NEW BOOK RELEASE: God’s Provision For All

When we call God “good” we mean that He is “recognizably good,” which is based on standards revealed to us in the Scriptures. The news about God is called the “Gospel” (good news) because God’s character is loving, kind, patient, impartial, just, right and clearly made known. In short, the truth about God is good because He is good… recognizably good.

New Book from Dr. Leighton Flowers

Those who selflessly provide for others in need are called “good” for a reason and it is for this same reason that we call God “good.” We are not saying this out of obligation or fear of punishment, but because we recognize His goodness by what He does. A biblically recognizable characteristic of goodness is one’s willingness to provide for those in need and that is what God does though His Son, Jesus Christ.

Though we believe God’s ways can be mysterious at times, we maintain that questionable instances revealed to us in the Scripture can be reasonably explained as consistent with His good character. The Bible clearly demonstrates the loving character of a God who treats His creation in a recognizably good way; a God who does not arbitrarily play favorites or show biased partiality; a God who makes Himself known in a clear and believable way; a God who is not most glorified at the expense of His creation, but at the expense of Himself for the sake of His creation; a God who demonstrates His love by providing the means of salvation for every individual, not because He has to, but because of who He is!

15 thoughts on “NEW BOOK RELEASE: God’s Provision For All

  1. Leighton,
    You can expect some push back from people saying, “God wasn’t very your-kind-of-good when He destroyed Jericho or Sodom and Gomorrah, was He?”

    But of coursed you did say He “does not arbitrarily play favorites…” and we all know that He offered those sinful people the opportunity to repent….and surely would have spared them (as He did Nineveh).

    So, yes, we can still say with conviction that God is good.

  2. Excellent , Leighton. We fail Him, but He never fails us.
    I appreciate what you do. Thank you.

  3. Awesome I just purchased it from Amazon looking forward to reading it! & yes I too appreciate what you do thanks 🦋

  4. AUSTIN FISCHER – YOUNG, RESTLESS, AND NO LONGER REFORMED
    -quote
    I began my journey out of Calvinism when I realized that if I were to be a consistent, honest Calvinist I would have to believe some terrible things about God.

    I realized I, personally, could not have Calvinism and a recognizably good God whose heart was fully revealed at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

    I could not have Calvinism and a God who would rather die than give humans what they deserve.

    For me, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was something too generous for Calvinism to make sense of.

  5. D. A. Carson provides a good introduction when he argues that the following two propositions are both taught and exemplified in the Bible:

    God is absolutely sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions in Scripture to reduce human responsibility.
    Human beings are responsible creatures—that is, they choose, they believe, they disobey, they respond, and there is moral significance in their choices; but human responsibility never functions in Scripture to diminish God’s sovereignty or to make God absolutely contingent.
    Carson rightly argues that “We tend to use one to diminish the other; we tend to emphasize one at the expense of the other. But responsible reading of the Scripture prohibits such reductionism.”

    “Hundreds of passages,” he suggests, “could be explored to demonstrate that the Bible assumes both that God is sovereign and that people are responsible for their actions. As hard as it is for many people in the Western world to come to terms with both truths at the same time, it takes a great deal of interpretative ingenuity to argue that the Bible does not support them.” Does Dr. Carson believe that Compatablism & determinism are different things?
    Thanks,
    Roger Cox

    1. Hi Roger and welcome.

      We need to bear in mind what exactly compatibilism is. It is the assertion that a person is SAID to be “free” even when that person’s being and attributes are completely determined. So compatiblism and determinism are two different things. But you can see from its definition that compatibilism is predicated upon determinism.

      Now since that is the case – one needs to LOGICALLY think through the implications of what “Free” means within a world in which your whole being and your ever attribute – your every neurological impulse are determined not by yourself – but by someone or something external to you.

      There is Natural determinism – where nature is the DETERMINER. And in this case we have Theological Determinism in which a THEOS is the DETERMINER. And in this case what is determined is EVERYTHING without exception. Or as John Calvin would put it – “every part of everything”.

      We can see this with a simple math question:
      Take the total of all things determined
      Now subtract *ALL* from it (the number of things determined by the THEOS)
      Now how many things do you have left over for the creature to determine?
      Of course the answer is ZERO.

      Now since that is the case – how is “Freedom” affected?
      Are you free to falsify or negate what the THEOS determines – NO.
      If the THEOS determines you will sin – are you free to NOT sin – NO.

      So the bottom line with compatiblism/determinism is that you are only “Free” to be/do what you have been determined to be/do by an external mind. You are NOT FREE to be/do otherwise. And you have absolutely no say in the matter of anything.

      Using Peter Van Inwagen’s consequence argument:

      If Theological Determinism is true, then all of our neurological-impulses, desires, choices, and actions are the inevitable unavoidable consequence of immutable decrees, set in motion at the foundation of the world. And our every creaturely function is fated to occur at a specified time. Also, at the moment they are fated to occur, they do so framed and modulated by the state of nature, which exists at that time in which they occur. And the state of nature which exists at any time is likewise fully determined.

      But it is not up to us what supernatural forces/decrees are set in motion millennia before we were born. Neither are any neurological-impulses, desires, choices, and actions decreed to infallibly occur up to us. And neither is the time these are fated to occur up to us. Nor is the state of nature, which exists at any time (including our own) up to us. Therefore the consequences of these things are not up to us.

    2. Roger,
      Welcome.

      Of course God is sovereign. It is just the definition of “sovereign” that is in question.

      There has never been an example of a sovereign (in the world or the Bible) that would lead us to interpret “sovereign” as “always gets whatever he wants…and all that happens is what he wants.” That is the definition given to us by Calvinists.

