Soteriology 101 received its 501(c)3 status as of May 3, 2018 so all gifts since that date can be filed as a tax deductible donation.



For those who have expressed interest in making a donation without using Patreon or Paypal, checks can be sent to: Leighton Flowers (Soteriology101) at 7557 Rambler Dr. (Suite 1200) Dallas, TX 75231

*If you have been invited by Dr. Flowers to be a guest on the podcast please schedule a time by CLICKING HERE.

132 thoughts on “Support

  1. Dear Dr Flowers:

    I’ve just recently come across your teachings so I don’t even know if this is the right place or forum to ask a question. Thank you for “speaking the truth in love” about Calvinism. Using the Word, you have disarmed some really damaging teachings that confuse needlessly the faith “once delivered.” But my question is this. It concerns Eph 2:12  That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: Aren’t these people in this verse as condemned as those that Calvinism says aren’t elected to salvation? It says they have no hope and are without God. They never had a chance to believe. How do I answer someone that poses this question?
    Thank you

    1. Hey Richard, thanks for the question. I don’t think that Paul describing the former state of the Ephesian Christians as “strangers” and “having no hope, and without God” requires us to think of that as a permanent state they are unable to be reconciled from. Clearly, the Ephesian Christians were reconciled from that state. I think it is accurate to see an unbeliever as being without hope in the sense of their standing before God. In that present stance, separated from God, there is no hope. But that doesn’t mean they are unable to recognize they are without hope and so throw themselves at the mercy of the Father. I certainly don’t think they “never had a chance to believe’. The Ephesian Christians were once in that state and they now believe. In general, I do not see a biblical category for people who “never had a chance to believe”. I hope that helps.

    2. Hi Richard,
      Thanks very much for your post!
      I wanted to let you know that due to extensive obligations Dr. Flowers doesn’t visit this sight for ongoing dialog much.
      If he does answer your post – then you can disregard this one.
      But if he doesn’t – please understand that as the reason.

      On your question – I would ask you to consider something Dr. Gordon Fee refers to throughout his carrier as a scholar.
      When we read the data of scripture (just like any other data) we interpret what we read by aligning it with what we believe to be unquestionable truth. There was a time when scholars thought “he stretches the heavens out as a scroll” affirmed the concept of a flat earth – because a preponderance of people held the concept of a flat earth as unquestionable truth.

      The Calvinist is taught the concept of “Universal Divine Causal Determinism” (see William Lane Craig) is unquestionable truth.
      So his reading of scripture (just like the flat earth readers) interprets verses to affirm that concept.

      I would ask you to be very cognizant of that as a characteristic of human perception.
      When you’re reading verses that appear Calvinistic – be aware of the hidden biases that make those verses appear that way.
      Please see William Lane Craig for a clear outline of “Universal Divine Causal Determinism”

      Sincere blessings
      br.d :-]

  2. Dear Dr. Flowers. My wife and I have been greatly blessed by your ministry; we gave $1000 in April because we believe ministries such as yours need to be supported. However, I am no fan of Paypal because of a controversy in 2016 where Paypal chose sides with the LGBT community. I’d rather not support PayPal by supporting you. I cannot find a mailing address on your website. Any chance you could include a snail-mail address on your site?

  3. Dear Leighton,

    Thank you so much for your videos on Calvinism. I would like to answer the question you so often pose to your audience. You ask why we cannot be more civil when discussing Calvinism. The reason so many of us find it difficult to do so may have more to do with Calvinist Debate Tactics, as exposed so thoroughly by Kevin Thompson, as to any other factor. Your experience may vary considerably from this pattern, but it is definitely the pattern I was met with. Every argument is met with an accusation that “You think you can save yourself” or “You think God may be thwarted” or “Your soteriology is of man and not of God”. These endless dreary accusations quite frankly wear on one’s patience. Next come accusations that “You must go to a seeker-sensitive church” or “You must watch Joel Osteen”. Unless of course you are involved in any of the Assemblies of God, Church of God, Four Square, Pentacostal denominations – at that point they denounce you as a heretic.

