Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

Professor Flowers engages with Jeremy Lundmark's podcast over the doctrine of Total Inability and the all too infamous accusation of misrepresentation: "If you disagree with the teachings of Calvinism you must not understand Calvinism." Let's dive in! Jeremy's podcast can be found Here: http://jeremylundmark.com/episode-39-non-calvinism-agnosticism-presuppositional-apologetics-calvinist-chewey-and-ageism/ For more please visit www.soteriology101.com

Dr. White addressed Dr. Flowers on his Dividing Line program, and Dr. Flowers admits his errors while defending Dr. Abasciano's Greek arguments. Here is the latest article on the subject: In an earlier post here> we presented many passages which clearly indicate the ordo salutis (the order of salvation), as expressed by the apostle John when he wrote, “I have written these things (the gospel) so that you may believe and that by believing you may have life in his name.” Spiritual life comes through faith, not the other way around. Since writing that article, Dr. James White has produced a program to address the non-Calvinistic perspective on one verse in particular: 1 John 5:1. I had a renown Greek scholar, Dr. Brian Abasciano, on the podcast to specifically address White’s grammatical arguments, which you can listen to here>; however, White expressed a concern on Facebook here> about not feeling as if his argument was fairly represented. I addressed his concern on that Facebook post and will now seek to cover what I feel is the bigger issue being overlooked. Many of you may be familiar with Dr. Sam Storms — he is a Calvinistic pastor who serves on the Board of Directors of both Desiring God and Bethlehem College & Seminary (with John Piper), and also serves as a member of the Council of The Gospel Coalition. His “tradition” is Calvinistic, yet he objectively observes the exact same thing that Dr. Brian Abasciano and I have observed about the clear intention of the apostle John in this passage. Dr. Storms wrote: John says in 5:1 that whoever is presently believing in Christ has in the past been born or begotten of God. I.e., a present action of believing is evidence of a past experience of begetting. Is John then saying that new birth or regeneration always precedes and causes saving faith in Christ? Although I believe regeneration (new birth) does precede and cause faith, I do not believe that is John’s point here. When one examines these texts where the terminology of regeneration is used, one finds that John is concerned with describing the consequences or fruit of the new birth: Question: “How may I know that regeneration has occurred? How may I know if someone has been born again?” Answer: “That person will not practice sin (3:9; 5:18). That person will practice righteousness (2:29). That person will love the brethren (4:7). That person will believe in Christ (5:1). And that person will overcome the world (5:4).” John’s point is simply that these activities are the evidence of the new birth and hence of salvation. Their absence is the evidence that regeneration has not taken place. He makes this point, not because he wants to demonstrate the cause/effect relationship between regeneration and faith, but because he wants to provide the church with tests by which to discern between true and spurious “believers.”–Dr. Sam Storms (Thanks to Dr. Johnathan Pritchett for sending us this link) I hope this is helpful in better understanding our argument about the “big picture” we believe is being missed by SOME Calvinists who approach this text with the perceived agenda of supporting their belief of pre-faith regeneration. Secondly, I would like to address White’s comments regarding a Traditionalist (like myself) appealing the grammatical work of an Arminian (like Dr. Abasciano). White wrote, “[Flowers] used that as the basis of asking his Arminian scholar (funny how he did not turn to his “Traditionalist” mentors in the SBC), Brian Abasciano, to respond.” Apparently White is under the impression that scholars can only appeal to other scholars if they agree on every point of doctrine? Is every scholar White references in his works a Reformed Baptist scholar? I seriously doubt it. This can be added to a long list of White’s double standards discussed here>, along with criticizing my use of the word “attack” in reference to his theological arguments, when he has used the same word in reference to my theological arguments. If one were to read my original post on this topic, they would find this article from Dr. David Allen (a notable Traditionalist scholar) in the footnotes: 1 John 5:1 First John 5:1 states: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God . . .”29 “Whoever believes” is a present tense participle. “Born” is a perfect tense verb. Some Calvinists suggest the perfect tense indicates completed past action with continuing results and draw the conclusion that faith is the result of being born again. The argument is that the verb “born” is in the perfect tense denoting an action that precedes the faith in the participle “whoever believes.” This is an unwarranted and erroneous interpretation. Consider two examples. John 3:18 states: “He who believes