Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

We continue to interact with Theology Unplugged Podcast's series on "Invitation to Evangelism." We deal with Total Inability and Unconditional Election along with answering many common points Calvinists use to support their systematic. Join our discussion at www.soteriology101.com

These brothers of the Credo House in Oklahoma put out a great Theology Podcast and they have good hearts. However, they hold to a Calvinsitic soteriology and thus I do take issue with some of what they teach.  Today I go through some of their series titled "Invitation to Calvinism" and critique their points. In today episode we discuss: The history of Calvinism Why the Early Church Fathers do not appear to support Calvinistic conclusions The fault of most Calvinists today in not addressing the most prominent scholarly non-Calvinistic interpretations of the text. To find the Theology Unplugged Podcast you can go to: www.reclaimingthemind.org To join our discussion go to www.soteriology101.com

Today we dialogue about Christian Charity in this debate over soteriology by interacting with John Piper's comments about influential Arminians.  In the discourse we cover:   ·       The Philosophical aspects involved in this discussion. ·       Being people of “The Book” ·       Are non-Calvinists as exegetical in their approach? ·       Who are some scholarly non-Calvinistic scholars?   This and more are covered in today’s episode.  Join our discussion at www.soteriology101.com

In the closing of this debate Dr. White makes several erroneous remarks in defense of Calvinism that I would like to address: 1.  He mocks preachers who ask, "What will you do with Jesus?" Instead of asking, "What will Jesus do with you?" Yet, in Matthew 27:21 Pilot did ask the crowd what they wanted him to do with Jesus. Is this not still an applicable question for each person to ponder?  This question does not need to be pit up against the question regarding what Christ will do with us, because both questions are viable (see debate fallacy: False Dichotomy). Paul wrote, "Now everything is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed the message of reconciliation to us. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ; certain that God is appealing through us, we plead on Christ's behalf, 'Be reconciled to God.'" (2 Cor. 5:18-20) "What will you do with Christ's appeal to be reconciled," is a viable question? Why? Because it will answer the question Dr. White proposes, "What will Christ do with you?"  He will save you, IF you repent and be reconciled.  If not the very words of Christ will be your judge (John 12:48).  Paul clearly shows us that Christ's desire is "not counting their trespasses against them" but for them to repent so as to "be reconciled to God." What you do with Christ's appeal will determine what Christ will do with you! 2. Dr. White seems to think the picture of Christ standing at the door and knocking makes him appear to be weak.  Is Christ weak in regard to his interaction with the church in Revelation 3? Simply because this text may not be about the individual call to repentance does not negate the fact that Christ still passively knocks at the door of the church.  This makes me wonder if Dr. White views Christ as weak in regard to how He has chosen to engage with His bride? The concept of people standing and knocking at doors is seen in other texts as well.  