Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

If God determines whatsoever comes to pass then why has He determined more whites to accept Calvinistic teaching?  Is God a Racist? Today we engage with John Piper's response to a question regarding why so few blacks appear to be accepting TULIP theology.  Let's dive in! To join in the discussion, please visit us at www.soteriology101.com

How can God justly hold man responsible in the Calvinistic system? John Piper continues to give his answer to this question and finishes his teaching on Total Depravity.  We interact with each point in today's show.  Let's dive in! To join our discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com

There is a podcast called "Theology Unplugged" with a group of Calvinistic brothers (Tim Kimberely, JJ Seid and Sam Storms) from Credo House Ministries in Oklahoma. In their most recent podcast titled, "Does God Choose People to Go to Hell," they discuss the issue of double predestination as it relates to the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9.  As is typical, they paint all non-Calvinists as believing the "foresight faith view" of election and thus never give a strong rebuttal to the most widely held scholarly perspective opposing their Calvinistic interpretation.   They are honest about the difficulties of the text and are sincere in their efforts to interpret God's Word.  However, they have misapplied the intention of Paul in Romans 9-11 to support their individualistic soteriological perspective causing unnecessary difficulty in accepting the text.   As a Calvinist, I had to learn that "the foresight faith view" was not the only scholarly alternative to the Calvinistic interpretation.   I had so saturated myself with Calvinistic preachers and authors that the only thing I knew of the opposing views was what they told me. Thus, I had been lead to believe the only real alternative to Calvinism was this strange concept of God “looking through the corridors of time to elect those He foresees would choose Him.” Notable Calvinistic teachers almost always paint all non-Calvinistic scholars as holding to this perspective. Once I realized I had been misled on this point, I was more open to consider other interpretations objectively. I found a much more robust and theologically sound systematic in what is called "The Corporate View of Election," which so happened to be the most popular view among the biblical scholars of my own denomination (Southern Baptists). Much more can be said about this view that I will not take the liberty to expound upon in this article. However, I must warn readers that the all too common phrase, “nations are made up of individuals too,” does not even begin to rebut the claims of this perspective. Individuals are just as much involved in the Corporate perspective as they are the Calvinistic perspective (maybe even more so). Anyone who believes the Corporate view is easily dismissed with that simple one-liner has not yet come to understand it rightly. In my experience, very few Calvinists give this view the attention it deserves because it requires a shift in perspective that, if recognized, would undermine their entire premise. Do you understand “The Corporate View of Election”…I mean really understand it? Could you defend it in a debate if you had to? Could you explain it objectively to a classroom of students? Are you willing to study it and evaluate its claims?    “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” -Aristotle KEY POINT: God DOES use determinative means to ensure His sovereign purposes in electing Israel, which includes: (1) the setting apart of certain individual Israelites to be the lineage of the Messiah, and (2) the setting apart of certain individual Israelities to carry His divinely inspired message to the world (using convincing means like big fish and blinding lights to persuade their wills) and (3) temporarily blinding the rest of Israel to accomplish redemption through their rebellion. However, there is no indication in scripture that: (1) all those who DO believe the appointed messenger's teachings were likewise set a part by such persuasive means (especially not inward effectual means). (2) all those who DO NOT believe the appointed messenger's teachings were likewise hardened from the time they were born to the time they died. As a Calvinist I did not understand the historical context of the scriptures as it relates to the national election of Israel followed by their judicial hardening. When the scriptures spoke of Jesus hiding the truth in parables, or only revealing Himself to a select few, or cutting off large numbers of people from seeing, hearing and understanding the truth; I immediately presumed that those were passages supporting the “T” of my T.U.L.I.P. when in reality they are supporting the doctrine of Israel’s judicial hardening.   "FROM AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO TO THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, WESTERN CHRISTIANITY HAS TENDED TO INTERPRET THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF AND WITH REGARD TO INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS. DURING THOSE SAME CENTURIES THE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN FAR LESS EMPHASIZED AND SELDOM EVER CONTROVERSIAL IN EASTERN ORTHODOXY. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT AUGUSTINE AND LATER CALVIN, WITH THE HELP OF MANY OTHERS, CONTRIBUTED TO A HYPER INDIVIDUALIZATION OF THIS DOCTRINE THAT WAS HARDLY WARRANTED BY ROMANS 9-11, EPH. 1, AND I PETER 2? IS IT NOT TRUE THAT THE MAJOR EMPHASIS IN BOTH TESTAMENTS FALLS UPON AN ELECT PEOPLE -- ISRAEL (OT) AND DISCIPLES OR CHURCH (NT)?" - LEO GARRETT

