Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

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!

Dr. Flowers has guest Steve Fraley on for a Sound of the Saints episode where they discuss: 1. Dealing with difficulty and doubts 2. The Apologetic approach from the Calvinistic perspective as contrasted from the non-Calvinistic apologetic.  3. Each perspective appeals to mystery, but what mystery does the bible afford? Steve gracious provided the article below in order to more fully expound on this topic:   How or Why? by Steve Fraley All Christians agree that God is great, yet when it comes to His greatness, we struggle to even begin to understand it. There is much about God we are incapable of knowing. As His creation, we are subject to the limitations of the universe in which we are created. We are bound by time and space. God, on the other hand, is not limited by such restraints. This leaves us as finite creatures at a great disadvantage in trying to describe a God who is so much greater than we are able to comprehend. Consequently, Christians are left with a great deal of confusion and disagreement as to how we understand God and the ways in which He has interacted with His creation. In particular, much disagreement is found when we look into the issue of salvation. Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists ultimately appeal to mystery to fill in the gaps of what we cannot know, and rightly so. However, I would like to make the case that Calvinists do so in places where God gives us clear revelation about Himself, while non-Calvinists appeal to mystery where it is properly meant to be found. The difference is between the “hows” and the “whys” of God. For both Calvinists and orthodox non-Calvinists, God is sovereign over the universe. However, as Calvinists define sovereignty, God is in complete control of every detail of His creation at all times. To put it clearly, God is not only in control, but He controls. Therefore, all that happens in all of His creation is ordained by His decree, and nobody can act contrary to His will. What this means is that any questions regarding how God has made this or that event come to pass can be answered by saying that God has made it so by His will. Since He is the only free agent, He is the only one who truly acts. Therefore there is no mystery about how God has done anything. He simply has done it, according to Calvinism if consistently applied. This raises questions of why. Why has God ordained evil in this world, or why has He allowed so much pain and suffering? We are told that God is good and we must not question His motivations, but we do not find any justification for His goodness in an absolute sense apart from the simple declaration of it. We are pointed to Isaiah 55:8-9 where God says, “'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the LORD. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.'” Therefore, by the Calvinistic reading of this passage, God's goodness is a mystery. Yet, if this is true, do we then discard the idea of a moral law written on our hearts? How can we make sense of goodness if it's something we know nothing of? This would then serve to defeat the moral argument for God's existence, and would also seem to offer a pretty good excuse to the sinner for violating God's moral standards if they are unknowable. Most relevant to the issue of Calvinism, we must also ask, “why has He chosen to save you but not your neighbor?” The Calvinist will answer by saying that it is not for any merit of their own, but that they were chosen unconditionally. When pressed as to why, it is left to the secret counsel of God's will. In other words, it is a mystery. John Calvin wrote that “God's will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever He wills, by the very fact that He wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because He has willed it.” This may give the appearance of an answer to the why questions, but it turns out to be a deference to the hows. It is basically saying, “God has done what He has done because He has done it.” Or to put it another way, “God has expressed His omnipotence because He has expressed His omnipotence.” If we simply ask why He has willed it so, we are left without an answer, just a restatement of how. So it seems clear that Calvinists have a simple answer for all the how questions (God willed it so), and appeal to mystery for the whys. For non-Calvinists like myself, the situation is reversed. We believe that the Bible clearly answers the big why questions and leaves a great deal to speculation about the hows. We are left to wonder, “how does God do what God does?” For example, we have a clear understanding that God is in control and that He knows the future. Yet how is it that He can orchestrate the actions of creatures blessed with free will in such a way that His purposes will be accomplished? We can speculate as to how He knows the future or how He acts to ensure that certain events come to pass, but can we really wrap our heads around it? Even if I embrace a philosophy like Molinism or the “eternal now” view of God, it still leaves a lot of unanswered questions, even creating new ones. When it comes to God's interactions with free agents, it can be hard to make sense of how He retains His sovereignty, but we know that He does. For answers to such things we must appeal to mystery, but we believe that is where they are properly found. On the other hand, we believe the why questions find clear answers in Scripture. Why is there evil in the world? Because God created creatures in His image with free will, and they chose to sin, bringing its consequences of suffering and death along with it. Why has God chosen to save some and not all? Because God desires a loving relationship with His creation, and He saves those who desire that relationship in return. The truth He has revealed to us in Scripture is that He desires to be with each individual for all eternity and has made that possible by paying the penalty for our sins, but many reject Him. This has been His purpose from the beginning. He promised to Abraham that he would make from him a great nation so that all the families of the earth would be blessed. Galatians 3:8 clarifies that it has been God's purpose all along for salvation to come to all who have faith in Him, whether Jew or Gentile. In John 3, Jesus declares that He would be lifted up just as Moses raised the serpent in the wilderness, so that all who look to Him in faith will be saved. Ultimately, why God has done anything in this world is because He desires to be with us in a loving relationship that lasts for all eternity. He could have created beings who were incapable of rejecting Him, but they would not truly love Him. Real love requires the possibility of its negation because love is ultimately a choice. This is why human relationships based on the feeling of love do not last. Love must be a choice, and a loving God knows that those who truly love Him will choose to love Him when they could have done otherwise. All the whys find their answers in His love. The non-Calvinist has clear answers to these why questions because we haven't committed to a systematic that brings confusion to what is made plain in Scripture about God's love. On the other hand, we do not have clear answers for what God cannot clearly express to us in human language about how He makes it all work. He gives us clues that lead to philosophical speculations, but they can only go so far. There is much that remains mysterious, and rightly so. Our God is greater than we can imagine. Let's embrace the mystery of His greatness in how He can do what does, and accept the truth of what He has revealed to us about why He has done it this way.     SHOW NOTES: Link to the Young Minds Big Questions podcast referenced by Dr. Flowers: http://www.youngmindsbigquestions.com/podcast.html Follow Dr. Flowers apologetics site at: www.christianapologetics101.com