Matthew 7 and Luke 11 speak of our need to be persistent in our requests to God. According to the text we must, "keep searching, and you will find. Keep knocking, and the door will be opened to you" (Luke 11:9). This portrays an actual relationship with Christ where we are knocking on his door and He is knocking at our door throughout various times in our journey.  Jesus is presenting in scripture as the one who "comes to seek and save the lost," (Luke 19:10) and he appears to do so through an "appeal," not by irresistible inward means. 3.  Dr. White presumes the narrative of Lazarus being raised is meant to be a parallel to soteriology, but without any text that actually makes that claim.  A better parable to illustrate one who was dead and now alive in regard to salvation might be the one Jesus chose.  The prodigal son story gives a very clear picture of one who was dead (living in rebellion to the father) who is made alive (Luke 15:24). 4.  Dr. White seems to be under the impression that our perspective does not have a place for the judicial hardening of God. Anyone who has studied the scholars from my perspective, or has listened to my podcast knows full well that we not only acknowledge the judicial hardening of God but that we point to this biblical teaching as the very reason to reject the concept of Calvinism's "Total Inability." Why did Jesus speak to them in parables lest they hear and believe, if they are born unable to do so?  Why did God need to blind the Jew in their rebellion to prevent their understanding if they were born totally blind to the revelation to begin with?  Is God blinding the totally blind?  Dr. White quotes texts about God judicially blinding men as if that supports his premise that all men are born totally blind. 5. Dr. White quotes from John 6, 10 and 17 to prove his presumption that God has only selected to save a particular number of individuals to the neglect of all others. Once again the good doctor seems to miss the historical context of these passages. In John chapter 6 Jesus is speaking to Israel (as the gospel is not sent to the Gentiles until after the white sheet dream of Peter and the calling of Paul).  The nation of Israel, his audience, is being "cut off" or "blinded" or "sent a spirit of stupor" or "spoken to in parable" or "judicially hardened" or "NOT DRAWN" or "NOT ENABLED."   THIS is why they cannot believe (John 12:39-41, Acts 28:27-28, Romans 9-11, etc, etc).  However, God has reserved a remnant from Israel to ensure that HIS purpose in electing Israel would be fulfilled. What is that purpose?  To bring the Messiah and His Message to the rest of the world.   So, God has blinded the rebellious Jews, while using miracles, signs and wonders (blinding lights, big fish, walking on water, healing sick, showing scars, etc) to set apart a group from Israel to be his divinely appointed messengers.  It is NOT until Christ dies and is raised up again that he sends these elect messengers into all the world to "draw all peoples to himself" (John 12:32).  The means of Christ's drawing is the gospel, which isn't completed and commissioned UNTIL after His resurrection. Now, is that context important to know and understand when you approach John 6, 10 and 17?  I should certainly think so!!! John 6: His remnant are being drawn, but the rest are being hardened (not enabled to come).   John 10: He is bringing in the first fold of sheep (His remnant from Israel to complete the purpose of election), but the next fold will be brought in by faith in their message.  John 17: He is praying for his apostles (the remnant elected to carry the message to the nations) and those who believe through their message so that the world may believe that God sent Him.

