Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

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

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