Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

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!

Much of this podcast is me attempting to rephrase our point of contention. JD continually moves the discussion to be about a non-regenerate man's need to become regenerate, when my contention was about the ability of an already regenerate to resist temptation. If a Christian sins is it because God has in any way failed or neglected to give His child what was needed to resist that temptation? Or is the that believer simply free (contra-causally) to resist divine aid and fall into that temptation? Compatibilists, like John Hendryx and Phil Johnson, believe "we do not make choices seperately from God's meticulous providence." In otherwords, God decrees which choice men (even regenerate men) will make, not that they will be free to make it. I'm not sure if JD would affirm this or not since he never went deep enough into our actual point of contention. Below is the blog post covering in more detail some of the other points in the broadcast: JD Hall responded to my podcast entitled “Is Calvinism Practical?” Maybe when I have more time I can sift through the entire discourse and podcast a rebuttal, but for now I simply want to reply to some key points JD addressed: 1. Dump on Stewie: JD begins by “poo pooing” on the Stewie character in my podcast and addressing him as if he is my co-host who agrees with me, which kind of misses the point. I picked a condescending voice to play the part of someone who disagrees with me and reminds me regularly that I’m not all that bright, which is probably obvious without the character but nonetheless I find him delightfully humorous. I know little about the actual character on Family Guy and have never liked the whole “guilt by association,” or “you must condone it if you use it,” or “boycott everything that looks like what we disagree with” approach to life. I doubt JD does either, but nevertheless he thinks my use of Stewie to lighten the mood makes me not worthy of “being taken seriously.” I’m actually fine with that. I don’t take myself all that seriously either. In short, the podcast begins with the irony of JD condescending my use of a blatantly condescending character. 2. Ad Hominem: This is a debate fallacy where instead of speaking to the issue one speaks “to the person,” or attacks the motives or character of the individual without real justification. JD speculates my podcast is meant to “make a name for myself,” he references that people in my church must not be holy given my views, and lumps me in with the easy believism crowd of the Joel Osteen types. That would be tantamount me lumping him in with hypers and accusing him of just trying to make an name for himself on his program. Not necessary nor helpful. I hope any further dialogue, if it were to continue beyond this point, would rise above this level of discourse. 3. Blaming God for Evil: In my podcast, I argued that this culture naturally blames God and runs to sin, instead of blaming sin and running to God. Then I asked if the deterministic conclusions of SOME Calvinistic teachers helps to bolster that false view. JD agrees this is what the culture naturally does, points to Adam blaming God for giving him Eve, and then takes a hard left turn into “Doesn’t Followsville” and asks me if Adam was a Calvinist, as if I had argued that this culture only blamed God for evil because of what Calvinism teaches. WHAT?! Back up. We agreed that man naturally blame God. Adam is a good example of that. When did I say that originated from being Calvinistic? I didn’t. I asked if the deterministic conclusions (i.e. “God decrees whatsoever comes to pass”) helps to BOLSTER that FALSE view or not. JD ignored that question to “straw man my argument” and make me sound as if I was blaming his soteriology for the natural tendency of blaming of God for evil. So, in the debate world that point would flow to my side. (0-1: Stewie is keeping count, but I’m not.) 4. Helpless Deity: JD refers to my view of “god” as being a “terrible, wimpy, helpless, little, dumb, fragile, deaf deity.” JD sure better hope he is right about his view of God…WOW. At least if I’m wrong I can rest in knowing God determined for me to be wrong, whereas if JD’s view of God is wrong, then he has just called God all those names by his own free will. Ouch! Now, this particular argument made by Calvinists is really just question begging because it presumes God didn’t choose for the world to be created in the way we are proposing but that it just “happened to Him” apart from His decision. As if “Arminians” all got together and imposed this world onto God, or God just accidentally got a world with free moral creatures and now He is a helpless divine victim trying to assist us when He can (see “straw man” again). Allow me to quote from Tozer to give a better perspective of my view of true biblical sovereignty: “God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” – A.W. Tozer, The Attributes of God So, as I argue in my podcast over Tozer and Piper, the higher view of sovereignty, according to this perspective is the one in which God decides to grant moral freedom to others, not one where he has to “play both sides of the chess board to ensure His victory.” Our view of God is not some hapless boob that is caught off guard, as JD would like to paint Him out to be. I think JD does this because its easier for him to dismiss us as heretical than to deal with what we are actually saying. In our view, as in JDs, God is WORKING OUT EVIL FOR GOOD, which I think can and should be distinguished from God causing, determining, or in any way bringing about evil. I can work out something that is evil without being the cause of that evil, so I suspect God can do the same though I may not know how all that perfectly works within the concepts of divine omniscience (an infinite matter we cannot even begin to grasp or speculate about). JD compares God giving the world over to evil and all its consequences to two dudes watching his kids drown and not doing something to save them, as if that would be equal to the guys holding them under the water themselves. One, I think it far worse had they held the kids heads under water than if they would have passively watched. Two, God’s permitting sin and its consequences is better illustrated by the prodigal’s father granting him the inheritance (i.e. to go drown in his sin, so to speak), than the passive unloving jerks watching two innocent kiddos fall into a lake. 5. God’s hate for sin: In my podcast I argue that I don’t believe God determines sinful desires and thus choices (in the manner proposed by Compatibilism) and I reference God’s hatred for sin as one of the reasons. JD accused me of suggesting Calvinists believe God delights in sin, which once again I did not say (see straw man again). My argument was that God’s