Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

Battle Hymn of the Republic by SHeDAISY (buy on iTunes) Today we talk about #the15, Ed Stetzer and other Southern Baptist Leaders in conflict over a variety of matters. I read an article from: AW Tozer (http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/tozer/5f00.0888/5f00.0888.01.htm) and Frank Violia (http://frankviola.org/2015/02/09/heresy/) To give some balance and biblical wisdom to how we are to respond to a percieved enemy and deal with conflict. To join the discussion with Professor Leighton Flowers at www.soteriology101.com

Dr. James White, host of The Dividing Line, responds to my article confronting my accusation against his inconsistency. Here is the article from www.soteriology101.com Calvinists (compatibilists) deny that the Bible teaches that man has a free will. They believe, rather, that God ordains all things that come to pass, including the homosexual’s choices, yet the homosexual is still culpable for his choices. Compatibilism, held to by most Calvinistic scholars, is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism (according to John Hendryx of monergism.com, Phil Johnson, and James White, to name a few). This simply means that God’s predetermination and meticulous providence is “compatible” with voluntary choice. They do not believe homosexual’s choices are coerced …i.e. the gay man does not choose against what he wants or desires, yet no gay man ever makes choices contrary to God’s sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass according to this system, which would include the homosexual’s same sex desire and choice to act upon that desire. According to compatibilism, a homosexual’s choices are exercised voluntarily but his desires, temptations and circumstances that bring about these sexual choices occur through divine determinism. So, according to Calvinism (compatibilism) God determined and ordained that every homosexual activity will take place. Yet, homosexuals act voluntarily making the evil choice that brings it to pass, which means the sin is imputed to homosexuals for their wicked activities, and God remains blameless. In both of these cases, according to this view, it could be said that God ordains homosexual sin, sinlessly. No homosexual desire or act occurs apart from His sovereign good pleasure, according to the claims of this system. Please understand that NEITHER compatibilism nor hard determinism affirms that any homosexual has a free will. Those who believe homosexuals have a free will are not compatibilists, but should, rather, be called “inconsistent.” The homosexual choices are their choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. Homosexuals do not choose sodomy contrary to their desires or natures, nor seperately from God’s meticulous providence. Furthermore, compatibilism is directly contrary to contra-causal free will. Therefore, a voluntary choice does not mean the homosexual had the ability to choose otherwise. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability of the gay man to choose what he most wants or desires according to his inborn disposition or inclination (which are likewise ordained by God). According to compatibilism, the homosexual’s will is never free, in any sense, from God’s eternal decree.  When compatibilists use such phrases as “compatibilistic freedom,” they are, more often than not, using it to mean ‘voluntary’ choice, but are not referring to freedom FROM God’s decree or absolute sovereignty. James White claims to be compatibilistic, yet in this podcast exchange he affirms contra-causal (libertarian) choice.  He states, “If I have a desire toward arrogance, if I have a desire toward boasting and I act upon those desires then I’m acting upon the desires of my heart and that is what I’m judged for! Since I am made in the image of God I do not have to act upon those things, that is what makes us human beings, over against just animals.” – James White Thus, he fails to reply to Dr. Steven Gaines argument in consistent manner.  Dr. White affirms compatiblistic choice, as defined above, but then he makes a statement that affirms contra-causal choice (the ability to refrain or not refrain from any given moral action). He must explain his inconsistency here. To listen to the podcast on this topic CLICK HERE! (Attention Calvinists: before making accusations of misrepresentation please read the articlethat this report is directly modeled after.) We do not affirm this view.  We believe mankind is response-able (able to respond) and thus able to refrain from sinful desires in response to God’s gracious truth.

