: "'This is what the sovereign LORD says: When I regather the house of Israel from the peoples where they are dispersed, I will reveal my sovereign power (or holiness) over them in the sight of the nations, and they will live in their land that I gave to my servant Jacob." It doesn't mean supreme dictator there either. Micah 5:4 says, "He will assume his post and shepherd the people by the LORD's strength, by the sovereign authority of the LORD his God. They will live securely, for at that time he will be honored even in the distant regions of the earth.” Sovereign authority here is the words ga'own (exaltation, majesty, pride) shem (name, reputation, fame, glory): thus, it's better translated “in the majesty of the name” of the Lord. Not a supreme dictator there either. Habakkuk 2:14 says, "For recognition of the LORD's sovereign majesty will fill the earth just as the waters fill up the sea." Sovereign majesty here is yada (to know, to perceive, to make known) kabowd (glory, honour, glorious, abundance), also translated “for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord.” Still not indicating ultimate control over everything that happens. Of course God's will does not always come to pass. As I mentioned earlier, the classic example of this is 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance,” and 1 Timothy 2:4: “[He] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Matthew 18:14 also says, “Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world, not just those who are saved. 1 John 2:2 says, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world”, and 1 Tim 4:10 says, "That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.” This doesn't sound like a God who created anyone for the expressed purpose of eternal damnation to me. On the contrary, He did everything He could possibly do to save us all, short of making us automatons. But not everybody will be saved, because He doesn't force us to choose Him--nor does He make any of our other decisions for us, either. Jesus said in Matthew 7:13: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." God wills it; He paid an enormous price for it; but He won't get all of us, because we get a choice. There are other verses that imply the concept of sovereignty as we typically define it (in the sense that when God decides to do something, He does it, and no one can stop Him). Here are a few of those verses: Job 42:2: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.” Isaiah 46:10: “I declare the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.” Romans 8:28: “All things work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose.” (i.e. He can use bad and work it for good.) But these verses refers to God’s right and His power -- they say nothing about voluntary restrictions that God has placed upon His own power. Those limitations are defined by the covenants God had in place with mankind at various points in history. Once He gives His word that He will do this and not that, He cannot violate it--He exalts His word even above His name (Psalm 138:2). It's the integrity of His word that literally holds the universe together (Hebrews 1:3). Again, more on this in this podcast: https://www.drlaurendeville.com/podcasts/why-bad-things-happen-from-a-biblical-perspective and extensively more in "Blood Covenant Origins" and "Blood Covenant Fulfilled" from this book series: https://www.drlaurendeville.com/books/biblical-retellings). A quick overview, though: since God gave the earth to man in the garden, and man decided to obey Satan, God had to find a legal entry to get back in. That was the purpose of the covenants—first the Adamic, then the Noahic, then the Abrahamic, then the Mosaic, and now finally, the New Covenant. In the middle three there were stipulations of what we had to do, and therefore what God would do for us, if we kept up our end. But there were provisions for blessings even in those. For instance, a common Old Testament example I've heard preached to back up the idea that we never know what God's going to do, but we should have faith in Him anyway, is Daniel 3:18. Here's how that verse is preached: "If you throw us into the fiery furnace, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But even if He does not save us, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up." Except that's not what that verse actually says. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abendego, the Hebrew kids in Babylonian exile in that story, were under the Mosaic covenant, and they were on the right side of it--so they had a right to the blessings (Deut 28:7), and they knew it. They knew God’s promises. That’s why they were able to stand up to the king—just like David could call Goliath that “uncircumcised Philistine,” absolutely convinced of the outcome, because he had a covenant, and Goliath didn’t. In the story in Daniel, what the verse actually says is, “If you do not worship, you shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.” The Jewish captives respond saying, “If that is the case” (implying, if you will throw us in to the furnace, the subject of the previous verse). Then they say, “But if not”—and the Hebrew never qualifies if not what. People tend to assume they are saying “but if