Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

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. For more on visit www.soteriology101.com Chris Date: http://www.rethinkinghell.com/podcast or www.theopologetics.com

Most of us are familiar with the old fable by Hans Christian Andersen titled, The Emperor’s New Clothes. The story is about two tailors who pretend to make an Emperor a new suit of clothes that they convincingly argue is invisible only to incompetent fools. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his “new suit of clothes,” no one dares to say that he is naked for fear of being deemed a fool. Finally, a child declares what everyone else is thinking but is too scared to say, “The Emperor has no clothes!” The story is a lesson in speaking your convictions even in the face of public ridicule. At the risk of being seen as a fool, you must tell the plain truth. Even if it goes against popular opinion or the common norms of a society one must be willing to speak out against that which seems clearly wrong. That is much easier said than done. Back when I served on staff in a Reformed Southern Baptist Founders church and still affirmed Calvinism, I do recall several moments where I felt the TULIP systematic “had no clothes on,” so to speak. But I was not about to put myself out there as “the fool who is just too stupid to see it.” I knew all the pat answers and could quote all the right verses when any question was raised, but deep down I knew there was no rational answer against the charge of divine culpability for moral evil if Calvinism’s claims were true. Calvin himself admitted as much when he wrote: “How it was ordained by the foreknowledge and decree of God what man’s future was without God being implicated as associate in the fault as the author or approver of transgression, is clearly a secret so much excelling the insight of the human mind, that I am not ashamed to confess ignorance…. I daily so meditate on these mysteries of his judgments that curiosity to know anything more does not attract me.” (there are quotes from Piper, MacArthur and Sproul appealing to this same mystery) It is as if Calvin is saying, “I see the naked Emperor but I’ve grown so troubled by looking at him that I’ve chosen to advert my eyes instead of just admitting the obvious truth of what I see.” I suppose that approach works for some, as it did for me…at least for a while. (Read more on this inconsistency in Calvinism HERE) Others deal with “the Emperor’s nakedness” by appealing to the uniqueness of God and His ways. They might argue something like, “God’s judgement, love and goodness looks different than ours because His ways are simply higher and cannot be understood.” In response to this approach, C. S. Lewis answered: “If God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our “black” may be His “white”, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say “God is good,” while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say “God is we know not what.” And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) “good” we shall obey, if at all, only through fear – and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity – when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing – may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.–The Problem of Pain, pg. 29 And the founder of Methodism, the esteemed John Wesley, wrote even more boldly: “[Calvinism] destroys all [God’s] attributes at once: It overturns both his justice, mercy, and truth; yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust. More false; because the devil, liar as he is, hath never said, “He willeth all men to be saved:” More unjust; because the devil cannot, if he would, be guilty of such injustice as you ascribe to God, when you say that God condemned millions of souls to everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, for continuing in sin, which, for want of that grace he will not give them, they cannot avoid: And more cruel; because that unhappy spirit “seeketh rest and findeth none;” so that his own restless misery is a kind of temptation to him to tempt others. But God resteth in his high and holy place; so that to suppose him, of his own mere motion, of his pure will and pleasure, happy as he is, to doom his creatures, whether they will or no, to endless misery, is to impute such cruelty to him as we cannot impute even to the great enemy of God and man. It is to represent the high God (he that hath ears to hear let him hear!) as more cruel, false, and unjust than the devil!”http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-128-Free-Grace These two men clearly saw a naked Emperor when they looked at Calvinism’s claims and they were not afraid to say so. It should be noted that both Lewis and Wesley, at other times in their ministry, tempered such boldness with gentler remarks toward their Calvinistic brethren. And I am not referencing these quotes to bring a charge of “devil worship” against those who affirm the TULIP systematic. I know full well that Calvinists see “a beautiful suit of clothes on the Emperor” and their intentions are sincere, but it does