Support

Soteriology 101 is a 501(c)3 nonprofit ministry.
Overseen by The Foundation Group

All monthly donors will receive a complimentary download of Dr. Flowers 6-Week Study titled “Tiptoeing Through the TULIP”

CHECKS

(NOTICE: ADDRESS HAS RECENTLY CHANGED)

For those who have expressed interest in making a donation without using Patreon or Paypal, checks can be made out to “Soteriology 101” and sent to:


Soteriology 101
675 Town Square Blvd
Firewheel Town Center
Building 1A Suite 200
Garland, TX 75040

NOTICE: Checks take some time to be processed and deposited, sometimes up to 6 weeks depending on the time of the year. We are working on faster ways to process checks. Thank you for your patience.

Watch this message from Leighton Flowers…

343 thoughts on “Support

  1. I think it would be good if you could make subscribing easier to your website. I see nowhere to do so. thx.

    1. Hello Thomas and welcome.

      If you are referring to this website – it follows the typical “WordPress” environment – consistent with a “Blog” site.
      Since you’ve made a submission – I think you’ve successfully subscribed.

      Blessings!

      1. Hello Soteriology 101,

        I was wondering if someone could answer a question that I have! I have sincerely enjoyed much of your material and my question has to do with John 6 and that “those who my Father has given me” idea. I loved the thread of how this could very likely be talking about the disciples (as seen in John 17 and John 18:9). It is something that I am looking into but the one instance of “those given by the Father” that doesn’t fit is John 10:29 which states “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. (KJV)” I understand that the passage previously refers to “other sheep” that are “not of this fold” and “will hear [his] voice” (verse 16) which probably refers to Gentiles/believers in the future. However, then I think it would make sense to extend John 10:29 about those that the “Father gave” to every believer alive in Jesus time, not just the disciples, because the disciples are no where listed in that chapter or the preceding. And then if that statement “those whom the Father gave” is not specific to the disciples, but to all the believers alive at that time, it can most likely be generalized to all believers at all times. Those are my thoughts, but now comes my question! I’m an amateur Greek learner (for about six years now) and I have noticed that John 10:29 actually says in Greek “My Father, which gave me, is greater than all” and lives out the “them” portion. Could another possibility been that what the Father has given to Jesus was actually “life” instead of “them/people?” I reference John 5:26 – “For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” Here I notice that the Father gave (aorist tense) in John 5 just as the Father gave (perfect tense) in John 10. So could Jesus really be saying, “And I give unto them eternal life (John 10:28)… My Father, which gave [eternal life] to me, is greater than all (John 10:29)? Any feedback you could offer on this thought would be great! I never want to twist Scripture and want to be faithful to what the text actually says. I also never want to twist the Greek to say something it is not. Thank you!!

      2. Hi Anthony! I would be more than happy to address any questions you have. And feel free to write me personally if you wish – brianwagner@vbc.edu. I believe you have a good understanding of what Jesus is talking about in John 6 and the other passages. I believe He indeed is talking about those given to Him during His earthly ministry who have already put their trust in Him. Verse 37 is key, in my view –

        John 6:37 speaks of the Father’s giving (present tense) to Christ. Therefore it would be calling Jesus a deceiver to suggest all had already been given to Christ, unless, of course, Jesus did not know the determinist doctrine very well.

        If determinism was true, Jesus would have known it and He would have said – “All the Father already gave to me will come to me.” The context of John 6 clearly indicates what kind of people the Father was actively giving to the Son… They were those who were looking to the Son and believing in Him (6:40). There is nothing in this chapter about pre-creation decrees or individual election. The determinist forces those ideas into these verses because he wants to see them there.

        The response of freewill is a condition that God sovereignly made part of the “giving” requirements to be met before the coming. No-one is given to Christ before creation. Remember the word “gives” in John 6:37 is present tense which clearly contradicts the determinist idea of some being eternally immutably given before creation.

        The context points to drawing, looking at, believing in, and other things in that are in the process and responses of whom the Father’s gives. Jesus is explaining these things to unbelievers because He wants them to keep seeking Him, but not just for food that perishes.

        If you can’t see that Jesus is being used by the Father in this context to draw people to a decision to trust Jesus for everlasting food, everlasting life… I certainly can’t share the context any more clearly than Jesus has.

    2. How does one create a new post or comment on this site as opposed to a reply? Thanks.

      1. Hello wpeters123 and welcome.
        On any given article to the bottom of the page – and look for a post submission field.
        Then you won’t be replying to any specific post.
        Blessings!

    3. I have been a donor for this past year in the 10.00 category. Where do I get the free download that you offer? Thank you! God bless your ministry. I think it’s really needed.

      1. Hello Karla,
        And we sincerely thank you!

        Let me pass your question on to SOT101 admin
        I’ll get back to you.

        Blessings!
        br.d

  2. Can someone guide me to the article that John Piper wrote that if he was a Christian for 25 years and then if he committed a murder, then he would have to doubt the fact that he was actually saved 25 years ago…or something to that extent. I heard Leighton address it somewhere but I am not sure which video and hence I am asking for your help

    1. Hi Bevin,
      I can’t point that exact article to you – perhaps someone else here is familiar with that article and can point it to you.
      However, I can tell you – the concept you are describing is pretty much consistent – as a general part of the Calvinist belief system.

      I can tell you this from personal experience. Years ago , I had a personal friend who got drawn into a Calvinist church and who was accused of committing a certain sin by the pastor of that church.

      If he lied and acknowledged the sin the pastor accused him of – then the pastor would declare that he was *REALLY* saved. And conversely, if he spoke the truth and did not acknowledge the sin the pastor accused him of – then as far as the pastor was concerned he was never a *REAL* believer.

      The pastor put him out of the church until he made up his mind. If he told a lie and agreed with the pastor he could return. If he told the truth he would be considered a false Christian and rejected by that congregation.

      It makes sense that Calvinists do this. They do not *REALLY* know if a person is saved or not. Calvin himself taught that the vast majority of the church is filled with people who are given a FALSE Salvation.

      John Calvin
      -quote
      “He holds it [Salvation] out as a savor of death, and as the occasion for severer condemnation”
      ” he illumines them only for a time to partake of it”
      “and strikes them with even greater blindness”

      Because of this – Calvinists tend to watch each others behavior – like one reads tea-leafs.
      If they see certain patterns in a fellow believer’s behavior – they may assume that person was given a FALSE salvation.

  3. Has Dr Leighton Flowers addressed the concept of whether God is atemporal (eternal present) as Augustine believed or that time (logical sequence) is part of God’s existence? How does this impact Soteriology?

    Dr. Richard Holland’s book argues that the incarnation creates problems for Augustine’s perspective and that the early church fathers before Augustine disagreed.
    https://kgov.com/richard-holland-god-time-and-the-incarnation-interview

    I suspect an atemporal being would be distant and impersonal to a creature that experiences logical sequences (aka time).

    1. Hello Philip and welcome

      Dr. Flowers – due to a heavy schedule – normally doesn’t have the time to interact with posters here.
      But you may find him on Facebook – if you are a FB user.

      I personally haven’t heard him speak about that aspect of Augustinian thinking.
      It sounds like it might be a topic Open Theism advocates might very well be interested in.

