Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

Discussing the Biblical Doctrine of Salvation. Is Calvinism Correct? How about Arminianism? Or is the answer found somewhere in between? Sit in on our Online University Theology Classroom, Soteriology 101, as we unpack the doctrines of God's Amazing Grace. Other topics to include: Predestination, Election, Total Depravity, Atonement, Once saved alway saved, and much more.

Responding to a Calvinist on Spiritual Deadness 01/14/2020

Responding to a Calvinist on Spiritual Deadness Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, replies to a video from a Calvinistic brother, Jacob Trotter, who is critiquing his views on spiritual deadness as moral inability. To see Jacob’s original video go here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbLBdPVqkR8&t=2050s For more on 1 Cor. 2:14: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgBvRCxsXcE For more on Romans 8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvTeMJhjJao&t=7388s For more on role of Satan within Calvinism: https://soteriology101.com/2017/10/14/the-redundancy-of-satan-on-calvinism/ For more on Romans 1-3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bBJERjnyHA&t=1s For more on Faith as a gift: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAYXqM-qT6k&t=472s To SUPPORT this broadcast please click here: https://soteriology101.com/support/ To ORDER Dr. Flowers Curriculum “Tiptoeing Through Tulip” please click here: https://soteriology101.com/shop/ To listen to the audio only be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or one of the other podcast players found here: https://soteriology101.com/home/ For more about Traditionalism (or Provisionism) please visit www.soteriology101.com Dr. Flowers’ book, “The Potter’s Promise” can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Potters-Promise-Biblical-Traditional-Soteriology/dp/0692561846/ref=nodl_ Dr. Flowers’ book, “God’s Provision for All” can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Provision-All-Defense-Goodness-ebook/dp/B07PLL85Y6/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2BQ08Y6XOZV5S&keywords=leighton+flowers&qid=1556650306&s=gateway&sprefix=leighton%2Caps%2C150&sr=8-2 To engage with other believers cordially join our Facebook group: https://m.facebook.com/groups/1806702782965265/?ref=group_header&view=group For updates and news follow us at: www.facebook/Soteriology101 Or @soteriology101 on Twitter Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word! To become a Patreon supporter or make a one time donation: https://soteriology101.com/support/ /episode/index/show/soteriology101/id/12740648