expression of hatred for sin strongly implies that he wouldn’t cause it…not even compatibilistically. (James 1: He doesn’t even tempt men to sin) Now, JD argues, as do most Calvinists that God doesn’t “DIRECTLY” cause sin but then goes on to show how God causally determines it through secondary means, as if that doesn’t afford the exact same argument. Face it, in that system God determined the nature which determined the desire which determined the choice of the evil agent. Plugging in a thousand deterministic causal links in that chain doesn’t make the argument magically disappear any more so than if I said, “I didn’t kill my boss. I hired someone who hired someone who hired someone else to kill him.” Do determinists really think adding more links in their deterministic chain somehow relinquishes the truck to which the the chain is attached? “Why did you just use your truck to pull my tree out of my yard, sir?” “No I didn’t, not technically. The chain did.” “Your chain? The one you attached to my tree and your truck? How can you say you didn’t pull it up” “Oh, no, see I put this link here in the chain, so you really can’t blame me for that.” “Huh, you put the link there. So, yes I can. You pulled up the tree.” “Your aren’t quite smart enough to get it obviously, but because I added several links in the chain that have really hard to pronounce jargon as their titles, I’m not really to blame here. You can’t understand. You’re too jejune. Just trust me, I didn’t cause it. Now stop with the nonsensical questions!” 6. Examples of God Determining: On this point I’ll refer people to my podcasts referencing Phil Johnson and James White as I cover this point more extensively there. I will just say that JD, like other Calvinists, point to examples of God deterministically bringing about some things as proof that God likewise brings about all things. And I remind everyone reading along that non-Calvinists, such as myself, may not believe God determines everything but that doesn’t mean we believe God determines nothing. The crucifixion, the raising up of certain leaders for certain purposes (Joseph), the inspiration of scripture, the setting apart of authoritative messengers (Jonah, Paul) etc, etc, are all things we can agree that God purposed and determined to bring to pass within the course of human history. That is what makes those events uniquely DIVINE. But, PLEASE NOTE THIS KEY POINT: Proof that God determines some divinely redemptive events throughout the course of human history is not proof that God determines all the evil that needs redeeming. I know, I know, God doesn’t “really determine the evil” because of all the links in this proverbial causal chain… But why!? Why do you need to create a chain that leads back to HIM!? Why not lead the chain back to US and stop there? How about we appeal to mystery as to how we choose one thing over the other and not impugn the holiness of God by suggesting He is ultimately responsible for which options I choose at any given moment? Do what Tozer did and hold to a view of God so high, so sovereign, that He is able to ensure His victory despite creaturely freedom, despite there being other powers and authorities in this world! It’s the best of both worlds. 7. God is Passive in Condemnation: In my podcast I ask the question, “Who, if not God, determined for mankind to be born with total inability due to the fall.” JD applauds the question and even replays it concluding that it is a great question and that yes God does indeed make this determination. But then JD goes on to argue that God is passive in condemnation, as if God didn’t do anything to determined the disabled nature of man from birth. Which is it? He argues on the one hand that God must actively work to change the nature of the elect, but God is passively allowing the reprobate to be what he was born to be, but this ignores the question he earlier applauded by overlooking that God ACTIVELY decided to punish all mankind with the nature of total inability to begin with. The same active decree that put man in their totally disabled condition is the same level of activity God uses to decree the rescue of man from that disability, but JD either misses that point or avoids it purposefully. I’m not sure which… 8. Addictive Sins of Believers: I make an argument for the contra-casual freewill of believers suggesting that those already regenerated are able to refrain or not refrain from sinful actions (like libertarian free will). Many, if not most, Compatibilists deny contra-causal freewill (LFW) in anyone (including pre-fallen Adam and believers), arguing that it is an “irrational causeless choice” unless it is ultimately causally determined by God. Apparently JD is not familiar with this particular set of beliefs and thus misses the point all together. It was good though because he made my case for me considering that we agree with each other on this point. Too bad he didn’t know that while he was arguing it, otherwise it could have been an actual point of agreement for us. In summary, I’d say that JD and I aren’t really near as far apart as he seems to think we are in our views. If he listened to my other podcasts he might see that. He does not want to impugn God’s holiness or blame God for evil any more so than I do. Our ways of describing those differences would likely appear semantical to most laypeople. I just think the Compatiblistic system fails to avoid the charge of impugning God’s holiness and maybe he disagrees, maybe he doesn’t–I’m not sure since he never gets beyond the surface of the argument. Unfortunately, most of his arguments don’t actually engage our points of contention but resort to strawmanning and hyperbole. For example, he said I deny the doctrine of regeneration and original sin, which I do not. I deny the Calvinistic concepts of “pre-faith regeneration” and “total inability,” distinctions I make very clear in my podcasts, but he never actually addresses. Hopefully JD will take another stab at engaging me but next time with a little less rancor and a little more substance. I’d love to hear, for example, why he believes some Christians do sin at times. Did God grant them what they needed to resist the temptation? If so, then why did they fail? Did God fail to grant them enough grace to resist, or where they just contra-causally free? Thanks for your time in engaging this discussion. P.S. One more point. I was also accused of being Pelagian, which I address in my third Podcast titled, “Am I a Pelagian…” It is the lazy man’s approach in debate to label and dismiss people as heretical instead of actually dealing with their point of view. Ironically, no writing of Pelagius survived for much of the same reason: the desire of man to do away with anyone who disagrees with him. I’m just thankful that today that it is “labeling and dismissing” instead of “labeling and burning at the stake.” Shew!