    On a deeply personal level I also feel that every word that comes out of that system is an affront to God in every way. I hardly know where to begin. His Holiness. His Love. His Provision.

    Those factors when combined set the stage for a very heated debate. To compound this, Calvinists seem to loathe conceding any point they worry may be used against them. Instead they dodge questions, and counter-attack.

    In truth and love.

    John Foster

  4. Very impactful ministry . Mr flowers your videos lead me to this website but i noticed you all aren’t tax deductible. Have you all considered starting a free church. Most churches are free churches are still are Tax deductible status. Figures i would share the wisdom. Thanks for all you do

  5. Hi Dr. flowers, I was looking for a place to send an email and couldn’t find any so I guess I’ll have to ask my question here. I’ve heard you say many times that you were a Calvinist for 10 years but then on this Monday’s podcast during the conversation you mentioned that you were either slowly moving away from Calvinism or were no longer a Calvinist for seven years before you told anyone. That’s of paraphrase so sorry if it’s not quite accurate. My question is were you a convinced Calvinist for 10 years and then spent seven years moving out of Calvinism or were you a convinced Calvin is for three years and the other seven years of moving away from Calvinism was part of your 10 years? Thank you.

  6. I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your YouTube channel. I have been in the ministry for over 20 years, mostly as a church planter, for first 15 years affiliated with Texas Baptist. I’ve been a planting pastor and directly involved in over 150 church plants in various capacities but never formally trained in ministry. I have a pretty diverse theological upbringing saved in a Congregational Methodist church that had an AG preacher, discipled Baptist. I ran into systematic theology for the first time a couple of years ago and it turned my world upside down. I am pretty analytical and Calvinism appealed to me intellectually. It made me doubt all I knew and made me think I may have wasted 20 years of ministry. I have been in a spiritual depression for a year or so with a confused concept of God. I ran across your channel and that lead me to others with similar teaching that lined up with how I originally believed. I’ve been watching for a couple of months now. Praise God! He really does love everyone! Thanks for making sound biblical arguments and rightly handling with word of God. It’s been a torturous theological detour but I believe God had a plan, its good be back on a familiar road that I believe is the right one! P.S. Where can I mail a check to support your ministry?

  7. Great message and resources Dr. Flowers. I’m very grateful I found you on youtube. It is a blessing to make a donation, and to pray for your ministry.

  8. I’ve labored among east European Evangelical Christians-Baptists and they tend to believe that a person can lose his/her salvation. They also preach assurance of salvation but it’s not, so to speak, automatic. In their thinking, if a believer continues to abide in Christ, Christ continues to live in the believer through the Holy Spirit and can be assured of salvation.. David Pawson, a British Baptist pastor, adheres to the same understanding. He is little known to most North American evangelicals. You can hear his point of view by viewing his talk on the question of “once saved, always saved” at: . I’d love to hear your comment on Pawson’s thinking on the subject.

  9. Hi Dr. Flowers. Thank you so much for your logical & loving approach to this divisive topic. Christians have enough battles without battling each other. We would like to support your work, and have no interest in the tax deduction. I would like to “vote with my feet”.
    PayPal voted with their feet when they cancelled an expansion in North Carolina after NC passed a logical, common sense law stating that you must use the bathroom corresponding to your biological gender.
    If Christians don’t vote with their feet, only the radical anti-god community will, and that is not good for righteousness or for our country.
    I would not have a problem writing a check directly to you individually, or to if Soteriology 101 is an LLC, or whatever. Please respond back and let me know. I won’t bother you about this again.

    1. Hi Bob,
      Thank you very much for your kind and sincere post.
      Dr. Flowers is often busy and unable to participate directly on a consistent basis on this site.
      However, I can forward your request and we can see if someone can get back to you.

      Sincere thanks!
      And God bless you!