God doesn’t deliver us” (the end of the previous thought). But it could just as easily have meant, “If it is not the case that you will throw us into the fiery furnace,” just like it did in previous verse. This would change the entire meaning of the verse, and would be far more consistent with the rest of scripture. I can think of no instances anywhere in scripture where someone put faith in God’s covenant promises, and God did not come through. He can’t not come through—because again, He exalts His word above His very name (Ps 138:2)! In the New Covenant, Jesus paid to make sure we are always on the blessing side, having fulfilled the law perfectly on our behalf, and become the curse for us (Gal 3:13). Because of that, every single promise is now Yes and Amen in Him (2 Cor 1:20). When Christ saved us, the word in Greek is sozo—that word appears 110 times in the New Testament. It includes spiritual salvation, but it also means physical healing, to rescue from physical danger, and to deliver from the penalties of judgment. All of these things are accessed by faith. Scripture doesn’t say that sometimes God says no to physical healing; on the contrary, every time someone came to Jesus for healing, they got it—and He was the exact image of the Father (Col 1:15), doing nothing but what He saw the Father doing (John 5:19). He turned no one away, saying, “Nope, this one is God’s will for you, to bring glory to Himself.” What brings God glory is healing, not sickness (John 9:1-4), and the “fruit” of answered prayers (John 15:7-8). It’s the blessings of God on our lives that are supposed to get the attention of the world around us. So back to the issue of praying for miracles. The theological position of most Christian denominations is that God can do anything, but there’s no guarantees that He will. Because of course, we can look around and see so many good Christians (some of the best!) who pray, and don’t seem to receive. What are we to do with that? Shouldn’t we adjust our theology to account for all of these practical examples… no matter what the Bible actually says? My dad died of cancer when he was 48 years old. We had lots of people praying. I had several well-meaning believers after the fact try to console me with the idea that God “allowed” this to happen for some inscrutable reason of His own… maybe someone might come to the Lord as a result of our loss, someone suggested. (What actually happened was that I became a religious Pharisee for about 10 years, going through the motions, but I didn’t trust God at all. I figured, based on that theology, that God was like an army general who made sacrifices for the greater good, and sometimes—sorry!—it’s you. The effect on the rest of my family's faith and outlook on the world was similar to mine, or worse.) All of that is predictable in hindsight, because cancer and death are the fingerprints of the Enemy, not of God. The Enemy comes to “steal, kill, and destroy”—Jesus came that we might “have life, and have it more abundantly.” It’s very clear who does what. But the vast majority of the body of Christ today preaches this confused theology, attributing horrific things to God under the strange explanation that because God’s ways are higher than our ways, somehow from His perspective, bad is good, and wrong is right, and once we all get to heaven, we’ll understand. (No wonder I didn’t trust God anymore when I believed this. How could I trust a God like that?) I get why the Church at large preaches this—they’re trying to make the Bible fit our experience. God's supreme sovereignty is a nice, spiritual-sounding explanation which borrows from the long Calvinistic tradition, even if we don't take it quite to that extreme (though some denominations still do even that). But what finally set me free was when I realized that God’s definition of good and mine are actually the same. That my dad’s death at such a young age was never His will. That how God dealt with mankind at various times in history was dependent upon the covenants in place at the time--and today, we're under the best covenant of all, the one where all the curses for disobedience are paid for in full, and all that's left is the blessing, which we can receive by faith. Here's what that doesn't mean: it doesn't mean that faith is a new form of works, that God now watches to see if we reach the critical threshold of faith before He doles out our miracle... and if we don't quite get there, ah, too bad, try harder next time. No! He's not responding in real time to our faith at all, deciding which requests to grant and which to refuse. God already provided every blessing in spiritual form in Christ’s atonement, 2000 years ago (Gal 1:3, Isaiah 53:4-5, 1 Peter 2:24). We receive all of those blessings now the same way we receive salvation: by faith. It's "in your account" already, as it were, just waiting for you to make a withdrawal--just like salvation is freely available, waiting for you to accept it. But God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). He doesn’t sovereignly say yes to one person and no to another for things that we know are in His will—if we know that we’re asking for something already in His explicit will, He hears us, and if we know that He hears us, we know we