In today episode we: Continue the Phil Johnson debate over Twitter by reminding everyone that non-Calvinists, such as myself, may not believe God determines everything, but that doesn't mean we believe God determines nothing. Calvinists, like Phil Johnson and James White point to examples of God's deterministic activity in the world as if its the smoking gun proving their deterministic premise. If you witnessed me having to hold down my son in order to give him a shot for diabeties because he was afraid of needles, would you walk away and conclude that Leighton always uses brute stength to over power the will of his son, denying his child any freedom or personhood or independance? Of course not, yet this is what deterministic Calvnists do with the scriptures. They take examples of God's interaction within the course of human history and insist this is how God determines everything. This does nothing except undermine the unique divine nature of such events recorded in scripture. I quote John MacArthur as saying, "He [God] simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends." And Phil concluded that the concept of 'simple permission' was jejune yet failed to ever provide any real distinction between God's active role in determining, authoring or permitting evil. He did reference Hendryx who seems to be much more deterministic in his approach than MacArthur. I play a clip from John Piper where he graciously explains that some won't be able to see God from the deterministic perspective as Holy, so if that is where they are they shouldn't accept it until they see it clearly taught in the text. Lastly, I quote Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the Prince of Baptist Preachers, as he implores fellow believers to remain true to the text even if its inconsistent with their theological system. Here is that quote: Sermon on I Tim. 2:4 by Charles Haddon Spurgeon:"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —"Salvation By Knowing the Truth" Now, if what some Calvinists say is true about all five points hanging or falling together, and to deny any one point makes one "not really a Calvinist," then they need to stop quoting Spurgeon as if he is Calvinistic because he is anything but consistent in the 5 point system being proclaimed by many today. For those interested, here is a copy of the tweet I send in response to the article by John Hendryx: 1. Hendryx wrote: "God ordains all things that come to pass (Eph 1:11)" - Failing to define what he mean's by 'ordains' one must ask if the concept of divine "permission" applies or does he take the typical approach of convoluting the clear meaning of the word "permit" by suggesting God is somehow "permitting what he determined" (unnecessary redundancy)? Who knows?Eph 1:11 "In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will."Can someone point out where it teaches that God determines all things in this verse, because what I read is exactly what MacArthur wrote to us jejune common folk: "He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good."I find a significant difference in God "working out the evil for good" and God determining/decreeing/causing/ordaining evil, but maybe other less jejune folks don't?2. Hendryx wrote: "according to compatibilism, human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism" Can someone explain how this is different from animal instinct and why animals aren't likewise held morally accountable for their choices given that they are acting in accordance with their innate predetermined desires too?3. Hendryx wrote: "For example, God is said to specifically ordain the crucifixion of His Son"Ok, so God's active involvement in ensuring the redemption of sin on the cross is supposed to prove God is equally active in bringing about the sins that needed redemption? BTW, just so others know. Indeterminists, like myself, don't deny God's active role in hardening (blinding people from truth or giving them over to their sin) in order to ensure certain UNIQUE and SPECIAL events throughout human history come to pass. We just don't use such divinely ordained events as proof texts to suggest God is equally as active in every mundane happenstance in the entire world (i.e. universal determinism of all things is somehow proven by some events God determined). We don't believe God's role in ensuring the redemption of mankind somehow proves God likewise ensure the holocaust or Dahmer's heinous evil, for instance. We reference those divine events as supernatural or miraculous because of God's active and unique role in them, and suggesting God plays the same role in EVERY event only undermines that divine uniqueness.