      Blessings
      br,d :-]

  4. Hello Dr.I was at work and unable to watch live discussion ,I did watch later however.The question about works and faith was answered a little out of context. Paul is speaking to the Grecian Jews and gentiles in Romans and when he says it is not according to works he is more specifically referring to circumcision,as he mentions that it is not as if God’s promise has failed. Paul also emphasized that Abraham (believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness(faith is belief not a work).Works does however refer to the law in its totality but in Paul’s letter the former proselytizing of people into Judaism was culminated with circumcision. No flesh will glory in my sight is problaby illustrating this as well. Great show!!!

      1. I must admit the debate or war between Dr Flowers and J White has had some positive effects on discovering answers to poor exegesis of scriptures however I can’t help but wonder if Dr Flowers is being lead out to sea by Dr White. The more than argumentative calvinist has obviously rejected Dr Flowers view of salvation and continued confrontation seems to be more heated and unproductive everytime they clash. Get Him away from this puppet before this philosophical shark gets him to far from land.

      2. Hello Mike and welcome.

        Personally, I was struck with the large numbers of youtube comments under one of the last videos
        And how accurately those commenters recognize Calvinism’s world of double-speak talking-points.
        Those videos – even though Dr. Flowers suffers through them – are having an educating effect.

  5. I’m wondering where your christian values are? And so far I don’t see any. Don’t buy Calvinism, no problem, not the case with you folks… no your only Christ filled mission in life is to rant about Calvinism rather than to extend the church of Christ. If you spent 1/1000 of the time evangelizing just think of what you may accomplish.
    Your theology is in the tank from my perspective but I’m only interested in the Gospel. So let the wind blow your hair where it may. Do you love Christ? Do you honor the Father? Are you filled with the Holy Spirit?
    I don’t see any of that in your continuous rant about Calvinism!! Instead of ranting give someone like MacArthur a call have a televised debate shake hands and go your way.
    I could personally give you a lot of facts why Calvinism is right, but if the truth be known you’re really not interested in the truth. Nor am I interested in bending your ear trying to persuade you that you may be wrong…….it’s not important. All the people I witness to have never heard me preach Calvinism. As Paul said I want to learn nothing among men except Christ and Him crucified.

    Best of luck with your ranting?
    Dave Smith

    1. YES!!!! Thank you for saying exactly what I’ve been thinking. This whole web site is NOT “FOR GOD” instead almost every page is “AGAINST CALVINISM”. Didn’t Jesus tell us something like….Go into the world and preach the gospel and make disciples of men? The more I listen to Leighton Flowers…the more I believe Calvinism.

      1. Hello Sara and welcome.

        Something interesting to think about:
        IF Calvinism is true –
        Then “Whatsoever comes to pass” here at SOT101 was decreed to infallibly come to pass.

        So Calvin’s god decreeing “NOT FOR GOD” come to pass – is reason for further believing Calvin’s god?

        Blessings!

      2. Sara,

        Since you say that this web site is not for God, then conclude that you believe in calvinism, then your statement is an oxymoron.

        In other words, if it’s not, then it is, hence calvinism, and hence, calvinism makes no sense at all.

        Ed Chapman

      3. Sara, “Go into the world and preach the gospel and make disciples of men?”

        What if Dr. Flowers argues against Calvinism because he believes is violates and harms that principle? What if Dr. Flower’s professional life is dedicated to evangelism as the Director of Apologetics and Evangelism for Texas Baptists? Will you take his viewpoint seriously, then?

    2. You’re concerned about the Gospel? I wonder if your almighty idol has a ‘gospel’. Do you know that the Gospel is called Good News?

      1. Hello Mainframe Supertasker and welcome.

        I didn’t respond to Dave Smith’s emotional post – and perhaps I should have.
        It is true – the content we focus on here often shines a spotlight on logical conclusions about Calvinism which a Calvinist may not like.
        I probably didn’t respond to Dave Smith’s post because it didn’t rise to the point of being demonstrably aggressive.

  6. I purchased the tip toe through Tulip and now I can’t get back to the download page to continue the course. please help

    1. Hey Jeremy, when you purchased it you received an email with the download links in it as well. Check your spam folder for that email if it isn’t in your inbox.

      If you need me to resend it please email me at the address given on the store page. Thanks!

  7. Hi. Just wondering if Dr. Flowers has plans on addressing 1 Samuel 16:14 at some point? If not it might be a good topic of conversation. Blessings, Cal

    1. Hello Calvin Smith and welcome.
      Dr. Flowers, due to high demands has not had the liberty of interacting with participants and thus questions here.
      But if you are a FaceBook user – you may readily find him there.

  8. Good morning!

    If one uses Zelle to become a supporter, does that qualify for the free download? Can Soteriology 101 send a tax receipt for these types of donations?

    I have been sending a monthly donation via Zelle (Navy Federal Credit Union) since October 2019, and want to make sure you are receiving the donation.

    Thanks for the help!

    ~Yvonne

  9. I would like to quote Dr. Flowers and his book, “The Potters Promise”. I see that it was published by Trinity Academic Press but I can’t find a city and state. Where is the publisher located? Thanks.

      1. It’s for an academic paper. So yes, I need that level of detail.

  10. Something interesting from Keller about what sends people to Hell…their choices. (53:00 mark)
    See youtube: Questioning Christianity – Why we can Believe in Jesus

    1. Thank you John!
      You do know however – in Calvinism – people are not the true determiners of their choices.
      In Calvinism whatsoever comes to pass – including human perceptions of reality, human thoughts, human choices, human desires etc – are all determined *FOR* each person by Calvin’s god.

      So like a self-driving car comes to a 4-way stop and makes a choice to turn left in order to get on the highway – in Calvinism is works the same way. The program determines the choice the self-driving car will make. And Calvin’s god likewise determines the desires and choices every person will have.

      And Calvin’s god designs/programs the vast majority of his creatures for eternal torment.

      Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
      -quote
      “God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives, decisions and actions”
      (The Doctrine of Divine Decrees)

  11. Greetings, Leighton!
    I appreciate what you do on your channel, that is to spread the word of God’s love for all people. I noticed your Youtube channel is a Brave verified Creator. Yet I have not seen you in any way ask for donations though Brave. Since you are a Youtube Creator verified with Brave, you can accept donations from Brave users like me.(Brave is a wonderful web browser) I earn around $5.00 every month from watching ads from Brave. You do not have to include this in one of your videos, but just put it in the “gifts” links for donations in the support page. Basically, people would click that BAT triangle in the search bar and would be able to tip you in no time. Some of us kids do not have permissions of using real money, but with Brave, crypto money is possible. I have a heart of supporting your ministry. God kept you humble for so long! It would take a great deal for me to deal with those other theologians who worship Calvin’s idol.
    This site soteriology101.com is not a Brave verified Creator yet. You can link your website too in publishers.basicattentiontoken.org where you linked your Youtube channel along with it.
    For all this, i assume you know that your Youtube channel is linked to publishers.basicattentiontoken.org by your knowledge. If it is not, then it may be of some concern for you.
    Please affirm that you’re the one owning your Youtube channel on publishers.basicattentiontoken.org.
    I am a new Creation in Christ, I was saved almost exactly a year ago. : and thankfully was not introduced to Calvinism soon.
    May the LORD bless you and your ministry –
    Mainframe.

