Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

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

Dr. Sam Storms, pastor of Bridgeway Baptist Church in Oklahoma and serving on the board with Desiring God Ministries, takes a different approach to interpreting 2 Peter 3:9 than many online Calvinists are taking these days.  He also argues that the natural, sinful tendency of mankind is to try and take credit for our salvation which is why many are "Arminians" naturally. Professor Flowers destroys this notion in today's podcast.  Let's dive in.    For more go to www.soteriology101.com

I saw this argument posed by a Christian in a debate with an Atheist recently and it reminded me of an important point. We should always be willing to objectively and honestly ask the question, “What if I’m wrong?” What are the practical, real world consequences if what I believe, teach and practice is in error? When it comes to the soteriological differences between the Calvinist and the Traditionalist, like myself, this question is especially pertinent. If non-Calvinists are wrong, what temporal or eternal harm have we really caused? As I have said before, we are either rightly standing in defense of God’s glory or God has sovereignly determined for us to be wrong for the praise of His glory. If I am mistaken, no fewer people are going to heaven, no less glory will be given to God than what He decided and nothing I do will ultimately harm or hinder the desire of God for this temporal world or the eternal one to come. I literally have nothing practical to gain by converting to Calvinism. And I know if the claims of Calvinists are true and God wants me to become one, then I certainly will. In fact, I sincerely pray He converts me to adopt sound theology. I have no desire to teach false interpretations of scripture as I believe I did for many years, so I can honestly say I am open to correction. I wonder how many Calvinists have objectively evaluated this question. I am not trying to aggravate my Calvinistic friends anymore so than Lacrae is trying to agitate Athesists by asking them to objectively consider the consequences if they are in error. Let’s list some of the negative temporal and eternal effects that Calvinism has had if indeed it is wrong: Countless church splits. Much time, resources and energy wasted over the issue. Hyper anti-evangelism by some who take the view to their logical ends. Some repulsed by a seemingly monsterous view of God. Some falling into fatalistic handling of temptations and addictions (if God wants me to quit this addiction or resist this temptation He will give me the effectual grace to do so) God’s character of love, grace and genuinely providing salvation for every person being clouded and subverted. “Cage stage” Calvinists turning unbelievers off to God. Austin Fischer, author of Young, Restless and No Longer Reformed,” recently wrote, “It seems the primary concern for Calvinists is making sure human’s can’t boast in salvation, whereas the primary concern for free-will theism is a recognizably good God.”  What are Calvinists really accomplishing by converting believers to adopt Calvinism? Practically speaking, if Calvinism is correct, the Calvinist’s arguments are not going to determine who will or will not adopt Calvinism anyway and if Calvinism is false, then a well intending Calvinists shouldn’t want to risk converting others to a false interpretation anyway.  Thus, there is no practical reason for Calvinists to promote Calvinism. It’s not worth the risk. Objections anticipated: There are rude non-Calvinists who turn the lost off to God too: Agreed, but this article is considering IF one view is right and the other one is wrong, and if Calvinism is right it is not as if rude Arminians aren’t here by God’s sovereign design. Rude Arminians are not going to repulse the effectually called elect of Calvinism and prevent them from their inevitable conversion. Calvinists don’t teach hyperism or fatalism: Agreed, which is why I said that some could take it further than the claims of the system which would create worse error (which has happened throughout history). We should believe the truth of scripture regardless of your perceived negative implications: Agreed, but again, if Calvinism is correct then God sovereignly decreed for me to perceive these negative implications and to write this post. So, if we’re contrasting objectively then I am still doing what is best for God’s self glorifying purposes. You are an idiot: By God’s unchangeable decree and for His greatest glory? I am okay with that! ;-)

Dr. James White is often making the claim that the Corporate View of Election is an "impersonal election of a nameless, faceless group," but of course this is another straw-man fallacy White has employed to try and discredit the perspective. Which view of God's choice is really more impersonal?  The one where the personal names, faces, inclinations, desires, behaviors and morality of the individuals are not in view when the choice is made? Or the one where they are in full view?  You decide.  Let's dive into Ephesians chapter 1.   For more go to www.soteriology101.com

Travis, a "reformed leaning" student attending SWBTS, called in to discuss his own questions about Calvinism and to objectively evaluate his current soteriology as contrasted with Traditionalism.  For more visit us at www.soteriology101.com

Listen in as Leighton Flowers preaches a sermon titled "Defining the Relationship."  He tells his own spiritual journey and unpacks what it means to define our relationship with God even in the midst of doubt.  

Dr. White deals with style over substance, something he would not allow of those who engage with him, so Professor Flowers doesn't let him get away with it either. Listen to Flowers pull apart every tactic Dr. White employees, but with respect and Christ-like love. For more go to www.soteriology101.com