Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

In this episode Stewie and Phil Johnson gang up on me and hurt my feelings. They are insisting my claim that God's sovereignty is more about his desire to reveal a world NOT under his complete control than it is about Him attempting to maintain deterministic control over every thing that happens is just plain 'stupid' and 'jejune.' What ever that means. It once again goes back to the Determinist's claim that God cannot create a rock to big for Him to move, but does that in any way prove that God cannot create a rock that He chooses NOT to move? Phil Johnson, like James White, seems to think even the consideration of such a idea is irrational. Who cares if it doesn't seem rational to our finite mind, I just want to know if its biblical. These passages teach that there are "authorities" and "powers" which are yet to be destroyed, and that have been given dominion over God's creation. Isaiah 24:21 A time is coming when the Lord will punish the powers above and the rulers of the earth. Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Colossians 2:20 You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the evil powers of this world. 1 Corinthians 15:24 GNT Then the end will come; Christ will overcome all spiritual rulers, authorities, and powers, and will hand over the Kingdom to God the Father. Don't misunderstand my point. I affirm that God is OVER these powers and authorities. He created them after all. Colossians 1:16: For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. And one day God will strip them of that authority: Colossians 2:15 God stripped the spiritual rulers and powers of their authority. With the cross, he won the victory and showed the world that they were powerless. But, if God has chosen to allow created beings to have dominion and power over something, even for a time, how is His "sovereignty" (as defined by some being "complete and total deterministic over every single thing") not compromised? I appreciate Phil Johnson posting a link to his blog in our Twitter discussion. I think a fair summary is, "The difficulty of Human Responsibility and God's Sovereignty disappears when you accept that God ordains the means as well as the ends." Which to me seems tantamount to saying the difficulty goes away when you accept that God is responsible for both His own choices (the ends) and man's choices (the means). i.e. God determines the ends but also every little detail that brought that end to pass....so how is that different than plan ol' HARD DETERMINISM? It's not. Does Phil mean by "ordain" that God merely permits? If so, we agree...but isn't divine permission conceding the existence of human autonomy given that it there must be something outside God's will for which to give permission? Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world because of sin, right? Death...suffering...pain and all the bad things that happen came as a result of sin entering the universe (reference to Genesis 3:14-24) not as a result of God's decision, but decisions of his creatures. Doesn't that mean all those evil consequences of sin continue to work in the world and will be with us as long as sin is here even if God weren't involved at all (which I'm not saying he isn't...I'm just saying this came about because of sin, not God, and it would continue with or without God's being involved...its independent of Him, separate, in other words). God is certainly more powerful than any evil...he could stifle it at any moment with a word. I don't think anyone is denying that. And I think we all agree that there's a sense in which it is proper even to say that "evil is part of His eternal decree," (permissively I mean). He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10), but isn't there a difference in working evil out for good and unchangeably determining evil yourself? It's one thing to help my child grow from being bullied, its another for me to hire the bully so as to make my child grow. See my point? Most say that God's role with regard to evil is never as its "author," but few define the distinction between predetermining/ ordaining/ decreeing and 'authoring.' I posed this question to Phil via Twitter: "Tell me if I'm wrong here but it seems to me that God simply permits evil people to do their own evil, then God overrules or works out the evil for His own good END. Agree? Disagree?" We will get into his answer and much more in the next episode. To join the discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com

"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 Too many here think man's contra-causal freewill somehow violates divine sovereignty, which begs the question by presuming that God could not have chosen in His sovereignty to make mankind contra-causally free. Dare one argue that God's not powerful enough to create contra-causally free individuals? For if He could and did then by the very nature of HIS DOING IT does it not become an act of His Sovereign Will thus making human freedom fully inline with divine sovereignty? Must God control the choices/acts of every creature to be sovereign? Must he play both sides of the chess board to ensure victory? I think not. I believe God is much greater than that view of divine sovereignty. God is not scared of contra-causal freedom, He is more than capable of accomplishing His ultimate purposes in, through and DESPITE the free choices and actions of creation. He doesn't need to be the one determining the acts of Satan and Himself to make sure it all goes as he planned. That appears to be a smaller view of God, not a greater view. Does it impress you when a computer programmer creates a world where every action of the avatars are programmed to have certain responses and reflexes? Sure, it is really cool to see a vitual world that is similar to our own, but does it impress you to think that is how God has created our world? One determined in the same cause/effect pre-programmed method as the guy in his mom's basement who created SIMS? I believe God's sovereignty is so much greater than the deterministic worldview proposes. Could I be wrong? Sure, but if I am isn't that what God determined? So, either I'm right or I'm determined by God to be wrong. Now, ironically you have to determine for yourself which view of God is really the HIGHER view. To join the discussion visit us at www.soteriology101.com