is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already. . .” “He who believes” is a present participle. “Not condemned” is a perfect tense verb. Yet, here it is clear that the “believing” precedes “not being condemned.” Consider 1 John 5:10, “he who does not believe God has made Him a liar. . .” “He who does not believe” translates a present participle. “Has made” translates a perfect tense verb. Here again, the perfect tense verb, “making God a liar,” is a result of the present participle, “not believing,” not its cause. Many Calvinists argue that the use of “born” in the perfect tense produces a range of results expressed by present participles, and faith is one of them. However, exegesis always trumps systematic theology. Likewise, context and sentence structure trumps theology. Let’s compare John 3:18 with 1 John 5:1 to see if the use of “born” in the perfect tense produces the result of faith. Notice the order of events in John 3:18 is A then B. In 1 John 5:1 the order is B then A. Both make use of the perfect tense. The same grammatical structure that places being born of God before faith can also be used to describe justification as occurring after faith. See Rom 5:1. The grammar of the verses does not address an ordo salutis. The use of the perfect tense in Greek provides no support for the notion of regeneration preceding faith.30 To suggest otherwise is to fail to distinguish between tense and aspect in Greek verbs and verbals. Furthermore, with respect to 1 John 5:1, contextually the simple initial act of believing is not under consideration by John. John is talking about the ongoing life of faith as a believer. Obviously, the new birth precedes the ongoing life of faith. But that is something altogether different from saying the new birth precedes the initial act of faith. John’s use of “born” nowhere precludes the possibility of faith preceding regeneration. One may argue for regeneration preceding faith, but one cannot argue against faith preceding regeneration. The most that can be said from the Greek present participle and perfect tense verb combination is that the actions are contemporaneous. The broader context of John’s writings indicate he would not teach that regeneration precedes faith and elsewhere teach that faith is a condition for life as he does in John 20:31. This precludes the possibility of regeneration preceding faith. Three conclusions, then, are in order: 1. There is no Biblical text that connects faith and regeneration in a grammatical structure that prescribes an order that supports regeneration preceding faith. Nor is there any statement in Scripture which precludes faith preceding regeneration. 2. There are biblical texts connecting faith and regeneration that support faith preceding regeneration. 3. There are texts that would seem to preclude the possibility of regeneration preceding faith. There is no Scripture anywhere that directly says regeneration precedes faith. That is a theological deduction made by some Calvinists that is driven more by their system than it is by Scripture. The Scripture says things like, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved,” as Paul said to the Philippian jailor in Acts 16. * For this section, I have relied heavily upon the excellent work of Brian Abasciano, “Does Regeneration Precede Faith? The Use of 1 John 5:21 as a Proof Text,” 307–22. Abasciano provides the best and most substantive Greek grammatical analysis of the issue with respect to 1 John 5:21 I have seen anywhere. *A point well-made by Dan Musick in his post on this subject at [link removed]. Musick examines several texts to which Calvinists appeal in an effort to support the notion of regeneration preceding faith. http://baptistcenter.net/journals/JBTM_11-2_Fall_2014.pdf> ***Below is a recent update comment on Facebook from Dr. Brain Abasciano to Dr. White regarding a perceived misunderstanding: “James, I have now listened to the relevant part of your show that I had not heard when interviewed. I can see that it changes the specifics of your argument so that you are not now arguing that the tenses themselves demand or particularly suggest that the action of the perfect indicative precedes the action of the present substantival participle (though you seemed to argue along those lines in Potter’s Freedom). Is that right? Can you clarify that for me? Do you agree that the combination of verb tenses in 1 John 5:1 (present participle + perfect indicative) does not itself demand or even suggest the action of the perfect indicative as preceding the action of the present participle? That is really what Leighton was focusing on and I was focusing on. So you and Leighton seem to have talked past one another a bit. However, listening to the rest of your comments, you made some errors regarding Greek grammar/syntax and I still find your argument unpersuasive. Around the 59:43 mark, you said that when we have a present participle with a perfect finite verb, we are able to determine the relationship of the respective actions to one another. But that is not necessarily true, and it does not come from the grammar. There are general tendencies that can be assumed, but in any particular case, context would have to determine the