Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

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  

Listen as Professor Flowers gives a lesson on biblical hermeneutics to rebut Richard Pierce, President of Alpha and Omega Ministries (with James White). For more go to www.soteriology101.com

Tony Miano recently produced a podcast titled "The helpless God of free will religion," and Professor Flowers rebuts each point.  Also included is a thorough critique of John Piper's podcast where he answers the question "Where Did Satan's first desire come from?"  Let's dive in. Tony Miano's Cross Talk Radio podcast: http://mixlr.com/cross-encounters-radio/showreel/the-helpless-god-of-free-will-religion-2/ John Piper's podcast: http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/where-did-satan-s-first-desire-for-evil-come-from For more please visit www.soteriology101.com

Professor Flowers and Dan Chapa continue their discussion over the topic of Prevenient Grace and the sufficiency of God's revelation through the gospel. Should we accept the notion that God decreed to punish mankind for the sin of Adam by making it such that all would be born in a totally disabled condition from birth?  Are fallen men born in a condition that they cannot willingly respond to God's own powerful appeals to be reconciled from the fall unless and until God does some extra work of Grace to make mankind capable? Or is the work of the gospel gracious and powerful enough itself to accomplish the purpose for which it was sent..."so that you may believe and by believing you may have life in his name?" (John 20:31). Let's dive in! For more please visit www.soteriology101.com

As seen on YouTube HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP5kC4ik48I This is a class lecture to be shared with all who may be struggling to understand the clear differences between Southern Baptist Traditionalism and 5-Point Calvinism.   For more please visit www.soteriology101.com