    1. Hello Mainframe Supertasker

      Dr. Flowers, due to scheduling conflicts does not appear here at SOT101 very often.
      You may however find him at Facebook.
      We will make sure your comment here about gift/donations etc is passed on to him.
      Sincere thanks
      br.d

  12. Hi everyone. It would be a good idea to read on Danielism, the synergistic position that reconciles the Sovereignty of God to man’s free will more than convincingly – never heard before. Get this concise account today by visiting http://www.salvationcentre.za.org – look for Calvinism, Arminianism, Danileism – The Third Position.

    1. Hello David Daniels and welcome

      Although I’ve not heard of Danileism – it would have to be the 5th position rather than the 3rd :-]

    1. Hello Roy,
      Can you give a little more info on what the podcast would be about?

      Thanks
      br.d

  13. Hi. I love your podcast and listen regularly. I really looked forward to the app, but it just crashes on any and every iPhone and iPad I have installed it on. Each is running the latest iOS and range in age from 5 years old to 3 months old. I have no problems with any other app on any of these devices

    1. Hello Robert and welcome.
      I’m sorry to hear the app crashes on your device!
      Perhaps there are compatibility information provided with the app that may provide an answer as to why.
      I’ll convey your issue to Dr. Flowers – and thank you for trying and submitting your report.

      Blessings!

  14. I just have to say I’m so thankful for this ministry. I’ve read The Potter’s Promise once and about to start again. I struggled with the teachings of Calvinism for years, but I didn’t know how to refute them. The book and website has given me great clarity. Please keep doing what you do Dr Flowers and God bless!

    1. Thank you so very much Denver – for your wonderful testimony – and your very kind remarks.
      I will be happy to pass these on to Dr. Flowers!

      Blessings!

  15. Can you recommend a commentary on Ephesians that is not from the Calvinistic approach?

    1. Hello Larry and welcome.
      Anything by Gordon Fee, and/or N.T. Wright are going to be free of Calvinist presuppositions.
      You may also want to look at “Studies in Ephesians: 25 Lessons for Group – by Jack Cottrell ”

      BTW: Commentaries by their very nature have a tendency to be more opinion than not.
      The ultra Reformed commentaries of John Gill for example – where he comes across one verse after another – and blatantly argues it can’t possibly mean what it clearly says – because God forbid anything contradict his sacred Calvinist hypnosis.

      1. Thank you for your information about the commentators Gordon Fee and N T Wright. I could not fine any Ephesians commentaries by those two authors but I will be ordering the other recommendation you made about the 27 lesson study.

        Is there a forum on this site to ask theological questions about any topic? I have a question about Ephesians 1:1-14 and the pronouns that Paul uses.

      2. Hi Larry… Here’s my view. Eph 1, 4

        Determinists have always tried to read too much into that verse that Paul wrote in a context about blessings we now have, now that we are in Christ. Some of those blessings were given to Him (the only Elect one) before creation, to be shared with all who would later be joined to Him and become one of the elect in Him.

        The pronoun “us” is being used in a general reference, anachronistic sense, like me saying – “We chased the Native Americans before the Revolution so that they would live west of the Appalachian Mtn range.”

        Another similar example would be the Levites in David’s day who were chosen to carry the ark. David said, as recorded in 1Chr 15:2 – “No one but the Levites may carry the ark of God, because the Lord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister before him forever.”

        Any Levite that day could have said to another Levite – “God chose us in Aaron, before Israel entered the promised land, to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister before him forever.” Of course, he would not have had the ridiculous thought that God had his name written down in a book during Aaron’s time, along with the names of all future Levites. He would not think that he individually or physically would be ministering before the Lord forever in this special task as a priest. He would just be using the “us” as a pronoun of reference with a corporate connection because of the promise made to Aaron, and because of his being added into Aaron’s lineage by physical birth.

        We say, with Paul, we have the same privileges granted to the Son of God before creation that go to any in His lineage, since we are now joined to Him by spiritual birth through our personal faith. We now have the blessing to stand holy and blameless before God as one of God’s chosen in the Chosen One – Christ.

        ********
        Questions to ask a determinist:
        When God supposedly “chose” you before creation, were you unchosen at some point and then chosen? What did God see when He supposedly chose you… just your name, your life up to the point where He decided He wanted to get involved noticeably to you, your whole life forever and all His involvement in it already? What did “you” mean when He chose “you” back then before you existed? Trying to answer these questions will hopefully help them see they are being dogmatic about a premise – determinism – that Paul wasn’t even trying to teach about in this passage, and which is illogical when using the words “chose… before the foundation of the world” if no actual choice was made.

      3. Thank you for those thoughts they were helpful. John Phillips in his commentary on Ephesians says that because God is infinite, He is beyond time so when the scripture says “before the foundation of the world” that is for our understanding. To God all time is present. What do you think?

        I’ve also read that the verses 1-14 is one sentence in the greek. (but if greek doesn’t have punctuation how are sentences determined.I don’t know greek.). In verse 12 Paul seems to have the “we” refer to the Jewish Christians and the you to the Gentile. If this is one sentence and if Paul is carrying the same thought throughout, would the us and we in verse 4 also be referring to the Jewish Christians?

      4. Larry… Here’s my view. Ps 90, 2 Sequential Reality

        There are two definitions for “time”. One is connected only to creation… it is the measurement of matter in motion. The other is connected to reality which is from God’s nature.

        Reality consists of sequential events… befores and afters going backwards infinitely and forwards infinitely. “from everlasting to everlasting” (Ps 90:2)… “who was and is and is to come” (Rev 4:8). There were events of communication, relationship, and decision making in the Godhead before creation of space and matter… right?

        The premise that reality is both sequential and non-sequential for God at the same “time” is a logical contradiction borrowed into Christianity from neo-platonism. The Scripture gives no other “competing” reality for God’s presence, than the sequential one, and a competing reality would be contradictory to the word “reality” anyway.

        His foreknowledge is dynamic therefore, each time He makes a decision His knowing goes from “will happen” to “has happened”. It is not static. His understanding is infinite (Ps 147:5). He knows all the possibilities that still exist to decide upon, to cause one or permit another, and He knows all things that are already determined by Him that limit those possibilities.

        ***********
        Some like the illustration of God as in a blimp watching the full parade below. But for a sight from a blimp to watch a parade, the full parade has to exist. The future does not exist as a completed entity to watch, either as a place to see or as a finished story in God’s mind.

        Reality is only sequential, and comes from God’s eternal nature – “from everlasting to everlasting” (Ps 90:2), “who was and is and is to come” (Rev 4:8). Relationship and communication in the Godhead existed before creation and were sequential (with befores and afters).

        The underlying important issue is – Does God’s mind reflect univocally the sequential reality of His Word, or have scholars discovered in their philosophical reasoning that God hid from Scripture His perspective of a non-sequential reality? This philosophical reasoning would be a perspective that also makes man’s normal perspective in Scripture actually faulty, for Scripture reveals the future as not yet existing, but in these scholars’ “reality” it is already existing as completed (forever). But God’s reality as revealed in Scripture is the only true one.

      5. Wonderfully stated Brian!

        I would also like to point out the ALTERED REALITY that a believer unwittingly is forced to embrace in the process of embracing Calvinism with its underlying core “Theological Determinism”.

