Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

Dr. Brian Wagner Ph.D, Professor of Biblical Languages at Virgina Baptist College, joins the discussion today over the role of the Holy Spirit in Salvation. To join Professor Wagner and Professor Flowers in a discussion over this topic and much more please visit www.soteriology101.com

Professor Flowers was addressed on the "downgrade" segment of the Pulpit and Pen Podcast hosted by JD Hall. Hall took issue with Flowers' definition of "Divine Sovereignty," in a recent article ran by SBC Today, yet Hall never really engaged Professor Flowers on their point of contention. Here is a copy of the article from www.soteriology101.com The attribute of God’s Sovereignty is not an eternal attribute. Sovereignty means complete rule or dominion over others. For him to be in control over others there has to be others in which to control. He can’t display His power over creatures unless the creatures exist. Therefore, before creation the concept of sovereignty was not an attribute that could be used to describe God. An eternal attribute is something God possesses that is not contingent upon something else. The eternal attribute of God is His omnipotence, which refers to His eternally limitless power. Sovereignty is a temporal characteristic, not an eternal one, thus we can say God is all powerful, not because He is sovereign, but He is sovereign because He is all powerful, or at least He is as sovereign as He so chooses to be in relation to this temporal world. As Dr. Ach put it, “Sovereignty is the expression of God’s power, not the source of it.” If the all powerful One chooses to refrain from meticulously ruling over every aspect of that which He creates, that in no way denies His eternal attribute of omnipotence, but indeed affirms it. It is the Calvinist who denies the eternal attribute of omnipotence, by presuming the all powerful One cannot refrain from meticulous deterministic rule over His creation. In short, the Calvinist denies God’s eternal attribute in his effort to protect the temporal one. Additionally, an argument could be made that the eternal attributes of God’s love and His holiness are likewise compromised by the well meaning efforts of our Calvinistic brethren to protect their concept of deterministic sovereignty over the temporal world. No one is denying that sovereignty is a current attribute of God, but only in part given that He has not yet taken full sovereign control over everything on earth as it is in heaven. Passages throughout the Bible teach that there are “authorities” and “powers” which are yet to be destroyed, and that have been given dominion over God’s creation. Isaiah 24:21A time is coming when the Lord will punish the powers above and the rulers of the earth. Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Colossians 2:20You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. 1 Corinthians 15:24Then the end will come; Christ will overcome all spiritual rulers, authorities, and powers, and will hand over the Kingdom to God the Father. Don’t misunderstand my point. I affirm that God is greater than these powers and authorities. He created them after all. Colossians 1:16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. And one day God will strip them of that authority: Colossians 2:15 God stripped the spiritual rulers and powers of their authority. With the cross, he won the victory and showed the world that they were powerless. But, if God has chosen to allow created beings to have dominion and power over something, even for a time, how is His “sovereignty” (as defined by some being “complete and total control/determination over every single thing” eternally) not compromised? God is certainly more powerful than any evil. He could stifle it at any moment with a word. I don’t think anyone is denying that. And I think we all agree that there’s a sense in which it is proper even to say that “evil is part of His eternal decree.” (Permissively) He planned for it, obviously. It did not take Him by surprise. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10), but isn’t there a difference in working evil out for good and unchangeably determining evil yourself? It’s one thing to help my child grow from being bullied, its another for me to hire the bully so as to make my child grow. Most say that God’s role with regard to evil is never as its “author,” but few define the distinction between “predetermining,” “ordaining,” “decreeing,” as contrasted with the concept of “authoring.” Ask the next Calvinist you speak with to give example of God authoring evil and then an example of God decreeing evil and see if you can find a distinction with an actual difference. Only if he affirms the concept of bare permission (God allowing men to be free and make their own choices) can any real distinction be drawn between those terms. 1 Tim 6:15, Isa 48:11, Isa 42:8. Isa 44:24, Heb 1:3, Rev 19:6, 1 Cor 8:5

Another great "Sound of the Saints" episode where we hear from a faithful listener and patron of the podcast, Stephen Bowen. Practical theology is the primary topic of discussion as Leighton and Stephen discuss how theology affects every part of our lives. Some time is also spent talking about the debate with James White and others over the doctrines of Calvinism. Let's dive in. To join Professor Leighton Flowers in discussion or to support the ministry please visit www.soteriology101.com