not change the fact that many believers (if not most) simply see a naked Emperor rather than a beautiful suit. (Read this great article by Austin Fischer for more on the beauty that Calvinists see in relation to others) So, why am I writing this article? Many of you know I debated the very seasoned apologist, Dr. James White, over the soteriological perspective represented in Romans 9 earlier this year. From the first day I engaged with Dr. White over this issue he has treated me as “the fool” who simply cannot see “the emperor’s new clothes.” Given that I once claimed to see the suit and declared it to be beautiful only fuels the fire of ridicule. After all, if you ever really did see the emperor’s suit then you would not be saying he is naked today. If you were ever really smart enough to see the suit then you would know better than to question it. In a recent exchange over social media, Dr. White wrote: “Last night I listened to some portion of a dialogue he had on YouTube, and was once again astounded at the horrific eisegesis that marks his entire system. But in noting someone’s reply to him just now, I saw this statement: ‘are you talking about the filthy rags you determined to do or that God determined you to do? :-)’ Notice the contradiction he attempts to create that the Bible will have none of: he seems to think that one action has to be EITHER “determined” by man or by God, but it cannot be BOTH. Now, again, Flowers claims to have once been a Calvinist, but as normal, his recollection of what that means seems to have gotten pretty hazy. For he surely should know that there are a number of very, very important texts in which the Bible itself makes it plain that you have BOTH God and man acting in the very same action. That is EXACTLY what you have in Genesis 50:20 without question. The same is true in Isaiah 10, and in Acts 4 in reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the sovereign plan of God. So, the Bible’s answer to Flower’s false quandary is, ‘both, I, to my shame and destruction, and God, to His glory and fame.’ And if Leighton’s system is so shallow and paltry as to not be able to withstand the pressure of that Biblical revelation, then he needs to dump it and get one that is actually worth professing!” Let’s unpack this a bit: 1. He defers to the old tactic, “instead of responding to the actual arguments I’ll just say he doesn’t do proper exegesis.” This approach might work if I were not standing on the shoulders of much more seasoned exegetes of scripture than myself. It is not as if I am making up my interpretation as I go along. (See the article titled “Debate Over Exegesis” for my response to this tactic) 2. He argues for “both/and” versus “either/or” in regard to who is making “determinations.” He writes, “[Flowers] seems to think that one action has to be EITHER ‘determined’ by man or by God, but it cannot be BOTH.” I think if one were given the opportunity to press Dr. White on this point he would admit that God’s determination is the one that controls the man’s ‘determination,’ thus making this qualification nothing more than a semantical difference without a distinction. Also, Dr. White seems to forget that we do affirm the doctrine of Judicial Hardening and God’s sinless use of sinful means to accomplish SOME divine purposes throughout redemptive history. We simply deny the heinous assumption that the example of God using man’s free moral choices to bring about the redemption of sin on Calvary is somehow proof that God meticulously determined all the heinous sin that Christ died for at Calvary. It seems irrational for God to work in the same manner to redeem sin as He supposedly does to cause the sin He is redeeming. 3. Again, he questions my claims of once being a Calvinist on the basis that I no longer interpret passages like Genesis 50:20 in the same way he does. I suppose anyone who claims to have once been an Arminian (or a Traditional Southern Baptist) cannot change their interpretations or question the positions they formerly held? This double standard is apparently a blind spot for White because I am quite certain he does not call out the former Arminians for daring to oppose the doctrines they have now recanted. (For those interested in going deeper than these surface level accusations, I do present our view of passages like Gen. 50 in the article referenced above. And I discuss why non-Calvinists will always be accused of misrepresenting Calvinists no matter what we say or how we say it in this article.) 4. White wrote, “So, the Bible’s answer to Flower’s false quandary is, ‘both, I, to my shame and destruction, and God, to His glory and fame.'” So, let’s apply White’s theology to the real world and see how it plays out: Question: Why did Jeffery Dahmer determine to rape and eat a child?Answer: Dahmer determined to do it to his shame and destruction and God determined for Dahmer to do it to His own glory and fame.” I’m sorry, but I’m simply not willing to teach that our perfectly Righteous, Pure and Holy God determined a man to rape, torture and eat children for His own glory and fame. Instead, I must say, “The Emperor has no clothes!”

