Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

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

“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD” (Proverbs 16:33). John Piper was asked, “Has God predetermined every tiny detail in the universe such as dust particles in the air… including all our besetting sins?” He responded saying: “Yes… Now the reason I believe that, is because the Bible says, ‘The dice is thrown in the lap, and every decision is from the Lord’ … and why would he choose the dice that is cast into the lap, because he is trying to think of the most random thing he can think of, and he says that. So, randomness is not random to God. God is not the least taxed by keeping every sub nuclear particle in its place… which means yes, every horrible thing, every sinful thing is ultimately governed by God…” Which is paralleled elsewhere in a book edited by Piper which says, “God . . . brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory and his people’s good. This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child…” (which we discuss more fully HERE) It may seem reasonable to conclude that if God predetermines even something so seemingly random as the roll of dice that He likewise would predetermine something like the heinous intentions of a child molester, right? Wrong! This is simply poor inductive reasoning mixed with some bad eisegesis. Remember, one of the key practices of good hermeneutics is to always seek the intention of the original author. In Proverbs 16:33, is the author’s intention to say that God predetermines the outcome of casting lots in same manner He predetermines the decisions of people? I seriously doubt it.  In fact, I believe the meaning is almost the exact opposite. Allow me to explain. You see, many people in that day were superstitious and resorted to practices like casting lots or drawing straws to make decisions, rather than using sound judgement, scriptural teaching or seeking Godly wisdom. So, the author is more likely saying something like, “If you resort to superstitious dice throwing to make your decisions, you still won’t thwart the overall purposes of God.” The author is not suggesting that God is meticulously controlling how the dice will fall, because that would just go to support the logic of their folly. After all, if God is determining the outcome of the dice, as the theistic determinist reads this passage, it makes perfect since to resort to this kind of decision making process!  Clearly that is the antithesis of the author’s actual goal in making this point. Proper hermeneutics also teaches us to look at the context of each passage. Earlier in the 16th chapter the author gives sound decision making advice, such as:  “How much better to get wisdom than gold, to get insight rather than silver!” (v. 16). “The highway of the upright avoids evil; those who guard their ways preserve their lives” (v. 17) “Whoever gives heed to instruction prospers, and blessed is the one who trusts in the LORD” (v. 20). “The wise in heart are called discerning, and gracious words promote instruction” (v. 21).  “Prudence is a fountain of life to the prudent, but folly brings punishment to fools” (v. 22).  “The hearts of the wise make their mouths prudent, and their lips promote instruction” (v. 23). A fool casts lots in order to make decisions, but the “wise” and “prudent” “avoid evil,” “give heed to instruction,” and “trust in the Lord.” But even when unwise fools seek God’s will by resorting to the folly of dice throwing, God’s greater purposes will still be accomplished.  In other words, stupid people making bad decisions in unGodly ways, like casting lots, won’t keep God from accomplishing His ultimate purpose. [For instance, the apostle’s hasty decision to cast lots in order to appoint Mathias to replace Judas (Acts 1:26) did not keep God from accomplishing his decision to call the apostle Paul (Gal. 1:11-12).] Through out the 16th chapter of Proverbs, the author makes several very similar comments to what we read in verse 33, all of which point to God’s purposes being accomplished despite and/or through the free choices of people: “To humans belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the proper answer of the tongue” (v. 1). “In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD establishes their steps” (v. 9). [Which relates to Psalm 37:23: “The steps of a man are established by the Lord, when he delights in his way.”] These passages establish both human autonomy and God’s sovereignty. Mankind makes plans autonomously, yet God has the ability to overrule those plans and/or guide mankind in the fulfillment of them. This is the balance seen throughout all of scripture. Within our God given freedom we have the ability to decide to take that job that was offered to us, for instance, by consulting our child’s magic eight ball, but that would be folly. Does that mean, however, that God’s purpose and plans would be thwarted if you took that job based on the superstitious advice of a child’s toy? Of course not. God’s purposes will stand despite your unwise decision making process based on finite deterministic logic. The proverb is not suggesting that our Holy God is predetermining the outcome of lot casting.  