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 Tom. I really like leeton flowers and his perspective on Calvinism. However, you’re app won’t let me play YouTube videos. When I click on a video it says that I don’t have the YouTube app installed, when I do have it on my phone. So, I uninstalled it and reinstalled it and the same pop-up appears. I don’t know what to do about it, can you help.
br.d
Hello Steve – it sounds like you are working with the Soterilogy 101 android app
I’m sorry to hear it does not correctly work for viewing Dr. Flower’s Youtube videos
It may be that others will find this as a problem also and the app will be updated
In the mean time you might try using the standard Youtube app and within that app subscribe to Dr. Flower’s channel
.
I apologize for the inconvenience!
.
br.d
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 some 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
Hi Bill, Lately, it seems to me like there’s a bunch of Calvinists who deconstruct from Calvinism and become atheists. I’m guessing it’s because they understand the horrible implications of what Calvinist theology really teaches when we carry it all out to its logical conclusions, or else they’re just so disgusted by what Calvi-god says and does and how untrustworthy he is, that they go “Well, if that’s the way God is, then why would I want a relationship with Him anyway?”
And that’s one reason I fight so hard against Calvinism (I am a long-time Christian, over 30 years) – because that’s not the way I see the God of the Bible. But sadly, Calvinists have been teaching “Calvinism is the gospel! It’s right from Scripture!” And so I think that since people don’t understand there is a difference – that Calvinism has hijacked the gospel and twists the Bible – they toss out God altogether, instead of taking the time to tease out and toss out just the Calvinism. It’s sad.
Thanks for commenting, Bill. Can I ask what intrigues you most about this whole thing (the video you watched – I haven’t seen it yet – and the debate over Calvinism)?
God bless. 😉
I can see a Calvinist respond to your specific comment “because that’s not the way I see the God of the Bible.”
With some snarky remark, “Well thats how YOU see it. I simply read scripture for what it is. Are you a better interpreter of the Bible than God?”
Like c’mon all things being equal you see scripture a certain way too. You’re just hiding behind the “Scripture for what it is” bit that I’ve grown tired of hearing.
br.d
Concerning the comment “I simply read scripture for what it is. Are you a better interpreter of the Bible than God?”
.
This comment has multiple problems.
1) For a person to say “I simply read scripture for what it is” is a very immature understanding of scripture.
.
Any person who claims they do not “INTERPRET” what they read is not being honest with themselves.
.
In Luke 10 – Jesus is talking with a lawyer (teacher of the law) and Jesus asks him 2 questions:
1) What does the text say?
2) How do you read it?
.
It should be obvious – Jesus places an emphasis in both of these questions.
Jesus’ 2nd question makes it obvious – different people are going to read scripture differently.
.
We human beings – interpret data in accordance to what we hold as unquestionable truth.
Years ago – people were taught the sun orbits around the earth.
So those people held that as unquestionable truth.
They are not going to interpret scripture as contradicting what they hold as unquestionable truth.
So that is going to strongly affect how they interpret the text.
.
.
But then this statement ‘Are you a better interpreter of scripture than God” is an idiotic question to ask
No Christian in his right mind is going to claim he does anything better than God.
The idea is totally absurd!!!
.
.
The foundational core of Calvinism – and that which separates it from all of its alternatives – is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvin’s doctrine of decrees.
.
The Calvinist mind becomes conditioned to hold EDD as unquestionable truth.
The Calvinist mind is quite naturally going to be looking for verses within scripture – to affirm what he holds as unquestionable truth.
.
For example – when the Calvinist reads “God works all things for the good” his mind is looking to affirm EDD (Exhaustive divine determinism).
.
What the Calvinist mind will do in this case – is interpret the word “works” as “Determined”
So the word “works” becomes synonymous with “Determines”
And this makes perfect sense to the Calvinist -because Calvin’s doctrine of decrees stipulates a god who “Determines all things”
.
However – this becomes a problem for the Calvinist.
Because “All things” includes sins and evils.
And since the Calvinist holds Calvin’s god “Determines ALL THINGS” it follows – he determines ALL sins and evils.
.
Now in order for Calvin’s god to “Determine” something – he must CONCEIVE it in his mind.
Thus it follows – ALL sins and evils are FIRST CONCEIVED in Calvin’s god’s mind – and them made to infallibly come to pass.
.
This brings up a problem for Calvinists which is called the AUTHOR OF EVIL problem.
.
And the AUTHOR OF EVIL problem is where you will find the Calvinist starting to play TAP-DANCE ROUTINES with words :-]
.
Blessings!
br.d
Hey all. First I want to say thank you for having this website. It’s been a great tool for me to understand the provisionist view.
I’m having a discussion with a “reformed” Christian who has told me the bible teaches predestination. As in God Chooses whom he saves. Verses he used Eph 1:4-5, John 8:44, John 6:44.
“Your own free will cannot draw to God period. There is no way around it.”
I used most of this sites articles to try to explain the context and more theologically sound meaning behind them.