Inability or Responsibility? Responding to James White 01/08/2020

2 Timothy 2:25 DeCalvinized 12/30/2019

A Calvinistic Inconsistency? 12/23/2019

Why do most Christians resist Calvinism? 12/16/2019

Foreknown? 12/09/2019

Romans 8:28-30 DeCalvinized 12/02/2019

An Arminian Error 11/25/2019

Romans 9:13 DeCalvinized 11/18/2019

Romans 3:10-12 DeCalvinized 11/11/2019

Calvinistic Predestination 11/11/2019

DeCalvinizing Acts 13:48 11/04/2019

Sovereignty DeCalvinized 10/30/2019

DeCalvinizing Ephesians 2:8 10/28/2019

Was "CALVINISM" introduced by Augustine? 10/23/2019

Is the OT God a God of Provision? 10/21/2019

Calvinism's Conflation 10/14/2019

Recommendations for Non-Calvinistic Resources 10/09/2019

Recommendations for Non-Calvinistic Resources Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, recommends some leading non-Calvinistic scholars, Study Bibles, Commentaries and Systematic Theologies. For more on this topic please visit https://soteriology101.com/about-2/statement-of-faith/ Other non-Calvinistic scholars/pastors: AW Tozer Howard Marshall Doug Stuart NT Wright Gordon Fee Scott McKnight David Baker William W. Klein Grant Osborne Robert Shank David A. DeSilva Bill T. Arnold John Oswalt Brian Abasciano (he helped with this list) Ben Witherington III Thomas Oden C.S. Lewis Craig Blomberg (not A or C, but probably leans slightly more A) Craig Keener Jack Cottrell Gerald O. McCulloh (edited * “Man’s Faith and Freedom: The Theological Influence of Jacobus Arminius”) James Luther Adams (from “Man’s Faith and Freedom”) Russell Henry Stafford (from “Man’s Faith and Freedom”) Geoffrey F. Nuttall (from “Man’s Faith and Freedom”) Roger Olson Dale Moody Paul Copan James D. G. Dunn Jerry Walls Joseph Dongell Clark Pinnock Donald M. Lake William G. Witt A. Skevington Wood Vernon C. Grounds Terry L. Miethe Richard Rice John E. Sanders Fritz Guy Klyne Snodgrass Robert Picirilli F. Leroy Forlines Matthew Pinson Stephen Ashby Chuck Smith George Bryson Greg Laurie William Lane Craig Billy Graham Adrian Rogers Michael Brown Leonard Ravenhill David Wilkerson Bruce Reichenbach David J. A. Clines William G. MacDonald James D. Strauss C. Stephen Evans Paul R. Eddy William J. Abraham A. Philip Brown II Derek Prince Jack Hayford Gene L. Green Gareth Lee Cockerill James Leonard John Wesley Chrarles Edward White Anthony Chadwick Thornhill Aaron Sherwood B.J. Oropeza David Lewis Allen Steve Lemke Adam Harwood Jerry Vines Paige Patterson Richard Land Malcolm Yarnell Bruce A. Little Robert W. Wall G. Walter Hansen Philip H. Towner Adam Clarke Ravi Zacharias (?) Paul Ellingworth William G. MacDonald James Strauss Philip Towner John Wenham Gary Habermas Nigel Turner Max Turner Peter Cotterell (?) Michael Brown David Jeremiah Dave Hunt J. W. MacGorman E. Y. Mullins Herschel Hobbs W. T. Conner Frank Stagg Fisher Humphreys Bert Dominy Ken Keathley Norm Geisler Alister McGrath David Bentley Hart Mike Licona Also, listen to Steve Gregg, Mike Winger, The Bible BroDown, and Trinity Radio for other non-Calvinistic podcasts/videos /episode/index/show/soteriology101/id/11391356

DeCalvinizing Deadness 10/07/2019

Answering the Calvinist's most Popular Argument 10/02/2019

Answering the Calvinist's most Popular Argument “WHY DID YOU BELIEVE THE GOSPEL, BUT YOUR FRIEND DID NOT? ARE YOU WISER OR SMARTER OR MORE SPIRITUAL OR BETTER TRAINED OR MORE HUMBLE?” This is typically one of the first questions a Calvinist will ask a non-Calvinist when attempting to convince them of their doctrine.[1] In fact, when I was a Calvinist, I used this argument more often than any other, and it was quite effective. However, I have come to believe there are at least five significant problems with this line of argumentation: 1) CALVINISM IS ACTUALLY THE ONLY SYSTEM THAT TEACHES THE BELIEVER IS “BETTER” OR “MORE CAPABLE” THAN THE ONE WHO REFUSED TO BELIEVE: On Calvinism God makes some people (the elect) “smarter” (or insightful, or able to understand truth), more humble and privileged by a work of irresistible regenerative grace. So, on Calvinism those who believe really are “better” or “more capable,” which is why they can believe the gospel and the rest cannot believe it (for reasons beyond their control). Granted, on Calvinism, this regenerative grace is given unconditionally and it is not in anyway merited by the elect, but that does not change the fact that upon being regenerated the elect are made “better” (more capable, with a new and better nature/heart) than their unbelieving counterpart. On Provisionism (Traditionalism), all people have the necessary insight and moral capacity to respond willingly to God’s appeal. Thus, all are truly “without excuse” because everyone has everything they need to believe in God. This is due to the fact that everyone is created as His image bearers in a world where His truth is made abundantly clear and believable (Rom 1). On Provisionism, no one can fall back on the excuse that God did not make them morally capable to respond positively to His own appeals or insightful enough to understand and accept plainly spoken truth, like they can on Calvinism. On Provisionism, the Fall doesn’t cause humanity to become morally incapable of accepting God’s appeals to be reconciled from that Fall. We do not believe that has ever been established biblically. This Calvinistic argument may sound pious because it’s attempting to give all credit to God for all the good things, but in so doing it also inadvertently gives God all the blame for the bad and removes any real semblance of human responsibility for unbelief. Unbelievers cannot rightly say, “I could not believe because God withheld His provision, love and grace from me. It was beyond my control because I was born rejected by my maker and in a condition whereby I could only hate and reject God’s own appeals.” No! Unbelievers stand without excuse as blameworthy sinners because they are freely rejecting the loving and gracious appeal of God for reconciliation. They perish because they refused to love the truth so as to be saved (2 Thess. 2:10) and they could have done otherwise. Provisionism gives God all the credit for His provision while maintaining the human responsibility to accept or reject that provision. After all, since when must a gift be effectually given for the giver to get full credit for giving it? To read more go here: https://soteriology101.com/2019/01/13/are-you-better-than-your-friend-who-refused-to-believe/ Please remember to like this video and SUBSCRIBE! /episode/index/show/soteriology101/id/11391203

