Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

Is God's grace effectual?  Is God successful at accomplishing His purpose? RC Sproul Jr visits the pub and we respond to their discussion from the Traditional Non-Calvinistic Southern Baptist perspective.  Join us.   To interact with Professor Leighton Flowers go to www.soteriology101.com

The Reformed Pubcast puts out a podcast that teaches Calvinistic soteriology.  Jeff Durbin, host of Apologia Radio, is a guest on their series over TULIP and he expounds on the doctrine of Total Inability.  We start today looking at a book by Dr. Adam Harwood titled "Born Guilty?" where he shows the clear distinction between being born with a sin nature inclined toward sin and be born guilty of Adam's sin.  Let's dive in! To join the conversation with Professor Leighton Flowers go to www.soteriology101.com Music from today's episode can be found at www.truprophetministries.com

In the last two Dividing Line programs, Dr. James White, confronts the Traditionalist statement of SBC by attempting to redefine Federal Headship. He also confronts Dr. David Allen's accusation of his "Hyperisms."  In doing so he admits that he and other Calvinists (JD Hall) have been wrong ("muddle headed") to label us Pelagians.  I'm glad that Dr. White has recognized his error. Let's discuss! To join Professor Leighton Flowers and others in a discussion please visit www.soteriology101.com

The ending song is "How Can it Be" by Lauren Daigle and it is available on iTunes. Today we respond to another one of James White's Dividing Line programs where he continues to make the same basic errors, fallacies and misapplications. We go through each of these error point by point.  I then I end with some 'straight talk' of my own.  To join the discussion with Professor Leighton Flowers please go to www.soteriology101.com  