The proverb is teaching that it is folly to fall for deterministic finite logic by making decisions based on the erroneous belief that God is predetermining the outcome of superstitious lot casting. In fact, if God has predetermined the outcome of the lot being cast, then it would be perfectly logical to resort to such means in order to seek out His will for your life. The point is that this kind of deterministic thinking is pure folly. The scriptures teach you “not to conform to the pattern of this world,” by resorting to immature superstitions, “but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will” (Rom. 12:2). The wise make decisions, not based on the fatalistic assumptions of philosophy, but based on prayer, fasting, seeking Godly counsel and waiting on the peace that passes all understanding which can only comes by the guidance of the Holy Spirit within. Because the future is unknown to us, it is certainly understandable that when faced with a difficult decision we might resort to some unusual worldly means, such as, “If the next car that passes me is red, then I’ll sell everything and become a missionary to India.” A person steeped in deterministic philosophy might feel justified ignoring his calling to become a missionary given that God must have determined that passing car to be lime green instead of red. But, that kind of decision making is clearly foolish because it is not based on the reality of how God has chosen to work temporally within our world. For instance, when the people of Judah adopted the pagan ritual of child sacrifice in order to appease God, He responded saying, “They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind” (Jer. 7:31, emphasis added). He did not say as the Westminster confession suggests, “That I your God must have decreed all future things, [including child sacrifice, because this] is a conclusion which necessarily flows from [my] foreknowledge, independence, and immutability.” If the theistic determinism of Piper is true, certainly God could have inspired the apostles to write something like we see in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, “God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass [including every evil desire, temptation and subsequent sin.]” Instead, however, the apostle James taught, “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed” (James 1:13-14, emphasis added). God is completely Holy (separate from sin) and His eyes “too pure to look on iniquity” (Hab. 1:13).  “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33)—which means He cannot in any way be the author of evil. Some appeal to Isaiah 45:7 while attempting to argue that God decrees all moral evil, but the passage actually says, “There is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.” In other words, God plans calamity (natural disaster, disease, etc)  as a judgment for evil doers, not that He Himself is the determiner (or cause/author) of moral evil. God is certainly more powerful than any evil. He can destroy it or step in at any moment to thwart the plan of evil creatures, but He is not the one who originates, causes, brings about, authors or in any way determines moral evil. Likewise, God is not about deciding the outcome of your silly craps game, so stop thinking like the gnostics and the stoics and act like the morally responsible human being that He created in His image. Take responsibility for your actions because to act responsibly means to act like you are actually able to choose your response (not like God predetermined your response). In fact, right now you are responsible for how you react to this article. You can go blog or podcast about how inept of a theologian God determined me to be, or you can humbly acknowledge that God simply may not fit into an omni-deterministic world view. Either way, you cannot really blame me, because my eight-year-old son’s magic eight ball told me, “It is certain,” when I asked if I was suppose to write this article. ——– Added note: While the Tanakh had its Urim and Thummim, which possibly were gemstones used by ancient Israelites to determine God’s will (see Nu 27:21; 1 Sam 28:6; Ez 2:63; Neh 7:65), there is much debate over the source and actual purpose of this questionable practice. We know that Israel had many controversial practices at times throughout her history (including bigamy), but such behaviors recorded within the biblical narrative are not necessarily an endorsement of those activities. While it’s certainly possible that God revealed his will through supernatural signs (i.e. Gideon), we must remember these types of revelations were unique and not generally condoned as normative means to seek God’s purposes. We have the indwelling Holy Spirit and we should seek His face through prayer, Bible study and Godly counsel not tests and gambling. Additionally, the tossing of a coin or casting of lots could also simply be away for two “morally free” individuals to come to a compromise in a matter of dispute. This may be why the casting of lots was often associated with an oath (i.e. Each party making the promise to abide by the outcome of the tossed coin).  This is reflective of the fact that it is a disputable matter, not a morally accountable one. In other words, it is not a moral issue if this neighbor gets the north side of the river verses that neighbor getting the southside. It is a disputable matter which cannot be settled between two libertarianly free people who have conflicting opinions on an issue that God’s law hasn’t made morally clear. To apply such practices, as I believe John Piper did, to the morally evil choices of man is unacceptable hermeneutically.          