already have the requests made of Him (1 John 5:14-15). (That is the key, though--we can only have faith that we'll receive things that were already paid for in the atonement of Jesus. We can ask God for other things outside of that, but in those cases, God might say yes, or He might say no, for our own good--James 4:3. So it's quite useful to know scripture, so you can know for sure what you can stand on!) Back to my dad, and so many others besides. At that time, my family didn’t know any of this. We thought, we should pray, we should ask, and maybe God will say yes and maybe He will say no. But that’s not faith—that’s hope. And God didn’t say no—He said yes, 2000 years ago! Jesus paid an incredibly high price for God to say yes. Jesus also gave us the formula of how to receive in Mark 11:23-24: believe, and don’t doubt. If you do that, it’s as good as done. Unopposed faith (without doubt, James 1:6-8) is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1). It’s cruel to tell people that they didn’t receive their miracle because they didn’t believe hard enough, or pray long enough, though. But the solution to that isn’t to blame God’s “sovereignty” instead! (That’s how people lose their faith—who wants to serve a God whom they believe “allowed” the Holocaust, or 9-11, or child trafficking, or etc to happen?) Rather, the solution is to understand that we’re in a war, and that Satan is seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). While he’s a defeated foe ever since the cross (Col 2:15), and we now have authority over him through Jesus (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:17-19), most of us don’t know it. We don’t know that, with the authority we now have, Satan’s only weapon against believers now is deception and fear (2 Cor 10:3-5)—and of course anything he can indirectly control against us that is part of the fallen world. But Jesus has already overcome the world on our behalf (John 16:33). And understanding God’s perfect love for us casts out fear (James 4:18). Because if He loves us enough to send Jesus, how will He not also freely give us all things (Romans 8:32)? But most of us are so focused on what we see, on the things this world says, that a cancer diagnosis, for example (or any other terminal doctor’s report, or insurmountable financial problem, etc), strikes fear into our hearts. Whatever we focus on, we magnify—and if we’re in a church that tells us maybe God will come through and maybe He won’t (for things that He’s explicitly promised in His word), then we’re standing on shifting sand. It’s hard enough to deal with our own doubt and unbelief, without being surrounded by the doubt and unbelief of others. But absolute trust God’s word—even if it means isolating ourselves from well-meaning believers who might cause us to doubt—is the only way. Jesus on numerous occasions got away from the crowds or put everyone out of the house except for his few top disciples before he performed a miracle. Abraham received because he did not consider anything except God’s promises (Romans 4:19). He didn’t have a contingency plan (or at least he didn’t anymore after the whole Ishmael thing was out of the way). Because he didn’t consider any of the natural circumstances, he didn’t waver in his faith. In the same way, today, our lack of fear of Satan’s schemes is proof to him that we’re going to win (Phil 1:28)—and if we stand firm (Eph 6:13-14) and resist the devil, sooner or later, he has to flee (James 4:7). We’ll win, if we don’t quit. Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Steve, Todd, and Aaron do a mega version of Theology Thursday on topics ranging from Romans to Protestants vs. Catholics to Calvinism. The team spends all two hours of the show answering listener questions on theology. TODAY'S SPONSORS: FIRST CUP COFFEE: https://firstcup.com/ use code DEACE RELIEF FACTOR: VISIT https://www.relieffactor.com/ OR CALL 800-4-RELIEF TAIGA COOLERS: https://taigacoolers.com/ use code STEVE CONSTITUTION WEALTH MANAGEMENT: https://constitutionwealth.com/Blaze JASE MEDICAL: https://jasemedical.com/ and enter code “DEACE” at checkout for a discount on your order Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dreams, visions, promptings may not be spiritual gifts, but what is their ongoing spiritual significance? Are they inherently authoritative?Is their content veridical? How can we assess them? Do they provide infallible guidance as lesser rules of faith and practice?Must confessional calvinists be against hyper-cessationism? Our guest, Ryan Denton, says:“Yes!” I tend to demur and say: “If loving hyper-cessationism is wrong, then I don't wanna be right!”Is there divine communicative intent to dreams? Did His revelation end in the New Testament or is He still speaking to us today through our dreams, visions, and promptings?Beginning with the premise that dreams, visions, and promptings are facts in the sense that they exist—the host explores how he assesses testimonies from the past and present of dreams, visions, promptings to the Christian life in the here and now. Join us as we scratch the surface on a disagreement on a secondary issue among brothers concerning an aspect of cessationism. If your anger and frustration levels rise, touch grass!

