Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

This is part 2 of Dr. Flowers' response to Dr. James White's most recent Dividing Line program over the extent of the atonement. To listen to part 1, which dealt mostly with methodology, click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_PUv... In this episode, Dr. Flowers goes over some of the same audio clips as in the first recording, along with others, so as to address many of the theological disagreements. He also promises to invite Dr. Allen back onto the podcast to address some of the issues brought up against his statements. For a more complete look at these issues please visit www.soteriology101.com Here is the video put out by Dr. Flowers that Dr. White is addressing in his program: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NPSI... Category

Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, has received some unfair criticism over the last several days due to some comments he made in chapel about Calvinists. Some have gone so far as to suggest Dr. Patterson wants all Calvinists to leave the SBC, but this is simply not true. Listen to these clips of Dr. Patterson presented by Dr. Leighton Flowers in there appropriate context in order to properly understand the intention. To watch this presentation go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6fEbsbycxY

Dr. Leighton Flowers, a non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist, addresses the rise of "cage stage Calvinism" by taking on one of the leading proponents of Calvinism seen on social media today, Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. While White has criticized the rudeness of many of the "young, restless, and reformed" types prowling the internet today, in this broadcast Dr. Flowers clearly and systematically demonstrates White's blatant hypocrisy in this arena. By playing clips of White's mocking tone, demonizing rhetoric, outright disrespect, and plan old fashion rudeness, Flowers brings a much needed rebuke to an influential leader among young Calvinists engaging others on social media. Flowers continually points his listeners back to "the principle of charity" which was described as "assuming the best about your opponent" and "giving them the benefit of the doubt" while attempting to really understand their argument before launching into criticism. While Flowers primarily sticks to critiquing White's methodology he promises to publish a follow up response to address White's actual theological arguments, which Flowers argues are undermined by White's overall demeanor and tone. For more on this topic please visit www.soteriology101.com

Many people do not seem as if they are able to hear and willingly come to the well meant offer of the gospel, but why? Is it because they were born helpless, hopeless and rejected from eternity past by their Maker, or is it because they have become hardened over time after rejecting the loving and gracious gift of their benevolent Father? Dr. Flowers not only answers this question, but also provides a link for more resources and a great endorsement for furthering your education: For more information on Trinity please CLICK HERE. To support this ministry please become a Patreon by signing up HERE.

Dr. Flowers welcomes Dr. David Allen on the program today to discuss the doctrine of Limited Atonement as contrasted with the Traditionalists view of unlimited, or provisional, atonement. Dr. Flowers asks Dr. Allen about the most referenced arguments for and against the doctrine of Limited Atonement. The Extent of the Atonement, by Dr. Allen can be purchased HERE. All other books by Dr. Allen referenced in the show can be found HERE. David Allen serves as the dean of the School of Preaching, distinguished professor of preaching, director of the Southwestern Center for Expository Preaching and George W. Truett Chair of Ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. He was previously Dean of the School of Theology from 2004-2016.