  10. Hello Prof Flowers,
    I have a couple of questions for you but it seems like I’m having difficulty figuring out how to get my email over to you. I found your email address at Texas Baptist and I sent you a message. The message was more than a question so it was pretty long, which might be why no one ever replied to it. Nevertheless, I take this matter of understanding the scripture, and especially in knowing how to counter the arguments of calvinistic-thinking/leaning Christians, very seriously and am very appreciative that I have come across your ministry. I would be even more appreciative if I could find a way to interact with you in sending over my communications. I think the email is too long for this blog. The email has to do with your description of “libertarian free will”. I also have a question about the “good ground” in the parable of the sower. On that question, I can cover it quickly by asking, ” how do I counter a calvinist argument coming to me indicating pre-faith regeneration is true because of the parable of the sower indicating that the ground had to be good before the word of God had come to it. They say the heart had to be regenerated in order for the heart to be good ground to receive the Word.

    Thanks for your help.
    Dominic D.

    1. Welcome, Dominic. It’s really tough to get an individual interaction with Leighton these days. I would suggest, that for an answer to your first question, you search this site in the search box provided using the term “freewill”. For you second question, Read the parable of the sower again along with Jesus’ interpretation and see that two of the soils receive the Word into their hearts and even express faith (before regeneration, of course)… and the only hinderance to their becoming good soil is not being eternally immutably predestined to become good soil (no one is born as good soil… right?), but that they get rid of all hardness, shallowness, and thorns.

      Even the evil one knows that the hard soil is able to believe and be saved.
      Luk 8:12 NKJV – “Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”
      Jer 4:3-4 NKJV – For thus says the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem: “Break up your fallow ground, And do not sow among thorns. 4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, And take away the foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My fury come forth like fire, And burn so that no one can quench [it], Because of the evil of your doings.”
      Eze 18:30-31 NKJV – “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 “Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel.”

    2. Hi Dominic D.,
      I know you addressed your question to Dr. Flowers, but I hope you don’t mind if I make a comment for your consideration.

      Professor Gordon Fee asks what he considers to be a critical question concerning Biblical texts like you are discussing with Calvinists.

      What *INFORMS* us of what we believe the text is saying?

      Dr. Fee is referring to the fact that the human mind interprets data in accordance to what it already believes to be true.
      For example, there was a time when Bible readers interpreted specific verses to affirm a flat earth.
      They believed the earth was flat unquestionably.
      And since scripture only affirms truth – therefore verses *MUST* affirm a flat earth.

      So to answer Gordon Fee’s question on this issue – what informed those people was not scripture alone.
      What informed them was their unquestionable belief that the earth was flat.
      Since that was the case, any idea that scripture taught otherwise would have been seen as heresy for them.

      Calvinists argue that what informs them is scripture alone.
      But they would have to be infallible as human beings in order for that to be true.

      Dr. William Lane Craig informs us that Calvinism presupposes “Universal Divine Causal Determinism”.
      This is in fact what INFORMS Calvinists when they read scripture.
      They believe it to be true – the exact same way that people once believed the earth was flat.
      No other interpretation of scripture makes sense to them – because “Universal Divine Causal Determinism” is what INFORMS them.

      I suggest – you will gain a significant advantage by first examining Calvinists for their logical inconsistency.
      I think when you make that examination – you will find that Calvinism is seriously double-minded.

      I think when you examine Calvinist language – you will find it full of evasions, obfuscations, and double-speak talking-points.
      I think you will find Calvinists do not speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when they speak.
      I think you will find every aspect of their language to be not much more than highly scripted talking-points.

      This was for me – a very powerful indicator – that something is internally very wrong with Calvinism.

      On talking scripture with them – they essentially read scripture – making it say what they want it to say.
      So I find discussions concerning scripture with them a complete waste of time.

      But ask yourself – why would their language be so full of double-speak?
      I think if you find the answer to that question – you will understand the very heart of Calvinism.