John 6:44 DeCalvinized 09/30/2019

Election according to Jesus 09/25/2019

Election according to Jesus Dr. Leighton Flowers presents a short explanation of Jesus's parable of the Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22. There are several divine choices made by God to bring about redemption. 1) The election of the nation that the king ruled over in the parable (representing Israel) 2) The election of the servants from that nation to deliver the wedding invitations (representing prophets/apostles). 3) The election of those who would receive the invitations (representing the message going first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles) 4) The election to permit those properly clothed in wedding garments to enter (representing those clothed in Christ’s righteousness by faith) The moral of Christ’s parable was, “Many are called, but few are elect” (v. 14). In other words, many are “unconditionally” invited by “unconditionally” elected servants from an “unconditionally” elected nation. - The nation was not chosen because it was more moral or more deserving (i.e. “unconditional”) - The servants from that nation were not selected because they were more moral or more deserving. (i.e. “unconditional”) - And the invitations were not sent to people because they were more moral or deserving. (i.e. “unconditional”) - The invitation (WORD) was brought to the world through a nation (and individually selected servants from that nation). This is what Christ is referencing when he says, “many are called.” What does Christ mean by “few are elect?” Clearly, this is in reference to those conditionally permitted entrance into the banquet based upon their being properly clothed in the right wedding garments. The King elects to permit those rightly clothed to come in while the rest are cast out. Likewise, God will only permit those clothed in the righteousness of Christ to enter heaven. The “few” who are “elect” were clearly conditionally chosen based upon their garments (the righteousness of Christ). This is the foundational understanding of “corporate election to salvation.” We are elect only insofar as we are connected with Christ (clothed in His righteousness). This parable, like Romans 9, includes all of the King’s choices, not just the last one. In other words, the parable involves not only the King’s choice to grant or deny an individual’s entrance into the banquet, but also the King’s choices in fulfilling his purposes through his own nation and those individual servants selected to deliver the invitations. Likewise, Paul, in Romans 9, has all of these divine choices well in view. For more please visit www.soteriology101.com /episode/index/show/soteriology101/id/11391053

Biblical Election 09/16/2019

Tim Keller's Calvinism 09/09/2019

A Calvinistic Inconsistency 09/02/2019

Debunking Calvinism 08/26/2019

Allie Stuckey's Calvinism: A Critique 08/19/2019

Allie Stuckey on Calvinism: A Critique 08/12/2019

Did the Early Church Fathers teach "Calvinism?" 08/05/2019

What is Provisionism? 07/29/2019

Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor discusses Doctrines of Salvation

TOPICS