Paul writes: "What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory." Remembering that the question Paul is answering in Romans 9 is: “Has God’s word failed in regard to God’s election of Israel?” What is Paul’s intent in this passage? Is Paul concluding that there are some people who are destined before time began to be objects of wrath and others destined to be objects of mercy, as Calvinists conclude? If so, how does that really answer the question posed by the apostle? How does that fit with Paul’s expression of unconditional love for these hardened, cut off, stumbling people of Israel in the beginning of this chapter? How does this fit with the fact that Paul expresses God’s longsuffering patience to a people who He has held out his hands too for generations (Rm. 10:21, Matt. 23:37)? How does this Calvinistic interpretation fit with the fact that those cut off in Romans 9 may be grafted back in, those hardened may be provoked by envy and saved, those stumbling haven’t stumbled beyond recovery, as recorded in Romans 11? Is there more than one perspective here? Could Paul be addressing the exact same argument that was addressed in Romans 3:1-8 where the Jewish people argued, “If my unrighteousness highlights God’s glory why am I to blame?” Isn’t it clear that God is speaking of Israel’s objections against being used to bring redemption to the world by being temporarily cut off, blinded and stumbled, and not of the reprobates objection to being rejected by God from before the creation of the world? Let’s dive into the text and find the true intent of the author. If you’d like to enter the discussion join us at www.soteriology101.com

The Non-Calvinistic View of Romans 9: It begins, as before, with Paul agonizing over the failure of Israel to come to faith in Christ (vv. 1-5). He has to confront the Jewish objection that, if his gospel were correct, it would mean that God’s promises to the Jews had failed. His response is that God’s promises have not failed, but others are inheriting the promises, because not all of Israel is Israel: i.e., not all of Israel has followed Abraham in faith (v. 6). Ethnic descent from Abraham is not enough to be considered “Abraham’s children,” as the examples of Ishmael and Esau demonstrate; Israel has already been granted unmerited blessings as compared with other descendants of Abraham (vv. 7-13). Therefore God is not unjust if he now excludes those descendants of Jacob who do not come to faith, because anyone he blesses, even Moses, is a recipient of his mercy (vv. 14-16). God may choose to spare for a time even someone like Pharaoh, whom God has chosen to harden—knowing that he will harden himself in response to God’s challenge—in order for God to glorify himself through that person, who can be viewed as both an example of God’s mercy and hardening (vv. 17-18). The implication is therefore that the Jews have been given mercy in the past but are not guaranteed mercy in the future if they do not come to faith in Christ. The hypothetical questioner asks why God still blames the Jews, if He has hardened them (v. 19), refusing to recognize that the Jews are hardened just as Pharaoh was hardened, by their own stubborn refusal to repent. Paul therefore rebukes them, and uses the potter-clay illustration to point out that God has always dealt with Israel on the basis of its repentance, and it is only those who refuse to repent who argue back to God that he made them as they are (vv. 20-21). Paul then points out that God has to bear patiently the “objects of his wrath”—the unbelieving—in order to make his glory known to the “objects of his mercy”—those who come to faith, which he specifically identifies as having come not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles (vv. 22-24). The supporting quotations from Hosea and Isaiah make clear the point: that many of those whom the Jews had considered excluded from the covenant (the Gentiles) would in the end be included, while many whom the Jews had considered included in the covenant (themselves) would be excluded (vv. 25-29). The basis upon which Gentiles have been included and Jews excluded is made explicit in vv. 30-33: it is that the Gentiles are obtaining righteousness through faith, while the Jews have pursued it by works. In essence, Paul is telling ethnic Israel something very close to what Reformed interpreters see. He is telling them that God has the right to choose