And he responds with
“Simple question you are using scripture which is great but you are missing one thing are unbelievers taught by God? When Christ went into towns of unbelievers did he do miracles there, yes or no?”
I said yes to both questions. and he responds:
Show me scripture of Christ doing miracles for unbelievers please 🙏🏾
My question is: Where is he going with this question? Is it some kind of gotcha? He literally ignored all my reasoning about the book of John and just went straight to that reply. Not sure where to go from here. Should I continue the discussion or just leave it as it is?
br.d
Hello cjineda and welcome
.
I always hate to have to inform people like yourself – that “Reformed” Christians do not operate in honesty.
.
The “Reformed” doctrine evolved from John Calvin
So the term “Reformed” is simply *CLOAKED LANGUAGE* for Calvinism.
.
These people will sometimes try to tell you they are not followers of Calvin
But under scrutiny – you will find – they are in fact Calvinists – who simply are not honest enough to acknowledge it.
.
So there is a very critical issue of dishonesty that you have to be aware of with “Reformed” people.
.
They will *OBFUSCATE* critical aspects of the doctrine
These are aspects of the doctrine which they calculate if they *TOLD YOU TO TRUTH* about – you will reject it.
.
So you are dealing with a certain degree of dishonesty.
.
So let me tell you about the *FOUNDATIONAL CORE* of the doctrine.
.
1) The foundational core of Calvinism (aka Reformed) is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD)
as enunciated within Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
So in Calvinism (aka Reformed) you cannot have an impulse in your brain – unless that impulse is knowingly and willingly decreed.
.
Calvinist R.C. Sproul
-quote
If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God.
.
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but *EVERY TWIST AND TURN* of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
.
Calvinist Louis Berkhof
-quote
God is immediately operative in every act of the creature. Everything that happens from moment to moment is determined by the will of god – and in every instance the impulse to action precedes from god (Systematic Theology)
.
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
-quote
“God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives and actions”(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)
.
.
SO if a Calvinist (aka Reformed) person tries to tell you – the reason you do not read scripture the way he does – is because you don’t understand – or because you have been taught wrong – etc etc – he is lying to you.
.
In Calvinism (aka Reformed) the reason you do not read scripture the way he does – is because Calvin’s god decreed *THE PERCEPTIONS IN YOUR BRAIN* and he decree what you would perceive when you read scripture.
.
.
Now to your question
You will find Calvinists use *TALKING-POINTS* as a strategy to ensnare people.
So you are wise to suspect a Calvinist is using a question as a “gotcha”.
.
Concerning the question of Jesus doing miracles for unbelievers
.
Remember – the underlying doctrine stipulates – you cannot have an impulse in your brain unless Calvin’s god decrees it.
So for a Calvinist – a person cannot *BELIEVE* unless Calvin’s god decrees it.
A *BELIEF* impulse cannot come to pass within a person’s brain – unless Calvin’s god decrees it.
.
That is why that Calvinist is asking you that question.
.
Now for a NORMAL Christian – every human being has the capacity to believe things.
A baby learns – when it cries its mother will feed it.
That baby believes – when it cries its mother will feed it.
.
So for a NORMAL Christian – every human being is born with the capacity to believe things.
When that baby grows older it will believe other things.
At some point in its life – it will be introduced to the Gospel.
And at that point – it will have to make a choice about whether it will believe the Gospel.
.
But for the Calvinist – that person *CANNOT* believe unless Calvin’s god decrees that belief will come to pass within their brain.
.
Please feel free to return here with any other “gotcha” questions a Calvinist tries to trick you with.
.
We’ve been dealing with Calvinist tactics for a very long time!!!!
.
Blessings!
br.d
Thank you! I don’t know why I didn’t see your reply. The notification might have been sent to spam. Ironically the person I was talking to and I just agreed to disagree. Every time I answered a question, Another one came up and none of my rebuttal questions were answered. Best to leave it alone. Though for some reason they kept asserting that Jesus ONLY did miracles for believers. As Heather Mentioned like I did, He did miracles for the Pharisees.
I asked : My reverse ask to you. Is everyone who was healed by Jesus a believer?
he responded
“Yes! He commanded some he healed to not tell anyone while he told others to tell people. Even the ones who told not to tell anyone they did.
Pharisees and the Sadducees killed Christ therefore they were condemned like Judas except for the ones who were saved like Paul and others. When he went to places to heal and there was mostly unbelievers he would either heal a few or just leave. Places where there was unbelief is under God’s judgment”
I don’t know. The mental gymnastics was a bit too much for me. Then proceeded to tell me he’s going to MOODY Bible College. I just gave up on even trying to get any point across.
I could post the whole conversation but I think you have your hands full.
br.d
Hello Cris,
Yes – I totally agree with you concerning the mental gymnastics! :-]
.
But one of the things you may want to be much more aware of with Calvinists – is their use of language is quite often equivocal – and/or misleading.
.
For example – concerning the question of whether a person whom Jesus healed was a “believer”
The term “believer” in this case – can be interpreted as a “believer” in Jesus as the Messiah
And “believer” conversely may be interpreted as faith that Jesus can heal them.