What is the intent of the apostle John in the sixth chapter of his gospel?  Does he teach the Calvinistic doctrine?  Professor Flowers addresses James White's erroneous and short sited interpretation of the hotly contested chapter on today's episode.  Below is a copy of the original blog article from www.soteriology101.com    I remember my hermeneutics professor saying at the beginning of every class: “Text without context is a pretext for proof-text.” Context tells us the history, the setting, the audience and thus helps understand the intention of the author.  The grammar can inform us of what interpretations are allowed, but the author’s intent is best discovered in the overall context. The sixth chapter of John is one of the top three most contested passages in all of scripture regarding the doctrine of salvation (along with Rom. 9 and Eph. 1). So, as students of scripture lets put our hermeneutical training to work and answer the major questions about the context of this hotly contested chapter: 1. What is the context? Who is the audience? What is going on at this time? The audience is a bunch of unbelieving Israelites looking for free food (vs. 25-31) and the twelve apostles (vs. 70). What do we know about the Israelites of this day? a. They have “become calloused…Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them” (Acts 28:27).  They were not born calloused, but over time they had grown hardened in their religious self-righteousness which prevented them from hearing, seeing and responding to the revelation of God. b. They are being ‘judicially hardened’ (or ‘cut off’ or ‘sent a spirit of stupor’) so as to seal them in their calloused condition.  Why? To accomplish a greater redemptive purpose through their rebellion (crucifixion, ingrafting Gentiles into the church — Rom. 9-11). c. Jesus is not attempting to “win them over” or have them come to faith in great numbers as we see in Acts 2 when Peter preaches.  In fact, in support of God’s judicial hardening of Israel, we see Jesus actively instructing his apostles to not tell others who he is yet (Mt. 16:20).  Jesus purposefully speaks in parables in order to prevent their coming to faith and repentance (Mark 4:11-13; Matt. 13:11-15).  If anything, Jesus is actively provoking the Jews with very difficult teachings.  In this chapter he tells them to eat his flesh and drink his blood without explanation (vs. 51-52). Clearly He is not attempting to persuade this audience to stick around. He is provoking them purposefully. Is this contextual information relevant when attempting to understand the author’s intention with regard to the natural inability of mankind from birth? I certainly would think so given he is addressing a large group of people nicknamed “the elect of God” who are being actively blinded by God from seeing the truth. Notice, the judicially hardened Jews are not the only ones present when Jesus is speaking in John 6. The twelve apostles are also in the audience and in fact they are the only ones who stick around after Jesus is done provoking the crowd with his “pro-cannibalistic” sounding sermon (vs. 66-67). Why didn’t the twelve leave too? It is almost as if they were “drawn to him” through persuasive teachings and miraculous signs. Remember, unlike the other Israelites in the audience, they had watched Jesus walk on water, control the weather, heal the blind, feed the masses and had personally explained to them the meaning of the mysteries that the world had not yet been given (Eph. 3: 1-13). Those Jesus are entrusting with the truth from Israel are only a select few at this time (while He is on earth).  The rest are being hardened in their already calloused self-righteous stubborn condition…NOT a condition from birth due to the Fall (as Calvinists impose onto this text), but a condition of their own doing. A condition God is using to accomplish a greater redemptive good for all. With that context in mind let us look at the text: 35 “I am the bread of life,” Jesus told them. “Those who come to me will never be hungry; those who believe in me will never be thirsty. 36 Now, I told you that you have seen me but will not believe.37 Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me, 38 because I have come down from heaven to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me.39 And it is the will of him who sent me that I should not lose any of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them all to life on the last day. 40 For what my Father wants is that all who see the Son and believe in him should have eternal life. And I will raise them to life on the last day.” 41 The people started grumbling about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 So they said, “This man is Jesus son of Joseph, isn’t he? We know his father and mother. How, then, does he now say he came down from heaven?” 