Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

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

Professor Flowers discusses the various theological approaches to dealing with the problem of evil and suffering in our world.  He responds to a high deterministic Calvinist who engaged with him on his blog article titled: "Does God Bring About the Abuse of Children for His Own Glory?" Here: http://wp.me/p5gZ5t-lE  For more visit www.soteriology101.com

Dr. John Piper is known as the one of the leaders in the modern resurgence of neo-Calvinism.  He is asked if he overemphasizes the so-called 'doctrines of grace' (Calvinism).  His answer presents several points worthy of discussion, the paramount of which is the motive behind making God's glory manifest.  The question is whether Calvinism's worldview is the best systematic in bringing the greatest glory to our God. Let's dive in! Visit us at www.soteriology101.com for more information.

Professor Leighton Flowers responds to Pastor Sean Cole's podcast over the doctrine of Total Inability and the need for the Effectual Calling. In part 2, we deal specifically with the biblical texts that Sean uses to support these Calvinistic views.   For more please visit us at www.soteriology101.com

Professor Leighton Flowers responds to Pastor Sean Cole's podcast over the doctrine of Total Inability and the need for the Effectual Calling.   For more please visit us at www.soteriology101.com