Professor Leighton Flowers has Pastor Sean Cole, a SBC Calvinist, on the show to discuss the different soteriological perspectives while modeling a Christlike attitude and graciousness that is all too rare today. Let's dive in! To join the discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com Song: Hey Brother by Aviccii

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries puts out a great podcast called "Theology Unplugged" that I highly recommend. They are reformed brothers discussing theology and though I agree with them most of the time I do take issue with a few of their views regarding sovereignty, free will and the doctrines of salvation. This podcast tackles the question about God's infinite knowledge of the future and whether or not God can change His mind. Let's dive in! To join the discussion or support the ministry visit: www.soteriology101.com

Pastor and Author Tim Keller preached a message over Romans 8:28-39 where he discussion Divine Foreknowledge and His sovereign control over every thing that comes to pass. While I agree with many of his views there are a few apparent differences that have to be pointed out and rightly understood within the biblical context. Let's dive in. To join the discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com

Today we listen to the "sounds of the Saints" (Audio Adrenaline). The podcast is dedicated to letting our listeners voices be heard. We often hear the critiques of the podcast, but rarely do we hear from those who stand in agreement. Today we listen to Trinity Radio where two Ph.Ds provide a positive review of the debate on Romans 9. We also read the reviews off iTunes and Amazon. A big shout out and thanks to the Patreons of the podcast. Join our discussion at www.soteriology101.com

