Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

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.

Paul Cooper, a Calvinistic leaning pastor (who debated Dr. Braxton Hunter over the subject) joins Dr. Flowers on the show today with honest questions about Calvinism. Here is a LINK to the article mentioned in the podcast on those who never heard the gospel. https://soteriology101.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/what-about-those-who-never-hear-the-gospel/ For more on this subject please visit www.soteriology101.com

As I have studied apologetics over the years I have noticed that the word “persuasion” comes up much more regularly than what I have been use to throughout my church and educational experience. I have been to countless evangelism events, conferences and training sessions over the years, but I cannot recall a single sermon, lesson or resource on the biblical concept of persuasion. The English word “persuasion” (in all its various forms) is used twice as many times as the word “predestination,” yet it seems the latter receives a thousand times more attention. Persuasion is at the very heart of apologetics, and I dare say, it is at the heart of evangelism itself. I have to wonder if the lack of emphasis on this biblical doctrine has lead to the decline in baptisms and evangelistic efforts among evangelicals over the last few decades? WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT PERSUASION? Let’s take a look at some of it’s most relevant uses: “The chief priests and the scribes persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.” (Matthew 27:20) “(the people) were persuaded that John (the Baptist) was a prophet.” (Luke 20:6) “Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas.” (Acts 17:4) “Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.” (Acts 18:4) “This man is persuading the people to worship God.” (Acts 18:13) “(Paul was) arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.” (Acts 19:8) “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to become a Christian?” (Acts 26:28) “Since then we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men.” (2 Corinthians 5:11) Too often we speak only of the need to proclaim and explain the good news to the lost, but clearly the Bible teaches us that we should be trying to persuade people of its truthfulness. Is that not what Christian apologetics is all about?   Notice in Acts 17, when Paul “dialogued” (Greek: dialegomai, meaning ‘reasoned’) in the synagogue that it resulted in people being “persuaded” (Greek: peitho). Paul explained the Old Testament scriptures and answered their questions so as to convince them of the truth. This was typical in his approach with his fellow Jews (“his custom” v. 2) , because he knew the Jews considered their scriptures to be authoritative. However, Paul’s approach with the Gentiles shifted to speaking about their culture first rather than the Scriptures (see vs. 22-31). Paul is using his God given gift of persuasion by connecting with his audience on their level.  He has “become all things to all people so that by all possible means [he] might save some” (1 Cor. 9:22). WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO PERSUADE? Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words describes the word “persuade” as follows: To prevail upon or win over, to bring about a change of mind by the influence of reason or moral considerations. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary states: Successfully urge to do; talk into or out of an action; attract in a particular direction; cause to believe a statement or truth; to urge strongly; try to convince; lead a person to believe by argument; to talk earnestly with a person in order to secure agreement; to carry conviction; be convincing. Notice that the Vine’s Dictionary draws attention to both reason and morality. In other words, appealing to one’s conscience in an effort to get them to do what is right morally may be one effective approach to persuasion, but it’s not the only tool. Appealing to sound reason (by means of dialogue) is an equally important biblical tool in the persuasion process. To be honest, I cannot stand listening to screaming preachers telling their audiences how sinful they are and how ashamed of themselves they should be. Maybe this approach works to persuade some, but frankly it turns me off and I suspect it turns off many others outside the church. Stirring up emotions and playing on people’s shame instead of speaking with respect, gentleness, love and reason does not seem to be the most persuasive approach. Persuasion is not about emotionally abusing people into submission. It is about speaking truth in love (Eph. 4:15). It is about being a person of character who earns the respect of the audience by showing them respect. It is about making sound, logical, well reasoned arguments that connect with the listener on a personal level. As Paul said: “We have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:2) Paul, while he was in Ephesus, was “arguing persuasively” (Acts 19:8). Doesn’t that strongly imply that it is possible to “argue unpersuasively?” Why would anyone want to risk being “unpersuasive” when it comes to proclaiming the most important news of all? WHY DON’T WE SPEAK MORE OF PERSUASION? If our evangelism is not persuasive the only thing left is unpersuasive evangelism, and what would be the point in that? Maybe it does not sound as “spiritual” to speak of persuasion when it comes to evangelism, as if we are not relying on the Holy Spirit like we should? Some might argue that we have to rely on the supernatural work of God to persuade the listener. But, what does that even mean? Has God not given the preacher of the gospel the gift of persuasion?  