Leighton Flowers preached a message out of Eph. 4:1-15 titled, "All Called."

Continued response to Prof. Sean Cole over Romans 8-9. This is part 2. www.soteriology101.com

Calvinistic Baptist Pastor and Professor, Sean Cole, recently produced a podcast going over Prof. Flowers' interpretation of Romans 8:28 and following. Listen as Prof. Flowers goes through each argument point by point. Let's dive in. For more please visit us www.soteriology101.com

Professor Flowers and Kurt Jaros, the Executive Director of Defenders Media, talk through the problem of pain and suffering. They contrast what is known as the 'blueprint' model with the 'war fare model' of interpretation. They discuss the book of Job and many proof texts often used by the "reformed tradition" to support the blueprint model. They touch on why Open Theism is wrong, but shouldn't be deemed heretical. They don't have time to get into the doctrine of Original Sin in this episode but plans are made to have Kurt back for that discussion. Let's dive in. For more information go to www.soteriology101.com For more about Kurt Jaros you can visit: www.defendersmedia.com Special thanks to TW Haragos for introducing me to Kurt!

Professor Flowers reads through a couple articles which explain how Calvinism can be seen as much more humanistic and man-centered than Traditionalism. For more go to www.soteriology101.com

Professor Flowers and Chris Date were guests on the Pastor With No Answers Podcast recently and they discussed predestination and free will. This podcast is a follow up to that discussion where Prof. Flowers talks through some of the issues that he wasn't able to cover in the time allowed on the podcast. Let's dive in. For more visit www.soteriology101.com To hear the PWNA discussion please go here: http://badchristian.com/pastor-with-no-answers/

Rich Pierce of Alpha and Omega Ministry has a 3 part rebuttal of Prof. Flowers handling of Romans 9 in the debate with Dr. James White. Today's episode is Professor Flowers' very thorough response, which gives greater clarity into his perspective of Romans 9. Let's dive in. www.soteriology101.com The rebuttal to Rich's first dividing line is in a recent podcast and the second one is on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/soteriology101/ Rich Pierce just posted part 2 of his critique over my handling of Scripture in the Romans 9 debate. Below is a link to my podcast rebuttal of his first part, but for part 2, I thought I'd just take a few notes and give some commentary here for those who may be interested: 1) Paul's self sacrificial love expressed in vs 1-3: Rich accuses me of using this as an "escape hatch" or a "jumping off point" to "escape the text." In my commentary (which I don't believe White or Rich has actually read) I clearly show how Paul's (and later Moses') self sacrificial expressions are reflective of God Himself, which is PROVEN LATER IN THE CONTEXT (4-5, 10:1, 21 etc) 5 Point Calvinists insist the reason not all Israel are accepting their Messiah is because God doesn't really love and want all of them to come to faith and be saved. Yet, not only does Paul express His own self-sacrificial love for the hardened Jews (under inspiration), but he reflects on God's expressions of the same: 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation... But as for Israel He says, "ALL THE DAY LONG I HAVE STRETCHED OUT MY HANDS TO A DISOBEDIENT AND OBSTINATE PEOPLE." (1,21) And in the context of the Hosea quote at the end of chapter nine we find this, "as the LORD loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods..." (Hos. 3:1) How are these facts not relevant to our points of contention in a debate over this subject? And more striking, why won't Rich or White just answer the question being posed instead of dancing around it? 2) Noble Purposes: Rich, like White, hammers my use of this term from the NIV. If prior to my debate, I had any idea how these men would so focus on this semantical argument and make it such a means of diversion and distraction from the actual point at hand, I would have gladly changed it to "honorable" and "dishonorable." Why? BECAUSE THE POINT IS THE SAME. IT DOESN'T MATTER. (not yelling, just emphasizing) If it helps, go back and everytime I use the word "noble" just insert the word "honorable," okay? Nothing changes. As I noted in my first response after the debate, when Dr. White first inquired about the "noble purpose," I wish I had referenced verses 4 and 5 because there Paul lists the "honorable purposes" for which the nation was chosen. One could also go to Romans 3:1-2 to demonstrate what set Israel apart: 1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. or 2 Tim. 2:20-21: "Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor (NOBLE) and some to dishonor. Therefore,*** if anyone cleanses himself*** from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work. Now, can we stop focusing on semantics and deal with the argument, please? 3) Leap Frog: When I go to the clay analogy I'm seeking to answer the question posed by verse 6, which White and I agreed is the "key to understand the whole passage." Has God's word failed in saving the 'lump of clay' (Israel)? In my commentary (my full exegetical work, not merely my debate presentation) I do go line by line through all these points. 4) Chamber Pot: Rich refers to the non-elect as the "chamber pots" or those pot for dishonorable use, yet ignore verses like Jeremiah 18 or 2 Tim. 2:21 which clearly indicate the responsibility of the pot to cleanse himself (see quote above) 5) "We don't know who the elect are so we should preach to all." But that doesn't answer the problem regarding the fact that Calvinists interpret Paul as teaching the "hardened" in this passage (those he self-sycrifically loves 1-3) are supposedly the non-elect reprobates rejected before the world began. Yet, we know they were cut off for their unbelief (not unconditionally, see Rm 11:20) and they may be grafted back in IF they leave that unbelief (11:23). 6)What about, "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." Lk 14:26 Rich appealed to this verse as being "difficult" just like Romans 9 and acts as if I'm not willing to deal with it, which only proves my speculation above that Rich hasn't read my commentary. Scholars from my perspective often appeal to this passage to explain God's choice or preference of one over another, which is not reflective of a literal hatred (otherwise Lk 14:26 would stand in contrast with Eph. 6 where we are told to love and honor our parents.) 