43 Jesus answered, “Stop grumbling among yourselves. 44 People cannot come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me; and I will raise them to life on the last day. (John 6:35-43) Calvinistic believers often emphasize verse 37 as it relates to verse 39 to prove that the author intends to teach Calvinistic doctrine (i.e. that God has preselected a particular number of people to irresistibly draw to faith while leaving all others without the ability to respond to the revelation of God).  However, I’d like to draw our attention to the CONTEXT clue given in verse 38. Everyone whom my Father gives me will come to me. I will never turn away anyone who comes to me,38 because I have come down from heaven to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me.39 And it is the will of him who sent me that I should not lose any of all those he has given me, but that I should raise them all to life on the last day. (John 6:37-39, emphasis added) Jesus is clearly speaking contextually of what is happening while he is “down from heaven.”  While on earth God has clearly sent Christ to accomplish a specific part of His redemptive will.  Is that will to be a great evangelist, like Peter in Acts 2, and win thousands to faith? Clearly not.  God’s will is for Jesus to come “down from heaven” and train a group of pre-selected Israelites (those given to Him to be apostles) to carry the gospel to the rest of the world and establish His Church after He is raised up (John 12:32; Mt. 28:19). Calvinists are taking something Jesus is addressing in his actual first century context and applying it to their holistic systematic view of salvation for all God’s elect throughout all of time.  This is an example of proof texting. What Calvinists unintentionally fail to see is that Jesus, while here on earth in the flesh, is actively and judicially blinding Israel by means of parables, a spirit of stupor, and provoking language, while only drawing to himself (while on earth) a remnant of preselected Israelite messengers (to carry out the purpose for which Israel was elected from the beginning: to bring the light to the rest of the world – Gen. 12:3; Rom. 3:2). In other words, Jesus’ audience in John 6 is made up of his preselected apostles from Israel and the already calloused Israelites who are being judicially blinded by God from seeing the truth (John 12:39-41; Acts 28:27-27; Mark 4; Matt. 13; Romans 11). The reason his audience walks away is not because God rejected them from before the foundation of the earth, as Calvinism presumes. By no means! God has consistently expressed his desire for the repentance and faith of the Israelite people (Mt. 23:37; Rom. 10:31; Ezk 18:30-31; 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tim. 2:4, etc).  They are walking away because God has sealed them over in their already rebellious condition for a time in order to accomplish His redemptive plan, as was prophesied (Acts 2:23).  Israel is not rejecting God because God rejected them!  Quite the opposite.  God is temporarily hardening those in their calloused condition in order to accomplish redemption for all, including them (Rm. 11:32). So, what is the intent of John 6?  Is it as the Calvinist teaches — that God has condemned all men over to a totally disabled condition from birth due to the sin of Adam and only irresistibly draws out a pre-selected number of people for salvation leaving the rest without any hope of response to His own appeals for reconciliation? OR…Is the intent of John 6 to tell us the narrative of Jesus’ provoking Israel in their hardened unbelief while drawing out for himself a remnant of divinely appoint messengers to take the gospel into all the world, drawing all to himself, after he is raised up?  When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to me. – John 12:32 Also, for more study on God’s calling out of his apostles: PLEASE READ: “Have you been given to Christ by the Father? For more clarity on the doctrine of divine election, especially as it relates to the distinction between God’s appointment of servants to carry his message and his choice of those who believe that message: PLEASE CLICK HERE.