If so, why wouldn’t God still get the credit when His own people successfully use their God given gifts to accomplish those God given purposes? It has been the influence of our post-modern culture that has lead the church to value experience over intellect, as if it is more spiritual to feel than to think. Christian apologist, Peter May, explained: Some thirty years ago, I heard a famous and influential English evangelist put it like this: “A man won by an argument is at the mercy of a better argument. Instead, we must bring people into an experience of Christ.” I wasn’t quick witted enough to point out that a person won by an experience is at the mercy of a better experience! However, his viewpoint was widely shared and highlighted a subjective and relative approach to truth. It was very post-modern. Interestingly, this popular preacher often used cultural references and quotations from famous people in his sermons. His talks had a veneer of intellectualism about them but he never presented sustained intellectual arguments. A quote from Nietzsche may decorate a talk, but an exploration of Nietzsche’s meaning did not follow. Evangelism was about the heart not the head. In particular, there was no vision for “pulling down strongholds, demolishing arguments and every lofty idea raised up against the knowledge of God and taking every thought captive in obedience to Christ” as Paul put it (1 Corinthians 10:4,5). This approach to evangelism assumed God’s existence and the authority of the Bible while discouraging skeptics from asking questions. Therefore, the deeper thinking skeptics either buried their doubts or simply left the church. I am convinced that people don’t leave our churches because of their doubts, they leave our churches because they don’t feel like they can openly express their doubts. And so it is, we have raised a generation of people who are mostly unpersuaded intellectually about the claims of the scripture, while those who remain committed continue to wait on God to do what He has created and gifted people to do — PERSUADE! WHY DOES OUR THEOLOGY MATTER WHEN IT COME TO PERSUASION? Some people object to the use of persuasion by quoting from Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:4: “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.” Case closed! Persuasion is wrong. Persuasion is evil. Persuasion is resting on human wisdom, rather than God’s power, therefore this whole article has just been blown out of the water, right?!  WRONG. Only if you believe that Paul regretted his persuasive approach to the Athenians so as to adopt an “unpersuasive” approach from this point forward could the point of this article be deemed erroneous. Allow me to make a sound, logical and well reasoned argument to show you why Paul has not switched approaches or contradicted himself. Hermeneutics requires us to look closely at the context of every passage. Corinth was a bastion of Greek culture and practice. Because there were no iPhones or TVs in the first century, the choice of daily entertainment often centered around Greek oratory. Imagine a young, handsome athletic man with muscles almost as large as his ego gathering a crowd around him by telling grand stories filled with flaunting words of empty rhetoric. Oratory was an art form in this city and the human wisdom of the Greek culture rested on the persuasiveness of this attractive medium. The Roman General, Mark Anthony (of Cleopatra fame), trained as a public orator. Plutarch records that his style of oratory “had much in common with Anthony’s own mode of life. It was boastful, insolent, and full of empty bravado and misguided aspirations!”[1] Now, imagine being an weak, older, unattractive communicator with eye problems trying to live up to that standard. This is the context of Paul’s statement. He could not compete with the athleticism, prowess and speaking skills that the Corinthian people had come to expect from their orators of “wisdom.” He did not have a long list of exciting stories in his repertoire. He had the story of Christ and Him crucified. He only had what the Spirit told him to say (Eph. 3:1-11). Those Holy Spirit inspired words are the “power” to which the apostle refers in this context. IS PERSUASION ENOUGH? WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT? When Paul references “God’s power” in verse 4 he IS NOT referring to some supernatural additional working which is above and beyond the proclamation of His inspired word. He is referring to the inspired word itself. As Paul taught in Ephesians 3:1-5: “For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.  In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.”  How has God chosen to reveal the mystery of Christ according to this text? Paul says “by the Spirit.” But to whom? To every individual through some supernatural work of regeneration making them effectually see and understand the mysteries?  No. Paul clearly says, “by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.” God reveals mysteries (that have been hidden in the mind of God for generations) by inspiring men like Paul to proclaim them clearly. This is called the “gospel” which is said to be “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). This brings up another important point about the words we use when attempting to persuade others. Does the content of our persuasive presentations matter?  Of course it matters.  We must persuade using the inspired scriptures if we have any hope of leading someone to Christ. Both the content and the means by which that content is delivered serves to persuade. In Corinth, Paul’s delivery may have paled in comparison to the orators of that day, nevertheless the source of God’s power was found in the content of his message, the inspired words of God Himself. That does not mean we should check our minds in at the door or become dry and monotonous so as to prove we are depending on some kind of supernatural work of God to convince people to listen to our lazy, ill-prepared, boring speeches. Paul never intended such non-sense.  He was simply declaring that even when his best effort falls short, the power of the Holy Spirit’s inspired word is sufficient to accomplish its given purpose (John 20:31).   REFERENCES [1] Plutarch, Life of Mark Anthony, section 2. [2] Peter May, Newsletter of the European Leadership Forum.