**CORRECTION: Leighton mistakenly inversed the stats about Calvinistic pastors. 70-80% of pastors express concern over the rise of Calvinism while 20-30% support Calvinism according to the most recent studies. Dr. Flowers discusses his views on how Calvinism will affect the SBC and reads this article from Dr. Bill Hadley: Troublemakers in the SBC: Do We Want Unity or Division? Posted on July 13, 2016by sbcissues Only July 12, the New Orleans Baptist Association published a statement titled, Which Way Forward, Toward Unity or Division?” It can be read in its entirety by CLICKING HERE. I understand the need for unity and the desire for unity. As Christians, one would think that this would be a given. As the old saying goes, union is one thing; unity is another. Reference is made in the article to J.D. Greear’s move in stepping down in the SBC presidential race to help lay a foundation for unity in the convention. The article stated, “This act sparked surprise, relief, gladness, and even celebration.  We witnessed an act of grace motivated by a desire for unity.” Dr. Greear’s decision was a gracious one and was without question one that helped avoid other potential problems. It must also be stated, Dr. Gaines was prepared to do the same thing for the sake of unity. Both of these men are to be commended for their humble response to what was a very difficult position to have been placed in. The article acknowledges positive strides in their association toward racial reconciliation and then moves its focus to the divide related to the theological issues specifically tied to the rise of Calvinism in the SBC and the issues the state convention and its college, Lousiana College has faced in recent years. They acknowledge disappointment in attacks against certain agency heads in SBC entities: “we are troubled by the critical editorials in our state Baptist paper against SBC agency heads David Platt and Russell Moore.” The article asks a pointed question and then makes a definitive statement: “Do we want our Convention split in two? Do we want to continue to read editorials in our state Baptist paper critical of SBC agency presidents?  Do we want unity or division? Leaders lead.  What kind of qualities do we want our leaders to demonstrate?” I want to address the question, “Do we want unity or division?” How we answer that question certainly addresses the thrust of the article and the statement, “Leaders lead.” I will address the issue from the “other side of the tracks” and speak to the issue of Troublemakers in the SBC. The perception is that those who LEAD are going to do so for the sake of unity while those who do not work toward unity are not leaders but in fact troublemakers. There are two types of troublemakers. There are those who take the bull by the horns and seek to make tough changes to the status quo. This is what the reformed leaders of this Calvinist revival in the SBC have done and are continuing to do. While I do not agree with WHAT they have done, I applaud their successful efforts and even acknowledge that they have the RIGHT to do what they have done. I might argue rather successfully that their methods were underhanded as far as being forthright in their intentions from the onset… but that would have been horribly unsuccessful so if I were in their shoes I might have done the same thing. These guys are rightfully troublemakers. So were the reformers of the past. That is not being critical it is actually complimentary, even though I do not like what they have done. The other type troublemaker is the one who seeks to maintain the status quo. In the Conservative Resurgence both of these groups existed as well. The liberals did pretty much then what the Calvinists have done today with one exception; they were not as successful! The conservative camp did pretty much then what the non-calvinist camp is doing now with ONE KEY exception; they were successful while the non-calvinist camp today has not been. In the CR, there were LEADERS/Troublemakers who stood up and spoke out and the liberal faction in the seminaries was pushed back. There were two key factors that came into play there. First, the liberal faction did not manage to gain control of the larger group of entities and I am not sure that was ever their intention and so their influence was still rather limited. This group was not “bunkered down” as well as the Calvinists of today are. I believe this group today learned some important lessons from the CR and those lessons have proven effective in the new CR, Calvinist Resurgence today. There is one other issue that stands out as we compare the problems we face today as compared to the CR. Liberalism in Biblical theology was an easier topic to popularize than Calvinism is today. People could grasp it. 80% plus of the people in the pew in the SBC have no idea how to even spell Calvinism much less understand what it teaches. There is no sense of “urgency” in this struggle although those who understand the issues KNOW that this is every bit as important a theological issue as has ever existed in the SBC. While it is true that Calvinism has been in the SBC since its founding, it has never held the level of importance it has garnered in the last decade and its influence has never been more prevalent than what it holds today where the direction of the convention is concerned. There