James White recently confronted Leighton on Twitter about Matthew 23:37 and today we will walk through the actual points of contention and discover why we believe Dr. White refuses to engage me on this topic.   Videos relevant to this ongoing discussion: https://www.youtube.com/live/OKv-6965tdM?si=zD17CPT0YvOueZRG https://www.youtube.com/live/nF4LuukkCZo?si=g_N2bvAywIRraAwn   White's original video:  https://www.youtube.com/live/nF4LuukkCZo?si=g_N2bvAywIRraAwn   To get your copy of Dr. Flowers new book, Drawn By Jesus, go here: https://a.co/d/6s767Ey   To SUPPORT this broadcast, please click here: https://soteriology101.com/support/   Subscribe to the Soteriology 101 Newsletter here: www.soteriology101.com/newsletter   Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22/is-calvinism-all-you-talk-about/   DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: https://play.google.com/store/apps/de... LINK FOR APPLE: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/soterio...   Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software development needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!!   To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip,” please click here: https://soteriology101.com/shop/   To listen to the audio only, be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or one of the other podcast players found here: https://soteriology101.com/home/   For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism), please visit www.soteriology101.com   Dr. Flowers' book, “The Potter's Promise,” can be found here: https://a.co/d/iLKpahj   Dr. Flowers' book, “God's Provision for All” can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Provision...   To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: https://m.facebook.com/groups/1806702...   For updates and news, follow us at:  www.facebook/Soteriology101   Or @soteriology101 on Twitter   Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!   To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers, go here: https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...   To become a Patreon supporter or make a one-time donation: https://soteriology101.com/support/  

Kyle Walkerfalse

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

What does Scripture mean when it says Christ was “made sin for us”? In this episode, Catholic apologists address a Protestant caller’s concern about Psalm 51 and the Catholic rejection of penal substitution. Learn how the Church understands Christ's sacrifice—not as punishment in our place, but as a redemptive offering rooted in love and union with humanity. Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: Click Here Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit Catholicanswersspeakers.com Questions Covered: 08:01 – I'm Protestant. I’ve listened to a lot of Catholic radio. I’ve had no change. Is this lack of movement of desire to change from Satan? 18:38 – How do we catechize older boomers who prioritize politics and social views over religion? 23:32 – What evidence do we have that the Catholic Church is the true Church? 34:09 – in Friday morning’s psalm prayer it says, “He who knew no sin was made sin for us to save us and restore us to your friendship” Psalm 51. We don’t believe in Calvinism substitutionary atonement. So, in what way was Christ made sin for us? 40:45 – Is there any point in saying “If God wills it, it will happen?” Especially if he has two wills? 48:22 – Is it possible for a person to sin in purgatory or if they have not died?