Those would be two very different types of “believers”.
.
In Matthew 5 – a woman touches Jesus because she believes if she touches him – she will be healed.
And she is healed.
Jesus is surrounded by many people whom we would assume may be inadvertently coming into physical contact with him.
But when this woman touches him she is healed.
.
Jesus asks “Who touched me” because he knew someone had been healed.
She spoke up and acknowledged it was her.
Jesus said “Go in peace woman – your faith has made you whole”
So in this case – there is no indication that she believed Jesus as the Messiah
But she did believe that if she touched Jesus she would be healed.
So that is the extent of what the text tells us – concerning her belief.
.
Once you understand – how Calvinists tend to play games with words – you will eventually learn to be wearing in your conversations with them……. but that takes time, because as Christians we don’t normally anticipate other professing Christians are going to use language in a misleading manner.
.
So NON-Calvinists tend to not be suspicious and take Calvinist statements at face value.
But over time – one eventually learns Calvinist language is COSMETIC in nature.
In other words – it is language designed to create an *APPEARANCE* rather than language designed to tell the truth.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Hello, Cjineda, I’m not sure where he’s going with that. I’ve never heard a Calvinist make this the focus of their arguments. But yes, Christ did miracles for unbelievers. He did miracles in front of the Pharisees, who rejected Him and demonized him.
And in John 12:37, Jesus did miracles in front of people, and they still would not believe in Him. And this “would not” explains the “could not” in John 12:39. Because they would not believe in Jesus even after seeing the miracles, they were hardened and then could not believe. So don’t let Calvinists convince you that they could not believe because God hardened them first. No – first “they would not believe” (verse 37) which led to “they could not believe” (verse 39).
Matthew 11:20-24 even says that if He did miracles in wicked cities that were destroyed, the people of the wicked towns would have believed, unlike the Jews who resisted him despite seeing the miracles. This opposes Calvinist predestination.
Maybe ask him why this matters and what his point is. Let him explain first before you give an answer. YOU ask the questions, instead of just answering his that are intended to lead you to Calvinism.
Just an idea. God bless! 🙂
I tried. I really tried to ask. He only points to one question and proceeds to answer that. If I ask 3 clarifying questions only one gets answered. I Appreciate the reply.
He never revealed what angle he was getting at. He just found a question he could answer from a more “Calvinist” perspective and gave statements like:
It is not intention to prove you wrong or right. All I can do is speak the word of God by way of Christ. This isn’t about the elect per say its simple scripture reading and understanding. Christ did not do miracles because God’s judgement was on the unbelievers. Jesus also says…
“And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.””
Matthew 13:57 ESV
Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, and say, “Do not prophesy in the name of the LORD, or you will die by our hand”- (Jeremiah 11:21, ESV)
who say to the seers, “Do not see,” and to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us smooth things, prophesy illusions, (Isaiah 30:10, ESV)
I read my Bible with a commentary which I have been doing over 20 years. I also read books that give contextual information and references. It seems that you want to prove me wrong, if this is the case than you win.
I am also in seminary as well. I attend Moody Bible college where I am studying theological studies with the goal is becoming a professor.
br.d
There is another example to take into consideration concerning miracles.
The feeding of the loaves and fishes – is a miracle.
But it is not a miracle of healing of course.
But Jesus did perform a miracle for those people
.
Later Jesus would be followed by many of the same people
And Jesus told them – the only reason they followed him was he fed them with loaves and fishes.
.
Concerning an individual’s belief whom is healed.
We know at least that person did believe Jesus could heal them.
So to try and claim there is some other kind of belief would be going beyond what the text indicates.
.
blessings
br.d
Cris, Yes, God’s judgment is on unbelievers. But it’s because they harden their hearts against Him and resist Him, not because He created them to be some sort of non-elect.
Zechariah 7:11-13: “But they refused to pay attention; stubbornly they turned their backs and stopped up their ears. They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or [the Lord]. So the Lord Almighty was very angry. ‘When I called, they did not listen; so when they called, I would not listen,’ says the Lord Almighty.”
But of course, you won’t be able to get your friend to see that. And it sounds like you won’t be able to get him out of his echo-chamber either.
And like Brdmod said, Jesus did do miracles for unbelievers. He even did the ultimate miracle of rising from the dead and appearing to hundreds of people. And He even predicted to the Pharisees (those who don’t believe in Him) ahead of time that He would rise from the dead, so they should have believed it when they saw it come true. They had more than enough chance to see and admit the truth about Him. But no miracle is enough to cause someone to give up a belief they want to resolutely cling to. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
God bless!
So if we Support Dr. Flowers can we actually have chats with him or is he too busy with the YT channel and such?
I got the reply’s this time. I saw both from yours and Heathers. Thank you for the helpful insight!
Got another comment with another Calvinist. Was wondering if you have any insights to this.
“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,”
God works all things according to the counsel of his will.
