Soteriology 101: Former Calvinistic Professor Discusses Doctrines Of Salvation

Continued response to Prof. Sean Cole over Romans 8-9. This is part 2.   www.soteriology101.com

Calvinistic Baptist Pastor and Professor, Sean Cole, recently produced a podcast going over Prof. Flowers' interpretation of Romans 8:28 and following. Listen as Prof. Flowers goes through each argument point by point. Let's dive in. For more please visit us www.soteriology101.com

Professor Flowers and Kurt Jaros, the Executive Director of Defenders Media, talk through the problem of pain and suffering.  They contrast what is known as the 'blueprint' model with the 'war fare model' of interpretation. They discuss the book of Job and many proof texts often used by the "reformed tradition" to support the blueprint model. They touch on why Open Theism is wrong, but shouldn't be deemed heretical.  They don't have time to get into the doctrine of Original Sin in this episode but plans are made to have Kurt back for that discussion.  Let's dive in. For more information go to www.soteriology101.com For more about Kurt Jaros you can visit: www.defendersmedia.com  Special thanks to TW Haragos for introducing me to Kurt!

Professor Flowers reads through a couple articles which explain how Calvinism can be seen as much more humanistic and man-centered than Traditionalism. For more go to www.soteriology101.com

Professor Flowers and Chris Date were guests on the Pastor With No Answers Podcast recently and they discussed predestination and free will. This podcast is a follow up to that discussion where Prof. Flowers talks through some of the issues that he wasn't able to cover in the time allowed on the podcast. Let's dive in. For more visit www.soteriology101.com To hear the PWNA discussion please go here: http://badchristian.com/pastor-with-no-answers/  

Rich Pierce of Alpha and Omega Ministry has a 3 part rebuttal of Prof. Flowers handling of Romans 9 in the debate with Dr. James White. Today's episode is Professor Flowers' very thorough response, which gives greater clarity into his perspective of Romans 9. Let's dive in. www.soteriology101.com The rebuttal to Rich's first dividing line is in a recent podcast and the second one is on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/soteriology101/ Rich Pierce just posted part 2 of his critique over my handling of Scripture in the Romans 9 debate. Below is a link to my podcast rebuttal of his first part, but for part 2, I thought I'd just take a few notes and give some commentary here for those who may be interested: 1) Paul's self sacrificial love expressed in vs 1-3: Rich accuses me of using this as an "escape hatch" or a "jumping off point" to "escape the text." In my commentary (which I don't believe White or Rich has actually read) I clearly show how Paul's (and later Moses') self sacrificial expressions are reflecti

Another great Sound of the Saints episode where we learn about Molinism and the concept of "Middle Knowledge" from Dr. Braxton Hunter, a scholar on the subject.  Let's dive in! "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered." CS Lewis For more please visit www.soteriology101.com And to connect with Dr. Hunter go to: www.braxtonhunter.com  

Listen as Professor Flowers gives a lesson on biblical hermeneutics to rebut Richard Pierce, President of Alpha and Omega Ministries (with James White). For more go to www.soteriology101.com

Tony Miano recently produced a podcast titled "The helpless God of free will religion," and Professor Flowers rebuts each point.  Also included is a thorough critique of John Piper's podcast where he answers the question "Where Did Satan's first desire come from?"  Let's dive in. Tony Miano's Cross Talk Radio podcast: http://mixlr.com/cross-encounters-radio/showreel/the-helpless-god-of-free-will-religion-2/ John Piper's podcast: http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/where-did-satan-s-first-desire-for-evil-come-from For more please visit www.soteriology101.com

Professor Flowers and Dan Chapa continue their discussion over the topic of Prevenient Grace and the sufficiency of God's revelation through the gospel. Should we accept the notion that God decreed to punish mankind for the sin of Adam by making it such that all would be born in a totally disabled condition from birth?  Are fallen men born in a condition that they cannot willingly respond to God's own powerful appeals to be reconciled from the fall unless and until God does some extra work of Grace to make mankind capable? Or is the work of the gospel gracious and powerful enough itself to accomplish the purpose for which it was sent..."so that you may believe and by believing you may have life in his name?" (John 20:31). Let's dive in! For more please visit www.soteriology101.com

As seen on YouTube HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP5kC4ik48I This is a class lecture to be shared with all who may be struggling to understand the clear differences between Southern Baptist Traditionalism and 5-Point Calvinism.   For more please visit www.soteriology101.com

Dan Chapa wrote: Is Calvinism Semi-Pelagian?   Given Mr. Christensen’s definition of Semi-Pelagianism, does Calvinism avoid the charge of Semi-Pelagianism? I will argue that it does not and that Calvinism has serious problems with affirming total depravity. Mr. Christensen states: "The freedom to choose to love God and exercise saving faith is not a problem. Calvinists agree with this in substance as long as freedom of choice is defined as acting willingly or voluntarily in accordance with one's regenerated nature." But this admits that on Calvinism, faith is our act – God does not believe for us. And on Calvinism we are responsible for our actions. So on Calvinism, we are responsible for our faith. So if Arminianism has a problem because man is responsible for faith, so does Calvinism, but in other ways we can see that Calvinism is worse.   On Calvinism, an unregenerate man would believe if they wanted to.3 This sort of freedom (sometimes call compatibilist freedom; other times called natural freedom does n

As we approach Christmas we may ask, Why?  Why did Jesus step out of heaven and into our world? What motivated our God to do that?  Leighton Flowers unpacks 1 Tim. 2:1-6 to reveal the real motivation for the incarnation which brought to pass the first Christmas at just the right time.  So too, it should be the motive of the The Bride of Christ every Christmas: The desire for the salvation of every man, woman, boy and girl! For more go to www.soteriology101.com

Many of you may recall the last couple of shows where I respond to Dale and Drew, two good Calvinistic brothers who have a podcast called "Reformasium." We critiqued each other's views fairly harshly, but we've become quite cordial in our conversations over our differences.  They are in the process of recording another response to my last podcast but in the meanwhile you can listen to our long, but productive, discussion over the doctrines of salvation. For more visit us at www.soteriology101.com

Dr. Sam Storms, pastor of Bridgeway Baptist Church in Oklahoma and serving on the board with Desiring God Ministries, takes a different approach to interpreting 2 Peter 3:9 than many online Calvinists are taking these days.  He also argues that the natural, sinful tendency of mankind is to try and take credit for our salvation which is why many are "Arminians" naturally. Professor Flowers destroys this notion in today's podcast.  Let's dive in.    For more go to www.soteriology101.com

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

Dr. James White is often making the claim that the Corporate View of Election is an "impersonal election of a nameless, faceless group," but of course this is another straw-man fallacy White has employed to try and discredit the perspective. Which view of God's choice is really more impersonal?  The one where the personal names, faces, inclinations, desires, behaviors and morality of the individuals are not in view when the choice is made? Or the one where they are in full view?  You decide.  Let's dive into Ephesians chapter 1.   For more go to www.soteriology101.com

Travis, a "reformed leaning" student attending SWBTS, called in to discuss his own questions about Calvinism and to objectively evaluate his current soteriology as contrasted with Traditionalism.  For more visit us at www.soteriology101.com

Listen in as Leighton Flowers preaches a sermon titled "Defining the Relationship."  He tells his own spiritual journey and unpacks what it means to define our relationship with God even in the midst of doubt.  

Dr. White deals with style over substance, something he would not allow of those who engage with him, so Professor Flowers doesn't let him get away with it either. Listen to Flowers pull apart every tactic Dr. White employees, but with respect and Christ-like love. For more go to www.soteriology101.com