Dr. John Piper was recently asked if God really loves His enemies and today Dr. Flowers examines John Piper's answer line by line and verse by verse. Let's dive in!  

Dr. Leighton Flowers is joined by the President of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Senior Pastor at Bellevue Baptist Church, Steve Gaines, Ph.D.  Topics discussed: 1. Unity doesn't equal silence: Traditionalists can speak out for what they believe is true while still seeking unity in the convention. 2. The Sinner's Prayer: Is it biblical or should it be done away with as a manmade tool to manipulate false conversions?  3. Altar Calls: The Gospel must contain an "appeal" to believe in order to be called the Gospel. 4. Closet Calvinism: Why it is important to ask good questions if you serve as a Trustee or on a pulpit committee.  5. Calvinism in the SBC: Where are we going and what is going to happen in the future?  What can we practically do to help the SBC from going toward Calvinism? Visit www.soteriology101.com for more information on this topic.

Dr. Flowers interviews Dr. Jerry Walls, Ph.D from Houston Baptist University, about his new book "Does God Love Everyone? The heart of what is wrong with Calvinism" which you can purchase here. Does God truly love all persons? Most Christians think the obvious answer to this question is, "Yes, of course he does!" Indeed, many Christians would agree that the very heart of the gospel is that God so loved the whole world that he gave his Son to make salvation available for every single person. This book shows that one of the most popular and resurgent theological movements in the contemporary evangelical church--namely, Calvinism--cannot coherently and consistently affirm this vital claim about the love of God. While some Calvinists forthrightly deny that God loves everyone, more commonly Calvinists attempt to affirm the love of God for all persons in terms that are compatible with their doctrines that Christ died only for the elect--those persons God has unconditionally chosen to save. This book shows that the Calvinist attempts to affirm God's love for all persons are fraught with severe philosophical and theological difficulties. Calvinism, then, should be rejected in favor a theology that can forthrightly and consistently affirm the love of God for all persons. Nothing less is at stake than the very heart of the gospel. Listen to Dr. Flower and Dr. Walls discuss this subject in depth on today's broadcast. For more on this topic, please visit www.soteriology101.com

Dr. Flowers responds to a few questions sent in by loyal listeners, one of which asks why we shouldn't "cast out Calvinists as heretics" instead of treating them as true "brethren."   For more on this subject please visit www.soteriology101.com