Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

We discuss John Piper's sermon: TULIP, Part 1 of 9: 
Introduction
A Seminar for The Bethlehem Institute
March 7, 2008 | by John Piper | Topic: The Doctrines of Grace / Calvinism John Piper introduces his 9 part series on the topic of Calvinism with this quote from AW Tozer. "It is my opinion that the Christian conception of God current in these middle years of the 20th century is so decadent as to be utterly beneath the dignity of the Most High God and actually to constitute for professed believers something amounting to a moral calamity. All the problems of heaven and earth, though they were to confront us together and at once, would be nothing compared with the overwhelming problem of God: That He is; what He is like; and what we as moral being must do about Him.  The man who comes to a right belief about God is relieved of 10,000 temporal problems, for he sees at once that these have to do with matters that at the most cannot concern him for very long… Low views of God destroy the gospel for all who hold them…" Here is other quotes from Tozer, not presented by Piper but relevant nontheless:  "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 Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God Another quote, from a non-Calvinist: The providence of God…is present with, and presides over, all things; and all things, according to their essences, quantities, qualities, relations, actions, passions, places, times, stations and habits, are subject to its governance, conservation, and direction. I except neither particular, sublunary, vile, nor contingent things, not even the free wills of men or of angels, either good or evil: And, what is still more, I do not take away from the government of the divine providence even sins themselves, whether we take into our consideration their commencement, their progress, or their termination…To the essence of God no attribute can be added, whether distinguished from it in reality, by relation, or by a mere conception of the mind; but only a mode of pre-eminence can be attributed to it, according to which it is understood to comprise within itself and to exceed all the perfections of all things. This mode may be declared in this one expression: "The divine essence is uncaused and without commencement." Hence, it follows that this essence is infinite; from this, that it is eternal and immeasurable; and, lastly, that it is unchangeable, impassable and incorruptible…Arminius Piper begins his sermon with a quote from Tozer about the idolatry of believing something lessor about God than He truly is, and the irony is the Tozer himself saw the Calvinistic explanation of God as lessor. 

Do non-Calvinists believe we save ourselves?   Can we respond to the gospel without the aid of the Holy Spirit? Can a non-Calvinist ever correctly represent Calvinism? What about men like John the Baptist or Paul, who seemed to be predestined to be followers of Christ?  Doesn't that prove God predestines all believers? Does proving that God predetermined the crucifixion of Christ prove that God predestines all sin? How does someone who holds to the corporate view of election deal with verses which clearly address individuals? All of these questions and more will be addressed in today's podcast.   If you have questions, rebuttals or comments please visit us at www.soteriology101.com.  

Picking up where we left off last time in our discussion covering the debate with Dr. James White via Twitter... Which view of Sovereignty is really greater?  The Calvinistic view or the non-Calvinistic view? Which is more impressive to you? The man you has to play both sides of the chess board to ensure victory or the man who can soundly defeat every opponent? AW Tozer said, "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 Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God God's sovereignty is best reflected in the fact that He accomplishes His purpose through free creature and doesn't have to control them to ensure his victory.  A God less than sovereign would be scared to allow for autonomously free creatures. We also take a look at the many texts which support the concept of autonomy and I relate that to the concept of "human responsiblity."  Please feel free to leave comments or questions that can be addressed in future podcasts.  Visit us online at www.soteriology101.com  