      Blessings in your pursuit!!
      br.d :-]

  11. Thank you Brian and Br.d!

    Great replies and which further reaffirm the perspectives I now hold to thanks to the Sotieriology 101 program! I’ve actually covered a few of these suggestions in previous conversations with my “calvinistic thinking” friends and, even as was said, it sadly seems to end up as a waste of time.

    On my other question about “libertarian free will”, I’ve previously searched the site on the topic and there are no satisfactory answers for my dilemma, at least which I can locate.

    I would definitely love to resend the original email I wrote to Prof Flowers where someone (whether one of the two of you, or Leighton himself) could take a good look at the perspective I offer in my discussion, and kindly send a reply. 🙂

    I’d be glad to post it here, but as I previously explained, it’s fairly long and it’s a lot more than just a simple question. I would only attempt to post it here at your request.

    I brought this topic forth because I personally have a slightly different take than Prof Flowers, although its probably more semantical differences on how to describe the will of man, because I don’t disagree with the entire premise put forth in his discussion as relating to “libertarian free will”. I just don’t like the word “free”, I prefer the word “human” when referring to our will. I think the difference between the two words (“free” and “human”) is a big enough difference that it’s at least worthy of a discussion. I go on in my email to explain more details.

    I did notice that there was a Gmail address provided and I can certainly send my email there if someone would be agreeable to look it over. Thanks again for your time. Very much appreciated!

    Blessings- Dominic D

    1. Dominic… you can send me the email if you wish. And did you find my word study on “Freewill” on this blog site?

      Also… translators of Scripture were satisfied using that word for a Hebrew word for some reason. Interesting huh? Also… would you say a decision made “without necessity” by one who has “power over his own will” would be a freewill decision?

      1. e-mail coming Brian, thanks! To quickly reply to your question here, my answer is absolutely “yes”.

        That said however, I believe there’s more to the will of man than the question/presupposition seems to have taken into account. In my mind, it’s simply not that simple, particularly in light of scripture.

        None the less, I will enjoy having a further discussion about it after u read my email.

        Thank you again for your time and reply.

    2. Dominic
      I just don’t like the word “free”, I prefer the word “human” when referring to our will. I think the difference between the two words (“free” and “human”) is a big enough difference that it’s at least worthy of a discussion.

      Very insightful Dominic!
      I agree with you – the term “free” is so heavily loaded. Its like a rope used for tug of war – everyone pulling its meaning in different directions. I think you’re thinking “human will” is much more precise.


      Unfortunately, I don’t have an email address for you to resend your writing too.
      Lets see if someone else has a suggestion on that.

  12. Leighton, I began listening to your blog about a month ago. I am not a Calvinist, though I do have great respect for many of my friends and former professors who are Calvinists. You have some of the same personal reservations about Calvinism that I have but I must say that I am not persuaded of some of your interpretations of particular passages of Scripture. I did want to comment on your interview with Andy Stanley by saying that I did not think the conversation was very helpful. I have read Andy’s book and listened to interviews where he tries to explain his controversial theological statements about the relationship of the Old Testament to the New and find them very confused at best. I don’t think it is helpful or correct to say that they are just differences in apologetic methodology. If you have not read his book Irresistible, I encourage you to check it out.

  13. Hey Leighton, love the podcast and the channel! Listen to you often. I have one request. Could you do a video on terms as you would define them? There are a lot that I am not sure of and honestly I think one can have a hard time finding what terms mean in general and how others define them, I know you point that out often to. Keep up the good work!

  14. Leighton,

    Couldn’t find a direct email address for you, at Sot101, so I hope this finds you well.

    I listen to some of your broadcasts, out of curiosity and interest. I wanted to reach out to ask if you have ever read “By His Grace and For His Glory” by Thomas J. Nettles? I am just starting it, and wanted to get your take.


    Glenn Ashcraft

    1. Hi Glen… you’d have better chance of response on the FB site Soteriology101. But welcome. Others here might give you their opinion. I myself have not read that one. What strong arguments or weak arguments have you discovered in it so far?

