Soteriology 101 is a 501(c)3 nonprofit ministry.
Overseen by The Foundation Group
(NOTICE: ADDRESS HAS RECENTLY CHANGED)
Soteriology 101
675 Town Square Blvd
Firewheel Town Center
Building 1A Suite 200
Garland, TX 75040
Watch this message from Leighton Flowers…
I would like to make a donation via my Charitable Family Foundation, but you are not listed as an option. Can you provide me with your tax ID and any other helpful information to submit to try to get this approved.
Hello Tom – welcome – and thank you!
Let me see if Brian can help you with this
.
blessings!
br.d
Hi Tom, thank you for your desire to support Leighton’s ministry. I suggest you contact him through the mailing address provided, and include your name, address, and phone so he can contact you directly.
If you want to send me an email with that info, I’ll forward it to Leighton, which might expedite things. Blessings, Brian brianwagner@vbc.edu
Thank you Brian. I will send a letter to Leighton. Your ministry has meant a great deal to me which I will share with Leighton and want to help support your efforts to provide biblical alternatives to the interpretations of Calvinism.
Thank you, Tom, for your kind words and support!
Hello Leighton! Greetings from Fort Worth. I recently found your Youtube channel and started watching your videos. Although I was born and raised a Baptist in Mississippi, as a young man I drifted into the Charismatic/Prosperity Gospel. In 2016 I saw the error of my ways and watched a lot of John MacArthur, Justin Peters, and others who proved that much of the charismatic and the prosperity gospel was rubbish. So naturally I began to follow them and embrace Calvinism, or at least a good portion of it. I just never could totally believe in limited atonement. But now I see that it’s all rubbish too. So I really appreciate you, your ministry, your content, and your books that have helped me understand Romans 9 and other passages that were used to “prove” Calvinism. Before, I really had no answer for the Calvinists I debated online on Facebook and Twitter. Now it all makes perfect sense. So again thanks so much!
Hello Ryan and welcome
And thank you for your kind words!!
.
Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule – is typically not able to be here to interact with posters
But you may find him on Facebook if you have an FB account.
Also he regularly creates Youtube videos
And during the video there is a chat feature
And below the video are places for comments.
.
Thank you for your testimony!
I am personally thankful that you discovered the pitfalls of Calvinism
And especially that you understand the degree to which Calvinists ministries (John MacArthur for example) work very hard to make Calvinism *APPEAR* to be a doctrine of divine benevolence – when it is in fact predominantly a doctrine of divine malevolence.
.
Please feel free to stop in here any time to ask questions or say hello!
.
Blessings!
br.d
Hii Sir, can you explain how this logic is coherent.
If original sin is related to physical body or nature. Then people say that Jesus being fully human would make that Jesus desires a woman as physical body or nature is sinful. But then what’s the logic here. How is this gnostic understanding of sin and it being associated with desire. I feel if Jesus had desire of a woman, this would mean essentially and ethically that God of Bible that eternally knew that someday He would be saving humanity by coming to the earth and during his small duration trip- it’s like a rumspringa then where a God could now all of a sudden desire a woman??
Welcome Jay! I am not sure I understand fully your question. But Jesus received from Mary, and from the creation of the Holy Spirit, a human nature that was not tainted with original sin, though like Adam, Jesus was able to be tempted to sin. Yet He never yielded to temptation and thus never sinned.
As for having a desire for marriage or for sex in marriage, that is not a sin. It is certainly a powerful desire that can easily lead to sin, when curiosity prolongs the look at a woman and begins to focus on the sexual parts of her body. Once the will basically yields to saying – “If I could, I would”, or begins to fantasize the completion of any intimacy of sexual activity, which is reserved by God for marriage, the sin of adultery has taken place.
I hope this helps.
Hello Jay,
The historical classic Christian position on the nature of Jesus – is that he is both fully man and fully God.
.
The author of Hebrews tells us – Jesus was tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.
.
There is going to be a very large contrast here between what is stipulated within the doctrines of Calvinism vs what the NON-Calvinist will hold to.
.
In Calvinism – *NOTHING HAPPENS* that is not knowingly and willingly decreed.
And that decree is infallible
And an infallible decree does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees
.
So on that doctrine – if it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME_T
That decree is infallible – and does not grant any ALTERNATIVE to Calvinist_A
.
In such case – Calvinist_A does not have a CHOICE to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T
Therefore – Calvinist_A does not have CHOICE in the matter.
.
For the NON-Calvinist – this is not the case
For the NON-Calvinist – ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS such as [SIN] vs [NOT SIN] exist
And man is granted choice between those options
And that choice is *UP TO* man
.
So for the NON-Calvinist – the question of sin – both for Jesus and for man – has to do with choice.
.
Paul refers to Jesus as the “Second Adam”
The “First Adam” fell into sin
The “Second Adam” had all of the same temptations as the “First Adam” but without sin.
.
For the NON-Calvinist – Jesus does not sin because he chooses to NOT sin.
.
Does answer your question?
.
blessings!
Hey Brian or Br.d., What’s your opinion on Norman Geisler? A friend who mostly disagrees with Calvinism is reading his Chosen But Free book, which I never read, and I was curious how it might lead him. No one online can agree about him.
Some say he’s a 4-point Calvinist, some say Compatibilist (which is really just Calvinist), some say Arminian. Just curious if either of you know. Thanks.
br.d
Hi Heather
.
My thinking on Geisler is somewhat similar to what you’ve indicated.
.
He appears to be somewhat confused about what the core of Calvinism is (Exhaustive divine determinism)
.