7) As in the first part, Rich lumps together all the verses I used and dismissed them out of hand. He never reads through those texts and explain how they do not speak to the historical context (and thus the right understanding) of Romans 9. 8) Rich argues that "Judicial hardening is a totally different topic than the spiritual deadness of man in sin." Then he accuses me of just forcing together the two concepts to confuse the issue. Rich, or any Calvinist, can you explain to me a distinction with a difference between "the fallen unregenerate man" and the "totally hardened man" with regard to their ability 'to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing.' (John 12:39f, Acts 28:27-28, etc)? Can either man (the hardened one or unregenerate one) see, hear, understand and/or turn to God for healing? No. Not according to your systematics teaching. So, what is the practical difference between the two, Rich? 9) Rich said to me, "I don't take you seriously" Yet, you and White reference Patterson, David Allen, Yarnell, Vines, Hankins, Harwood, Lemke and a host of others who believe and teach very similarly to what I've presented. And you expect them to take you all seriously when you challenge them to a debate. Give respect to get it my friend. And then you implied I might not take you seriously because you're a layman, which is not at all reflective of my behavior or words toward you or other laymen. My appeal to Drs. Hunter and Pritchett's podcast was to give another perspective, not to suggest your opinion on the subject doesn't matter. 10) The book of Acts contains both narrative and didactic texts. Even White said this in reference to Acts 4, so I'll let that one go... 11) Rich doesn't answer Acts 28 or explain it from his perspective. He just says is a "transitional book" and thus a narrative not didactic (as if that makes the point less valid). Then he tells his audience to go back and read chapters 27 and 28 and ask the question, "Does this have anything to do with Romans 9?" Then he accuses me of appealing to emotion... "the babies..the babies...the babies" (crying face). Notice he never explains anything. He doesn't answer my argument. He doesn't address the HISTORICAL CONTEXT of the nation of Israel becoming calloused and thus unable to "see, hear, understand and turn." That point is avoided, just as it was with White in the debate. 12) Rich argues that babies grow up to like Hitler...and I should be ashamed of myself for painting them as completely innocent in order to appeal to the heart strings. Yet, in the clip he played (and regularly in my podcasts and other sermons) I acknowledge that we are born sinners, but NOT totally disabled (i.e. hardened). I never once 'pull at heart strings' by appealing to the 'innocent babies.' Rich may be projecting this onto me from his experience with other Arminians, I guess? With regard to emotion. Paul begins this chapter with one of the most emotional heartfelt cries of self-sacrificial love known to mankind. Should he "know better" too, Rich? 13) Rich argues that "not all Jews rejected their Messiah," as if that somehow is a problem for my perspective. He even goes so far as to say that White challenged me on this point and I dismissed it "out of hand?" Can you provide the time stamp of that discourse Rich? Why on earth would I dismiss the fact that some from Israel didn't reject their messiah when that is the very point I argue for why they were preferred (set apart) to be those used for the honorable purpose for which the nation was elected to begin with? Again, this just more clearly reveals Rich's lack of understanding when it comes to how Traditionalists understand these passages. No one, laymen or scholar, is qualified to rebut an interpretation they have yet to understand. 14) All your arguments about the preacher having the right over the text and not rightly handling God's word, etc... they are all question begging fallacies. If our interpretation is correct then its White who is subverting the text for his own (or Calvinism's) "agenda." That is why we have a debate, brother. 15) Rich argues that my appeal to Romans 9:6, "Has God's word failed" is a tactic. Yet, this is the verse White appealed to over and again in his online teaching over Romans 9 prior to our debate. 16) In White's opener, he begins speaking of "the great privelidges" which are the Israelites...and the incarnate Word which comes through them... (i.e. the 'noble' or 'honorable' purpose for which they were chosen...) He said nothing with which I disagree in that first section. He doesn't hit on our points of contention. 17) Rich, like White, asked, "Is this the method you would use with a muslim?" I argued that the people who came to the DEBATE came to hear our points of contention in Romans 9, not a full exegetical commentary on all the points for which we stand in agreement. Our debate presentation is a DEFENSE of our exegetical commentary in contrast to the interpretation of the opponent. Our debate presentations are NOT a full exegetical commentary of the entire passage. As demonstrated by the texts between RedGrace and myself, the agreement was NEVER to do a full exegesis of Romans 9 in our opener. I would have never agreed to that because it would be a very poor exegesis indeed. My exegetical work was done to prepare my debate presentation. It was made available to all. Instead of engaging with the points of our contention, White chose to focus on my methods and pretending as if we agreed to present a full exegisis of an entire chapter in 20 minutes. Hermenutics requires you to establish the setting and circumstances first, which is what I did. Both White and now Pierce ignore the context of Israel's hardening out of hand while pretending it couldn't affect one's understanding of Paul's discourse over why Israel (the nation being hardened) might not recongize their own messiah. That is baffling to me still. (pardon typos, I just typed this as I listened and haven't read back over it to make corrections...)

Another great Sound of the Saints episode where we learn about Molinism and the concept of "Middle Knowledge" from Dr. Braxton Hunter, a scholar on the subject. Let's dive in! "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered." CS Lewis For more please visit www.soteriology101.com And to connect with Dr. Hunter go to: www.braxtonhunter.com