Dr. Rick Patrick, Executive Director of Connect316 and local Pastor, joins Dr. Flowers on the program today to discuss the article below and how the Conservative Resurgence relates and affects today's conflict over Soteriology:   The Rise of Soteriological Traditionalism By: Rick Patrick , PastorFirst Baptist Church Sylacauga, AL This article was originally posted in Theological Matters and is used by permission. In 2012, hundreds of pastors, professors and laypersons affixed their signatures to the most attested confession of faith Southern Baptists have ever produced with the exception of The Baptist Faith and Message. Since that time, hundreds more have signed this document, which is available for signing today at the Connect 316 website. A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvationwas written by Eric Hankins, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Oxford, Miss. This document generated significant discussion, prompting the formation of a Southern Baptist task force on soteriology, the branch of theology focusing on salvation doctrine. Today, looking back, we are better able to assess the significance of these efforts. What are the historic roots of Soteriological Traditionalism?First, we find theological similarities with the Anabaptists in Switzerland during the 16th century. Later, we trace our theological stream from the General Baptists in England in the 17th century to the Sandy Creek tradition in the American South during the 18th and 19th centuries. Ultimately, in the 20th century, the primary confessor of each version of The Baptist Faith and Message (E.Y. Mullins in 1925, Herschel Hobbs in 1963, and Adrian Rogers in 2000) uniformly held to the view of salvation doctrine that is described in the Traditional Statement. Where did Soteriological Traditionalism get its name?In 2001, Fisher Humphreys and Paul Robertson, who both served as professors at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote God So Loved the World: Traditional Baptists and Calvinism. They used the term “traditional” for the basic view of salvation doctrine held by Herschel Hobbs, Adrian Rogers and Billy Graham. Eleven years later, this very same word was included in the title of the statement. Can we not find a better term for our position than “Traditionalism”?First, we must rule out partial terms or combinations of views we disaffirm. Thus, we are not “Moderate Calvinists,” “Calminians” or “Semi-Arminians.” Who really wants to be half-something? Second, we resist terms that negate. Thus, labels like “Anti-Calvinist” or “Non-Arminian” are off-limits. No Dallas Cowboy fan prefers the moniker “Anti-Redskin.” Third, the term must actually distinguish. Many claim for themselves the Baptist or Biblicist or Majoritarian position. Some who object to the term “Traditionalist” believe it must refer to the earliest days of the SBC in 1845. But the term is not “Originalist.” Many churches offer a Traditional Worship Service featuring music that was popular in the mid-20th century. Theology popular in that period can also be called “Traditional.” While other options exist, such as “Savabilist,” “Extensivist,” “Decisionist,” “Conversionist” and “Volitionist,” no term has yet emerged that is as widely accepted as “Traditionalist.” What are the doctrinal beliefs affirmed in the statement?The statement affirms Traditionalism while disaffirming Calvinism, Arminianism, Semipelagianism and Amyraldism. To better understand these terms and your own view of salvation doctrine, consider completing this brief Soteriological Assessment.  In general, Traditionalists accept a small amount of Calvinism and a fair amount of Arminianism, while also disagreeing in important ways with both views. We also disagree with the Semipelagians and the Amyraldists. We are basically staking a position for Southern Baptist Traditionalists residing at a point that lies between the Arminianism of the Methodists and the Calvinism of the Presbyterians. What did we learn from the reaction to the Traditional statement?The initial reaction was unnecessarily polemical, as the signers (including many of our leading theologians and pastors) were charged variously with Semipelagian heresy or remedial reading comprehension skills. Looking back, I am amused by these charges. At the time, however, I was distraught that the Southern Baptist views I had learned, believed and preached all my life were suddenly suspect. This fact only served to establish the absolute necessity of the statement’s publication, for if one group of Southern Baptists could look at the convictions of another group and conclude they were