Commentary on Romans 8:28-39 By Leighton Flowers 28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. The Greek verb οἶδα (oida), translated as “we know,” is a perfect active indicative form of the verb, meaning “to observe and therefore perceive.”[1] The perfect tense indicates past completed action with continuous results. Paul is literally saying, “we have observed and therefore we know.” This is not intuitive knowledge, but that which comes from observation of the past. Paul is saying that we know from observation of God’s past dealings with those who love Him that He has a mysterious way of working things out for the greatest good. By observing the stories of the saints that have gone before us, those called to accomplish His redemptive purposes, we can rest in knowledge of this truth. God can take whatever evil may come our way and redeem it for good. We can know this because He has been doing it for generations. So, Paul is not merely saying that his readers should intuitively know how God works things out for those who love him. He is saying we know what is true of God by observing what He has done in the past for those who loved Him. We have a great cloud of witnesses that have gone before us (Heb. 12:1), giving evidence of God’s trustworthiness toward all who enter into a covenant with Him. A simple survey of the verses leading up to this point reveals that Paul is reflecting on the problem of the evil and suffering in our world since the beginning: “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now” (Rom. 8:20-22, emphasis added). Notable New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright, comments on Romans 8:28-30, saying in part: “[This passage] is a sharp, close-up, compressed telling of the story of Israel, as the chosen people, whose identity and destiny is then brought into sharp focus on Jesus. Jesus, in a sense, is the one ‘chosen one.’ But, then that identity is shared with all of those who are ‘in Christ.’ And he [Paul] isn’t talking primarily there about salvation. He is talking primarily about the way God is healing the whole creation. There is a danger here. What has happened in so many theological circles over the years is that people have come to the text assuming that it is really saying how we are to get to heaven, and what is the mechanism and how does that work. And if you do that, interestingly, many exegetes will more or less skip over Romans 8:18-27, which is about the renewing of creation…”[2] In verse 28 the focus shifts to providing comfort for those in suffering by reminding them to observe God’s dealings with others who loved God throughout history. Notice that this truth is not applicable to everyone. It is specifically an observation of those who “love God,” or as Wright noted, “those who are in Christ.” The point is not that God causes everything for a good purpose, but that God redeems the evil for a good purpose in the lives of those who love Him. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to use this passage to support the concept of divine meticulous determinism of all things. Again, God does not cause the evil for His purposes, but instead He redeems the evil for a good purpose. As John MacArthur explains: “But God's role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good.”[3] The focus of the Apostle’s observation is on the saints of old, those from the elect nation of Israel who were called to fulfill God’s plan to redeem His creation from its groans and sufferings. This does not mean that the truth being revealed is not applicable to those of other nations. Rather, it means that what is proven to be true of God by observing His dealings with those called out from Israel throughout history must also be true of anyone who comes to follow and love the God of Israel. Consider this example. A new Pastor is called to a church. The staff members are nervous about his leadership style and how they might be treated, but a reference who knows the Pastor might reflect on his past relationships in order to ease their fears. The Pastor’s reference might say something like, “I have observed this Pastor’s dealings with the staff members he knew before, and he has always worked to lovingly support anyone who gets behind the vision and direction of the church.” By reflecting on this Pastor’s history, the new staff can know what to expect in their future dealings with him. So too, Paul is giving a divine reference of sorts by reflecting on the trustworthiness of God in His dealings with the saints of old so as to ensure his readers of what they may expect of Him. 29 For those whom He foreknew, Paul does not shift his focus from the saints of old as he continues through this passage. No, he remains on this point so as to prove its truthfulness. By reflecting on God’s faithfulness to His chosen nation, those beloved who were “known before,” Paul is providing a reference to ease the fears of those who are just now coming to faith. This point continues to be the Apostle’s focus for the next three chapters. Much debate centers on the meaning of the word προγινώσκω (proginōskō), but many of the most popular authors fail to recognize all the available options for consideration. For example, Dr. John Piper, a notable Calvinistic Pastor, lists only two options for interpreting this verse: “Option #1: God foresaw our self-determined faith. We remain the decisive cause of our salvation. God responds to our decision to believe. Option #2: God chose us — not on the basis of foreseen faith, but on the basis of nothing in us. He called us, and the call itself creates the faith for which it calls.”[4] Piper seems to overlook the most basic meaning of this term, which is “to know before” or to have known in the past. The same Greek word is used in 2 Peter 3:17, which states, “You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men…” And in Acts 26:4-5 the same word is used: “So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem; since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion.” Clearly, this word can be understood simply as “to know someone or something in the past,” as in those “known previously” (i.e. the saints of old). So, if Paul means to use the word proginōskō in this sense, then he is simply saying, “Because we have seen how God worked all things to the good for those whom He knew before, we know that He will do the same for those who love and are called by Him now.” Calvinists contend that the word “foreknew” is equivalent to “foreloved.” That use of the word generally fits this application given that the Israelites of the past who loved God would have certainly been loved by God before (i.e. “foreloved”). Of course the Calvinistic application is different in that they insist this passage is about God setting His love upon certain individuals before the foundation of the world. Calvinists will go to great lengths to show that God did not merely “foresee” (by “looking down the corridors of time”) the behavior and choices of the elect, but that He knew them intimately and set His effectual love on them before the foundation of the world.