relationship, and often it might not be clear because the author might not have meant to indicate it. Then, around 1:02, you said, presumably of the basic tendency of Greek grammar, that the perfect is either concurrent or antecedent to the present participle. But that is false. As I documented in my Evangelical Quarterly article on 1 John 5:1, the tendency of Greek grammar is for the participle to be concurrent or to precede the action of the indicative. The present participle is especially a candidate for preceding when it is articular, as in 1 John 5:1. Of course, there is no particular tendency for the perfect indicative to precede the present participle. But as I explained in the interview, the rough simultaneity that often obtains can allow for logical order and precedence of one or the other. But that is not indicated by the tenses. They suggest simultaneity and allow for logical order to obtain. In that same section of comments, you gave some odd reasoning for why the participle would not be concurrent in 2:29, reasoning that suggests misunderstanding of how simultaneity works between participles and indicatives. I do not think that practicing righteousness brings about becoming born again. But since that was the example you used, if the participle were antecedent there, it would not mean that every time a righteous act were performed, the person would be born, but that practicing righteousness would lead to the state of being spiritually alive, born again. As for what seems to be your main argument, I believe what I said in the interview addresses that. The comments that have been quoted from Calvinist scholar Sam Storms also address it. Let me add here that your appeal to 2 Pet 1:1 and the Granville Sharp rule is misguided. Identification is the actual meaning conveyed by the Granville Sharp construction. (By the way, while I agree that the construction applies in 2 Peter 1:1, it is not just JW’s that contest it, but some legitimate grammarians. It’s not simply a matter of whether someone is orthodox or not for his opinion on the question of 2 Pet 2:1.) But the grammar/syntax of 1 John 2:29, 4;7, and 5:1 does not itself indicate the order of the actions involved. You know the order in 2:29 and 4:7 mostly from theology. We know that we don’t become born again by practicing righteousness or by loving. But this observation goes along with the fact that the main point of those texts is not to indicate which action causes which, but to give evidences of regeneration/ salvation in the interests of the assurance of salvation, which scholars recognize as one of the main purposes of the epistle (not particularly to indicate what regeneration causes).” – Dr. Abasciano

Professor Flowers explains why Compatibilism falls short philosophically and then goes through the four major proof texts that Calvinists use to support Compatibilism: Joseph being sold by his brothers into slavery: “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.” Gen. 50:20 Pharaoh hardened by God to accomplish the Passover: “But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.” Ex. 9:12 The Crucifixion of Jesus: “This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[a] put him to death by nailing him to the cross…They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” Acts 2:23; 4:28 God's use of the Assyrians in Isaiah 10 Let's Dive In! For more please visit: www.soteriology101.com

Sound of the Saints episode: Professor Flowers reads the comments sent to him about the ministry and answers many questions and addresses some difficult issues. For more please visit www.soteriology101.com

Professor Flowers and Dr. Braxton Hunter partnered up to debate Sean Cole and Tyler Vela over the doctrine of Total Inability (depravity) recently. That debate can be heard in it entirety here: https://www.blubrry.com/askamillennialchristian/Jeremy Lundmark, a Calvinistic podcaster, addressed the debate in a recent episode and Professor Flower walks through his points and questions to help bring clarity to the Traditionalist perspective. Prof. Flowers concludes by reading his article titled, "Does Could imply Should?" Jeremy's podcast can be found here: http://jeremylundmark.com/episode-37-church-husher-fatherhood-romans-14-joy-and-happiness-calvinist-debate-and-evangelical-trump-supporters/?utm_content=buffer7a565&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

In a recent Dividing Line broadcast, Dr. James White, critiqued my view of 1 John 5:1 and my reference to an article written by a member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians, who cited the esteemed Greek/Arminian scholar, Dr. Brian Abasciano. Dr. Abasciano graciously agreed to join us on the program today to personally address White's errors himself. Brian J. Abasciano earned his Ph.D. in divinity from the University of Aberdeen, pastors at Faith Community Church in Hampton, New Hampshire, and serves as an adjunct professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. More from Dr. Abasciano can be found at www.evangelicalarminians.org. To here Dr. White's broadcast in its entirety please go here: http://youtu.be/lMGykk1h19U Also, you may visit www.soteriology101.com for more material on this subject.