"Can I lose my salvation?" is one of the most googled phrases regarding the topic of soteriology. Many people are concerned with this question. Some reference to the doctrine called the "Perseverance of the Saints," and others the more common phrases such as, "Once Saved Always Saved," or "Eternal Security of the Believer." All of the discussions typically center around the foundational concern of an individual feeling insecure in his relationship with God.   Many of us have gone through similar insecurities in dating relationships.  We know how we feel about that significant other, but we are not quite sure how they feel about us. What has to happen?  The "DTR!" The "Defining of the Relationship." NOTE: I preached a Sermon by that Title HERE if your are interested. We have to sit down with the one we care about and tell them how we feel  in hopes that they reciprocate those feelings.  In that process we can either bring that relationship to an end or find security in knowing how the other feels about us.    It is similar in our relationship with God. As long as we are unaware of how God really feels about us individually, we will continue to have these insecurities.  The good news is that God's word does provide us a "DTR."  The bible clearly "defines the relationship" between God and man, which is where we develop our systematic teachings on each particular subject.   This brings to the "P" in the popular Calvinistic soteriological acronym called TULIP.  Chapter 17 of the Westminster Confession of faith defines it in this manner: Perseverance of the saints is the Calvinist doctrine that those who are truly saved will persevere to the end and cannot lose their salvation. It doesn't mean that a person who is truly saved will never lose faith or backslide at any time. But that they will ultimately persevere in faith (inspite of failures) such as not to lose their salvation.  The doctrine of perseverance is rooted in God's unconditional election and predestination. That is, since God is the One who chose and predestined the elect to salvation, therefore the elect will be saved. They might turn away from faith and give appearance of losing their salvation, but if they really are elect they will repent and ultimately return to faith, because God is the One ensuring their salvation.(1) Those of us who hold to "The Corporate View of Election" (the most widely held view of Southern Baptist biblical scholars), likewise affirm the Calvinistic doctrine that "those who are truly saved will persevere to the end and cannot lose their salvation." Some Calvinists feel it is inconsistent for those of us who deny any part of the TULIP doctrines to try and maintain the doctrine of perseverance. This accusation, however, is misapplied because it fails to recognize that we affirm the effectual work of regeneration, just like our Calvinistic brethren.  We disagree as to the "ordo salutis" (order of salvation) in that we do not affirm the concept of pre-faith regeneration (irresistible grace). Instead we believe as John clearly stated, "These are written so that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name." -John 20:31 In today's podcast I go over these points in great detail, outlining Ephesians chapter 1 and Paul's teaching regarding Predestination, the TRUE "P" of the biblical doctrine regarding the perseverance of those who are "IH HIM." John Piper writes this about the doctrine: "The true Christian is safe, but his safety is confirmed in his pressing on to make his final inheritance his own. Our safety is seen in the words “because Christ Jesus has made me his own.” In other words, our security is not based finally on our grip on Christ, but his grip on us. " -John Piper I could not agree more with this statement, though we might disagree as to means and methods that God uses to "make us" His own.  The real question of this debate is not, "Can you lose your salvation," but instead, "If you lost it, did you ever have it to begin with?" 1 John 2:19 answers that question quite clearly: I recently had a woman in a church tell me she "fell out of love with her husband and got a divorce." With great care I had to explain to her that she cannot refer to that as "love," because according to God's definition "love does not fail."  True genuine love is a never ending commitment.  So, she may have cared for her husband, liked him a lot, or been infatuated with him for a time, but she cannot rightly call what she had "love."  We cannot change the definition of the word to match our behaviors.  The same is true of salvation.  If it lasts, then it's real.  If it does not then it is proven itself to have been false.  So, from the human perspective, unlike God who can see the heart, it may appear one has lost something that he once attained.  This may be why some passages appear to suggest that we may lose our salvation.  However, from the divine perspective one choosing to walk away from the faith is merely revealing externally what has been true internally all along.  The ultimate external fruit of true salvation is perseverance to the very end. Now, does that mean God's warnings about falling away are benign?  Is God just bluffing as a means to ensure we do not fall away even though He knows full well we cannot?  I do not believe so.  We should never dull the edge of God's warnings with our systematics.  The warning is a real one and it is given for those who may be self-deceived into thinking they have something they truly do not. This is why Paul exhorts his listeners to, "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith." (2 Cor. 13:5) Paul is not concerned for those who truly are in the faith, but for those who falsely believe they are in the faith.  The only way they may come to realize their error is by examining themselves to see if Christ is truly in them.  I love what Francis Chan wrote in his book titled Crazy Love in reference to the parable of the sower: "Do not assume you are good soil." In today podcast   I reflect on my own faith journey (and get a bit emotional, which I shouldn't be embarrassed about, but as a prideful man I still am). I discuss how reaching one's pig sty in life and experiencing God's unconditional love will change you.  I honestly believe that anyone who experiences that level of love and forgiveness will never walk away from it.  YOU CAN BY CLICKING HERE.