[5] This argument may serve to address the classical Arminian approach (Piper’s first option), but it fails to address the approach being advocated here. “Foreloved” is a viable and even likely meaning of the term proginōskō, yet it does not tell us who may be the intended target of that divine love. Is it a group of people out of the mass of humanity preselected to be effectually saved in the mind of the Apostle? Or, is it simply those of the past who God has known and faithfully cared for throughout the generations? He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, Who is being “predestined” and to what ends are they being predestined according to this passage? Remember the point of the Apostle leading up to this verse. He began speaking about the futility and suffering that has come into this world due to the fall of humanity into sin (vs. 20-22). And in verse 28 he provides comfort by reminding his readers of the trustworthiness of God for those who have loved him throughout the generations. Paul is reminding his readers that God will redeem the suffering and evil for a good purpose in their lives just as He has done in the lives of those known and loved throughout the previous generations. It is these who God previously knew, Israelites who loved God in the past, who were predestined to be conformed into the image of Christ so as to make the way for His coming. God planned to accomplish salvation for those who were previously known and loved (i.e Abraham, Moses, David), by conforming them into the image of the very One coming to purchase their redemption. This is the ultimate example of God causing “all things to work together for good” to those saints of old who loved and were called by God. Paul is saying that God “worked together” the redemption of their souls and He will do the same for whoever loves Him. As N.T. Wright puts it: “Here is the note of hope which has been sounded by implication so often since it was introduced in 5:2: hope for the renewal of all creation, in a great act of liberation for which the exodus from Egypt was simply an early type. As a result, all that Israel hoped for, all that it based its hope on, is true of those who are in Christ.”[6] so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; Consider the fact that he is speaking about what Christ “would be,” which proves that Paul still has the saints of old in focus here. Why would Paul speak of future generations being conformed to the image of Christ so that He “would be the firstborn of many brethren” if He was already the firstborn prior to this discourse? For instance, a modern day preacher would not teach that we are being conformed to Christ’s image “so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren,” because we know Him to already be the firstborn of many brethren. Our being conformed today has nothing to do with the future coming of Christ’s birth, whereas the saints of old were part of His very lineage. It is through the life of men like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and many other saints of old that Christ is brought into this world “so that He would be the firstborn of many brethren.” Clearly, Paul is reflecting on God’s redemptive purpose being accomplished through those who loved God in former generations. That redemptive purpose included the bringing of the Messiah into this world through Israel (Rom 9:4-5), or more specifically those Israelites set apart for that noble purpose (Rom. 9:21). This was God’s “predestined” plan of redemption, which was brought to pass through those “who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (vs. 28). As Pastor and author Tim Warner describes: “Paul was not referring to some prior knowledge in the mind of God before creation. Nor was He speaking about predetermining their fate. He was referring to those whom God knew personally and intimately, men like Abraham and David. The term “foreknew” does not mean to have knowledge of someone before they were conceived. The verb “proegnw” is the word for “know” (in an intimate sense) with the preposition “pro” (before) prefixed to it. It refers to having an intimate relationship with someone in the past…Literally, we could render Rom. 8:29 as follows: “For those God formerly knew intimately, He previously determined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.” The individual saints of old, with whom God had a personal relationship, were predestined by Him to be conformed to the image of Christ. That is, God predetermined to bring their salvation to completion by the sacrifice of Christ on their behalf.” [7] 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. Notice the Apostle’s use of the past tense in this verse. If Paul is intending to speak about the future salvation of every elect individual why would he use all these past tense verbs? Paul, when writing these words, had not yet been glorified, and his readers certainly had not been glorified yet, so why use the past tense of the word “glorified?” There is no reason to assume he has in mind the future glorification of all believers. Once again, Paul is clearly referencing former generations of those who have loved God, those called to fulfill His redemptive purpose, those He knew and loved in the past generations, those predestined by God to be made in the very image of the One to come, “the firstborn of many brethren” (something already completed in the past through the working of God in former generations). These are the individuals who He called, justified, and who now, even as Paul is writing these words, are already “glorified” in the presence of God. This truth is more clearly stated in Hebrews 9:15: “And for this reason He [Jesus] is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, so that those having been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” The Greek word “keklhmenoi,” is a perfect passive participle which literally translated means “having been called.” This clearly refers to those in the past with whom God had a personal loving relationship. So too, Paul in Romans 8 is using the past tense verbs to indicate his intentions. Nothing in these passages is meant to introduce a “golden chain” of irresistible salvation for certain preselected individuals throughout all of human history. That meaning has to be eisegetically read into the text. Due to the use of the past tense verbs, Calvinists are forced to do some textual gymnastics in order to maintain their interpretation of Paul’s intent. For instance, one notable Calvinistic commentary states: “And all this is viewed as past; because, starting from the past decree of ‘predestination to be conformed to the image of God's Son’ of which the other steps are but the successive unfoldings—all is beheld as one entire, eternally completed salvation.”