        Of course we know – that Calvinism has its own vernacular.
        It does not use the term “Sequential” to describe events – but rather uses the phrase “Whatsoever comes to pass”.

        Now the core and SACRED PROPOSITION of Calvinism – is that a THEOS – before making creation (i.e. the Solar system, sun, moon, earth, atomic particles, man, animals etc) determined “Whatsoever will come to pass” in the course of time – with all created things.

        But a critical aspect of that determination is that this THEOS makes “Whatsoever comes to pass” do so INFALLIBLY

        For example, take the rotation of the earth 360 degrees every 24 hours.
        This means that the earth is rotating .004 degrees per second.
        Now according the Calvin’s doctrine, the earths every micro-movement occurs INFALLIBLY

        But the earth is a natural entity.
        And nature is a FALLIBLE entity.
        Nature does not have the ability to do something INFALLIBLY

        So in Calvinism – the earth is not just moving all by itself – or by laws of physics – but rather the earth is BEING MOVED by a THEOS who makes the earths movement occur INFALLIBLY

        And how does that apply to you?
        How does that apply to Adam in the garden?

        Every neurological impulse that will come to pass within Adam’s brain – represents an electro-neurological movement.
        And in Calvinism those electro-neurological movements in Adam’s brain don’t just come to pass all by themselves, because they come to pass INFALLIBLY

        Adam does not have any ability to make something occur INFALLIBLY
        So they are not movements that Adam has any control over.

        So what the Calvinist ends up with (per the underlying doctrine) is that he has absolutely no control over anything that comes to pass with his mind or with his body.

        Every neurological impulse that comes to pass within his brain – was decreed to do so – and occurs INFALLIBLY

        And Adam (i.e. mankind) as a natural entity – does not have the power to resist or alter anything that is established as INFALLIBLE

        The bottom line in Calvinism then – man is not in control of any of his mental or physical functions.
        And every perception which comes to pass within his brain WAS 100% determined by an external mind (i.e. THEOS).
        He does not know what reality is.
        He only knows what perceptions were decreed to INFALLIBLY come to pass within his mind.

        How then does the Calvinist live a life of cognitive normalcy?

        John Calvin understood this dilemma and he gave instructions:
        -quote
        “Go about your office *AS-IF* nothing is determined in any part”

        So in Calvinism you have a sacred core proposition – that all things are determined in every part.
        And for the Calvinist, that proposition is the MOST SACRED proposition taught by scripture.

        And yet he is forced to go about his life *AS-IF* the MOST SACRED proposition taught by scripture is FALSE.
        And that is why we find that Calvinism forces the believer in to a state of DOUBLE-MINDEDNESS

      6. One of the ways the Greek language differs from English is in word order.
        In English you may say: “Sally gave the Bible to Bill”
        So you understand who gave the Bible to who – by the word order in that sentence.

        While in the Greek language the word order could be swapped around.
        So the way the Greeks distinguished who gave the Bible to who – is by adding textual indicators – (like a suffix) at the ending of certain words.

        There are complete sentences in the Greek language.
        But you are correct, they did not end a sentence with a special mark (the period) like we do in English.
        But once you learn the grammatical rules – then you understand the sentence.

      7. Larry – you may also be interested in checking out Brian Abasciano comments on Ephesians.
        I think you can google for them.
        He doesn’t have an official commentary on Ephesians – but he’s a well regarded scholar in inter-textual analysis of the Greek.

        Also, take a look at Beyond the Fundamentals – with Kevin Thompson
        I believe he has 2 or 3 youtube videos on Ephesians you might find informative.

      8. I just received the book by Jack Cottrell “Studies in Ephesians”. As I was looking at the book I came across this statement on page 200, it is on Ephesians 4:1-6. Dr. Cottrell states, “The church and its leaders should believe and teach that baptism is indeed a salvation event, i.e., that in the moment of the immersion, God is performing the saving actions that He promised to perform: 1) to justify the person being baptized by forgiving all of his or her sins and cancelling all condemnation, and 2) to bestow. upon that person the gift of the indwelling and sanctifying Holy Spirit.

        I’ve always been taught and believe that baptism is a sign and a step in obedience that happens after salvation. What are your thoughts?

      9. Yes, that is a typical issue here and there in the church
        With different people holding varied degrees of insistence upon it – and some none at all.

        Some believers hold that Baptism is simply the outward manifestation of an inward work of the Lord – just like repentance from sin is.
        In other words, the Holy Spirit convicts a person of a given sin and that person repents and changes.
        And thus we have – the sanctification process – in general terms.

        Similarly, the Holy Spirit impresses upon a believer, the beauty of going through the process of water baptism – and the believer desires to do that to show his love and commitment to Jesus – and as a way to please him. Just as Jesus said to John the baptist “suffer it to be so now – so that I might fulfill all righteousness”. In other words, Jesus didn’t really need to be baptized in order to be 100% Jesus.
        He did it because it was recognized as a sign of commitment and love for the father.

        Other people get really fussy about water baptism, and some insist one is not really born again without it.
        But I generally think that is a minority view. And more often seen as a sign of imbalance and/or an obsession.

        Many years ago, I knew a believer who taught people that they should strive to experience REAL tongues of fire.
        In other words, we should strive to have literal tongues of fire hovering over our heads.
        And if we don’t get to that place of spirituality – then we are really not fully mature believers.
        But you can see that is an obsession and extremely unique.

        So IMHO, insisting that one is not born-again until after they dip in water, or get up in front of a congregation and recite prepared words, In my view is simply an obsession.

        But that’s just my position on the subject.
        And others may differ. :-]

      10. Welcome Larry! Here are some thoughts of mine you may want to consider.

        Believer’s Baptism the norm of Christianity

        First… the “Church” is something Jesus is building and has members joined spiritually to Him as one body through faith.

        Second… baptism as necessary after a profession of faith is taught in all Christian denominations for converts from outside Christendom.

        Third… immersion was the main mode of baptism practiced in all of Christendom until the 12th century.

        Fourth… infant baptism is not clearly taught anywhere in the NT, or in the first 300 years of Christianity as a common practice of many.

        Fifth… Peter is clear that baptism does not cleanse but is an answer of a conscience that is already “good” before God (1Pet 3:21).

        Sixth… Jesus commanded that disciples be made and then baptized as part of His great commission. When He said “baptizing them” He meant there has to be a “them” already made disciples that are to be the recipients of the baptism (Matt 28:19).

        Seventh… 1 Corinthians 1:17 NKJV — For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

        Paul’s words in 1Cor 1:17 are key to show baptism is not part of the gospel! Also he said in 1Cor 4:15 that regeneration to those in Corinth was brought about through his preaching of the gospel… he baptized very few there.

        I also have found that the example of Cornelius’ conversion is the best to show a person who believes that baptism is necessary for salvation. Cornelius received the Spirit (10:47) and was baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ (11:15-16) and had his heart purified by faith (15:7-9) all *before* he received water baptism (10:48).

  16. Dr Flowers, love the channel and videos on YouTube. Would you be willing to a video review of Gordon C Olson’s book “Getting the Gospel Right: A Balanced View of Salvation Truth”?