How does God hold man responsible when they are born unable to respond? Piper offers an explaination and explains the use of MEANS within the Calvinistic system.  But is his explaination satisfactory?  More importantly, is it biblically supported? Let's dive in!  To join our discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com

Today we go through two different videos, one made a Calvinist and another by a Pelgian, to discover the truth of our history and the soteriological view found in the balanced middle. We will hear from Clement of Rome, commended by Paul Himself. We will hear from Ignatius, a disciple of the apostle John. And other earth church fathers as they taught on these doctrines. To join our discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com

Dr. Dan Ferrell has a radio program called "It's Not Over" where he addresses the biblical doctrine of election from the Calvinistic perspective.  He makes numerous erroneous statements and uses proof texting to support his systematic.  We go through these point by point in today's program. To join our discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com

Today we go through several important teachings from C.S. Lewis (and AW Tozer) in contrast to that of John Piper regarding the true nature of God's glory as reflected in scripture.  You do not want to miss this as it comes as close to a debate between these two as one might hope to experience. I also take a few minutes to address John Piper's rebuke of Austin Fischer who recently wrote, "Young, Restless, and No Longer Reformed."  (A book I highly recommend to all listeners) In the most recent "Ask Pastor John" podcast with Dr. John Piper he answers the question, "What Arminians have influenced you the most."  He was gracious in his reply but he did erroneously allude to the belief that CS Lewis was not to be included among the list of Arminians who have had influence on him because of a recent presentation at one of his conferences that apparently attempted to prove CS Lewis was Calvinistic.  I almost fell out of my chair...literally. Those of you who know my story are aware that reading CS Lewis (along with AW Tozer) is what helped to lead me to reexamine my interpretative methods and eventually recant Calvinism.  I have read every word of CS Lewis, some of them multiple times.  I have a theological "man crush" (look it up, its a real thing) on this guy, and while I may be uncertain about some scholars stance on this issue I have absolutely no doubt about CS Lewis. I'll be brief here because it will not take long to prove my point.  Here are a few quotes from CS Lewis that may help shed some light on this: "God has made it a rule for Himself that He won’t alter people’s character by force. He can and will alter them – but only if the people will let Him. In that way He has really and truly limited His power.  Sometimes we wonder why He has done so, or even wish that He hadn’t. But apparently He thinks it worth doing. He would rather have a world of  free beings, with all its risks, than a world of people who did right like machines because they couldn’t do anything else. The more we succeed in imagining what a world of perfect automatic beings would be like, the more, I think, we shall see His wisdom." - CS Lewis, The Trouble with X And from the Screwtape letters... "You must have often wondered why the Enemy does not make more use of His power to be sensibly present to human souls in any degree He chooses and at any moment. But you now see that the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to over-ride a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. For His ignoble idea is to eat the cake and have it; the creatures are to be one with Him, but yet themselves; merely to cancel them, or assimilate them, will not serve. He is prepared to do a little overriding at the beginning. He will set them off with communications of His presence which, though faint, seem great to them, with emotional sweetness, and easy conquest over temptation. But He never allows this state of affairs to last long. Sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from their conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs—to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish. It is during such trough periods, much more than during the peak periods, that it is growing into the sort of creature He wants it to be." -CS Lewis Lewis also says this in "The Problem of Pain." "If God's moral judgement differs from ours so that our 'black' may be His 'white', we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say 'God is good', while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say 'God is we know not what'. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) 'good' we shall obey, if at all, only through fear -- and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity -- when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of God is worth simply nothing -- may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship." Enough said... And, NO there is no evidence that CS Lewis later recanted these views, in case someone is wondering. Piper also suggests that "Arminians" are more philosophical and less exegetical in their approach to interpretation.  This is simply untrue and Dr. Piper never provides any support to back up this accusation.  I discuss some of these issues more in-depth in THIS PODCAST.     Please join the conversation at www.soteriology101.com!  Enjoy!

I am growing a bit frustrated by the seemingly lack of understanding regarding the corporate view of election, so I take some time to reframe the discussion over Romans 9-11. 

In today's episode I answer Dr. James White's critique of Austin Fischer in a recent debate.

Dr. Wayne Grudem has written a notable Systematic and has produced a popular podcast on Theology.  Today we go through his podcast on "Election and Reprobation." We discuss: Predestination in Ephesians 1 Election in Romans 9 The father giving some to his son in John 6, 10 and 17 Join our discussion at www.soteriology101.com