James Hogg's ghoulish metaphysical crime novel 'The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner' (1824) was presented as a found documented dating from the 17th century, describing in different voices the path to devilry of an antinomian Calvinist, Robert Wringhim. Mikhail Bulgakov's 'The Master and Margarita', written between 1928 and 1940, also hinges around a pact with Satan (Woland), who arrives in Moscow to create mayhem among its literary community and helps reunite an outcast writer, the Master, with his lover, Margarita. In this extended extra from ‘Fiction and the Fantastic', Marina Warner and Adam Thirlwell look at the ways in which these two ferocious works of comic horror tackle the challenge of representing fanaticism, be it Calvinism or Bolshevism, and consider why both writers used the fantastical to test reality. ‘Fiction and the Fantastic' is part of the LRB's Close Readings podcast. Sign up to Close Readings: Directly in Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://lrb.me/crapplefflrbpod In other podcast apps: ⁠https://lrb.me/closereadingsff Sponsored link: Deaf Republic at the Royal Court: https://royalcourttheatre.com/whats-on/deaf-republic/

Dr. Leighton Flowers plays a sermon from Lakepointe Church in Rockwall, TX by teaching pastor, Josh Howerton, who uses Acts 18:10 to teach a lesson on Predestination.   When Jesus said to his disciples, "I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city," was He meaning to communicate that He had unconditionally pre-chosen some of the people in the city that He was going to irresistibly cause to have faith, or was he simply pointing out that there were many God-fearing people in the city who, like Cornelius or Lydia, were open to hearing the good news about Jesus?   To get your copy of Dr. Flowers new book, Drawn By Jesus, go here: https://a.co/d/6s767Ey   To SUPPORT this broadcast, please click here: https://soteriology101.com/support/   Subscribe to the Soteriology 101 Newsletter here: www.soteriology101.com/newsletter   Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22/is-calvinism-all-you-talk-about/   DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: https://play.google.com/store/apps/de... LINK FOR APPLE: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/soterio...   Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software development needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!!   To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip,” please click here: https://soteriology101.com/shop/   To listen to the audio only, be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or one of the other podcast players found here: https://soteriology101.com/home/   For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism), please visit www.soteriology101.com   Dr. Flowers' book, “The Potter's Promise,” can be found here: https://a.co/d/iLKpahj   Dr. Flowers' book, “God's Provision for All” can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Provision...   To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: https://m.facebook.com/groups/1806702...   For updates and news, follow us at:  www.facebook/Soteriology101   Or @soteriology101 on Twitter   Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!   To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers, go here: https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...   To become a Patreon supporter or make a one-time donation: https://soteriology101.com/support/   #LeightonFlowers #Calvinism #Theology

Dr. Flowers takes an (online) ride with his friend Keith, @yourcalvinist, to reply to his belief in the T of Calvinism's TULIP. Is the doctrine of Total Inability biblical? Let's take a deep dive into this doctrine with respect for those which whom we disagree.   To get your copy of Dr. Flowers new book, Drawn By Jesus, go here: https://a.co/d/6s767Ey   To SUPPORT this broadcast, please click here: https://soteriology101.com/support/   Subscribe to the Soteriology 101 Newsletter here: www.soteriology101.com/newsletter   Is Calvinism all Leighton talks about? https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22/is-calvinism-all-you-talk-about/   DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: https://play.google.com/store/apps/de... LINK FOR APPLE: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/soterio...   Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software development needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!!   To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip,” please click here: https://soteriology101.com/shop/   To listen to the audio only, be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, or one of the other podcast players found here: https://soteriology101.com/home/   For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism), please visit www.soteriology101.com   Dr. Flowers' book, “The Potter's Promise,” can be found here: https://a.co/d/iLKpahj   Dr. Flowers' book, “God's Provision for All” can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Provision...   To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: https://m.facebook.com/groups/1806702...   For updates and news, follow us at:  www.facebook/Soteriology101   Or @soteriology101 on Twitter   Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!   To learn more about other ministries and teachings from Dr. Flowers, go here: https://soteriology101.com/2017/09/22...   To become a Patreon supporter or make a one-time donation: https://soteriology101.com/support/   #LeightonFlowers #Calvinism #Theology