practically heretical, we obviously had some important wrinkles to iron out. How was this a theologically defining moment for Southern Baptists?When the statement came out, an assumption had begun to take root that all Southern Baptists should be viewed as Calvinists to a certain degree. It was as though the course setting for our denominational ship was due Calvinist and the default Southern Baptist position was going to be theologically reformed. For many of us, our consciences would simply not allow us to be pulled in this direction any further. It was time for us to stand up and say, “We do not believe Calvinism should be seen as the optimal SBC position.” Is the goal of Connect 316 and Traditionalism to eradicate Calvinism in the SBC?Our aim is not to drive Calvinism from the convention, but rather to establish our own place at the denominational table. A few years ago, we counted six different Calvinist organizations influencing the SBC. We thought there should be at least one organization promoting our own theology. Why should one theological wing of our denomination sponsor all the conferences and give away all the t-shirts and invite all the speakers and publish all the books? Southern Baptists will fly much higher with two healthy wings. How does Connect 316 endeavor to promote Traditionalism in a positive manner?We sponsor an annual banquet at the Southern Baptist Convention. In Baltimore, we had 100 in attendance. In Columbus, we had 200. In St. Louis, we had 300. As our attendance grows, we will be better equipped to promote a more Traditionalist-friendly convention. We also sponsor a news blog, SBC Today, with more than 1,000 hits per day and readers from more than 170 countries. On social media, we have the 316 Roundtable, an open discussion forum on Facebook. Our Connect 316 website offers many helpful resources. We also assist ministries hosting regional conferences. What is the greatest challenge in promoting Soteriological Traditionalism?Most Southern Baptists probably identify with our understanding of salvation. They simply do not call it by the lofty term “Soteriological Traditionalism.” Believing it to be commonly held, they may see no need for the label or the movement. Frankly, they must first be apprised of the growing influence of Calvinism in order to explain how Traditionalism differs from it and why these differences matter. It is a rather complex assignment to teach people that what they have always believed is being seriously challenged today. They must first learn about the Calvinism they reject in order to fully appreciate the Traditionalism they affirm. How can Southern Baptists get involved in this growing movement?I often hear from young people who disaffirm Calvinism but are nevertheless assumed to wear such a label simply due to their youthfulness. They feel disconnected as their Calvinist friends attend conferences and events. They wonder where they can find a theological home offering like-minded fellowship and resources. I hear from former Calvinists who have converted to Traditionalism only to experience a loss of fellowship. Connect 316 is beginning to fill this void. You can get involved by attending our annual banquet this summer in Phoenix, by reading or writing at sbctoday.com, by checking out our website atconnect316.net, by hosting a regional conference, or by simply signing the Traditional Statement. The movement of Soteriological Traditionalism packages an old theology with a new label. Southern Baptists disenfranchised by New Calvinism will find a welcoming theological home among the like-minded Christians at Connect 316.   Show NOTES: Here is the link from the Disciple 6 Resource page: http://disciple6.com/ And here is the pdf for Dr. Lemke’s article on our Southern Baptist soteriological roots: http://swbts.edu/sites/default/files/images/content/docs/journal/57_2/57.2%20History%20or%20Revisionist%20History%20Lemke.pdf

Dr. Flowers responds to this podcast from Dr. Sean Cole: http://www.seancole.net/#/audio/podcast Sean asks Leighton several pressing questions about his view on the sufficiency of the gospel and the nature of man's inability due to the fall. Classical Arminianism's similarities with Calvinism is contrasted to the Traditionalist's perspective.

Dr. Flowers starts by taking "the TULIP TEST," a fallacious quiz created by a Calvinistic blogger which resorts to conflating two separate choices by treating them as if they are one in the same. (LINK) Then the question "What about those who never hear the gospel?" is addressed in great detail, as an article is read through on that topic which can be seen HERE.