is a vacuum of leadership willing to stand up and speak out today against this Calvinist Resurgence. This is what is so surprising where this issue of Calvinism is concerned. Some have suggested that the CR of the 80’s and 90’s took a lot out of people and there is no “fight left in a lot of folks.” Well, to ask for “fight” in Christians is sort of a tough expectation in the first place but as Solomon said, “There is a time for everything under the sun.” There seems to be a move within the MEGA church pastors to not want to “rock the boat” and to stay in good graces so to speak with the new power brokers of the SBC. Calvinism is just not an issue that is garnering much attention among those who have the clout to do what it would take to stop its continued influence. It just is what it is. So who are the troublemakers in the SBC today? Are the troublemakers those who are working feverishly to change the SBC? Are the troublemakers those who are actively involved in reforming the SBC and moving it to a Calvinist Convention? Are the troublemakers those who have finally woke up and realized what has happened under their noses where this Calvinist Resurgence has been concerned? Are the troublemakers of today the unifiers of yesterday who had no clue what the reformers were doing until this “lady” was eight and a half months pregnant before anyone even noticed and realized that “she” was about to give birth? Calvinism is a real issue. It is a real issue for both sides. It is not going away. It is an issue for those seeking to move the SBC in that direction. It is not going away when the majority of the entities of the SBC are being led by men associated with the Mohler machine. This is not an idle cry; it is a bold faced fact. This has not simply “just happened” This is the “eight and a half month” reality that could not be hidden any longer. Now, let’s go back to the initial quesiton, “Do we want to continue to read editorials in our state Baptist paper critical of SBC agency presidents?  Do we want unity or division?” The answer to that quesion sadly is going to be this: it depends on which side of the Calvinist issue one is standing. If it is not a big issue then the answer is going to be “No; it is time to seek unity and let this Calvinist Resurgence continue.” Leaders will lead in that direction. Those who do not follow are the troublemakers. For those who see Calvinism as an indictment against the character of God because it contends God and God alone decides who does and does not get into heaven and they see it as a faulty philosophical theological system that is every bit as dangerous or even moreso as the liberal faction of the 80’s and 90’s then you can expect their leaders to lead and those who do not follow are the troublemakers. Do we want our Convention split in two? Do we want to continue to read editorials in our state Baptist paper critical of SBC agency presidents?  Do we want unity or division? Leaders lead.  What kind of qualities do we want our leaders to demonstrate? Do we want unity or division? The answer sadly depends on which side of the issue one is standing.

This is a long one, but some of the strongest arguments are toward the end, so the listener is encouraged to stick it out.   Dr. Flowers recently wrote an article discussing the #1 Argument of Calvinism and Pastor JD Hall "polemicized" it on his podcast called "The Polemics Report," which can be heard here: http://polemicsreport.com Dr. Flowers explains the root cause of JD's confusion over the point of contention presented in the article is his conflating of man's responsibility to repent with God's choice to save whosoever does so, as if they are both equally the same thing. JD fails to read important portions of Dr. Flower's article leading to gross misunderstanding and misapplication. The strength of one's argument is not typically reflected in the portions addressed by one's opponent, but in the portions ignored.  JD has addressed Dr. Flowers before but he has a tendency to "hit and run" so to speak...in that JD typically brings a charge against Flowers but fails to stick around to engage in further dialogue or rebuttal. Dr. Flowers even goes so far as to cordially challenge JD (or any other notable apologist) to a debate over the nature and responsibility of mankind.  For more one can visit www.soteriology101.com

Dr. Flowers begins playing a clip from John MacArthur from this sermon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CkX0kCPwnI And then goes on to read this from www.soteriology101.com “WHY DID YOU BELIEVE THE GOSPEL, BUT YOUR FRIEND DID NOT? ARE YOU WISER OR SMARTER OR MORE SPIRITUAL OR BETTER TRAINED OR MORE HUMBLE?” This is typically one of the first questions a Calvinist will ask a non-Calvinist when attempting to convince them of their doctrine.[1] In fact, when I was a Calvinist, I used this argument more often than any other, and it was quite effective. However, I have come to believe there are at least four significant problems with this line of argumentation: 1) QUESTION BEGGING FALLACY: As we have discussed HERE, this is a game of question begging because it presumes a deterministic answer is required. It is tantamount to asking, “What determined the response of you and your friend?” As if something or someone other than the responsible agents themselves made the determination. The question presumes determinism is true and that libertarian free will (self-determination) is not possible. [2] I believe that the cause of a choice is the chooser (or the cause of a determination is the determiner) and accept the mystery associated with the functioning of that free will in making its own determinations.