  15. I absolutely love what Dr. Flowers is teaching. I am a Southern Baptist and I am so glad that finally someone is giving us a theology for what we believe. I grew up thinking that we were neither Calvinist nor Armenian but had no one to answer my questions as to what we actually were. Dr. Flowers is now doing that.

    I do have a question though. It really makes sense to me that foreknowledge in Romans 8 is talking about God’s knowing the old testament saints in the past. But how can they be glorified if they are waiting in heaven for their new bodies to be given to them at Christ’s return? (I thought we were naked as Paul said and not glorified yet until Christ returns.) Are we to think of glorification as a process after we die? (Such as glorified immediately to some degree and then completely once we receive our new bodies?)

  16. I answered my own question. I forgot about the mount of Transfiguration. Moses and Elijah were clearly glorified then. That may be the whole point of why Paul is saying we know they were glorified and so we will be too. They are our proof.

  17. Hello Brother Flowers….thanks very much for your ministry. My friend saw your interview with Andy Stanley and recommended that I view it. I appreciated that interaction and now watching many of your other presentations.

    Its a bit healing for me because many of my family members are Calvinists and Calvinistic. It’s been a hurtful experience in many ways. At worst I’ve been ostracized in a passive way. I don’t use a label in my Christian experience but I would say that I’m more closely associated with the Word of Faith camp. In watching your broadcasts I’ve been more respectful of the “Theological world.” My friend and I often refer to persons attending seminary as them going to “cemetery.” It seems to me that whatever amount of faith one has when they enter seminary it dies after attending. In regards to Piper, MacArthur and other “respected church leaders.” Let God’s Word be true and every man a liar.”

    I’m watching your interview with Riley and his experience at that Southern Baptist Seminary. You mentioned the “prosperity gospel.” and that it being on the shallow side of Biblical understanding. Again I would challenge your use of this derogatory term in describing a system, if you will of persons in their understanding of the Bible. First of all “prosperity gospel” is a term ascribed from persons “outside of the camp.” Perhaps follow your rule of examining from a Word of Faith (a term Paul uses in Romans) teachings to understand the Word of Faith teachings rather than throwing some label on it that for all intents and purposes comes from outside the camp. Keith Moore (Word of Faith Bible teacher) of Faith Life Church is adept in teaching prosperity. If you go to one of his teachings on You Tube “Abounding Ability” he explores this in depth and gives a very clear Biblical understanding of it.

    Thanks for your consideration.


  18. I’ve heard Dr Flowers on his podcasts often mention getting emails, but I can’t find his email anywhere on this website, or in emails from Patreon, or anywhere else.

  19. Dr. Leighton – Thanks for your solid clear teaching and for consistently holding for the Truth. We -The church- desperately need someone to do what you are doing and to keep doing it. Thanks for your faithfulness… I too have had some really harsh experiences with those who hold to TULIP. I believe we who understand Grace and have a measure of leadership entrusted to us must be the ones who stand up and give an ongoing apologetic for GRACE.

    But giving an ongoing apologetic for GRACE is not enough… we must also practice the art of Polemics as well…this is what we do cross culturally in missions and it must be done on the home front. What is Polemics? Biblically it is: Destroying arguments… While apologetics is defending something Polemics is destroying the distortion, showing why it is wrong. (Much more uncomfortable to do but just as necessary as Apologetics.) I applaud you for doing this.

    Here is Polemics in 2 Cor. 10:5 :

    “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ…”

    The greek verb destroy here means to: cast down…pull down…throw down…destroy the argument. It goes beyond simply stating our position in positive terms, it means to pull the distortion down, pull it apart, show why it is wrong, cast it down, demolish it, exposing the false teaching as false and why it is false. Even though the teachers may not know it is false, it is false none the less.

    We need to do both to be effective, Apologetics and Polemics. Few want to do apologetics and fewer still want to do polemics. It takes a good dose of courage to do apologetics and even more to do polemics. But we must not fail our brethren they need us to do both with clarity, courage and humility. Thanks for doing that and blazing the way for GRACE.

