loader from loading.io
Romans 9 Debate Review with John Cranman show art Romans 9 Debate Review with John Cranman

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Leighton Flowers welcomes John Cranman back to discuss John's recent debate with Tyler Vela. They walk through Vela's opener and CX questions to bring clarity to the more "non-Calvinistic" perspective of soteriology reflected in the ninth chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans. To watch the original debate on Cameron Bertuzzi's broadcast, 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....

info_outline
John 10: Becoming a Christ Follower (Sheep) show art John 10: Becoming a Christ Follower (Sheep)

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Leighton Flowers responds to another Radio Free Geneva from Dr. James White which focuses on his interpretation of John 10 regarding the meaning of "sheep" in the mind of Jesus. Were the "sheep" individuals chosen unconditionally before creation or are they simply "followers" of God who recognize His voice? To listen the Dr. White's often fallacious rebuttal of Dr. Flowers, go here: To support this ministry please go here: Download our new app: LINK FOR ANDROIDS: id=com.arkentech.soteriology101 LINK FOR APPLE: Go to www.ridgemax.co for all your software development needs! Show them...

info_outline
ANNOUNCEMENT FROM LEIGHTON show art ANNOUNCEMENT FROM LEIGHTON

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Soteriology 101 has a new release that you need to know about!!! LINK FOR ANDROIDS: LINK FOR APPLE: Go to www.ridgemax.co for all your software development needs! Show them some love for their support of Soteriology101!!!

info_outline
Romans 9: Double vs Single Predestination? show art Romans 9: Double vs Single Predestination?

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Flowers walks through a commentary produced by Lutheran Pastor, Jordan Cooper, on Romans 9 to illustrate the proper exegesis of this contentious chapter is far from supporting the Calvinistic claims of double predestination. But, does Romans 9 support the doctrine of "single predestination," which is the concept that God has unconditionally preselected some individuals to whom He will effectually give faith so that they will certainly believe and be saved?   To watch Dr. Cooper's original broadcast, go here:

info_outline
John Piper John Piper "Calvinizes" Ephesians 1

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Drs. Leighton Flowers and Brian Wagner confront a recently released broadcast by Dr. John Piper in which he exegetes Ephesians 1 in such a way that supports the Calvinistic premise.  Here is the original video from John Piper:

info_outline
LIVE Q&A Episode #14: Common Questions About Salvation show art LIVE Q&A Episode #14: Common Questions About Salvation

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Leighton Flowers answers a variety of questions concerning the doctrine of salvation and related matters.

info_outline
TULIP Rests On The T show art TULIP Rests On The T

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Flowers responds to a Calvinistic guest on Remnant Radio, Joel Webbon. The original Remnant Radio interview can be found here:

info_outline
James White On John 6 show art James White On John 6

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Flowers plays a clip from a recent Dividing Line program going over John 6 while bringing critique to John Lennox and the Provisionistic interpretation.

info_outline
Why Calvinism And Apologetics Don't Mix show art Why Calvinism And Apologetics Don't Mix

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics, plays a clip from a recent online debate between a Calvinistic Christian and an Atheist to demonstrate the inherent weakness of the Calvinistic worldview when giving an apologetic defense of the Christian worldview. To see the original debate please go here: To learn more about Braxton Hunter and Trinity Radio go here: youtube.com/braxtonhunter To support this ministry go here: www.soteriology101.com/support

info_outline
Ephesians 1 De-Calvinized show art Ephesians 1 De-Calvinized

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, gives a brief 10 minute overview of Ephesians 1 from a Traditional/Provisionist perspective as in contrast with the typical Calvinistic reading. The first chapter of Ephesians is a hotly contested passage regarding the doctrine of salvation. The first verse reveals that Paul’s audience is “the faithful in Christ Jesus.” In fact, the “in Christ” theme introduced in the apostle’s opening sentence continues through this entire section of the text. He repeats this phrase, in various forms, ten times in...

info_outline
 
More Episodes

I saw this argument posed by a Christian in a debate with an Atheist recently and it reminded me of an important point. We should always be willing to objectively and honestly ask the question, “What if I’m wrong?”

What are the practical, real world consequences if what I believe, teach and practice is in error?

When it comes to the soteriological differences between the Calvinist and the Traditionalist, like myself, this question is especially pertinent. If non-Calvinists are wrong, what temporal or eternal harm have we really caused?

As I have said before, we are either rightly standing in defense of God’s glory or God has sovereignly determined for us to be wrong for the praise of His glory. If I am mistaken, no fewer people are going to heaven, no less glory will be given to God than what He decided and nothing I do will ultimately harm or hinder the desire of God for this temporal world or the eternal one to come. I literally have nothing practical to gain by converting to Calvinism. And I know if the claims of Calvinists are true and God wants me to become one, then I certainly will. In fact, I sincerely pray He converts me to adopt sound theology. I have no desire to teach false interpretations of scripture as I believe I did for many years, so I can honestly say I am open to correction.

I wonder how many Calvinists have objectively evaluated this question. I am not trying to aggravate my Calvinistic friends anymore so than Lacrae is trying to agitate Athesists by asking them to objectively consider the consequences if they are in error.

Let’s list some of the negative temporal and eternal effects that Calvinism has had if indeed it is wrong:

  • Countless church splits.
  • Much time, resources and energy wasted over the issue.
  • Hyper anti-evangelism by some who take the view to their logical ends.
  • Some repulsed by a seemingly monsterous view of God.
  • Some falling into fatalistic handling of temptations and addictions (if God wants me to quit this addiction or resist this temptation He will give me the effectual grace to do so)
  • God’s character of love, grace and genuinely providing salvation for every person being clouded and subverted.
  • “Cage stage” Calvinists turning unbelievers off to God.

Austin Fischer, author of Young, Restless and No Longer Reformed,” recently wrote, “It seems the primary concern for Calvinists is making sure human’s can’t boast in salvation, whereas the primary concern for free-will theism is a recognizably good God.”  What are Calvinists really accomplishing by converting believers to adopt Calvinism? Practically speaking, if Calvinism is correct, the Calvinist’s arguments are not going to determine who will or will not adopt Calvinism anyway and if Calvinism is false, then a well intending Calvinists shouldn’t want to risk converting others to a false interpretation anyway.  Thus, there is no practical reason for Calvinists to promote Calvinism. It’s not worth the risk.

Objections anticipated:

  1. There are rude non-Calvinists who turn the lost off to God too: Agreed, but this article is considering IF one view is right and the other one is wrong, and if Calvinism is right it is not as if rude Arminians aren’t here by God’s sovereign design. Rude Arminians are not going to repulse the effectually called elect of Calvinism and prevent them from their inevitable conversion.
  2. Calvinists don’t teach hyperism or fatalism: Agreed, which is why I said that some could take it further than the claims of the system which would create worse error (which has happened throughout history).
  3. We should believe the truth of scripture regardless of your perceived negative implications: Agreed, but again, if Calvinism is correct then God sovereignly decreed for me to perceive these negative implications and to write this post. So, if we’re contrasting objectively then I am still doing what is best for God’s self glorifying purposes.
  4. You are an idiot: By God’s unchangeable decree and for His greatest glory? I am okay with that! ;-)