Earlier in the week I engaged with Dr. James White, host of the Dividing Line and notable Calvinistic scholar, on Twitter regarding the doctrine of Predestionation and election.  Oh, and Stewie is back by popular demand. Below are some of the messages from the twitter discussion from my side of the discussion and this podcast dives in a little deeper on the subject.  Enjoy! "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)?" Now, whether you acknowledge the FACT that two different people can read the exact same sentence and understand it differently based on their cultural up bringing is not within my control, but it is a fact, not just my opinion. And the facts also reveal that the 1st Century culture of Jews and Greeks was very "us" and "them" (tribal), thus the perspective of God predetermining to justify, sanctify and glorify whosoever believes IN HIM regardless of their nationality is most certainly viable and worthy of objective consideration...much more so than your Westernized view of God predetermining certain individual to believe in him, a view clearly not reflected in any of the Early Church Fathers, OR in much of the current cultures who view the text from the corporate perspective today. And of course Adoption and redemption is intensely personal. Who would deny that? Again, you still act as if this view is not equally inclusive of individuals being saved (adopted and redeemed) as your view is... BUT, is your adoption completed yet? Rom 8 indicates adoption is something 'we eagerly await'. So, did God predestine that all who believe would be adopted, and that is why we have hope in that coming adoption, OR does it say that God predetermined individuals to believe so as to be adopted? Again, it is a perspective shift, and BOTH perspectives equally involve individuals. Are you now equating the concept of God's "creating an autonomous creature" with His "creating another God?" Now, who is making categorical errors? So, as to be clear, are you saying that God could NOT, even if he wanted to, create a creature who is autonomously free to make his own moral determinations, because that in itself would be EQUAL to him recreating Himself? Is that your argument? Secondly, man's responsibility is most clearly and undeniably taught though out all of scripture. I happen to believe being response-able is equal to being "autonomous" or as some call it, "contra-causally free" (the ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action). The fact that Compatibilism even exists affirms the reality of the biblical teaching regarding such matters, otherwise you'd all be hard determinists without the need to explain how such texts are 'compatible' with your deterministic views.  Third, ironically your explanation regarding the difference between the personhood and being of God is very much parallel to how I would attempt to explain my particular take on the mystery of God's omniscience in light of his creation of morally accountable free creatures...if I were so bold as to tackle such a mysterious matter via Twitter.  Do you appeal to mystery regarding anything, Doctor? And what if God so ordained for autonomous freedom to come to pass? Or is that what you think is beyond his creative abilities? Maybe I'm not being clear so allow me to quote from AW Tozer to make this point:  "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 Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God Responsible or punishable? Because you deny, or at least the tenets of your dogma denies that man is "able to respond." (Total Inability) When Calvinist say men are "responsible" I think they mean that men are justly punished due to the federal headship and Fall of Adam, which I likewise affirm, but when I speak of mankind be RESPONSE-ABLE (able to respond) I'm talking about their being held to account for how they respond (for or against) to God's revelation and appeal for reconciliation after the fall. Are you saying lost man IS ABLE to willingly respond to God's revelation? If not, I'm not sure how you can use the term 'responsible' given its connotation of actually being "able to respond." Maybe consider another word? Culpable? Guilty?  So you never 'hide behind mystery,' you have it all figured out and explained? Of course you appeal to mystery on some points...as we know all Calvinists must when it comes to the question of why all his children aren't granted the ability to accept Calvinistic soteriology (Why wasn't CS Lewis Calvinistic? God's choice? Why? Mystery?). We all appeal to mystery at some point in this debate. To claim, as you do, that "God's Word provides clear answers" begs the question up for debate by presuming the Word of God clearly supports your dogma. If anything is clear about this topic is that we, believers, haven't had clarity (or at least uniformity) on it since about the time of Augustine. I think you mean that your view of the scripture is clear to you, which I could likewise claim...but that doesn't help the discussion much. The parallel has to do with the Personhood as it reflects His Immanence and his Being as it reflects His Transcendence, all of which is best summed up in an appeal to mystery, because such matters shouldn't be approached with any more certainty than that which is revealed in the text. To presume upon the text, as I believe Calvinism does, that God must be unable to create response-abled people, on the basis that He knows their responses beforehand is short-sighted at best. My point regarding 'responsibility' has to do with its given connotations, as it makes little sense to call someone responsible who is born unable to respond. We wouldn't call an infant responsible. Why? He isn't able to respond. We don't hold mentally handicap responsible because we recognize their INABILITIES to control themselves. I'm merely suggesting that for clarity you use a word like "guilty" when explaining your view because mankind, according to Calvinism is actually held culpable for God's responses (or His determinations as to how mankind will certainly "respond"...if you can call that a 'response') As to your comments about going beyond the limits of revelation, I could not agree more. But who is going beyond those limits in this case? The guy who says, "I don't know because the bible doesn't reveal enough for us to come to a conclusion as to how man is free while God is omniscient, I just believe both are clearly revealed to be the case (something even Compatibilists affirm)," or the man who denies one seemingly clear truth (human responsibility) due to the mysterious nature of how it works with the other (divine foreknowledge)? BTW, both of us could accuse the other of denying the 'truth' of a text because they don't like what it says. The point regarding the appeal to mystery is that I could likewise accuse you of "hiding behind it" just as atheists are notorious to doing to believers... but it is self defeating unless you never appeal to mystery yourself. Begging the question is to presume true the very point up for debate, and the question up for debate here is which of our views IS clearly supported by the text. Your statements which ultimately claim, "The bible clearly supports my view," are nothing more than question begging fallacies. I learned when judging CX debate years ago that the easiest way to spot question begging is to ask yourself if the opponent could make the exact same statement. We all know you believe your views to be true, but stating that the bible clearly supports your views doesn't amount to more than "I'm right because you're wrong." And one point you refused to engage is this: Either I'm right, or I'm determined by God's sovereign decree to be wrong. Either way, you are debating God... Good luck. :)