    Our inclusive culture will find this repulsive and likely we will be slandered at least that is my experience but it is necessary and guess what the Calvinist Ideology does this with ongoing VIGOR…very effectively undermining GRACE and attacking the truths found in our statement of faith. Thus ends my “brief” case for GRACE Apologetics as well as Polemics on the home front before it is too late.

    Now for “taking the spin off” in one small area of Calvinism this is exposing what TULIP teaches explicitly and/or implicitly in just one area. Could you read this next piece below and see if any of these statements about TULIP are inaccurate. I am not asking if a Calvinist might try and cover up these truths about TULIP with different softer cunning words that hide the uncomfortable reality of their position, of course they would, that is an art I believe they have perfected. My question is: are any of these statements inaccurate about the 5 point system called TULIP?

    I will set the stage with a quote by Calvinist leader Arthur Pink (deceased). Who is honestly portraying what TULIP teaches explicitly and implicitly and what he and others really believe about God’s nature.

    “When we say God is Sovereign in the exercise of His Love, we mean that He loves who he chooses and God does not love everybody.” Arthur Pink (Calvinist)

    The often undisclosed truth of TULIP and a few of it’s camouflaged realities show us that
    Sovereign God created all people in His image but by far most of these image bearers of His He created specifically for eternal destruction. He never authentically loved most of them but instead He knowingly works to maintain their eternal exclusion and rejection.

    He gave irrefutable proof of this by:

    – He himself refusing to send His son for their salvation
    -Purposefully omitting them from His genuine call
    -Actively excluding them from Jesus’ substitutionary atonement for mankind
    -Consciously denying them His gift of Salvific Faith,
    -Wilfully withholding His Grace and Mercy from them while eagerly bestowing it on a few others
    -Deliberately not loving them before the foundation of the World.

    And so we see God’s predetermined plan from Eternity past was always calculated to genuinely love only a few and to intentionally work to save only a few while resolutely denying most of His creation a “bona fide offer” of forgiveness and salvation but rather with full intent he decisively created most of His image bearers for the eternal horrors of hell, thus manifesting His Glory in ways too lofty for us to understand.

    If you find this image of God at all alarming or repulsive…Who are you o man to question God’s Sovereign will and judge Him as He works his mysterious plan for His own glory… His ways are higher than your ways and His thoughts than your thoughts, He is the potter you are the clay so now you can see: “When we say God is Sovereign in the exercise of His Love, we mean that He loves who he chooses and God does not love everybody.” Pink

    Have I misrepresented the explicit or implicit meaning of TULIP? I don’t think I have, what do you think? It is scary that this is the God that many people believe exists.

    1. Brian
      Have I misrepresented the explicit or implicit meaning of TULIP? I don’t think I have, what do you think? It is scary that this is the God that many people believe exists.

      Hello Brian and welcome and thank you for your excellent post!

      I hope you don’t mind if I respond to it.

      I certainly don’t believe you have misrepresented Calvinism – especially in regard to the question of divine love for creatures – when you’ve carefully provided a quote from a prominent voice in Calvinism to that affect.

      Of-course what we find – is Calvinists are word jugglers – and concerning quotes from prominent Calvinists like Arthur Pink (and Calvin himself) they will try to argue that he didn’t say what he said he said. I think you probably know how those semantic games go.

      But yes it logically follows within Calvinism’s interpretation of the “divine potter” that he specifically designs “the many” for eternal torment.
      So yes Calvin’s god creates creatures specifically for sin, evil, and eternal torment – for his good pleasure – and for his glory.

      The average Bible believer does not see that *IMAGE* of divine character as consistent with scripture.
      But is is consistent with the element of moral dualism derived from Gnosticism and the element of determinism derived from NeoPlatonism. And these elements can be traced back to Augustinian syncretism.


Leave a Reply