[8] Calvinists are forced to interpret Paul’s use of the past tense as meaning “it is as good as done because it is predestined.” But the text never says this is Paul’s intention. The Calvinistic commentator should take into account Paul’s usage of the same term earlier in the chapter as a future tense hope for believers. For example, notice Paul’s reference to the future glorification in Romans 8:17: “…and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.” He does not speak of glorification as a past-completed action in reference to the believers in his day. In fact, he seems to qualify their being glorified upon the condition that they persevere through the suffering that is to come. If it is “as good as done” due to God’s predetermination, then why would Paul make such a qualification and use the future tense of the same verb? Further, Paul goes on to speak of the eager expectation of the glorification that is to come in verses 22-25: “For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.” Are we to believe that Paul shifts from speaking of glorification as a future hope for those who persevere, to speaking of it as a past and already completed action even for those who have not yet been glorified? Or could it simply be that Paul has the saints of old still in full view as he makes his case for the trustworthiness of God throughout all generations? This certainly seems to be the simplest and most basic understanding of the Apostle’s words in this context. Paul clearly intended to communicate that those who loved God, those who God previously knew in times past, were predestined by God to be conformed into the image of the One to come through them, the “firstborn of many brethren.” Paul is giving a brief history lesson of what God had done in former generations as a reference for God’s trustworthiness for all who come to Him in faith. N.T. Wright explains it this way: “The creation is not god, but it is designed to be flooded with God: the Spirit will liberate the whole creation. Underneath all this, of course, remains christology: the purpose was that the Messiah “might be the firstborn among many siblings” (8:29). Paul is careful not to say, or imply, that the privileges of Israel are simply “transferred to the church,” even though, for him, the church means Jews-and-Gentiles-together-in-Christ. Rather, the destiny of Israel has devolved, entirely appropriately within the Jewish scheme, upon the Messiah. All that the new family inherit, they inherit in him.”[9] Those who object to the suggestion that Paul’s use of this passage is limited to the beloved of Israel should consider the following: “But as for Israel He says, ‘All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.’ I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.” (Rom. 10:21-11:2) Once again Paul uses the term proginōskō in reference to God’s intimate relationship with the faithful Israelites of old. Paul goes on to make his case: “Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” (Rom. 11:2-4) Elijah and those who refused to bow a knee were among the ones who were previously known by God. To “foreknow” (or even “forelove”) refers to God’s intimate relationship with people who loved Him in the past (like Abraham referenced in Rom. 4:22-5:5). There is nothing in this or any other text that supports the concept of a mystical pre-selection of certain individuals out of the mass of humanity in eternity past. No other passage in scripture supports that meaning of the term “foreknow” in reference to the Israelites who were in covenant with God. It always can simply be interpreted as in reference to those known by God in former times. So, to return to our analogy above, the Pastor had former staff members whom he intimately knew and loved. The new staff would be comforted to know of the Pastor’s prior dealings with those formerly known and loved. Likewise, those being “grafted into” covenant with the God of Israel for the first time (i.e. the Gentiles) would be thrilled to learn of God’s faithfulness to those He formerly knew and loved (i.e. men like Abraham and David, etc.). The rest of this passage falls right in line with this interpretation: 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written, “For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. If God was so trustworthy and faithful to those who loved Him in the past then who can stand against those of us who love Him today? If God did this for the Israelites of old, those who He formerly knew, then we can rest assured this is a God we can trust. He will stand with us. He will work all things together for our good too. And nothing, absolutely nothing, can separate those who love God from “the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Suddenly, the objector in Paul’s mind asks a question: “Paul, you have made a good case regarding God’s faithfulness to the Israelites in the past, but what about the Israelites today? Have God’s promises for Israel failed? Why are the Israelites today refusing to accept their own Messiah?” The Apostle sets out to answer these very questions in chapters 9-11. [1]Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, #1492 [2] N.T Wright in a question and answer session at Oklahoma Christian University on April 1, 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKwIijhZW-M [3] http://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A189/is-god-responsible-for-evil [4] John Piper, Sermon: “Foreknown by God” Quoted from: http://www.desiringgod.org/labs/foreknown-by-god [5] http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/foreknew.html [6] http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf [7]http://www.pfrs.org/commentary/Rom_8_28.pdf [8] Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary http://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/romans/8.htm [9] http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf (pg. 20)

Peter is concerned that His Lord doesn't suffer. He sincerely want to protect the glory of His Lord, but Jesus calls him a stumbling block. Could some people unintentionally be seeking to protect what they feel is the glory of God while actually serving as stumbling blocks to what is truly glorious? Let's dive in. Join our discussion at www.soteriology101.com

We listen to a clip from the Seminary Dropout Podcast with Shane Blackshear and his guest Austin Fischer, author of Young, Restless and No Longer Reformed. Austin makes a great point about what a true humanistic and man centered theology looks like in light of the God we see best reflected in Christ. We end the podcast by playing the closing remarks in my most recent debate with Dr. James White. Let's dive in! To join the discussion please visit us as www.soteriology101.com