I ask you how murder, rape or whatever other atrocity are not included in the statement “all things”
Acts chapter 4 details God sovereignty over those who crucified his Son. The crucifixion of His son was the worst act in history sins Jesus was/is the only sinless human to ever live unlike everyone else who was born a rebel.
“I am the Lord, and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the Lord do all these things”
The lord is sovereign over tragedy and natural evil.
Proverbs 16:4
The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble
The lord created wicked people for a purpose.
All things and I do mean all things in the end will bring Glory to God.
There are more verses and if you want more context watch the video but if you have an issue with God being Sovereign over everything I. Creation your problem is with scripture not me.
br.d
Hello Cris and welcome
.
As you may be aware – the foundational core of Calvinism is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvin’s doctrine of decrees
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
Consequently – the Calvinist is going to be searching scripture looking for any verse, which could possibly be construed in any way in order to affirm EDD.
.
This is why N.T. Wright makes the joke: Romans 9 has become Calvinism’s happy hunting ground! 😀
.
.
For any verse containing the word “Predestine” the Calvinist will AUTO-MAGICALLY assume a Calvinistic definition of that word.
.
However – Kevin Thompson on youtube (Beyond Fundamentals) has an excellent video in which he reviews every instance within scripture in which the word “Predestine” is used – and he is able to show how the Calvinist twists the definition of that word in order to make it *APPEAR* to be what the Calvinist wants it to be.
.
On the Calvinist reading of the verse “Works all things”
Obviously – the Calvinist is trying to make that verse affirm EDD (aka Determinism)
The way the Calvinist does that – is to redefine the word “Works” and make it synonymous with the word “Determines”
.
So for the Calvinist “Works” all things = “Determines” all things.
.
But this backfires on the Calvinist
1) Since Calvin’s god “Determines” all sins and evils
2) And since “Determines” equal “Works”
3) It logically follows – this makes all sins and evils the “Works” of Calvin’s god.
.
So you should be able to see how the Calvinist interpretation of that verse backfires on him.
.
Now on the last comment – If one has a problem with God being sovereign over everything they are having a problem with scripture
This argument commits a number of falsehoods:
.
1) The NON-Calvinist does not reject divine sovereignty as described within scripture
2) What the NON-Calvinist rejects – is Calvinism’s DISTORTED CONCEPTION of divine sovereignty
3) Which the Calvinist *SUPERIMPOSES* upon scripture
.
The Calvinist’s comment here also reveals the following:
1) He is unable to discern the difference between scripture and an INTERPRETATION of scripture
2) The Calvinist CANONIZES himself – by raising his INTERPRETATION of scripture up onto a pedestal – making it equal with scripture
.
This reveals the Calvinist has TWO CANONS.
1) He has the CANON of scripture
2) He has his own personal CANON which is his INTERPRETATION of scripture
.
In doing this – the Calvinist shows himself to be dishonest because he OBFUSCATES the fact that it is his INTERPRETATION that is the problem.
And by CANONIZING his (human) interpretation – he shows disrespect for scripture.
.
blessings
br.d
I responded something similar to this. I did use your previous comment and all I got was a 2 page long response that was just a quote from the WCF (I’m guessing Westminster Confession of Faith) About how God doesn’t create evil.
I have yet to respond. But I think the tap-dancing has begun.
br.d
Yes very insightful! :-]
You are correct!
.
You will notice the Calvinist confessions are created many years after Calvin’s death.
One would ask the question – what is the need for those confessions?
Why did different Calvinists feel the need to create representations of Calvinism when they already have the massive volumes of John Calvin’s writings?
.
The answer should become apparent.
In his day – John Calvin could not afford to back-pedal or be wishy-washy about the doctrine.
Consequently – Calvin’s writings are replete with *IN YOUR FACE* representations of divine malevolence which Calvin declares without flinching.
.
For example
John Calvin
-quote
Before men are born their LOT is assigned to each of them by the secret will of god. (Calvin’s Bible Commentaries, 262–263)
.
John Calvin
-quote
individuals are born….doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.(Institutes 3.23.6)
.
John Calvin
-quote
if he has DOOMED us to death, it is vain for us to fight against it. (Institutes 4.23:12)
.
.
You can understand – Calvinists throughout the years are not going to want to recommend people read John Calvin’s writings in order to understand what Calvinism is – because people are going to see those *IN YOUR FACE* declarations of divine malevolence and they will find Calvinism to be a doctrine of “Good-Evil”.
.
The confessions – as you insightfully point out – are part of the Calvinist TAP-DANCE routine :-]
Trying to apply COSMETIC MASKS over the face of “Good-Evil”
.
Blessings!
Part of the reply in that WCF mentions “Secondary Causes”
WCF 5.2 Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly (Acts 2:23), yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently (Gen 8:22; Exod 21:13 with Deut 19:5; 1 Kings 22:28, 34; Isa 10:6-7; Jer 31:35).
God, as the primary and efficient cause of all things, is not only the Author of those actions done by His elect as actions, but also as they are good actions, whereas, on the other hand, though He may be said to be the Author of all the actions done by the wicked, yet He is not the Author of them in a moral and compound sense as they are sinful; but physically, simply and sensu diviso [1] as they are mere actions, abstractedly from all consideration of the goodness or badness of them
br.d
Hello Cris and welcome.