“…there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.” – Romans 3:11 In an effort to demonstrate that all people have fallen short of the glory of God and broken His law, Paul quotes from Psalm 14:2-3, which says: “The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” There are basically two theological approaches for interpreting this passage: (1) Calvinistic Approach: Apart from a Divine irresistible work of regeneration (by which God changes a chosen individual’s nature and desires), mankind cannot willingly seek to know, understand, or follow God. (2) Non-Calvinistic (Traditionalist) Approach: Apart from God’s gracious initiative in bringing His Son, the Holy Spirit, and the inspired gospel appeal, no one can merit salvation or consistently seek to obey God in a way that will attain his own righteousness. The contrast between these two perspectives can be illustrated by this simple question: Does proof that I am incapable of calling the president on the telephone also prove that I am incapable of answering the telephone if the president were to call me? Of course not, yet that is essentially the principle a Calvinist is assuming in their theological approach to this text. Calvinists read this text to mean that our lack of initiative somehow proves our inability to respond positively to His initiative. They presume that God’s work in sending His Son, the Holy Spirit, and the inspired gospel, calling for all to be reconciled through faith in Christ, is insufficient to enable the lost to respond in faith. But the text simply never says this. In Romans chapter 3:10-20 the apostle is seeking to prove that no one can attain righteousness by means of the law. But in verse 21 he shifts to reveal a righteousness that can be obtained by means of grace through faith in Christ. Calvinists seem to think that because mankind is unable to attain righteousness by means of the law that they must equally be unable to obtain righteousness by means of grace through faith in Christ. This, however, is never established anywhere in the pages of Scripture. Of course, we all can affirm that no one is righteous with regard to the demands of the law. But there have been many throughout the pages of Scripture who have been declared righteous by means of grace through faith. Calvinists wrongly assume that because mankind is unable to fully keep the demands of the law that they are equally unable to admit their inability to keep those demands and trust in the One who has. Again, this is simply never established in the Bible. HERE> Proof that mankind is morally incapable of earning their own righteousness by doing good works is not proof that mankind is morally incapable of believing and trusting in the righteousness of another. It must also be understood that placing one’s trust in the righteousness of Christ is not earning one’s own righteousness. Those who trust in Christ are graciously imputed with His righteousness, they are not earning their own. If we go back to examine the context of Paul’s original quote in Psalm 14, we read that he is specifically speaking of “the fool” who says, “there is no God,” and then he contrasts between the“evil doers” and “His people…the generation of the righteous.” The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good…Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord? There they are in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. – Psalm 14:1; 4-5 Now, a Calvinist can make the theological argument that “the fool” who says “there is no God”does so because he could not have done otherwise due to an inborn nature sovereignly decreed by God as a result of the Fall. And the Calvinist can attempt to make the case that “the generation of the righteous” who are considered “his people” were made so by some kind of irresistible working of God. In contrast, a Traditionalist can argue that these “fools” trade the truth of God in for lies by denying His existence with a libertarian free choice, and those who become “His” do so by grace through a libertarianly free faith response.  Either way, that is the point of contention — neither side can just assume their position (see question begging fallacy). It is the Calvinist’s burden to prove that fallen man is born morally incapable of responding in faith to God’s inspired and powerful appeal to be reconciled from that fall. They have to demonstrate how our fallen condition prevents us from responding willingly. Additionally, Calvinists need to explain why a just God would seal mankind in a fallen/disabled condition from birth and still hold them responsible for their rejection of God’s appeals, even though they have no control over their naturally disabled condition and subsequent “choices” to reject God’s genuine offer of forgiveness. Also, Calvinists need to explain how their interpretation of Romans 3:11 fits with other teachings of scripture about man’s responsibility to seek God, such as: “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,”‭‭ – Acts‬ ‭17:26-27‬ ‭ “Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.”‭‭ -Isaiah‬ ‭55:6-7‬ ‭ “Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, who do his just commands; seek righteousness; seek humility; perhaps you may be hidden on the day of the anger of the Lord.”‭‭ -Zephaniah‬ ‭2:3‬ ‭ “And he did evil, for he did not set his heart to seek the Lord.”  -‭‭2 Chronicles‬ ‭12:14‬ ‭ “Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek your name, O Lord.” –‭Psalms‬ ‭83:16‬ ‭ “Then Jehoshaphat was afraid and set his face to seek the Lord, and proclaimed a fast throughout all Judah.”‭‭ -2 Chronicles‬ ‭20:3‬ ‭ “For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.” –Luke‬ ‭12:30-31‬  ‭“He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.”‭‭ -Romans‬ ‭2:6-8‬ ‭ “And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek you.” –‭‭Psalms‬ ‭9:10‬  “And those who had set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel came after them from all the tribes of Israel to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord, the God of their fathers.” –2 Chronicles‬ ‭11:16‬ ‭ Needless to say, the Bible certainly treats fallen men as if they are genuinely responsible (response-able) to His appeals and offers of grace and forgiveness. On what basis do Calvinists rest their presumption that, as a consequence of the sin of another, God has decreed that mankind would be born with “Total Inability” to respond willingly to the gospel? This is a dogma yet to be found explicitly taught in the Bible.

Dr. Flowers plays clips of Dr. John Piper, a notable Calvinistic author and pastor, answering the question "Why does the Bible say that God relents and regrets?" Piper's Podcast can be found HERE. Then Dr. Flowers contrasts Piper's response with arguments from Dr. Albert Mohler, another leading evangelical Calvinist, against naturalistic determinism.  In part, Dr. Mohler argues: "The subversion of moral responsibility is one of the most significant developments of recent decades. Though this subversion was originally philosophical, more recent efforts have been based in biology and psychology. Various theorists have argued that our decisions and actions are determined by genetics, environmental factors, or other forces. Now, Scientific American is out with a report on a study linking determinism and moral responsibility. The diverse theories of determinism propose that our choices and decisions are not an exercise of the will, but simply the inevitable outcome of factors outside our control. As Scientific American explains, determinists argue that “everything that happens is determined by what happened before — our actions are inevitable consequences of the events leading up to the action.” In other words, free will doesn’t exist. Used in this sense, free will means the exercise of authentic moral choice and agency. We choose to take one action rather than the other, and must then take responsibility for that choice. This link between moral choice and moral responsibility is virtually instinctive to humans. As a matter of fact, it is basic to our understanding of what it means to be human. We hold each other responsible for actions and choices. But if all of our choices are illusory — and everything is merely the “inevitable consequence” of something beyond our control, moral responsibility is an exercise in delusion. Scientific American reports on a study performed by psychologists Kathleen Vohs and Jonathan Schooler. The psychologists found that individuals who were told that their moral choices were determined, rather than free, were also more likely to cheat on an experimental examination." Dr. Flowers relates Dr. Mohler's arguments against the foundational claims of Calvinism's theistic determinism. 

Dr. Flowers explains why Reformation Day is for all Protestants, not just five point Calvinists.  For more you can read THIS ARTICLE.  

Dr. Leighton Flowers' sermon titled "Jesus and Children" from First Baptist Richardson. 

Dr. Flowers reads an article from www.soteriology101.com that covers the question of Spiritual Deadness.  The article can be found HERE. Does being born spiritually dead mean the lost cannot willingly respond to God's own Spiritually inspired appeal to be reconciled from that fall? Dr. Flowers answers that question with a resounding "NO!" And then he provides the scriptures to prove it. Let's dive in!