    -Gary

    1. Thank you Gary for you very kind words.
      Dr. Flowers – due to a busy schedule – is not able to participate here very much.
      But I will pass your kind comment and your request on to him.

      Sincere thanks
      br.d

  17. Hello! I’d like to support Soteriology101, but when I click the link for monthly support, it takes me to Patreon but never loads the page for me. Help!

    1. Thank you Vicky – for letting us know.
      I will pass this on to SOT101 Admin – and get back to you.
      Someone will email you directly with an answer.

      Blessings!
      br.d

  18. Question for Dr. Flowers: If God chooses rulers by his own will (Daniel 2:21), how can a country democratically elect presidents, senators, etc using Libertarian Free Will? More specifically, how can a true democracy be a thing if Daniel 2:21 is true? Ps, I realize most “democracies” are actually republics, my question is more philosophical than realistic.

    1. Hello Ajay and welcome.

      Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule – if very infrequently here.
      You may more readily find him on face-book.

      However, on your question – if you don’t mind me answering
      You’ve posed a good question – that has to do with the general idea of man’s free will and how it can be understood to exist under the authority of God.

      There are two primary schools of thought on this.

      I remember Dr. Flowers using the analogy of a chess player.
      In the Calvinist line of thinking – God is the only player – and the chess pieces are humans.
      He moves them from one place to another on the board
      And he treats them *AS-IF* they were the author of their choices – instead of himself.

      The non-Calvinist position is that God (for the most part) allows man to be the other player.
      And he allows man to be the author of his own choices.
      But God is in control of all circumstances – and people make choices according to their nature.
      And God, with his perfect intimate knowledge of each person’s nature – can maintain a form of control that does not reduce human functionality to that of a robot.

      When it comes to rulers – you will also notice a pattern in scripture.
      God judges a country and its people not only by the choices they make – but by the ruler’s choices they submit to.
      For example – God was going to destroy Ninevah – and warned them in advance.
      But the ruler of Ninevah instructed all the people to repent – and God forgave.

      On the Calvinist view – you have God making the people and the ruler of Ninevah do evil things.
      And then treating them *AS-IF* if they were the authors of the choices – me made them choose.

      On the non-Calvinist view – you have God allowing the people of Ninevah to be the authors of their choices.
      And holding them accountable for the choices they authored.

      Hope that makes sense.

      Blessings
      br.d

    2. Daniel 2:21 does not state “God chooses ALL rulers”. He might intervene to have a certain ruler put in place to accomplish a particular plan but we should be careful not take the verse beyond what it states. If all rulers are put in place by God’s decrees as Calvinist teach, the consistent Calvinist observing a horribly wicked candidate who is vastly leading in the polls and reason it would be best to align with God’s will by voting for and supporting him. This thinking is broken!

      1. Hello Larry and welcome.

        I liked your analogy!
        One Calvinist would manufacture a reason to vote for the evil candidate and claim he was simply following scripture.
        Another Calvinist would manufacture a reason to vote against the evil candidate and claim he was simply following scripture.

        Then they would both boast themselves super Christians because their follow the super apostle John Calvin! :-]

  19. I’m trying to defend scriptures from my hard core Calvinist husband. I try talking to him and tell him that scriptures don’t contradict itself. But today I came upon 2 passages that have me worried that he will use this as a defense for Calvinism.
    How can I make sense of these two passages? They seem to contradict each other but I don’t believe that there are contradictions in scriptures but rather my understanding of them.

    Acts 9:7 – And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

    Acts 22:9 – And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

    1. Hello Regina,
      Are you familiar with the testimony of Lee Strobel and his work – The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus? Strobel was an avowed atheist, who was convinced that God, and the resurrection of Jesus was a man-made myth. And he set out to prove it. One of the weaknesses he initially thought would help him do that, was looking for scriptures which appear to contradict each other. Such is the case you have as your example. What he discovered is that such cases are technically not contradictions – they are rather differences in the testimony of an event from different people’s points of view. These are very common with investigations of crimes for example. You can have two people in the same room, give slightly different testimonies, because that is how each individual remembers the event.

      Technically, a contradiction is with logic. And in the case of Calvinism – many of its contradictions have to do with a proposition being treated as TRUE one minute and FALSE the next.

      The concept of divine permission is for example very problematic for Calvinists.
      John Calvin – following Augustine – rejects the standard definition of “PERMISSION” as it is commonly understood within language to mean to allow something with acquiescence or passive assent. So for example, a private in the army asks “permission to speak freely sir” to his commanding officer. And the commanding officer grants permission. In that form of permission the commanding officer does not DETERMINE the words the private will say. He “permits” or “allows” the private to be the DETERMINER of his own words. And John Calvin adamantly rejects any idea of acquiescence or passive assent – in regard to god. Calvin’s god – in that circumstance would not only grant the private permission to speak – but he would also determine what words the private would say.

      Divine permission in Calvinism takes the following logical form:
      – What is CAUSED is permitted
      – What is NOT-CAUSED is not permitted

      Consequently, Calvinists have two radically different definitions for the term “permission”. And they use the word “permission” as a replacement word for CAUSE. When they say “I don’t know why god permits evil” what they mean is “I don’t know why god CAUSES evil”.

      So John Calvin had a way of distinguishing the common understanding of permission.
      He called it “INACTIVE” permission, or “BARE” permission, or “MERE” permission.
      These for John Calvin are his way of distinguishing the common understanding of permission.
      And he calls the idea of this form of permission in regard to god – revolting and absurd.

      However this becomes a serious problem for the Calvinist because he doesn’t want to say his god is the CAUSE of every evil.
      So he will say that god “permits” or “allows” evil.
      But every time he does – he is in contradiction – because he is asserting “MERE” permission which doesn’t exist in Calvinism.

      So “MERE” permission is something that is TRUE for the Calvinist one minute and FALSE the next.
      And when you have something that is TRUE one minute and FALSE the next – you have a clear contradiction.

      Now that you understand that its gets even more radical:
      You ask a Calvinist if Calvin’s god “MERELY” permits his mind to determine TRUE from FALSE on any matter?

      He wants to say yes. But when he does – he is both contradicting and denying his own doctrine.
      To acknowledge that according to his doctrine – god does not permit his mind to determine TRUE from FALSE is extremely radical!
      It is so radical – he doesn’t even want to consider it!

      But take a look at the logical formula I presented above – and think again about the private and the commanding officer again.
      The commanding officer only permits the private to speak words – which the commanding officer CAUSES the private to speak.

      Now take that example and extrapolate it to the question of whether Calvin’s god permits the Calvinist brain to determine TRUE from FALSE.
      “MERE” permission does not exist in Calvinism.
      So Calvin’s god does not “MERELY” permit the Calvinist brain to determine TRUE from FALSE.
      Instead Calvin’s god CAUSES the Calvinist brain to PERCEIVE something as TRUE or to PERCEIVE something as FALSE.