[3] Now, Calvinists will often challenge my appeal to mystery at this point as if it is a weakness unique to my libertarian worldview. This is a very shortsighted argument, however, which will be made abundantly clear in the next point. 2) CALVINISTS ULTIMATELY APPEAL TO THE SAME MYSTERY: While the Calvinist may feel he has the “upper hand” when asking about the “decisive factor” in man’s choice to reject God’s words, the role reverses quite dramatically when the conversation shifts to man’s first choice to reject God’s words. Whether discussing Satan’s first act of rebellion or Adam’s first choice to sin, it becomes quite evident that the Calvinist has painted himself into a corner by denying libertarian free will. While on the one hand arguing that mankind will always act in accordance with his nature (assuming the nature could not be libertarianly free, mind you), the Calvinist has no rational answer as to why Adam (or Lucifer) chose to rebel. [4] For instance, John Piper openly admits: How God freely hardens and yet preserves human accountability we are not explicitly told. It is the same mystery as how the first sin entered the universe. How does a sinful disposition arise in a good heart? The Bible does not tell us.”[5] And RC Sproul similarly teaches, “But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know.”[6] As you can clearly see, the Calvinist has just “kicked the can down the road,” so to speak, when it comes to appealing to the mystery of free moral will.[7] They eventually appeal to same mystery that we do, all the while thinking they are taking the higher moral ground by giving God all the credit for the Christian’s choice to repent and trust in Christ. In reality, however, by not accepting the mystery of man’s free will, the Calvinist has created a new mystery that is simply not afforded by the text of scripture. This problem is made evident by turning the question around and asking this of the Calvinist: WHY HAS YOUR LOST FRIEND CONTINUED TO HATE AND REJECT GOD? Most Calvinists do not want to admit that the reprobate of their system ultimately hates and rejects God because God first hated and rejected them. Calvinists would rather focus on the elect who are saved by deterministic means while ignoring the inevitable conclusions about the non-elect who remain damned for the same deterministic reason. In my opinion, this is a dilemma unique to their worldview, not a tension created by the teachings of scripture. So, the Calvinist rejects the mystery of libertarian freedom only to adopt another even more difficult mystery. One that arguably brings into question the holiness, righteousness and trustworthiness of our God — namely the suggestion that God is implicit in the determination of moral evil, as evidenced by John Calvin’s own teachings: “…how foolish and frail is the support of divine justice afforded by the suggestion that evils come to be, not by His will but by His permission…It is a quite frivolous refuge to say that God otiosely permits them, when Scripture shows Him not only willing, but the author of them…Who does not tremble at these judgments with which God works in the hearts of even the wicked whatever He will, rewarding them nonetheless according to desert? Again it is quite clear from the evidence of Scripture that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills just as he will, whether to good for His mercy’s sake, or to evil according to their merits.”[8] Which mystery is more difficult to swallow? One that seemingly suggests mankind might have some part to play in reconciliation (the bringing together of two parties) or the one that suggests God is the author of evil (that which divided to two parties to begin with)? More importantly, which of these mysteries does the Bible actually afford? (Listen to THIS PODCAST to better understand why a defense of free will is actually a defense of God’s Holiness, not merely an appeal to mystery.) 3) BETTER BY CHOICE OR DIVINE DECREE IS STILL BETTER: Calvinists seem to think there is something morally wrong with admitting that a believer is better than an unbeliever. Of course it is better to believe than it is to “trade the truth of God in for lies.” Whether one believes because they were sovereignly made to do or simply given the ability to do so freely does not change the fact that believers are better. But, as we will discover in the next point, better does not mean worthy of salvation. So, even if the non-Calvinist were to say, “Yes, I’m more humble or smarter,” he would ultimately be saying the exact same thing a Calvinist has to say. The only difference would be that an unbeliever could rightly say to the Calvinist, “How arrogant of you to think that God made you more humble or smarter,” whereas if they said that to the non-Calvinist, we could rightly answer, “No he didn’t, you have no such excuse. You have just as much ability to humble yourself and understand the gospel as I have.” We (non-Calvinist) are too often accused that we could/would boast in our salvation