Recently several people have asked what specific points lead me away from Calvinism. I believe there are many who are trying to help a loved one to give up their Calvinism.  I hate to tell them, but it is doubtful a podcast will accomplish that. It is very difficult to leave a system of thought after you've fully adopted it. Nevertheless, I tell my story and reveal the top five points that helped me to see the text from another perspective.  In summary, here are the 5 points: 1. I came to realize that the "foresight faith view" was not the only scholarly alternative to the Calvinistic interpretation. 2. I came to understand the distinction between original sin (depravity) and the Calvinistic concepts of "Total Inability." 3. I accepted the fact that a gift doesn't have to be irresistibly applied in order for the giver to get full credit for giving it. 4. I realized that the decision to humble yourself and repent in faith is not meritorious. Even repentant believers deserve eternal punishment.  God gives grace to the humble not because humility earns grace, but simple because God is gracious. 5. I came to see the larger picture of the total historical context of the scriptures as it relates to the national election of Israel (which included selecting individual Jews) and then the nation’s judicial hardening.  All of which was brought to pass for the overall redemptive plan of God. Tune in for more!  And to join the discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com.

Should a church openly advertise that they teach Reformed Theology? Should a preacher be honest about being Calvinistic in the interview process? How should we respond to Calvinists who make us angry? What are people saying about this podcast? This and more is discussed on today episode.  Join our discussion as www.Soteriology101.com  

False assumptions of Calvinism: 1. Man is not only born sinful, but they are born totally hardened (by sovereign decree) and thus unable to even respond to God's own appeal to be reconciled from the fall. 2. The responsibility of man to humble ourselves and repent of our inabilities and sinfulness in faith merits salvation and thus is boast worthy if we do it apart from God's irresistible grace. 3. A gift has to be irresistibly given for the giver to get full credit for giving it. If you think a person is able to resist the gracious gift then you are robbing God's glory. Truths: 1. Man is born sinful, depraved and in need of a savior, not judicially hardened or blinded in their rebellion.  Men become hardened over time after rejecting the revelation of God, "otherwise they are able to see, hear, understand and turn.' (Acts 28:27-28; John 12:39-41; Rm. 11, Mark 4, Mt. 13) 2.  A humble response to the gospel truth is not meritorious. God doesn't give grace to those who humble themselves because humility earns salvation.  God gives grace because he is gracious. Asking for forgiveness doesn't merit being forgiven.  God is not obligated to save those who "decide" to repent.  He chooses to save those who repent because He is gracious. 3. God gets all the glory for the gift even when a man resists it and turns his nose up to it.  The rejection of the giver doesn't impugn the goodness of God in his giving of the gift. God likewise get all the glory for providing the means for our salvation and enabling us through the gospel to respond.  Those who reject the gospel cannot rightly say, "God doesn't love me." Or "God didn't grant me faith." Or, "God didn't give me what I needed."  Man's rejection of the powerful gospel truth is their own fault and their own fault alone.  It is not a reflection of God's lack of provision or love. 

“If it’s never our fault, we can’t take responsibility for it. If we can’t take responsibility for it, we’ll always be its victim.” Richard Bach “Self-pity is easily the most destructive of the nonpharmaceutical narcotics; it is addictive, gives momentary pleasure and separates the victim from reality.” John W. Gardner One big problem a lot of people have is that they slip into thinking of themselves as victims that have little or no control over their lives.   Victim mentality is an acquired (learned) personality trait in which a person tends to regard him or herself as a victim of the negative actions of another, and to think, speak and act as if that were the case — even in the absence of clear evidence. A victim mentality is one where you blame everyone else for what happens in your world. You may come to believe that you are destined to struggle.   Victims of victim mentality have the illusion that they are constantly under attack from the universe, but only because of the way they choose to digest the things life throws them. They seem to sulk and even marinate in their misery, failing to realize that with a slight shift of thinking, everything can change. Can a theological view make one take on this kind of victim mentality? Does the hard determinism of Phil Johnson, John Hendryx and other proponents of the compatiblistic worldview promote a victim mentality, even if unintentionally? What are the practical implications of adopting determinism? Are we victims of God's decrees? Join the discussion at www.soteriology101.com

We quote and address CS Lewis, John Calvin, Charles Hodge, W.G.T Shedd, R. L. Dabney (Reformed Princeton Theologians), Phil Johnson (Grace to You) and JD Hall (Pulpit and Pen). Quotes below... The first half of the podcast deals with Limited Atonement: Particular versus Provisional  One can support he provisional view without denying Calvinism. Not really the most important point of the Calvinistic debate yet it gets most of the attention. The bigger points of contention have to do with Total Inability and Irresistible Grace. The second half of the podcast is my response to JD Hall's most recent podcast were we deal with the root cause for a regenerate man's choices. 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." - CS Lewis 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 Join the discussion at www.soteriology101.com!