      So we have the following possibilities:
      1) Calvin’s god determines the Calvinist brain to perceive something as TRUE which Calvin’s god knows is FALSE
      2) Calvin’s god determines the Calvinist brain to perceive something as FALSE which Calvin’s god knows is TRUE
      3) Calvin’s god determines the Calvinist brain to perceive something as TRUE which Calvin’s god knows is TRUE
      4) Calvin’s god determines the Calvinist brain to perceive something as FALSE which the Calvin’s god knows is FALSE

      You can see from (1-4) above that the Calvinist has a 50% chance of having a FALSE perception of something.
      It turns out – according to his doctrine – a Calvinist goes through his day having thousands of FALSE perceptions.
      Every time he perceives himself as the determiner of his own choices – he is having FALSE perception.
      Every time he perceives himself as having multiple options from which to choose – he is having a FALSE perception.
      And according to his doctrine – whatsoever comes to pass – does so by infallible decree.
      So a Calvinist is a person whose god decrees him to live out a life of infallibly decreed FALSE perceptions.
      That is how RADICAL Calvinism really is!!!
      And most Calvinists find it so very RADICAL – they won’t allow themselves to think about it.
      And that is why Calvinists avoid logical thinking.

      I hope I explained that – so it makes sense!

    2. Hi Regina, if you Google this question – “What did those with Saul hear?” – you’ll find the answer why this is not a contradiction … For example, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=997

      If you are talking about why God allowed the men to hear sounds but not the words only Saul heard. It was because God was making a special call, not just to draw Saul to a salvation decision but to be an apostle. Saul heard the words, but that doesn’t mean he immediately understood them or was irresistibly drawn to obey them.

      He said himself that he had made the decision to obey what he heard in the vision. Acts 26:19 NKJV — “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,”

      But God does sufficiently call each person to seek Him and His salvation. He does it a few times in each person’s life. They are responsible to freely obey that call. Consider this…

      Heb 3, 7-8

      The warning is given, “Today if you hear His voice, harden not your heart.” Heb 3:7-8

      This warning passage in Hebrews makes no sense if Calvinism is applied to it. The Calvinist “elect” cannot harden once they hear, and the warning would be deceitful for they will never be lost. The Calvinist “reprobate” cannot hear and the warning would again be deceitful for it suggests there is hope for them if they repent, which they cannot do.

      But there is also a warning of judicial hardening for rejecting to believe His voice – Consider – 2Th 2:9-12 NKJV – The coming of the [lawless one] is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

      And – Pro 29:1 NKJV – He who is often rebuked, [and] hardens [his] neck, Will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.

      No-one is born reprobate. All are given a call to seek that they can understand and respond positively to. There is no excuse.

  20. I’ve seen others inquiring about the free download of the the TULIP course for Patreons but didn’t see an answer. Is this where I can find out?

  21. Hi Leighton. Love your podcast. I had a question about Jeremiah 24:7 – I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am Yahweh. They will be My people, and I will be their God because they will return to Me with all their heart.
    This verse is troubling me because it does seem to suggest an effectual move of God to change Men’s minds to trust in Him (who otherwise wouldn’t per rest of book) to set up remnant to return to Jerusalem after captivity. How does this reconcile with provisionist free will? Thank you!

    1. Hello Mike and welcome

      Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule – is not here to interact with posters very often.
      You may more readily find him at Face Book – if you are an FB user.

      But if you don’t mind me making a comment on your question
      I think it depends on how you interpret the words “I will give them”.
      How does that take place?
      Does it follow the model that would be consistent with robots – where robots are lacking a certain algorithm in their program?
      And the robot programmer says “I will give them” a certain algorithm – so that their program will no longer be lacking?

      In other words – are interpreting the text in such a way that we are conceiving of god updating man’s functionality with something it didn’t have before – then doesn’t that interpretation entail a certain model of thinking.
      And that model of thinking (in principle) is one in which man is designed to function as a biological robot.

      Remember – in Calvinism – man’s nature at every instance in time – is 100% determined at the foundation of the world.
      As R.C. Sproul says “There is no such thing as a maverick molecule”

      So on Calvinism – if there is an algorithm missing in man’s program – then that could not be the case unless it was infallibly decreed at the foundation of the world.

      I think you would want to bear that in mind in your interpretation of that text.
      And simply operating in denial like the Calvinist does on that issue – is like asserting 2×3=6 while rejecting 6/3=2.

      Blessings!

      1. Thank you for articulate answer. “I will give them” vs. “I will persuade them” is still a bit of a conundrum for me. I definitely see a lot of Bible pointing toward provisionism but there are sections that aren’t so obvious on surface. Logically Calvinism doesn’t make sense because of deterministic conclusions, but certain passages, on surface look, are more difficult.

      2. Thanks Mike
        Yes – I agree.
        I think that is why (previous to Jonathon Edwards) a number of Reformed thinkers came to the conclusion that scripture appears to imply both. And since they could not reconcile that as a non-contradiction – they simply concluded they must accept both.

        Some of those Reformed thinkers have been called “Libertarian Calvinists” by Dr. Oliver Crisp because he saw within their writings the acceptance of Libertarian freedom. He also concludes that Jonathon Edwards brought about – what he called a “sea change” in Reformed thinking. Edwards has been said to be highly affected by John Locke during Edwards college years. Locke was a Hard Determinist.

        I think this is why we see some conflict between Calvinists such as John Piper and Paul Helm’s – in conflict with previous generation Calvinists like J.I. Packer. Packer appears to be more influenced by the pre-Edwards school – while Pipe and Helms are more influenced by the post-Edwards school.

        As a consequence – Calvinist arguments on determinism tend to parallel Atheist arguments on determinism. This would make sense if we presuppose Edwards having been influenced by a much more philosophical focus on determinism.

    2. Great question and dito your comment on Soteriology101 show as I also greatly appreciate Leighton’s work. Hopefully Leighton will chime in here. My thought on your question is that God is addressing Jewish exiles who he has classified in two groups. The bad fig group would align to King Zedekiah and those of like mind who “did evil in the sight of the Lord” and whom God was laying out his judgement in this chapter. For the good figs who unlike Zedekiah had shown humility in their captivity, God was promising to restore them to the land and to give them a deeper knowledge of himself. God is holding out expectation of these good fig people to return to him with their whole heart. Jerimiah is pretty clear in Ch 18 that God declaring good things and evil things on his people and then change his plans if they do not follow through on their part…

      5Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6“O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. 11Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the LORD, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’

      1. Hello Larry and welcome
        Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule – is not here very often to interact with posters.
        You may more readily find him at Face book – if you are an FB user.

        He also is on youtube frequently – and you might be able to log in real-time on one of his presentations and post comments.

        Blessings!

  22. Hello, I made a 10$CAD donation one month ago. I have just received an email telling me that my donation had been refused and refunded. I don’t understand what’s going on or what I did wrong. Is it because you don’t accept CAD money?

    1. Thank you J-F for letting us know!

      Let me see if I can’t get some information about this for you. And the appropriate thing would be to respond back to you directly via your email. I hope you are ok with that?

      Thanks
      br.d

  23. Hi,
    Does the parable of the sower disprove calvinism? Why would there be soil #2 and #3 if divine determinism is true and that it is God that gives the saving faith as calvinism proclaim? Is God mocking some humans being giving them the faith for them to believe for a while and then take it away and yet they are morally accountable for not believing? Is there a video on this subject?
    thanks

    1. Hello J-F and welcome.
      The Calvinist has his own unique way of interpreting everything in scripture.
      All scripture must conform to certain presuppositions which are established as unquestionable truth – before we even open a book
      In other words – a presupposition is made canon before he opens a page.
      And he brings the text to that cannon – and his interpretation of the text must conform to it.