because we affirm that it is our responsibility to freely respond in faith to the gracious Holy Spirit wrought gospel appeal. Is this really boast worthy? We are the ones who believe anyone can believe the gospel. Why would we boast in doing something anyone is able to do? It’s the Calvinists who believe this ability is uniquely given to them and not most people. It makes much more sense for a Calvinist to boast in an ability granted to him that has been withheld from most others. A great singer, for example, is a given a rare gift from birth and can often become proud or boastful due to that unique gift. But if everyone was born able sing that well whenever they wanted, then boasting in that ability would not make any sense. Thus, Calvinism leaves more room for boasting than does our soteriological perspective. (Though I don’t believe true Christians from either soteriological system would boast in such things: SEE HERE) This speaks to the biblical teaching on the attainability of goodness or righteousness, which we will discuss in the next point. 4) A DECISION DOES NOT MERIT SALVATION: What is the underlying motivation for asking the question, “Why you and not another?” The implication seems to be that one who makes the libertarianly free decision to accept the gospel appeal is meriting or more deserving of salvation? As if the decision to repent somehow earns or merits one’s forgiveness. Think of it this way.  Did the prodigal son earn, merit or in any way deserve the reception of his father on the basis that he humbly returned home?  Of course not. He deserved to be punished, not rewarded.  The acceptance of his father was a choice of the father alone and it was ALL OF GRACE.  The father did not have to forgive, restore and throw a party for his son on the basis that he chose to come home. That was the father’s doing. Humiliation and brokenness is not considered “better” or “praiseworthy” and it certainly is not inherently valuable.  In fact, one could argue that it was weak and pitiful of the son to return home and beg his daddy for a job instead of working his own way out of that pig sty.  The only thing that makes this quality “desirable” is that God has chosen to grace those who humble themselves, something He is in no way obligated to do (Is. 66:2).  God gives grace to the humble not because a humble response deserves salvation, but because He is gracious. Calvinists often conflate man’s choice to confess with God’s choice to forgive while labeling it all “salvation.”  They go on to convincingly argue that God is “sovereign over salvation” which actually means “God is as much in control over His own choice to forgive as He is over man’s choice to confess in faith.”  It’s difficult to argue with someone who is making the case that God is “in control of salvation” and is “the One who gets all credit for salvation,” but that difficulty only exists due to the conflating of man’s responsibility to believe/confess with God’s gracious choice to save whosoever does so.  Of course Salvation is all of God, but that is distinct from man’s responsibility to humbly trust in Him for salvation. WE ALL AFFIRM THAT SALVATION BELONGS TO THE LORD, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN SIN AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO REPENT FROM SIN DOES NOT BELONG TO THE SINNER. Clearly scripture calls us to humility and there is nothing which suggests we cannot respond in humility when confronted by the powerful clear revelation of God’s convicting life-giving truth through the law and the gospel.  Consider what our Lord taught us in Luke 18:10-14 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. “The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.  ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’  “But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’  “I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Did the tax collector deserve to go home justified because of his humble admission of guilt? Of course not. If that were so, then his confession would have merited his salvation and there would be no reason for Christ’s death to atone for his sin. He went home justified because of God’s grace and provision alone! Maintaining man’s libertarianly free responsibility to repent and believe does not negate the truth that salvation is completely and totally of God alone. Throughout the scriptures we see examples of God “finding favor” in believing individuals (Job, Enoch, Noah, Abram, etc), but these men, like all of humanity, still fell short of God’s glory and were unrighteous according to the demands of God’s law. They needed a savior. They needed redemption and reconciliation. Even those who believe the truth of God’s revelation deserve eternal punishment for their sin. What must be understood is that no one was righteous according to the demands of the law. However, that does NOT mean that all people are unable to believe God’s revealed truth so as to be credited as righteous by God’s grace. Paul taught that no one was righteous in Romans 3, yet he turns around and declares in the very next chapter that, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (4:3). How can that be? Has Paul contradicted himself? First he declares that no one is righteous and then he tells us that Abraham was righteous? Which is it? Paul is drawing the distinction between righteousness by works (Rm. 3:10-11) and righteousness by grace through faith (Rm. 3:21-24). The former is unattainable but the latter has always been very much attainable by anyone, which again, is why ALL ARE “WITHOUT EXCUSE!” (Rm. 1:20) God can show mercy to whom ever he wants to show mercy!  