Dan Chapa wrote: Is Calvinism Semi-Pelagian?   Given Mr. Christensen’s definition of Semi-Pelagianism, does Calvinism avoid the charge of Semi-Pelagianism? I will argue that it does not and that Calvinism has serious problems with affirming total depravity. Mr. Christensen states: "The freedom to choose to love God and exercise saving faith is not a problem. Calvinists agree with this in substance as long as freedom of choice is defined as acting willingly or voluntarily in accordance with one's regenerated nature." But this admits that on Calvinism, faith is our act – God does not believe for us. And on Calvinism we are responsible for our actions. So on Calvinism, we are responsible for our faith. So if Arminianism has a problem because man is responsible for faith, so does Calvinism, but in other ways we can see that Calvinism is worse.   On Calvinism, an unregenerate man would believe if they wanted to.3 This sort of freedom (sometimes call compatibilist freedom; other times called natural freedom does not require the man to be regenerated, nor is it dependent on supernatural grace. Rather, man by nature has the ability to act on his desires. So long as the man is not handicapped or compelled, he is free in this sense and therefore responsible per the Calvinist's own description of responsibility. So Calvinists end up with the unwanted but unavoidable conclusion that unregenerate man is able to repent and believe (in what they hold to be the morally relevant and common man’s sense of ability) 4.   This conclusion is unwanted, because Calvinists insist that one of the foundations of their theology is the idea that unregenerate men cannot repent and believe. But what we have is a conflict between Calvinists’ theology (total depravity) and their philosophy (compatibilism).Compatibilism constrains what Calvinists mean when they say man is unable to believe and whatever they mean by it, they do not mean man cannot believe in what they consider to be the common man’s notion of ability, nor in the sense of ability relevant to moral responsibility.5 To insist that God’s giving man good desires makes Him responsible for our faith, undermines the compatibilist idea that we are responsible so long as we act on our desires. Sure unconditional election and irresistible grace settle the big picture, but this settling operates above the level of moral responsibility, per compatibilism. We still act on our desires whether those desires come from our depraved nature or the new nature God gives us in regeneration; so since we are acting on our desires we are responsible in either case.  So to claim God is alone responsible undermines compatibilism.   Arminianism avoids the problems that attaches to Calvinism, by embracing Total Depravity in a deeper and more persistent way. When our Lord says "no man can come to me unless the Father who sense me draw him" (John 6:44), we take that to mean that without grace, we do not have libertarian freedom to believe. We understand Christ’s statement using the common man’s notion of ability, a sense relevant for moral responsibility. But on compatibilism, Christ is not denying compatibilist freedom, or man’s ability to believe where ability is understood in the common man and morally relevant sense. If Christ were denying compatibilist freedom, that would amount to saying we are compelled to unbelief or mentally handicapped.   So on Calvinism, without God's drawing man can believe (using the definition of ability they deem to be the main one in discussing freedom, ability and moral responsibility. And on Arminianism, without God's drawing man cannot believe (using our definition of ability, which we deem the main one for ability, responsibility and freedom). So which is Semi-Pelagian? Nevertheless, this result exposes errors in Mr. Christensen’s way of defining Semi-Pelagian, rather than identifying Calvinists as real Semi-Pelagians.    -------------------------------- 1If synergism means both God and man’s libertarian free will is involved in conversion, then yes Arminians are synergists. But synergism is often uses in other contexts such as justification by works or does man regenerate himself and Arminianism is not synergistic in these senses. 2 Faith is a gift of God in some sense and like most gifts it can be rejected, but for a discussion onEphesians 2:8-9, see http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/godgift.htm 3For example, Turretin affirms that man has "the essential freedom from coaction and physical necessity" and "natural power or faculty of the will" and even grudgingly concedes that in this sense an unregenerate man can be said to "be able to believe if he wishes". (See sections 2 and 4 on page 669 and section 40 on page 682 of Volume I, Tenth Topic, Question 4 of Institutes of Elenctic Theology).;   4 Per Calvinism, moral responsibility attaches to just compatibilist freedom (what Edwards calls moral freedom). For example, John Frame says: “An alternative concept of freedom, one consistent with Reformed theology and held by a number of philosophers (the Stoics, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Hobart, Richard Double et al) is often called “compatibilism,” for on that basis, free will and determinism (the view that all events in creation are caused) are compatible. … Reformed theology recognizes that all people have freedom in the compatibilist sense… I believe that compatibilist freedom is the main kind of freedom necessary to moral responsibility”. (link)   5According to Edwards, “But it must be observed concerning moral Inability, in each kind of it, that the word Inability is used in a sense very diverse from its original import. The word signifies only a natural Inability, in the proper use of it; and is applied to such cases only wherein a present will or inclination to the thing, with respect to which a person is said to be unable, is supposable. It cannot be truly said, according to the ordinary use of language, that a malicious man, let him be ever so malicious, cannot hold his hand from striking, or that he is not able to show his neighbor kindness; or that a drunkard, let his appetite be never so strong, cannot keep the cup from his mouth. In the strictest propriety of speech, a man has a thing in his power, if he has it in his choice, or at his election: and a man cannot be truly said to be unable to do a thing, when he can do it if he will. It is improperly said, that a person cannot perform those external actions, which are dependent on the act of the Will, and which would be easily performed, if the act of the Will were present”. (Edwards. Freedom of the Will. I.4)         http://www.traditionalbaptistchronicles.com/2013/03/prevenient-grace-and-semi-pelagianism.html

As we approach Christmas we may ask, Why?  Why did Jesus step out of heaven and into our world? What motivated our God to do that?  Leighton Flowers unpacks 1 Tim. 2:1-6 to reveal the real motivation for the incarnation which brought to pass the first Christmas at just the right time.  So too, it should be the motive of the The Bride of Christ every Christmas: The desire for the salvation of every man, woman, boy and girl! For more go to www.soteriology101.com

Many of you may recall the last couple of shows where I respond to Dale and Drew, two good Calvinistic brothers who have a podcast called "Reformasium." We critiqued each other's views fairly harshly, but we've become quite cordial in our conversations over our differences.  They are in the process of recording another response to my last podcast but in the meanwhile you can listen to our long, but productive, discussion over the doctrines of salvation. For more visit us at www.soteriology101.com