      So if you ask your question to a Calvinist – he is going to have a ready answer which for him makes perfect sense

      You may recall – there was a time in which people considered it unquestionable truth – that the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun orbits around it.

      People in those days – who were scripture readers – had verses they insisted affirmed that system.
      And if you disagreed with them – you would probably be burned to the stake as a heretic.

      When the human mind interprets any data – it works to draw internal associations with things it already believes as true.
      That is why people back in those days were convinced that scripture teaches a geocentric model of the solar system.

      There are even people today who are convinced that scripture does not teach the solar system we currently have.

      So the bottom line is – people approach scripture with ideas the are already convinced are unquestionable truth.
      And that is how the Calvinist approaches scripture.

      Even thought he tells himself he doesn’t
      It becomes obvious he does. :-]

    2. Welcome J-F. Good observation. Unfortunately Calvin actually taught that concept of deceptive faith known as Evanescent Grace –

      Calvin clearly said that what God does to some reprobate is that He “instills in their mind” and “illumines their mind” to make them think they are elect “in their own judgment” … “the better to convict them.” He’s not talking about Rom 1 reprobate minds that are easily recognized by their immorality… Calvin said that these reprobate have a “resemblance and affinity” with the elect.

      And this temporary faith was not created by them… but given to them in their minds by God according to Calvin. He said they are given a “taste of heavenly gifts” and a “temporary faith”. He said – “There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” (Institutes 3.2.11)

      How can anyone really agree with him on this? Does God really do such deception “the better to convict” the lost? Elsewhere Calvin even said God’s universal gospel call was designed to condemn. He said – “There is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation.” (Institutes 3.24.8)

      I refuse to believe this about God.

      It is divinely just to harden someone after they have freely refused the good news and grace that would have sufficiently led them to salvation or even to harden someone for some good purpose and then afterwards give them an opportunity to freely receive or refuse His grace. But for God to make someone think they are “elect” so that He can pour more guilt on them, even though they were never ever able to freely receive or refuse saving grace… Not my God!

      1. Thanks Brian!
        I didn’t know the Calvinist’s call it “Evanescent” Grace

        That is hilarious!!
        Everything in Calvinism is shrouded behind a smoke-screen of deceptive equivocal terms.

        In this case – what is “FALSE” is called “Evanescent” – because they don’t want to speak the TRUTH and call it what it is.
        FALSE grace.

        How many Calvinists does it take to perfect the art of the con! :-]

      2. Yes, Br. D. Many Calvinists part with Calvin on that one because it is so obnoxious… but it is a good subject to bring up with all of them to get them to start to think about parting ways with Calvin altogether, if they can reject his idea of evanescent grace or temporary faith. It really does make God look horrible in His sovereign choices. For God not only “passes over” the non-elect, He tricks them into damning themselves more thoroughly by making them think they are truly saved for a while.

        It then can lead to a discussion of why God wants to give the gospel to every person if not so that they might have a true opportunity for salvation. Do Calvinists really want to believe that God wants it given to the so-called non-elect so that He can torment them with many more stripes for rejecting that which they were never able to accept! What would be another option for giving them the gospel they could only reject?

      3. Totally agree!
        And sometimes in my dialog with them – I add also what Calvin teaches concerning the proportions of Calvinists who are given a false sense of election.

        -quote
        He INSTILLS within their minds – such a SENSE as can be felt without the spirit of adoption

        And concerning proportions – they are -quote “A few grains of wheat hidden under a PILE of chaff.

        Putting these two together – we have the preponderance of the population of the Calvinist church – specifically deceived with FALSE perceptions of election/salvation – going through the rest of their lives experiencing a continuous stream of divinely authored FALSE perceptions. FALSE perceptions of what they were designed for.

        Statistically speaking – the major part of the Calvinist church is Totally Depraved
        Their minds full of infallibly decreed FALSE perceptions.

        And an infallibly decreed FALSE perception – is a perception the mind is not permitted to know is FALSE
        Because if the mind ever did know it was FALSE – it would no longer be a FALSE perception.
        And that would falsify the infallible decree which brought it into existence.

        So I have ever asked a Calvinist – does he know what percentage of Calvinists are Totally Depraved?
        And he looks at me cross-eyed! :-]

        Then I ask him what percentage of the perceptions in his mind are FALSE perceptions?
        And he again looks at me cross-eyed :-]

        Theological Determinism – eradicates human epistemic functionality.

        That’s one of the things that makes Calvinism such a “superior” belief system!! ;-D

      4. Br. D. Do you happen to have the references for those two quotes? Thanks. And are you sure the contexts are those who profess Calvinism or would it include those who profess Christ from every denomination?

      5. Both of these are from Calvin’s official “INSTITUTES OF A DOUBLE-MINDED BELIEF SYSTEM” :-]

        The first quote – “Instills a sense into them” is from my copy of (pg 342)
        Following that statement – he assumes his reader will make an objection – and he responds

        “Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer….there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect…and those who are IMPRESSED for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance……….

        This is an excellent of double-speak!
        The statement is designed to equivocate on the word “assurance”

        How do you LOGICALLY attribute “more assurance ” of [X] – to someone who is permitted no knowledge of [X].
        In this life-time – you simply have assurance of the fact that you are not permitted to know [X]

        However – when you end up in the lake of fire – you will certainly have “more assurance” of [X]! ;-]

        There are many things that are nothing more than masquerades in Calvinism
        And assurance of election in this lifetime is one of them

        The second quote is located within the subject of the “SECRET” of election.
        -quote
        We must thus consider both god’s secret election and his inner call. For he alone “knows who are his…….

        The fact that Calvin indicates that the elect are “hidden under” a pile of chaff – is to me a clear indicator – Calvin sees the FEW and the MANY – as applicable within the church – at least enough for him liken “proportions” using that analogy.

  24. As a Reformed Protestant, was it justified for Sebastian Castellio to criticize Calvin for this participation in the execution of Michael Servetus? I am not referring to Servetus’ trinitarian thoughts, but by the application of Calvinist’s doctrine of predestination.

    1. Hello Daniel Mulcahy, and welcome
      I suppose your question – could be boiled down and restates as “is a Reformed person ever justified in criticizing a Reformed leader?”

      Well – I guess that depends on what “Reformed” is supposed to stand for.
      If “Reformed” means follower of scripture – then where does scripture tell Christians to torture, mutilate, and murder other Christians? Especially for differences of personal opinion over doctrines?

      The Romanized (i.e Catholic) church – as history shows – murdered many Christians in the name of Christ.

      And I take note of the fact that N.T. Wright calls Calvin – a Catholic with a small “c”
      Which essentially means – Calvin did not follow scripture – where it says “Come out of her and be not partaker of her plagues”
      So to be Reformed – thus means to be partially Catholic.
      And torturing, mutilating, and murdering Christians is therefore justified.

      And since torturing, mutilating, and murdering Christians is justified for a Reformed person, then I suppose to criticize someone should be that much easier to justify.

      Blessings!

  25. Hi,

    Thanks for the last answers!