Join us as we answer common misconceptions raised by our Calvinistic brethren. Music: Jesus Paid it all by Fernado Ortega  www.soterology101.com

Calvinists (compatibilists) deny that the Bible teaches that man has a free will. They believe, rather, that God ordains all things that come to pass, including man's choices, yet man is still culpable for his choices. Compatibilism, held to by most Calvinistic scholars, is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism (according to John Hendryx of monergism.com, Phil Johnson, and James White, to name a few). This simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. They do not believe man's choices are coerced ...i.e. man does not choose against what they want or desire, yet no man ever makes choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass according to this system, which would include the homosexual's same sex desire and choice to act upon that desire. In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), a gay man's choices are exercised voluntarily but the homosexaul desires, temptations and circumstances that bring about these sexual choices about occur through divine determinism. So, according to Calvinism (compatibilism) God determined and ordained that every homosexual activity will take place. Yet, homosexuals act voluntarily making the evil choice that brings it to pass, which means the sin is imputed to homosexuals for their wicked activites, and God remains blameless. In both of these cases, it could be said that God ordains sin, sinlessly. No homosexual activity occurs apart from His sovereign good pleasure, according to the claims of this system. Please understand that NEITHER compatibilism nor hard determinism affirms that any homosexual has a free will. Those who believe gay men have a free will are not compatibilists, but should, rather, be called "inconsistent". The gay man's choices are their choices because they are voluntary, not coerced. Homosexuals do not choose sodomy contrary to their desires or natures, nor seperately from God's meticulous providence. Furthermore, compatibilism is directly contrary to contra-causal free will. Therefore, a voluntary choice does not mean the homosexaul had the ability to choose otherwise. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability of the gay man to choose what he most wants or desires according to his inborn disposition or inclination. According to compatibilism, the homosexual's will is never free, in any sense, from God's eternal decree.  When compatibilists use such phrases as "compatibilistic freedom", they are, more often than not, using it to mean 'voluntary' choice, but are not referring to freedom FROM God's decree or absolute sovereignty. (Attention Calvinists: before making accusations of misrepresentation please read the article that this report is directly modeled after: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/sovereignfree.html) James White claims to be compatibilistic, yet in this exchange he affirms contra-causal (libertarian) choice.  Thus, he fails to reply to Dr. Steven Gaines argument in consistent manner.   To join the discussion with Professor Leighton Flowers please visit www.soteriology101.com

Response to Apologia Radio with Jeff Durbin and John Samson.  They discuss Calvinism in response to the angry rant of KJVO Arminian (Steven Anderson). I appeal to cordiality and aiming higher with those to whom we choose to engage over these discussions.  Has the scholarly SBC non-Calvinistic view of election been given ample consideration by Calvinistic bloggers and podcasters?  I think not! To join the discussion with Professor Leighton Flowers please visit www.soteriology101.com

No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. - John Calvin   It is a gross misrepresentation of the Augustinian doctrine to say that it teaches that Christ suffered so much for so many; that He would have suffered more had more been included in the purpose of salvation. This is not the doctrine of any Church on earth, and never has been. What was sufficient for one was sufficient for all.   We affirm with Dort that no man perishes for want of atonement… –Charles Hodge   We reject the argument, If Christ made penal satisfaction for the sins of all, justice would forbid any to be punished…is incompatible with the facts that God chastises justified believers, and holds elect unbelievers subject to wrath till they believe. Christ's satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent, but only such a one as enables the Father, consistently with His attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit. –Dabney   "It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the Universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is, Because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner. -Shedd    

Ed Stetzer, President of LifeWay, moderates a debate between Frank Page (SBC President), Trevin Wax (TGC editor), and David Platt (President of IMB) over soteriology and missions.   Is anyone in Hell that God did not want there? Let's dive in! To join the discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com 

Calvinist Batman and Friends puts out a podcast that recently critiqued the Traditional Statement of SBC as being "semi-pelagian."  I take this view to task and help to reframe the discussion so that we do not continue to talk past each other with the label and dismiss approach. To join the discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com

Again we address the impractical implications of Calvinism.  This time by unpacking Wayne Grudem's teaching about the purpose and function of prayer.  If God has determined all things then why pray?  Does God really respond to us when we pray or is that just an illustion?  Let's dive in. If you would like to join our discussion please visit www.soteriology101.com  

We start by listening to a Hip Hop song about Election from "Face of the Deep" (www.truprophetsministries.com) which introduces a discussion on why Calvinism is seeing such a resurgence among the youth in this culture. To join the discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com