Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

This is part 2 of Dr. Flowers interview with Dr. David Allen on The Extent of the Atonement.  Discussed: The weaknesses of John's Owen's view of the Atonement More on the fallacies used to prop up Limited Atonement The differences between ACTUAL sufficiency and hypothetical sufficiency Remember the challenge to all listeners to post your best biblical arguments for Limited Atonement at www.facebook.com/soteriology101 for Dr. Allen to answer in his next interview.  For more please visit us at www.soteriology101.com  

Dr. David Allen, Author of The Extent of the Atonement, is back to answer some arguments against his views on unlimited atonement from his last visit to Soteriology 101. Dr. Allen takes on John Piper and the book "From Heaven He Came and Sought Her" along with the first 1600 years of church tradition to make his case for the historical and logical view of unlimited atonement. (Part 2 of this interview will air on Monday Feb. 20th) Dr. Flowers challenges all his listeners to send in their best Biblical arguments in favor of Limited Atonement for Dr. Allen to address in a future podcast. Post your arguments at www.facebook.com/soteriology101 and label it "Biblical arguments for Limited Atonement" Visit us at www.soteriology101.com  

Dr. Flowers discussed passages like Isaiah 10; 2 Sam 21; Prov 21; Rom 9 where it appears to some that God is causing or bringing about the very evil He condemns.  Some texts seem to suggest that God is judging people for evil things He caused them to do. Yet, we know from James 1:13 that God cannot be tempted by evil nor does he tempt anyone to do evil. We know God is Holy and is not the author of moral evil, so why do some Christians insist these passages teach God causally determines all things (theistic determinism)? Let's dive in!   For more on this subject please visit www.soteriology101.com To support this ministry please visit: https://soteriology101.wordpress.com/support/  

Dr. Flowers shares his thoughts (some in favor and others against) the recently released Calvinist Movie trailer by the Reform Pubcast. He also plays a clip from Dr. Mohler that gives some good guidance as we approach our various differences theologically as Southern Baptists

Dr. John MacArthur goes verse by verse through Romans 9 and Dr. Leighton Flowers gives the Traditional perspective as a contrast to MacArthur's Calvinistic reading of this hotly contested passage. This broadcast can also be viewed as a video presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG8ourHD9IM For more on this topic go to www.soteriology101.com To listen to the Wayne Grudem teaching on prayer referenced by Dr. Flowers please go here: http://podbay.fm/show/933102822/e/142... Before objecting to the label "Traditionalism" please read this article: http://connect316.net/about-us/why-tr...

This is a session taught by Dr. Leighton Flowers at the Texas Baptists Annual meeting in Waco, Texas 2016. This can also be viewed on YouTube with the Powerpoint presentation here: https://youtu.be/4ymS1SzKr-M Dr. Flowers goes over "Calvinism's Big Three" (Eph. 1, John 6 and Rom. 9) while defending a "Traditional" Southern Baptist interpretation of the text. Many have requested copies of this presentation since the event. Please feel free to share with others. For more from Dr. Flowers on this subject go to www.soteriology101.com. For more on the apologetic ministry please visit www.texasapologetics.com To support Dr. Flowers please visit www.soteriology101.com/support  

In a recent Dividing Line program James White once again critiqued Traditionalism (non-Calvinistic Southern Baptists). He began by address an offensive meme which suggested that White (and other Calvinists) believe that God made a man rape a child for His own glory. This video address the actual Compatibilistic (Calvinistic) arguments in a cordial and thorough manner by looking directly at quotes from James White and other leading Calvinistic scholars (including Calvin himself).  We also listen to the Bible Answer Man program to hear the debate between George Bryson and James White to examine what was actually said verbatim in an attempt to fairly unpack our points of disagreement with those who call themselves Calvinistic Compatibilists.

Dr. Leighton Flowers answers Andrew Rappaport from Striving with Eternity over Ephesians 2:4-5. (For some unknown technical reason, the video portion of this broadcast cuts out about half way through, but the audio continues to work.) 1) Traditionalists do NOT believe we make ourselves alive. God and God alone makes us alive. We believe God makes us alive through faith, not unto faith. We are called to repent so as to live, not the other way around. (John 20:31, Ezk 18:30-32, Eph. 2:1-9, etc) 2) We believe God makes us alive WITH CHRIST (or "in Him"). We do not believe God makes some people alive so that they will be 'in Him,' but that once we are marked in him through faith in the Word (Eph. 1:13), then we are graciously brought to life.  3) We differ on the ordo salutis, we do not differ on who is responsible for new life. God alone is able to give us new life. This is the conflating issue I tried to explain last time. When one conflates man's responsibility to humbly repent in faith with God's responsibility to save the repentant (bringing them to new life) confusion ensues. We must treat these two as distinct choices in order to have a rational conversation. It's fine to argue that God is responsible for BOTH, but you still can't conflate them as if they are one in the same thing and expect to carry on a discussion with us about our differences. We must discuss each in turn: (1) Fallen man's responsibility to admit their fallen condition and trust Christ to rescue them and then (2) God's gracious choice to save those who do humble themselves and trust in Christ. We can't conflate those two as if they are one in the same choice. 4) From our perspective, God doesn't need permission (as one suggested). God chooses to grant man responsibility (the ability to respond). That is God's prerogative and any systematic which suggests that God's omniscience limits his ability to create libertarianly free moral agents is the system that is actually limiting His sovereignty and power over creation IMO.  5) Hermeneutics teaches us to allow scripture to interpret scripture and Calvinists do this quite regularly to add clarity to their interpretation. When I do it therefore, it should not be dismissed as just "jumping around the scriptures." We both acknowledge what Paul says about us being dead in our sins in Eph. 2, but we disagree about the connotation of that terminology. I can point to several passages which suggest that "deadness" connotes "lostness" or "separateness" and where man's responsibility to return/repent is still fully expected and even commanded with the threat of punishment (Lk 15:32; Rev. 3:1-6; James 1:13-15). It is the Calvinists burden to find just one text where "deadness" clearly connotes the concept if morally inability to humbly repent for ones sin in light of God's life giving, powerful, Holy Spirit inspired truth. I don't believe it can be found.

Dr. Leighton Flowers explains a Traditional Southern Baptist perspective of Eph. 2:8: Yes, faith is a gift from God, in that all abilities we have are granted to us by God, but the point of contention between the Traditionalist and the Calvinist is whether faith is a gift that is given irresistibly (or effectually).  Traditionalists affirm God enables (or grants) faith by means of His Word (the gospel), but we disagree that God effectually causes some people to believe the gospel while leaving others in a morally hopeless condition from birth. To support this ministry or for more information please visit www.soteriology101.com  

Dr. Flowers records a video cast where he walks through 2 Thess. 2, a proof text often referenced by Calvinists to support their soteriological view of unconditional election and effectual calling of certain preselect individuals.