.
Concerning secondary causes – it is critical to recognize – there is no such thing as a secondary cause without an antecedent cause which causes the secondary cause.
.
A secondary cause does not exist or happen by itself – nor does it initiate itself.
.
Additionally – in Calvinism – as events occur through a causal chain – each link (i.e event) within that chain is directly touched by Calvin’s god – and enabled with the attribute of infallibly – which can only come from Calvin’s god – in order to *MAKE* each event within every causal chain occur infallibly.
.
For example – Calvin’s god decrees Calvinist_A will violently rape and murder an 8 year old girl at TIME-T.
.
1) The event of Calvinist_A violently raping that 8 year old girl at TIME-T is *FIRST CONCEIVED* in the mind of Calvin’s god.
.
2) After having been *CONCEIVED* in Calvin’s god’s mind – a sinful/evil impulse is then *MADE* to infallibly come to pass within Calvinist_A’s brain – by an infallible decree which grants NO ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
.
3) Thus – the *FIRST CAUSE* is the infallible decree which functions as the antecedent cause to the sinful/evil impulse that will be infallibly produced within Calvinist_A’s brain.
.
4) The rest of the chain of events from there – would include the impulse within Calvinist_A’s brain causing the movements of Calvinist_A’s body. But every movement of Calvinist_A’s body is meticulously predetermined by the decree and cannot be other than that which was decreed.
.
5) Calvinist_A’s brain a body function as an instrument of performance for Calvin’s god who *MAKES* every movement of Calvinist_A’s body occur with infallible exactness. Each movement of violence divinely endowed with the attribute of infallibly.
.
So Calvin’s god is the AUTHOR – and the ORIGINATOR – and the PRODUCER (in the sense of a theater) of the event.
And Calvinist_A is the actor – performing the event on Calvin’s god’s behalf.
.
And since the infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees – it follows – Calvinist_A is not granted a CHOICE in the matter – simply because an infallible decree infallibly excludes all ALTERNATIVES. Thus ALTERNATIVES do not exist for man to choose.
.
In Calvinism – for every human event – and every human impulse – there is never granted more than *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION*
.
And man is granted NO SAY and NO CHOICE in the matter of what that option will be.
And man is granted no ability to refrain.
.
Blessings
br.d
For your interview with Prof. Brian Wagner about the “book of life”:
There is a very good Bible teacher in Switzerland, Dr. Roger Liebi, and he teaches, that calvinism is not biblical.
But about the Book of life he says, that the name of every person is written in it since the beginning of the world (Ps 69, Phil 4,3, Rev 13,8…). However, an unbelieving person is deleted from the Book of life, at the latest at death.
Dr. Liebi therefore has a different explanation than Prof. Wagner.
Rev 13,8 und 17,8 says: “from the foundation of the world”.
And comparable to other verses as Matth 25,35 and Hebr. 4,3 this is a status with implications to the present or the futur.
I personally think that the understanding about the Book of Life is very important in relation to Calvinism.
Thank you and many greetings from Elisa, Germany.
Hello Elisa and welcome
br.d
Hi Elisa! We will find out for sure how to take Rev 13:8 and 17:8 when Jesus returns, but when you look more carefully at those verses, I think your view, and that of Liebi, does not fit. Each of those verses are about those presently (in John’s future vision) who are following the beast. In other words, they are alive when they are being described by John in those verses. But those verses say their names were not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. According to your view they would still need to be there, right?
Also, if “from the foundation of the world” is about the writing of names, then these people never had their names written in that book since the dawn of creation. Grammatically that is possible, and I have taught that view. Remember that I hold there is another book of the living. And their names will be in that one when they are born in the future and removed from it when they die. But I am now leaning towards the view that “from the foundation of the world” is a phrase just modifying “book”, in the sense that the book has existed from the foundation of the world.
So the idea would be – Revelation 17:8 NKJV – “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell [are dwelling at that time] on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written [have not been written] in the Book of Life [which has existed] from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
More importantly we do both agree that Calvinism is wrong about the Book of Life of the Lamb!
Hello. I’m one of those who “stumbled” upon Dr. Flowers and have come to very much enjoy his clarity and style and gracious demeanor with those he disagrees with. I used to joke that I was a “six-point Calvinist.” But the truth is, I’m not sure I was ever even truly a five-point Calvinist…and I’m not sure how much I agree with any of the points completely. Finding Dr. Flowers wasn’t so much finding someone teaching me something new as it was confirming more and more what I found myself suspecting were some of the deficits of Calvinism. The reason for this note is I just made a donation via paypal. It says paypal “takes a percentage” but it doesn’t say how much. Wen I went to their site, it didn’t list any charge as long as it’s directly from a bank account — which it was. I’d like to become a regular supporter but I also want to make sure all of the donation reaches the ministry. Can you clarify if there’s a charge using paypal? I know other methods are listed but I’m always a little wary of platforms I’m not aware of, plus I already have a paypal account. I’d be happy to mail a check in the future if that’s best but if paypal gets all the money to the ministry, that’s certainly more convenient and gets the funds to you sooner and more efficiently. Thanks for any insight you can give and thanks and Merry Christmas to you all!