whomever he wills to be among his covenant people. But he is not telling them this because God has chosen not to elect most of them. He’s telling them this because the paradigm for inclusion in the covenant people has shifted, from national Israel following the Law to anyone who comes to faith in Christ. Israel feels betrayed by this paradigm shift, so Paul explains that God has no obligation to the physical descendants of Abraham; rather, Paul demonstrates from the Old Testament that his relationship to Israel has always depended upon repentance. Examples, such as God's hardening of Pharaoh's will, or God's hardening of Israel's hearts, or God using means to persuade Jonah, or Paul are all clearly redemptive. They are also often pointed to by Calvinists as examples of God's effectual control over the will of man. In this podcast we point out that these examples, like many others, show God intervening to change, alter, and override man's will are unique (not commonplace) and redemptive (not without a greater purpose). What makes an event in history uniquely a 'work of God' in a more deterministic worldview?In other words, if all events, choices and acts are divinely brought to pass through His decisive conditioning of all things that occur (however you want to nuance it), then what is different about those things which God actively DOES and what he merely 'ORDAINS.' What I'm getting to is the point of proof texting as often done by those of the Reformed persuasion who point to the crucifixion of Christ or the inspiration of scripture as supporting a more deterministic worldview.The argument seems to go something like this: "If God predetermined and causally brought to pass the greatest evil of all time, in the crucifixion of his Son, then that proves God causally predetermines all morally evil events in like manner."But this argument seems to ignore the uniquely divine nature and purpose of this particular event in human history. To suggest that God has causally determine the shooting at the school, or Dahmer's crimes or other such heinous events in our history in the same 'active' and 'sovereign' predeterminate manner that he brought about redemption by laying down his own life seems to be quite a stretch. I believe God did blind Israel in their rebellion so as to ensure the crucifixion and the passover, just as he blinded Pharaoh to accomplish the first passover. He does actively intervene to ensure certain redemptive purposes are fulfilled, and our doctrine has always allowed for this divine conditioning and causality regarding the human will and the divine prerogative. But, do these examples of God's active working to ensure his redemptive plan in human history somehow prove that God likewise works to ensure all evil things by those same determinative means? Doesn't the even the suggestion of that undermine the unique nature of those divine works of redemption? Contrasted with... The Calvinistic View of Romans 9: Paul begins by agonizing over the failure of Israel to come to salvation through faith in Christ (9:1-5). Paul’s solution is that not all of Israel is Israel; i.e., not all of Israel is elect (v. 6). Paul demonstrates God’s prerogative to elect whomever he wills by having elected Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau (vv. 7-13). God has mercy only on those whom he chooses to have mercy, and hardens the rest, as exemplified by Pharaoh (vv. 14-18). At this point, Paul hypothesizes a questioner who articulates the Arminian contention: if God has chosen to harden someone like Pharaoh, how can God then judge him for what he was predestined to do (v. 19)? Paul rebukes the questioner for impiety, and uses the potter-clay illustration to reiterate that God has the right to elect some and reprobate some as he deems fit (vv. 20-21). Paul then adds, as a supporting argument, the fact that when God chooses to reprobate someone like Pharaoh, he has to bear patiently their sin and arrogance, but does so, in order to demonstrate his glory to his elect, which turn out to be among the Gentiles as well as among the Jews (vv. 22-24). He thus brings the discussion back to the issue of Jewish unbelief in Christ, from which his discussion of election has been an excursus. From that point, the rest of the chapter is interpreted with regard to the Jew-Gentile question and salvation by faith, as opposed to works, without explicit reference to election (vv. 25-33).