      Then….in some mysterious way….they add…. but man still sins and makes decisions that God does not “want/will”.

      This kind of illogical, unbiblical compatibalism is not only difficult to understand and defend…. it is also unnecessary!

      I wish that (average) Calvinists would stop appealing to a feel-good compatibalism (two opposites are true) —- which makes God controlling/ordaining everything …. but never ordaining any evil action…. and just own up to what consistent Calvinists believe: God ordains everything, even sin.

      Br.d has more than adequately quoted Calvin, Helm and others saying exactly that. Please…..just own it!

    3. Roger,
      The Calvinist approach (two opposites are true) “because Scripture clearly teaches them” could get us in lots of trouble.

      Scripture says to “hate your parents,” right?

      Scripture says all you have to do is “train up a child in the way he should go” and that means “he will not depart from it” right?

      Scripture (Paul) “clearly” teaches that you can “shipwreck your faith” and “return to your old nature” right? Peter: “if they have escaped the pollution’s of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.” Jesus: “one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God.”

      Scripture “clearly” teaches that Satan blinds those who do not come (why do “dead men” need blinding?) and he “searches around for whom he may destroy,” right?

      The Scripture “clearly” states (and many, many times) that God relented (changed His mind) from what He was planning to do, right?

      I could go on and on.

      My point is that Calvinists WANT to say both of these “determinist” things are compatible (even though they cant be)….but on other things (see above) they say “Oh, it does not mean what it says….”

      Yeah…. it’s all a matter of Calvinists making a choice on what things are the way they “must be.” Which is kinda of ironic…. choice…. get it?

  6. You call out Calvinists a lot. Instead of jumping on their argument, which you don’t represent very well, you should state your own. For example, what does Acts 13:48 refer to? And be careful, as this is one of those verses (there are many) in which Armenians often claim “oh, it does not mean what it says….”.

    Also, your whole argument in this last comment seems to be “we need to be careful when claiming we have to take scripture at its word, because there are contradictions.” Help me understand if I’m misinterpreting what you said, but you seemed to jump around finding verses that you don’t think jive well together, as if to say that’s why we can’t just read the Bible for what it says. Can you try to state your point a little clearer? (Please don’t read snark into this reply. It is not there. Honestly trying to figure out what you think.)

    1. Hello Clint and welcome.
      Its unclear who you are referring to in your post – and what statements in particular.
      Also please be advised SOT101 does not seek to represent Arminianism.
      I would refer you to The Society of Evangelical Arminians very nice web-site for issues of concern to them.

  7. Hi, and thanks for the warm greeting. I was referring to FROMOVERHERE and the statement “The Calvinist approach (two opposites are true) “because Scripture clearly teaches them” could get us in lots of trouble.” It seemed to insinuate that we have to be careful with the Bible because it contradicts itself. I was hoping to get some clarification. Also, I tire of folks shooting down the other sides instead of defending their own, and was hoping to promote more dialogue in favor of the soteriology one believes rather than against that one does not believe.

    As for Arminianism, I am aware that SOT101 prefers the term “Traditionalism.” I just find it to be a very bizarre term, as there doesn’t seem to be a very long “tradition” of this soteriology within the SBC. Is there a different label/description preferred?

    I’ve listened to much of Leighton Flowers’ videos, most going *against* Calvinism as the primary purpose, but haven’t found much consistent support for his soteriology. Seems to be focused more on breaking the other down than on building his up. I’m not here to condemn this attitude. Not at all. It can be necessary and good, but I wish more folks would state THEIR case rather than just bashing the OTHER all the time. I feel this way for both sides of many issues. That was the first point I was trying to make in my previous post. I apologize if it lacked clarity.

    1. Clint
      Hi, and thanks for the warm greeting. I was referring to FROMOVERHERE and the statement “The Calvinist approach (two opposites are true) “because Scripture clearly teaches them” could get us in lots of trouble.” It seemed to insinuate that we have to be careful with the Bible because it contradicts itself. I was hoping to get some clarification. Also, I tire of folks shooting down the other sides instead of defending their own, and was hoping to promote more dialogue in favor of the soteriology one believes rather than against that one does not believe.

      br.d
      I believe what FOH was probably referring to the consistency in Calvinist language with which concepts are asserted as true one minute and false the next – or vis versa. A pattern is observed where an assertion for something being true or false is made using explicit language – only to be later followed by statements that strongly infer the opposite. Take “Foreknowledge via Observation” and “Mere Permission” for example. These are explicitly rejected – only to be followed by statements that appeal to them. Personally I see this as a form of double-speak.

      Clint
      As for Arminianism, I am aware that SOT101 prefers the term “Traditionalism.” I just find it to be a very bizarre term, as there doesn’t seem to be a very long “tradition” of this soteriology within the SBC. Is there a different label/description preferred?

      br.d
      I see. That’s not my personal background so I don’t know the history of it. I’m guessing you know more about that than I do.

      Clint
      I’ve listened to much of Leighton Flowers’ videos, most going *against* Calvinism as the primary purpose, but haven’t found much consistent support for his soteriology. Seems to be focused more on breaking the other down than on building his up. I’m not here to condemn this attitude. Not at all. It can be necessary and good, but I wish more folks would state THEIR case rather than just bashing the OTHER all the time. I feel this way for both sides of many issues. That was the first point I was trying to make in my previous post. I apologize if it lacked clarity.

      br.d
      Thank for explaining that. From my perspective I appreciate Dr. Flowers ministry very much because I agree with him that a Theology that is irrational is a Theology with a problem. And from my perspective the high degree of double-mindedness and hence double-speak I observe in it.

      Thanks for your comments Clint :-]

Leave a Reply