Hello David and welcome
Let me ask Brian to respond to your question about paypal and support.
And thank you very much for the kind well wishes!!!
Merry Christmas to you
Blessings!
br.d
David,
Have you see the SOT101 support page?
We do not normally allow web-links within posts
But in this case – I think it can be allowed for me to provide that link for you
https://soteriology101.com/support/
Let me know if that helps
Blessings
br.d
Good day,
Can someone list historical figures that held the provisionist view and link their resource?
br.d
Hello Joseph and welcome
.
I will ask Brian if he will get back to you with this question.
However – I think some people – when they hear the word “Provisionism” assume that it is something unique.
.
Actually it is simply to point out – that God provides what we need in order to make choices which have critical consequences.
.
An example of this concept can be found in a historical poem by Annie Johnson Flint (1866 – 1932)
.
He giveth more grace as our burdens grow greater,
He sendeth more strength as our labors increase;
To added afflictions He addeth His mercy,
To multiplied trials He multiplies peace
.
When we have exhausted our store of endurance,
When our strength has failed ere the day is half done,
When we reach the end of our hoarded resources
Our Father’s full giving is only begun.
.
His love has no limits, His grace has no measure,
His power no boundary known unto men;
For out of His infinite riches in Jesus
He giveth, and giveth, and giveth again.
.
Blessings!
br.d
Hi Joseph! I’m assuming you might believe in Sola Scriptura. If you do then the answer to your question is Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Barnabas, James, Peter, Jude and their writings. 😃
Do you sell the poster? I would like to buy one for my office, however I don’t see where I could purchase one.
Hello John and welcome
What poster are you referring to?
.
Blessings
br.d
Is there a good study guide or book we can use in a small group environment for theology or basic doctrines from the traditional perspective. The reformed church’s use “the Christian life” or “every man is a theologian”. Is there something comparable for the typical southern baptist?
Hello Logan and welcome
.
Let me ask Brian to address this question.
He will give you the best possible answer.
.
blessings
br.d
Hi Logan. I haven’t read this, but I believe Adrian Rogers was a strong traditionalist. https://a.co/d/cfk0rqJ
I’m writing here, because I can’t find a better place:
Dear Brother Flowers,
I am writing to you from Argentina. I follow your videos and have been an independent Baptist pastor for 17 years. I am also a historian, married to Becky, an MK.
My intention is to translate your videos into Spanish with subtitles. Nowadays, this can be done easily with AI. Here in Argentina, Calvinist Baptists are causing quite a stir because the preaching in many non-Calvinist Baptist churches is very weak. Meanwhile, these brothers have strong preachers and a strong presence on YouTube. And many people is looking for a good preachers.
The book I have written is *The YouTube Calvinists*.
I am translating your videos step by step. I will upload the translations to YouTube, and I kindly ask you to share an email where I can send you the link.
Yours, in Christ.
Blessings,
Jose Nunez
Hello Jose and welcome
Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule – is not here to interact with people.
But I will convey your request to see if someone working with Dr. Flowers can get back to you.
Sincere thanks
br.d
I want to change my monthly donation date to the 1st of each month. How do I do that?
Don’t like Patreon or PayPal…can you set up direct credit card contributions?
Richard Anderson
503.349.0674
Bigrich104@Hotmail.com
Hello Richard and welcome
We will relay your request to Dr. Flower’s team.
I would anticipate they will get back to you.
Sincere thanks!
Blessings
br.d
Thank you, Dr Flowers, for your video “De-Calvinizing Ephesians 1”.
Hello Kathy and welcome
Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule – is not able to be here to interact with posters
However – if you are on Facebook – you my find him there.
And also – interact with him via his Youtube channel
.
Sincere thanks!
And blessings :-]
br.d
Hi,
Over the past few years (not full time) I have read the Early Church Fathers. All of them with in a generation or so of the Apostles taught free will, even fighting a form of Predestination based upon Fatalism. They also spoke of Romans 9, and how it was a picture of the Gentiles being given the birthright that was once exclusive to the Jews.
It led me to write a book, which I made a free resource online
You can google for my book by googling the text “The Way and Free Will”
It is located at “Everybody Matters Ministry”
I thought as a ministry you may be interested in those sections of the book. The rest is just normal ramblings.
Hello Robert and welcome
We removed the link within your post – per our policy.
.
Sincere thanks
And blessings
.
br.d
Hi, there. I have a question. I recently watched a debate with Dr. William Craig Lane and James White on the topic of Molinism and Calvinism.
I’m fairly new to Molinism and have tried to understand whether it’s biblical or not. I tried to look on your website to see if you supported this (Molinism) and couldn’t find an answer.
I have been to the Society of Evangelical Armenians website and some seem to disagree with Molinism, not being compatible with a libertarian free will.