In today's episode we discuss the origin of evil as the basis of autonomous freedom and the dilemma of divine culpability that some Calvinists are not willing to admit.  We also discuss the purpose of means as it relates to accomplishing the purpose that is stated in the bible if Calvinism is true.   To join the discussion with Professor Leighton Flowers please visit www.soteriology101.com

Dr. James White, on his Divinding Line program, addressed another one of my articles and this is my response. Below is a copy of that article from www.soteriology101.com   In order to prepare for a debate with Dr. James White I have been listening and reading through many various online discussions. Recently I have come across a troubling and quite confounding argument made by my Calvinistic friends. They seem to insist that all the heinous evil in our world must have been meticulously brought to pass by God’s sovereign plan otherwise it would prove (1) God has no purpose for evil's existence or (2) He is powerless to do anything about it. For instance, James White was asked, “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?” He answered, “Yes, because if not then it’s meaningless and purposeless and though God knew it was going to happen he created it without a purpose… and God is responsible for the creation of despair… If He didn’t then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.” (See comments for original source) Another Calvinistic scholar, Matt Slick states, “If libertarians were correct in that man has ‘free choice,’ then when man committed a gross evil against his neighbor, the evil committed would have been pointless. That is, if God had no control over what, where, or when evil took place, then it only naturally follows that the suffering produced from the evil was without purpose, and thus pointless. For example, if someone were robbed and beaten, and yet God had no say in the crime whatsoever (for it was a free, uninhibited action based upon the criminal’s free will), then the person robbed would not have only been unjustly treated, but the evil he endured would have had no point to it.  It was just a spontaneous action from a criminal.  God is sort of left helpless in the matter.” [Quotes taken from Matt Strider's Blog] I agree with what Matt Strider concludes, “It is obvious both Matt Slick and James White are committing the logical fallacy of a false dilemma. Namely they are insisting that there exists only two alternatives or solutions to a problem when in fact there are other valid options to be considered.” Logical fallacies confound the issue and at times they can convince unsuspecting listeners of an argument’s validity. This approach is very similar to the fallacious question asked by Calvinists regarding the boast worthiness of the libertarian's decision in salvation (see HERE). But, I assure you there is not much substance behind either of these baseless arguments. Let’s unpack it. What Calvinists fail to acknowledge is that in our system evil is a consequence of autonomous human freedom (something they presume cannot exist). And, in fact, we do believe that God does have a purpose in giving man the ability to make autonomously free choices. So, it is only in presuming that God did not purpose to create autonomous creatures that one is left with the dilemma of either (1) God purposing evil or (2) purposeless evil. I believe a clear distinction must be made in the idea of God actively purposing evil and His actively using evil for His good purposes. The former impugns his Holiness while the latter highlights His redemptive sovereignty and ultimate glory as the perfect, sinless Creator. So, in short, the Calvinist has assumed our premise cannot be true (question begging) and concluded that God is either (1) purposing all evil or (2) the existence of evil has no purpose (false dichotomy). Thus, their argument, once again, rests on a fallacy. Calvinists should be asking what we believe God’s purpose is in creating autonomously free creatures, not merely presuming He hasn’t, or couldn’t even if He so desired.  (And in turn we should be asking Calvinists what they believe God's purpose is in creating non-autonomous creatures that He Himself determines to do evil.) Historically, non-Calvinists have not avoided addressing this question. I believe CS Lewis gives the most plausible answer: “God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they've got to be free. Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk. (...) If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it--it is worth paying.”  For another answer to this question, listen to this clip from Ravi Zacharias: HERE But what is the answer for the Calvinist? Since God is obviously fine with determining mankind to think, believe and act as He determines, then why not just create them as He wishes them to be from the beginning? Why determine suffering, rape, molestations, and the like in order to produce in creatures what clearly He is more than willing to determine in them apart from such means anyway?  To claim there is a purpose in a given act of evil, one must establish what purpose that given evil act accomplished that could not have been accomplished equally as well through non-evil means.  The concept of "purposeful means" is a problem for the Calvinist. For instance, in Romans 11:14 Paul anticipates that envy might provoke his fellow countryman so that they may be saved. What specific purpose does provoking a man to envy accomplish that is not effectually accomplished by the inward work of regeneration supposed by the Calvinistic system?  What actual purpose do signs and wonders fulfill that is not likewise accomplished by the effectual calling?  Calvinists claim to affirm the need of means but deny the purpose behind what makes such means necessary in accomplishing their biblically stated purpose.  After all, a man unconditionally elected and effectually regenerated, regardless of whether of not he sees a sign or is provoked by envy, will certainly be saved.  So too, a world with or without suffering, rape, molestations and other such "heinous means" would produce the same determined product if God so determined it. Why condemn most of humanity to eternal torment in order to show those he determined to believe how great He is…as if He couldn’t have determined believers to fully realize that without the rapes, suffering and torment? Plus, does anyone really believe such deterministic teaching makes God sound more merciful or glorious to those of us he has saved? Even Calvin called reprobation a dreadful decree and most Calvinists speak of how difficult it is to accept these doctrines. In fact, many remain "closet Calvinists" and use fake names on twitter so as not to reveal their true beliefs due to the difficulty they impose.  If God's purpose is to reveal to us something glorious about Himself, then why do so many of his own followers find such doctrines so incredibly terrible instead?  Why have doctrines that are meant to glorify God been splitting his bride in two for most of Christian history? Maybe God just determined His church to be split over this issue? Why do you suppose that is?  Could it be that your false views about God are the autonomous cause of such strife in our churches?  I know that is a difficult thing to ponder, but mustn't we all willingly and objectively consider that possibility? After all, thing about it.  Either we are correct and Calvinism is causing unwanted strife in the church by their own autonomous choosing, OR God has determined for the non-Calvinists to cause these battles. My dear Calvinists friends, you cannot get around this fact: Non-Calvinists are either correctly standing in defense of God's glory or God has determined for us to be incorrect for the praise of His glory.

Professor Flowers reflects on his time in college with Matt Chandler and the similar journey into Calvinism being mentored by the same man.  Are people coming out of "Arminianism" into Calvinism in this modern day resurgence? Or are people coming out of ignorance of biblical doctrine into Calvinistic understanding?  There is a difference. Join the discussion at www.soteriology101.com

You have to listen to the intro song.  Why we all gotta be so rude? Why does this discussion turn sour so often?  What are some of the practical implications of our Theological perspectives?  Information on a possible up coming debate is coming soon! To join Professor Flowers in this discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com

The song played is from the artist "Rakim: The 18th Letter" and can be purchased on itunes. We also play another clip from the Theology Unplugged podcast in regard to the appeal to mystery. Should we remain silent where scripture remains silent?  Is there anything wrong with saying "I don't know" when it comes to certain aspects of God's infinite ways? Most classical theistic scholars do not seem to think so.  Let's dive in! To join in the discussion with Professor Leighton Flowers go to www.soteriology101.com