Jacob I loved and Esau I hated: The term “hate” is sometimes an expression of choosing one over another, and does not literally mean “hatred.” For instance, Jesus told Peter, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). No commentator worth his salt would suggest the term “hate” in this passage is literal, otherwise he would be hard pressed to explain scripture’s other teachings about loving and honoring our parents. Instead, this passage is understood to mean that man must choose following God’s will over the will of even the most beloved in one’s life. Could the same hermeneutical principle be applied toward understanding God choice of Jacob over Esau? Certainly, it could. God clearly chose one over the other for a noble purpose, but can we be sure that was Paul’s intent in this passage? No, not entirely, we would have to speculate. However, do we have to speculate regarding why God expressed such hatred for Esau? God has a purpose for everything He does and though he is not obligated to explain Himself to any of us, He does typically reveal his motives through scripture. He wants his friends to be aware of His work and the purposes behind His decisions (John 15:15). So, what do we know about God’s motive for hating Esau? Is there a cause or a purpose behind this decision that is revealed in scripture? Does God arbitrarily decide to hate some people and love others? Is that Paul’s meaning in this text? The answer to these questions can be found by unpacking the scriptures Paul refers to in Romans 9. Let’s take a look at each one: Before Birth? A hasty reading of Romans 9 could lead some to think God always hated Esau leaving the impression God’s hatred has no evident cause. This is simply untrue. Verse 11 clearly states that God had a purpose for Israel before the twins were born, but not hatred for an unborn child. “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth” – Rom 9:11 Nowhere does it state that God hated Esau before he was born. God chose to keep his promise to Abraham through Jacob, not Esau, before they were born, but hatred is never spoken of as being present before their birth. That is presumed or read into the text by some, but it simply never states that. Also, God’s choice of Jacob over Esau was not kept as a part of “God’s secret counsel,” as many Calvinists teach regarding individual election. Calvinists argue that one of the reasons we must evangelize all men is because we do not know who God has individually selected, yet are we to believe God told the twins mother that He hated her son before he was were even born? God told Rebecca of his elective purpose in an audible voice (Gen. 25:22-23), but nothing is mentioned regarding God’s hating her son. How horrible would that be? Imagine God telling you that he hated your son before he was even born! It is unthinkable. Upon reading the text carefully it is easily discerned that God only told her that the older will serve the younger: “when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” – Rom 9:10, Rom 9:12 Clearly, the prophecy was not about hatred or a curse, it was about God’s elective purpose for Israel. Like anyone else, if Esau had chosen to bless Jacob then he too would have been blessed (Gen. 12:3). When and Why Did God Hate Esau? Not only did God not express his hatred for Esau prior to his birth, He did not reveal this until after Esau was dead. Both of the twins were long gone before the house of Esau invoked God’s declaration of hate. The prophecy against Edom, known to be the house of Esau (Gen 36:1, 43), is found in the book of Obadiah. Here we find the true cause of God’s hatred toward these people: “For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever.” – Obadiah 1:10 Malachi 1:2-3 is the passage Paul references in the hotly contested ninth chapter of Romans. The original passage states: “I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.” – Mal 1:2-3 Malachi wrote his prophecy hundreds of years after Jacob and Esau lived on earth. Both prophets, Malachi and Obadiah, reflect on Edom’s attacks against Israel throughout their writings giving a very clear cause for God’s declared hatred for Esau and those he represented in Edom. So, it is clear that in Romans 9 Paul was simply summarizing this historical account by first speaking of God’s prophecy for the twins and the nations they represent, and then revealing the final outcome of Edom’s rebellion and God’s subsequent declaration of hatred. Never once is God’s hatred expressed toward an unborn individual or even against someone who was still living. Please think about this honestly and compare it with what you have personally come to know about God. Is the concept of God hating people before they are born even reflective of the God revealed in scripture? Are we to believe that the God who calls us to love our enemies hates the unborn? I John 4:8 teaches, “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” Does not your heart stir with righteous anger toward people like those from the Westboro Baptist Church who declares God’s hatred for others? Yet, how is that any different from making the claim that scripture teaches God hates an unborn baby and then deriving a theological system from such teachings which suggests He also hates most of humanity prior to their even being born? Does the spirit inside you resonate at all with such abhorrent claims? Calvinists seem to think Paul's citation in verse 11 is made at the same time as verse 12, but they are two different references to two different passages...it's more of a Before and After. Verse 11-12 (ref to Gen): BEFORE they were born God declared the election of Jacob to carry the lineage of the Messiah, over the elder brother, but clearly had Esau or anyone else blessed Jacob they too would be blessed (Gen 12:3) Verse 13 (ref to Mal): AFTER ...in fact hundreds of years after both twins were long dead God declared his hatred of Esau in reference to Edom's attack on Israelite lands. Conclusion: God declared his elective choice of Israel before the twins birth to be fulfilled through Jacob, but his hatred for Esau is not declared until long after his death. It is only summarized together by Paul in this chapter leading Calvinists to wrongly think that God's elective purpose and hatred was declared at the same time, before they were born, which is FACTUALLY INACCURATE. What Paul is demonstrating is that Israel is chosen to carry that promise. He does so in two ways - by demonstrating that Israel (not Esau or the Edomites) was chosen for this and that God's favor remained on them even to the time of the restoration from exile. God still protected and cared for Esau, giving him Mt. Seir as his inheritance. Paul is referencing two distinct historical events in Israel's history to prove his point. (He actually continues to do so throughout Romans 9, but that is another discussion.) He is leveraging the stories provided in his history to make his point. You need to look at the broader textual context of his quotes to understand what he is saying. Modern exegetes have recognized that when Scripture is quoted, the author is using this as a reference to a broader textual and cultural understanding of what is being said. You need to go back and look at the whole discourse.

Many are Called, but Few are Chosen. Our calling is unconditional, but is our election? In the illustration of the Wedding banquet (Matt. 22) the choice of those who enter is clearly conditioned upon their wearing the correct garments. We will unpack that parable today. We will also look at 1 Thess. 1:4 and 2 Thess. 2:13, which are used by Calvinists to prove their view of individual election to salvation. Join the discussion at www.soteriology101.com

After Stewie makes fun of the Professor for a host of reasons, the discussion picks up where it left off on John Piper's introduction to Calvinism as he speaks of its practicality in ministry. How teniable is the belief that all our choices are actually determined by God? Does it really help us? In a culture that blames God and runs to sin rather than blaming sin and running to God, does the Calvinistic system help bolster the false notion that God is to blame for the evil, fallenness and all it consequences? Do passages such as Eph. 6:10 which speak of other authorities and powers in this world and in heavenly places suggest that God has given over some measure of control? Does the Lord's prayer asking for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven suggest that what is happening on earth is not necessarily as God would determine it if He were in complete deterministic control over every thing that comes to pass? Join the discussion at www.soteriology101.com

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