If Molinism is not biblical, can you point me to an article, video, etc on its positions and refutations. Thanks
— Donnie
Hello Donnie and welcome
.
Dedicated Calvinists – of course – have to say Libertarian states of affairs do not exist within creation.
For example – a Libertarian CHOICE would entail the ability to DO OTHERWISE
And of course – for the Calvinist – everything is infallibly fated by an infallible decree – which does not grant anything within creation to BE OTHERWISE or DO OTHERWISE.
.
In Calvinism – there is no such thing as an ALTERNATIVE from that which has been decreed
.
As Peter Van Inwagen states:
-quote
Determinism is the thesis that at any instance in time – there is only *ONE* physically possible future.
.
So in Calvinism – for every human event – and every human impulse – the infallible decree never grants more than *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION*
.
The man is granted NO SAY in the matter of what that option will be
And no ability to refrain.
.
So the person dedicated to Calvinism is going to say Molinism cannot be Biblical.
.
However – there are Calvinists who have transitioned to Molinism because of problems they find within their own belief system – and Molinism provides an answer for them
.
The the *MOST CRITICAL* thing to understand – is that every person who holds to the THEORETICAL position that Libertarian CHOICE does not exist – lives *AS-IF* it does.
.
For example – every Calvinist – on a moment-by-moment basis – goes about his life:
1) *AS-IF* ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS exist
2) *AS-IF* he is granted CHOICE between them – and
3) *AS-IF* that CHOICE was *UP TO* him.
.
All of which are complete contradiction to the Calvinist’s belief system.
.
So every Calvinist asserts Exhaustive divine determinism is TRUE while living *AS-IF* it isn’t
And every Calvinist asserts Libertarian CHOICE does not exist – while living *AS-IF* it does.
.
And that brings us to your question about it being Biblical
Since the Calvinist lives the opposite of what his doctrine stipulates – can that be considered Biblical?
.
The Bible would describe that as double-mindedness
.
.
Dr. Craig would appreciate you asking the question you ask.
And he would say – Molinism is a THEORY just as Calvinism is a THEORY
.
According to Molinist authors – Luis de Molina looked at the fact that all people assume ALTERNATIVES exist within creation – and assume they are granted CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES
.
Thus Molina realized people behave *AS-IF* Libertarian states of affairs do exist.
.
Molinists today are of course going to insist they find plenty of affirmation within scripture.
They would otherwise not have a Biblical basis for their belief.
.
A few key scriptural references which the Molinist will site include
– 1 Samuel 23 (David at Keilah)
God reveals what would happen if David remained
A classic example of knowledge of counterfactuals (middle knowledge)
.
Matthew 11:21–24 (Chorazin, Bethsaida, Tyre, Sidon, Sodom)
Jesus states, “if … had been done in X, they would have repented,”
Signaling divine knowledge of what *WOULD* occur under hypothetical circumstances
.
John 18:36, Matthew 26:24 & John 15:22,24
Subjunctive “if‑then” statements hint at God’s awareness of possible outcomes
.
You might find further information on Molinism in wikipedia.
.
I apologize we did not have more for you on this subject.
.
Blessings
br.d
No, no. I appreciate all that you said. Thank you so much and quick responding might I add!
Reading through the multiple comments in this section – this seems to be a good place to ask this question (I hope)! Through the works of Dr. Michael Heiser and Leighton Flowers, I have totally moved away from any points of reformed/Calvanistic theology. My question is – now what do I do with all these books that I’ve had from many of the authors who teach/promote that theology? I feel somewhat “guilty” for throwing them away, yet at the same time, I don’t want to think that someone else will pick up a book (not that they can’t somewhere else) and be led down that path, if I donate them somewhere. What would you do??
Hello Jeanne
I totally understand!
A number of years ago I purchased a book which was advertised within the Christian market – under the category of “Christian Growth”
As I started to read it – I started getting a slight sense of hero worship
At that time – the name of John Calvin was just a scant historical reference
But his name kept coming up – at first with slight comments of adoration regarding him.
I found this to be a contradiction to “Christian Growth” because the respecting of persons and worship of man is the antithesis of “Christian Growth”
But as the reading continued the hero worship increased – until it made me sick to my stomach.
I did burn that book.
.
Blessings
br.d
Welcome Jeanne! You might want to hold on to any reference works or commentaries, especially if the authors were Evangelical. There is probably some thoughts in them in spite of their faulty foundational thinking from Reformed theology. But you can always donate them to a Christian college, which needs such variety of books to help the students (hopefully) develop their skill of critical thinking.
I chuckle a bit with this. Sorry … it is hard to burn books. How about doing your own written commentary within the book and adding links to soteriology 101 : ) and then gifting to your favorite charity.
Are there any churches or congregations in San Diego, CA that you can recommend visiting?
Hello Philip and welcome
Lets see if anyone here may be able to answer that question
.