    Does Romans 6 :17-18 teaches the condition of man (ye were the servants of sin), the responsability of man to receive the Gospel (ye have obeyed from the heart) and the promise of God for those who believes (having been set free from sin)? If this is the correct understanding of theses verses, I don’t understand how can someone come to the conclusion that regeneration precede faith?

    But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

    Thanks

    1. J-F, yes indeed! Here are some of my own thoughts.

      Light then Faith then Life!

      Jhn 1:9, 12 NKJV – That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world…. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

      Jhn 12:36 NKJV – “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.”

      Jhn 20:31 NKJV – but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

      1 Corinthians 4:15 NKJV — For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

      Gal 3:26 NKJV – For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

      1Pe 1:23, 25 NKJV – having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, … Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.

      Reformed theology posits a fake “regeneration” that makes no-one immediately a child of God, nor does it immediately give everlasting life! What kind of birth does not make one a child or give life? Very sad… besides being a clear rejection and ignoring of clear Scripture teaching.

      For this Calvinist regeneration seems to me kinda like a drug that had been before willfully refused by the woman that a man offered it to, along with his proposal of marriage to her… but then he slips it into her drink without her knowing and she immediately accepts his next proposal of marriage.

      Now does that sound like true love? And how can you call a drugged woman’s “yes” her “personal responsibility”? She was unable to do other because of a change the “drug” made in her? When it was given to her, she was still firmly rejecting the one making the proposal who was slipping her the drug without her understanding.

      I see no personal willing acceptance of that woman… nor do I see love in the one who caused the change in her instantly upon her using that drug.

      1. And take the “so called” preservation of the saints – which under logical scrutiny – shows itself to be a masquerade.

        In Calvinism – a person’s election status is FIXED and RENDERED-CERTAIN – before they are created.

        Election is either “infallibly” TRUE or it is “infallibly” FALSE

        And it is a logical impossibility for anything that is “infallible” to need to persevere in order to remain “infallible”.

        A 10 year old should be able to see through that!
        And the Calvinists will swallow that camel – just like a fish swallows the worm on a hook

        There is nothing a Calvinist could ever do – to change his election status – even if he wanted to.
        And in addition to that – every impulse that comes to pass within his brain is put there by an infallible decree.

        So the Calvinist can’t have one single impulse he can call his own!

        What a blessing to have such an IRRATIONAL belief system!! ;-D

      2. But our everlasting salvation is “rendered certain” at some point or it’s not everlasting salvation at all.

        Some believe that happens at resurrection. I believe the Scripture is clear that it is “rendered certain” at regeneration. It certainly was not “rendered certain” for anyone before creation.

  26. Hello brothers and sisters from Soteriology 101. My name is Ronald Jimenez. I pastor a church in Medellin, Colombia, and I’m very interested in learning more about your theology. I’m so glad I found Dr. Flowers videos on YouTube. However, I have searched Provisionism or any resource of this sort in spanish, and I haven’t found any. I speak English and actually work part time as a translator and interpreter, but I’d like to share some of your material in spanish to some fellow brothers. Is there any web site where I can find material in spanish? Do you have any plans to do it?
    I thank you in advance for your attention.

    Sincerely, Ronald Jimenez.

    1. Hola Hermano,
      Google translate has the capability to translate entire web pages.
      See this google page for instructions:

      https://support.google.com/translate/answer/2534559?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&hl=en&oco=0

      Here is a text clip from “Flowers Man Bad” after I used google translation. I’m not fluent enough in Spanish to know how good this is but its certainly a start…

      Leighton Flowers es sincero y genuino … y por eso los calvinistas están enojados con él.

      Permítanme plantear este artículo con un descargo de responsabilidad: el Dr. Flowers no me dice qué escribir. Nunca lo ha hecho. Ni una sola vez. En ocasiones me ha pedido que amplíe algo que escribió pero nunca me ha dicho qué decir sobre él o qué posición tomar sobre un tema. No presenta estos artículos de blog para su supervisión editorial, aunque quizás algunos argumentarían que debería hacerlo.

      Vamos a empezar.

      El consenso general entre los calvinistas que ven a los maestros en línea y participan en discusiones en línea (“calvinistas de Internet”) con respecto al Dr. Flowers no es que esté equivocado, no que esté equivocado, sino que es un mentiroso.

  27. Dear Leighton & team. We love your ministry. Can you recommend a Catechism? They all seem to be reformed.

    1. Hello Bob and welcome
      Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule is seldom here to interact with posters.
      You may more readily find him on facebook – if you are an FB user.

      Sorry about that!
      Blessings!
      br.d

  28. I have benefited so much from this ministry. I found it at a time when I was really struggling with the claims of Calvinism. Twice last year I gave five hundred dollars to help support your work. Neither time did I get a receipt. As a result I was not able to claim the gifts on my taxes. Numerous times I have wished to contribute more but am unsure of the legitimacy of the ministry’s financial dealings. I would like to contribute more now.

    1. Hello Mike
      I’m very sorry to hear about these issues.
      If you don’t mind – I will forward your post here along with your email to an associate of SOT101
      Hopefully someone will get back to you directly!

      Thanks
      again
      br.d

  29. Hi,

    I am wondering how one would defend Ecclesiastes 6:10 from a Provisionist prospective. I am by no means a biblical scholar and could very well be misreading the text. However, on the surface it seems to make a pretty good case from Predestination. If you could expound on this that would be much appreciated.

    Best Regards,

    Nathan

    1. Hi Nathan and welcome. The ESV has the best literal translation of the Hebrew here, in my opinion. Other translations try to read too much of their theology into this verse.

      ESV Eccl 6:10– “Whatever has come to be has already been named, and it is known what man is, and that he is not able to dispute with one stronger than he.”

      Notice that nothing clearly is said about anything happening by God before creation. The purpose of the book is to appeal to the unbeliever’s common sense.

      The verse is stating that since there is nothing new that exists that hasn’t already been identified, and that man is known, understood, by someone greater than himself, then perhaps he should not be contentious but start to seek that understanding from those greater than him… Solomon is ultimately pointing to God, of course, who does understand all about man already.

      To try to link “named” to mean that man is decreed by God to live out life only one way is reading too much into that word. Naming something just means recognizing its characteristics with a proper identification. And “known” here just means fully understood. God fully understands what man is able to do with the free will He has given to man, who was made in His image.

  30. Hello. I greatly appreciate and support your much-needed and vitally important ministry. I completely understand about the business of ministry, and so can appreciate that suggestions to perhaps produce additional resources can be seen as ‘just more work’. However, in the interest of equipping the average person in being able to engage with Calvinists who accuse non-Calvinists of not understanding ‘Calvinism’, I would ask that you prayerfully consider creating a downloadable PDF resource with the commonly used quotes Dr. Flowers points out from Calvin, Piper, Pink, McArthur and others, demonstrating what they actually profess and believe so that we can show them why we believe the logical conclusions Calvinism entails are deduced from their actual beliefs. 1 on 1 conversations (either in person or electronically) are still the most effective way to engage with family and friends, and I feel this could be valuable in provoking people’s interest in watching some of the amazing videos you are producing, and introducing them to the incredible bulk of work being produced here. Leighton is truly a workhorse and I so appreciate his commitment to producing great content. Blessings to all involved, in Christ, Calvin (ironically that IS my first name : )

Leave a Reply