We happen to know, based on Biblical revelation, that God wants to show mercy to those who humbly repent in faith, which is man’s responsibility not God’s! If you wait on God to effectually humble you, it will be too late. 1 Peter 5:5-6:  “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Isaiah 66:2: “These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word. James 4:10: “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.” 2 Kings 22:19: “Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people—that they would become a curse and be laid waste—and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I also have heard you, declares the Lord.” 2 Chronicles 12:7: When the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, this word of the Lord came to Shemaiah: “Since they have humbled themselves, I will not destroy them but will soon give them deliverance. My wrath will not be poured out on Jerusalem through Shishak. 2 Chronicles 12:12: Because Rehoboam humbled himself, the Lord’s anger turned from him, and he was not totally destroyed. Psalm 18:27: You save the humble but bring low those whose eyes are haughty. Psalm 25:9: He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them his way. Psalm 147:6: The Lord sustains the humble but casts the wicked to the ground. Proverbs 3:34: He mocks proud mockers but shows favor to the humble and oppressed. Zephaniah 2:3: Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land, you who do what he commands. Seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you will be sheltered on the day of the Lord’s anger. Matthew 18:4: Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:3:  Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 23:12: For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. Luke 1:52: He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. Luke 14:11: For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” Luke 18:14: “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” James 4:6: But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.”   [1] John Piper said, “More specifically, I rarely meet Christians who want to take credit for their conversion. There is something about true grace in the believer’s heart that makes us want to give all the glory to God. So, for example, if I ask a believer how he will answer Jesus’s question at the last judgment, “Why did you believe on me, when you heard the gospel, but your friends didn’t, when they heard it?” very few believers answer that question by saying: “Because I was wiser or smarter or more spiritual or better trained or more humble.” Most of us feel instinctively that we should glorify God’s grace by saying: “There but for the grace of God go I.” In other words, we know intuitively that God’s grace was decisive in our conversion. That is what we mean by irresistible grace.” (http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism#Grace) [2] Libertarian Free Will is “the categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action.” See: https://soteriology101.wordpress.com/2016/05/11/philosophical-reflections-on-free-will/ [3] Question begging is the logical fallacy of presuming true the very argument up for debate. By asking what determined a man’s choice, the questioner is presuming someone or something other than that man made the determination, thus presuming true the foundation for deterministic logic (i.e. “a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws [or Divine decree].” Merriam-Webster Dictionary). While a determiner may state reasons or influential factors for his or her own determination (i.e. I chose to overeat because it tastes so good) that does not mean the factors listed effectually caused the determination (i.e. the taste of food determined the agent’s choice to overeat).  The agent alone made the determination based on the factors taken into consideration and deliberated upon. To presume without proof that something or someone outside the agent himself made the determination (i.e. was the “decisive factor”) is question begging. [4] On the one hand, Calvinists argue that mankind always chooses according to their greatest inclination which is ultimately determined by their God given nature, yet on the other hand they affirm that Adam “was perfectly free from any corruptions or sinful inclinations,” and that he “had no sinful inclinations to hurry him on to sin; he did it of his own free and mere choice” Jonathan Edwards, ‘All God’s Methods Are Most Reasonable’, in Sermons and Discourses: 1723-1729, ed. by Kenneth P. Minkema, Works 14 (1997): 168.) How does the affirmation of Adam’s freedom to sin or refrain from sin not violate the Calvinists own definition of human will and choice? For Adam to choose to sin he must violate the law of his own nature, as defined by the Calvinistic systematic. [5]John Piper: http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/the-hardening-of-pharaoh-and-the-hope-of-the-world)) [6] RC Sproul, Chosen By God, p.31 [8] John Calvin, “The Eternal Predestination of God,” 10:11