Professor Flowers welcomes Timothy Decarion on today's broadcast. They talk through their testimony and discuss the need of prayer, their common belief in the perseverance of all true believers. Let's dive in! For more please visit www.soteriology101.com

If I had a dollar for every time I was accused of being a “Pelagian” or “Semi-Pelagian,” I’d have at least enough money to put my eldest through college. Typically, the accusation comes from those who are less informed about the historical use of these labels and there actual meanings as it relates to our current soteriological disagreements.[1] So, let’s get educated. Pelagius was a 5th century British monk who was accused of teaching that people had the natural ability to fulfill the commands of God by an exercise of the human will apart from divine assistance (grace). Pelagianism came to be known as the belief that mankind is born basically good, without a sinful nature, and is thus capable of doing good without God’s help. [2] Because Pelagius was deemed a heretic, little of his work survived to the present day except in the quotes of his opponents (not the most reliable of sources). Many modern scholars suspect that Pelagius’ actual teachings were greatly misrepresented so as to demonize and marginalize him (this is not difficult to imagine). Despite what is commonly known of Pelagius, evidence indicates that he and his followers taught that all good works come only by divine aid (grace), which was seen as “enabling,” not “effectual/irresistible” in nature. For instance, in a letter to the Pope defending himself, Pelagius is reported to have written: “This grace we for our part do not, as you suppose, allow to consist merely in the law, but also in the help of God. God helps us by His teaching and revelation, whilst He opens the eyes of our heart; whilst He points out to us the future, that we may not be absorbed in the present; whilst He discovers to us the snares of the devil; whilst He enlightens us with the manifold and ineffable gift of heavenly grace… This free will is in all good works always assisted by divine help.” [3] And in an accompanying confession of faith, he states, “Free-will we do so own, as to say that we always stand in need of God’s help,” And he affirmed, “We do also abhor the blasphemy of those who say that any impossible thing is commanded to man by God; or that the commandments of God cannot be performed by any one man.” So, while Pelagius maintained human responsibility to keep the commands of God he still seemed to maintain the need of divine aid in doing so.[4] Augustine, a contemporary of Pelagius, was the first on record to teach the concept of individual effectual election to salvation. Even Calvinistic historian Loraine Boettner concedes that this “was first clearly seen by Augustine” in the fifth century. In fact, Boettner notes, not only did the earliest Church Fathers not interpret the doctrine of election “Calvinistically,” but much of their teaching stands in strong opposition to such conclusions. A great emphasis on the absolute freedom of the human will and repudiations of individual predestination to salvation is found clearly throughout the earliest writings of the church. [5] John Calvin himself acknowledged this fact when he stated: “Further, even though the Greeks [Early Church Fathers] above the rest—and Chrysostom especially among them—extol the ability of the human will, yet all the ancients, save Augustine, so differ, waver, or speak confusedly on this subject, that almost nothing certain can be derived from their writings.”[6] So, by Calvinists own admission, Augustine introduced much of these unique (and often controversial) doctrinal beliefs in the 5th century.[7] Pelagius stood up against Augustine’s new doctrinal positions and even went so far as to accuse him of being under the influence of his former Manichean (Gnostic) roots, which was known to teach pagan fatalism as if it were a Christian doctrine.[8] Augustine, in turn, accused Pelagius of denying any need for divine aid in the conversion process. It is likely that both of them went too far in their accusations, but history reveals that it was Augustine’s smears of Pelagius that won over in the court of public opinion.[9] Pelagianism, therefore, has become known historically as “the teaching that man has the capacity to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of God or the Holy Spirit, and therefore that salvation is effected by man’s efforts.”