However – I appreciate his honesty concerning Calvinist language being a misleading and/or deceptive language
.
For example – in Chosen but Free – he writes:
-quote
“Some Calvinists use smoke-and-mirror tactics to avoid the harsh implications of their view” (pg 104)
“This is done by redefining terms and Theological Doublespeak” (pg 261)
.
So Geisler is open minded enough to be honest about this characteristic of Calvinism.
But I seem to recall him making other statements which give the appearance he doesn’t clearly recognize what separates Calvinism from its alternatives and makes it unique – is Determinism.
.
CONCERNING CALVINISM’S TULIP:
Imagine if you will – you are walking on a side-walk with a friend.
As you walk together you see person walking towards the two of you.
.
You notice something odd about this person.
This person is wearing a mask on their face.
The mask completely and totally covers their face
The friend you are walking with recognizes the person
.
The person wearing the mask stops to talk with your friend
This person tells your friend she is taking vitamins which have dramatically improved her facial complexion.
She asks your friend to look at her face and see how healthy and vibrant her face is.
.
Your friend looks at her closely – and says “Yes your face looks wonderful”
You are shocked – because what your friend is looking at – is a mask.
Your friend is making comments about a mask *AS-IF* it was the person’s real face.
.
Any time I find NON-Calvinists debating with Calvinists over the TULIP that is the experience I have.
How is it – that NON-Calvinist does not realize – what they are debating over is a mask?
Calvinism’s TULIP is a SURFACE representation designed to hide what is behind it.
.
So if Geisler is going to deliberate over the TULIP he simply does not recognize the core of Calvinism which remains hidden behind it.
.
So as far as I am concerned – debating the merits of Calvinism by deliberating over the TULIP is like debating the merits of a person’s facial complexion by deliberating over a mask the person is wearing.
.
Hope this finds you and yours well Heather!!!
Blessings!
.
br.d
Thank you, Br.d. As you said, “So if Geisler is going to deliberate over the TULIP he simply does not recognize the core of Calvinism which remains hidden behind it.”
Similarly, what raised a red flag for me was when I heard he was calling out hyper-Calvinism while at the same time affirming to “mystery” of God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free-will, saying that man is truly free yet God ordains everything (from what I remember).
In my mind, that’s a Calvinist-in-disguise (one who really thinks he’s not an exhaustive determinist when he really is) calling out the Calvinists who fully live out their Calvinism honestly.
And while I too appreciate that he calls out the more deceptive or extreme Calvinists, I think Calvinism-in-disguise (softened down to not appear too Calvinist) is almost more “dangerous” because it’s easier to swallow and raises less red flags, convincing those who adhere to it that their Calvinism is not the same as “those Calvinists,” the more open ones who live it out fully.
Thanks, Br.d. God bless! Hope you are well too. 🙂
br.d
Yes! I think you have that well thought out Heather!
And well said also! :-]
.
blessings
I believe, Heather, Geisler might actually call himself a moderate Calvinist in that book, if I am remembering correctly. Yes, it is of the compatibilism variety, which is just smoke and mirrors determinism, imo.
Thank you, Brian. I appreciate your help. And Br.d. 🙂
I find the interpretation of Romans 8 that it is refrrring to the “saints of old”extremely compelling. There is just one thing that I must resolve in my mind that is keeping me from totally embracing this: Why is the word “glorified” in the past tense when referring to the Saints of old? I have always believed that Old Testament saints would be glorified at the same time as the church, on the day of redemption (rapture.) can someone clear this up for me?
Welcome Richard, though I have a little different take on this then Leighton, since he does not visit this blog often and leaves responses to aids like myself and BrD, let me say that I believe Leighton thinks “glorified” in this context does not mean in resurrected bodies, but just brought into contact with the glory of God following death before the resurrection.
Brian, You write of Jesus obtaining: ” a human nature that was not tainted with original sin” This would seem to imply that the rest of us got the tainted human nature variety. If so, what is it exactly that we got that Jesus did not? What is this original sin we were tainted (imputed?) with?
Thank you Larry for the question.
Effects of Adam’s sin – a propensity towards sin in our nature from birth, not guilt.
Romans 7:9 NKJV — I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
Romans 11:32 NKJV — For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
John 1:9 NKJV — That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
Romans 2:4 NKJV — Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
The first two verses in that list. When the conscience is mature enough to be confronted by the law… the sin nature comes to life and the individual becomes guilty/dead/separated from God. God allows that to happen to all who reach that moment of accountability. According to the second two verses, God then fulfills His plan to give each sufficiently mercy/light to seek Him. They must freely and humbly respond.
We received a sin nature from Adam, not guilt, and it lies dormant until our conscience is awakened and we sin. Like Adam we need the imputation of the righteousness of God through faith. We have the ability to trust like Adam… but he became prone to sin after he sinned… we were prone to sin from birth.
I’m an atheist and just watched the video critiquing Godless Granny’s interview with a Calvinist. Wouldn’t it be interesting to have an atheist view on this debate. Let me know your thoughts. Seems like we have some common ground.
br.d
Hello Bill
.
Since the foundational core of Calvinism – and that which separates Calvinism from its alternatives – and makes it unique – is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) – and since there are Atheists who embrace Determinism – we have an understanding that there is come common ground between Calvinism and Atheist Determinism.
.
But since SOT101 does not represent or promote Calvinism – (aka Theistic Determinism) I personally am not familiar with any common ground there may be.
.
Can you say a little about what common ground you are thinking about?
.
Thanks
br.d