loader from loading.io

Predestination Debate with Dr. James White on Twitter

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Release Date: 10/28/2014

Calvinism: Bafflingly Inconsistent show art Calvinism: Bafflingly Inconsistent

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Leighton Flowers confronts the baffling inconsistency of the Calvinistic theology promoted by Dr. Steve Lawson, Douglas Wilson and Dr. John Piper. "How can something that God immutably predestined for His own self-glorification 'rob God of His glory'? Completely baffling..." - The Provisionist Perspective To listen to Steven Lawson regarding the quote about Edward’s go here:

info_outline
Representing Calvinism Correctly show art Representing Calvinism Correctly

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Flowers demonstrates the double standard of many Calvinists when it comes to how we represent each other's perspectives. To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: ... LINK FOR APPLE: ... Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software developing needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!! To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip” please click here: To listen to the audio only be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or one of the other podcast players found here: For more about Traditionalism (or...

info_outline
Why Do Christian Leaders Fail? show art Why Do Christian Leaders Fail?

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Leighton Flowers reflects on the horrific news of Ravi Zacharias' secret sins and the manner in which we are to understand the ultimate and "DECISIVE CAUSE" of such behaviors so as to avoid them ourselves. This is the practical side of our theological worldview; and what you believe about yourself and God will impact how you apply these life lessons. This is why maintaining a belief in free will, or individual personal responsibility, is essential for a proper, consistent biblical response to these types of failings. To view the two messages referenced in the video from Dr. John Piper, go...

info_outline
Determinism is a JOKE according to James White show art Determinism is a JOKE according to James White

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Flowers responds to yesterday's Dividing Line broadcast () in which Dr. White mocks Flowers' views regarding Open Theism and Determinism. To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: Dr. Flowers’ book, “The Potter’s Promise” can be found here: ... Dr. Flowers’ book, “God’s Provision for All” can be found here: ... DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: ... LINK FOR APPLE: ... To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip” please click here: To listen to the audio only be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or one of the other podcast players...

info_outline
Discussing Romans 9 show art Discussing Romans 9

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Leighton Flowers, a Provisionist, welcomes back Dan Chapa, an Arminian, and David Louis, a Calvinist, to discussion Romans 9. To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: ... LINK FOR APPLE: ... Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software developing needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!! To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip” please click here: To listen to the audio only be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or one of the other podcast players found here: For more about Traditionalism (or...

info_outline
What's the Source of Evil & Grief? show art What's the Source of Evil & Grief?

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Leighton Flowers responds to a recent broadcast from the Babylon Bee (seen here: ) in which Dr. James White talks about how "reformed theology" is essential to properly dealing with evil, grief and suffering. Is grief always good? Is it always of God? What is the source of evil and the grief it causes?   To listen to all of John Piper's podcast, go here:   To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here:   DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: ... LINK FOR APPLE: ...   Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software developing needs! Show them some love for their...

info_outline
Who is the 'objector' in Romans 9? show art Who is the 'objector' in Romans 9?

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Leighton Flowers plays a sermon clip from Dr. Voddie Baucham on Romans 9 to illustrate the error that Calvinists make in assuming that the perceived injustice of God in the mind of Paul is due to the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation rather than God's sovereign right to establish covenant with whoever He is pleased, namely the Gentiles through faith versus the Jews through works of the law (see Romans -32) Here is the original video from Dr. Baucham: To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: ... LINK FOR APPLE: ... Go...

info_outline
Calvinism in India show art Calvinism in India

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Leighton Flowers responds to a video (seen here: ​) produced by Dr. Rakshith along with Brother G. Bibu which was in response to a Rakshana TV program where in Bro. Praveen Pagadala interviewed Dr. Leighton Flowers on the subject of “Bible & TULIP” on 25th Jan 2021: ​   To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: ​   DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: ​... LINK FOR APPLE: ​... Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software developing needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!!   To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through...

info_outline
Did you choose God, or did God choose you? show art Did you choose God, or did God choose you?

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, replies to a recent message from Pastor Mark Driscoll regarding God's election. The original video from Mark can be found here: ​ To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: ​ DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: ​... LINK FOR APPLE: ​... Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software developing needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!! To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip” please click here: ​ To listen to the audio only be sure to subscribe on iTunes,...

info_outline
Debating Calvinism show art Debating Calvinism

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Louis Ruggiero is back with Dr. Flowers to discuss his debate on Calvinism with Sonny Hernandez. To listen to the original debate, go here: ​ To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: ​ DOWNLOAD OUR APP: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: ​... LINK FOR APPLE: ​... Go to www.ridgemax.co for all you software developing needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!! To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip” please click here: ​ To listen to the audio only be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or one of the other podcast players found here: ​...

info_outline
 
More Episodes

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. <sigh>

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. :)