[10] Traditionalists, like myself, wholeheartedly deny this belief and consider the label offensive and completely misrepresentative of our actual teachings (and I’m under the impression Pelagius himself would express similar sentiments if given a fair hearing today). Here are a few reasons why this label would not rightly represent our views: We believe man has the capacity to respond willingly to God’s means of seeking to save the lost, NOT that man would seek God if left alone. We believe God is graciously actively working in and through creation, conscience, His bride, His Holy Spirit filled followers, and his Word to aid humanity in their conversion. We believe salvation is wholly of God in that He owes no man forgiveness or eternal life, even if they freely repent and humbly submit to Him as Lord and Savior. Asking for forgiveness no more merits that forgiveness than the prodigal son’s return home merited the reception he received from his father. That was the choice of a gracious father alone. WHAT ABOUT SEMI-PELAGIANISM? First, it should be noted that the term “Semi-Pelagian” was first introduced in the late 16th century by Calvinistic theologians attempting to combat the rising popularity of Molinism, an alternative method of reconciling the problem of divine omniscience and human freedom.[11] Calvinistic Apologist, Matt Slick, describes Semi-Pelagianism in this way: “Semi-Pelagianism is a weaker form of Pelagianism (a heresy derived from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome). Semi-Pelagianism (advocated by Cassian at Marseilles, 5th Century) did not deny original sin and its effects upon the human soul and will, but it taught that God and man cooperate to achieve man’s salvation. This cooperation is not by human effort as in keeping the law but rather in the ability of a person to make a free will choice. The semi-Pelagian teaches that man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will and that man can cooperate with God’s grace even to the keeping of his faith through human effort. This would mean that God responds to the initial effort of a person and that God’s grace is not absolutely necessary to maintain faith.”[12] In my lengthy discussion with Matt Slick over our soteriological differences, he more than once accused me of “Semi-Pelagianism.” Do Traditionalists, like myself, believe that “God and man cooperate to achieve man’s salvation?” Let me respond to that by asking this question: “Did the prodigal son and his father cooperate to achieve the son’s restoration, or was that a gracious choice of the father alone upon his son’s return?” The false belief that forgiveness is somehow owed to those who freely humble themselves and ask for it leads to erroneous conclusions such as this. Do Traditionalists teach that “man can make the first move toward God by seeking God out of his own free will?” I challenge anyone to find just one Traditional Southern Baptist scholar who has even come close to making this kind of claim. I’m tempted to offer an award…(maybe a year supply of play-doh or something?) Do Traditionalists teach that “God responds to the initial effort of a person?” Of course not! Belief that mankind is able to willingly respond to the gracious means of God to seek and save the lost IS NOT equal to mankind making “the first move toward God.” If it was proven that I could not call the President of the United States on the phone, would you also conclude, based on that information, that it would be impossible for me to answer the phone if the President tried to call me? Of course not, but that is exactly what those who accuse us of Semi-Pelagianism are doing. In their shortsighted and ill-informed effort to discredit our perspective, they have resorted to what is known as a “boogie-man fallacy.” This is a certain type of argument, which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling discussion and erroneously labelling an opponent’s position with that of a known heresy so as to demonize and discredit it. For example, someone in a debate might say, “See, his view sounds like something Hilter said once, so you shouldn’t listen to him any more.” Hitler is a known “boogie man” or “bad character,” so if I can associate my opponent’s views with Hilter, then I’ll discredit him all together. Likewise, Pelagius has become the Calvinist’s go to “boogie man,” and many of them will stop at nothing to slap that label on us so as to marginalize and discredit anything we say. This method bears a certain resemblance to the ad hominem fallacy, and comes from the same root motivation: Discredit and marginalize the person and their views rather than objectively evaluating and offering a sound, non-fallous rebuttal. The ad hominem fallacy consists of attempting to refute an argument by impeaching the character of its proponent, where as the boogie man fallacy seeks to associate an argument with that of someone whose character (or belief) has already been impeached (like poor ol’ Pelagius). This would be like an Arminian calling Dr. John Piper a “Hyper-Calvinist” (those who denounce the need of evangelism) on the basis that he teaches some similar views to that of known hyper-Calvinists. This is pure “guilt by association” and it is the lazy man’s approach to avoid an otherwise rational and informed discussion of the issues. Those who resort to such tactics either do not know any better or they are nefariously attempting to marginalize and demonize the views of those who disagree with them. Readers of this article can no longer appeal to the former as an excuse. Added Note: Some Arminians have mistakenly joined in this accusation against Southern Baptist Traditionalists. To read my response to Roger Olson’s critique of the Traditional Statement: CLICK HERE. And to read a more thorough historical and biblical rebuttal of those who disagree on this issue:CLICK HERE. To listen to my discussion with an Arminian over this subject: CLICK HERE [1] http://baptistcenter.net/journals/JBTM_10-1_Spring_2013.pdf [Note: I highly recommend reading this journal article by Dr. Adam Harwood explaining in great detail why Traditionalists are not Semi-Pelagian.] [2] Matt Slick, CARM Ministries: https://carm.org/pelagianism [3] Bonner, Gerald (2004). “Pelagius (fl. c.390–418), theologian”. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/21784. Retrieved 28 October 2012. [4] Pohle, Joseph. “Pelagius and Pelagianism.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 18 Jan. 2014 [5] Loraine Boettner, Calvinism in History: Before the Reformation, web site, available fromhttp://www.seeking4truth.com/before_reformation.htm; Internet; accessed 17 April 2015. [6] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: web page: https://books.google.com/books?id=0aB1BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA259&lpg=PA259&dq=or+speak+confusedly+on+this+subject,+that+almost+nothing+certain+can+be+derived+from+their+writings&source=bl&ots=qBEMo_kr1v&sig=FjMfiVDcr7iliN31rPJ5pVSraI4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy5YqU3P_KAhVGmIMKHZGXBgYQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=or%20speak%20confusedly%20on%20this%20subject%2C%20that%20almost%20nothing%20certain%20can%20be%20derived%20from%20their%20writings&f=false [7] Robert Arakaki, Calvin Dissing the Early Church Fathers: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxbridge/calvin-dissing-the-fathers/ [8] Augustine is known for his nine-year fascination with Manichaeism: http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?p=4705 [9] The determination of the Council of Orange (529) could be considered “semi-Augustinian.” It defined that faith, though a free act, resulted even in its beginnings from the grace of God, enlightening the human mind and enabling belief. However, it also explicitly denied double predestination (of the equal-ultimacy variety), stating, “We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.” The document links grace with baptism, which was not a controversial subject at the time. It received papal sanction.[Oakley, Francis (Jan 1, 1988), The Medieval Experience: Foundations of Western Cultural Singularity, University of Toronto Press, p. 64.; Thorsen, Don (2007), An Exploration of Christian Theology, Baker Books, 20.3.4. Cf. Second Council of Orange ch.5-7; H.J. Denzinger Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, 375-377; C. H. (1981) [1967]. “Faith”. The New Catholic Encyclopedia 5. Washington D.C. p. 797; Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005] [10] Adams, Nicholas (2007). “Pelagianism: Can people be saved by their own efforts?”. In Quash, Ben; Ward, Michael. Heresies and How to Avoid Them. London: SPCK Publishing. p. 91. [11] Named after 16th Century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, is a religious doctrine which attempts to reconcile the providence of God with human free will: Joseph Pohle, “Semipelagianism” in Catholic Encyclopedia 1912. [12] https://carm.org/semi-pelagianism [Note: Ironically there is also much dispute as to whether Cassian actually taught what he was accused of teaching as well: The view that Cassian propounded Semipelagianism has been disputed. Lauren Pristas, writes: “For Cassian, salvation is, from beginning to end, the effect of God’s grace. It is fully divine. Salvation, however, is salvation of a rational creature who has sinned through free choice. Therefore, salvation necessarily includes both free human consent in grace and the gradual rehabilitation in grace of the faculty of free choice. Thus Cassian insists salvation is also fully human. His thought, however, is not Semi-Pelagian, nor do readers who submit to the whole corpus emerge Semi-Pelagians.” [see Lauren Pristas (1993), The Theological Anthropology of John Cassian, PhD dissertation, Boston College,OCLC 39451854]

John Piper's sermon titled, "Jesus Did Not Stop at Making Salvation Possible," posits that God's work to ensure the redemption of sin on Calvary proves that God works to ensure all the desires and sinful actions of all time, which simply does not follow. Proof that God used means to ensure Calvary doesn't prove God worked in the same "sovereign" way to bring about all the sin redeemed for on Calvary. Professor Flowers always unpacks the inconsistency of some Calvinists claiming that the gospel is a sincere offer of salvation to all people. Let's Dive In! For more please visit www.soteriology101.com

Chris Date, of the RethinkingHell Podcast, is not here to discuss Hell, but Soteriology. Chris, a Calvinist, and Professor Flowers discuss there doctrinal differences in great detail. This is part 2 of 2. For more on visit www.soteriology101.com Chris Date: http://www.rethinkinghell.com/podcast or www.theopologetics.com