Blessings!
br.d
Sorry, Philip. Don’t know of any… but you should be able to find a Calvary Chapel congregation. The larger the better, usually. Brian
I can’t help Philip either, but I do have a question regarding the Exodus. Did God provide the Egyptians a “way” to avoid the killing of the firstborn during the Exodus of chapter 12? I’m not finding it, but wondering if it’s stated anywhere else whereby the Egyptians could have “by faith” put the blood on their doorposts to demonstrate belief. Calvinists use this chapter as a proof-text to substantiate limited atonement. The provision was only made for the Israelites or the “chosen,” they say.
Hi Shelly! It would be reasonable to think some Egyptians heard what the Israelites were doing concerning the Passover. But the Passover in Egypt didn’t save anyone’s soul from their sins! But it certainly did convince many non-Israelites to join them as they left Egypt, and I’m guessing there were many who didn’t leave who started to believe YHWH was the one true God.
Exodus 12:38 NKJV — A mixed multitude went up with them also, and flocks and herds—a great deal of livestock.
Thank you Brian for your response! My husband and I greatly enjoy your online discussions with Leighton Flowers. Thank you for including the 12:38 verse. We know that God is merciful and the expression of love. I guess we just get so weary of reformed theologians inserting their doctrine or presuppositions on the text to support TULIP!!! yikes…at any rate we’re trying to spread the word…Read the text…observe what it says!!!
Thank you, Shelly, for the encouraging words. Yes, reformed teachers like to insert their theology into any Bible passage they think the wording might just hint in their direction. Of course, they try to ignore the clear verses that contradict their theology.
Is a Calvinist willing to answer these questions?! Was the Day of Atonement in the OT for everyone in that group or just for some? And was everyone in Israel provided that atonement to believe in or not? All in Israel weren’t already saved, were they?
[Lev 16:29-30, 34 NKJV] 29 “[This] shall be a statute forever for you: In the seventh month, on the tenth [day] of the month, you shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, [whether] a native of your own country or a stranger who dwells among you. 30 For on that day [the priest] shall make atonement for you, to cleanse you, [that] you may be clean 👉from all your sins👈 before the LORD. … 34 “This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel, 👉for all their sins👈, once a year.” And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.
This passage does not support the Calvinist false doctrine of limited atonement, but rather the Provisionist doctrine of a provided universal atonement, whose benefits must be received through faith.
Hi.
I have question: how people before CHRIST were saved?
Hello – PIOTR and welcome
Lets see if Brian has an answer for you.
.
blessings
br.d
Proof again, BrD… through email conversation with Piotr, that it’s hard to hold a good conversation with someone whose fingers are in their ears and who do not want to discuss specific Scriptures. Very sad!
Yes – people often reach conclusions that they *WANT* to reach
They do not examine the evidence – and let facts lead to where they lead
.
The facts get in the way of what they want :-]
.
We humans are often more driven by emotions than we are by rational reasoning.
When that is the case “Examine all things and hold fast to the truth” is not something we have the capacity to do.
.
Thank you Brian!!
Dr Flowers,
I have watched a lot of your stuff and thank you for all that you do.
I have been meaning to write this for a while but life is really busy. May I be so bold as to suggest one area I think you might want to explore, and I haven’t come across on your videos? It is that:
– Calvinism serves as a major Jewish objection to Yeshua, Jesus –
Dr Etan Bar wrote a book about this, following from Dr Brown’s 5 volumes.
Why did God ask the Jewish people to sacrifice 70 bulls for the nations at Sukkot if he only had a minority in mind?
Why does God ask people to Shuv if we/they never had the ability to?
There’s Shabbat Shuvah between the Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur?
…etc
To convey Yeshua being the promised redeemer, the Apostles only argued the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogues (Mark 1:1-2). This stuff goes way beyond the new covenant, and the Apostles and we should be able to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of Calvinism from the foundational text we’ve been given. There are no new concepts in the new covenant but ‘the prophets ONLY prophesied for the days of the Mashiach’. ( Sanhedrin 99a/Talmud)
I think it might be a worthwhile area to explore and maybe contact Etan to discuss the possibility of doing something together. As Etan was a Calvinist too, it’ll be worthwhile doing your research/due diligence and defining boundaries so everyone knows what they’re getting.
One of the goals of ‘foolish gentiles’ (Deut 32v21/Rom 10v19) is to make the Jewish people jealous, how can we make them jealous with a doctrine that bears a false witness to the truth of Yeshua (Jh 18v37). If Jesus came to bear witness of His Truth/Torah, this presupposes someone lied.
Where is the protology of Calvinism in the Hebrew scriptures? Calvinism is not only wrong in the new covenant, it was not what God instituted in the last parshat of the Torah, and the entire Hebrew scriptures…in my humble opinion:-)
Please feel free (I would prefer) to delete this message after reading it.
May the truth of Christ be the only motivation we have.
God bless you,
Shola
Hello Shola and welcome – and Shalom!
.
I really enjoyed your post!
.
Unfortunately – Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule – is not able to interact with posters here at SOT101
But if you are a Face Book user – you may readily find him there.
.
I personally enjoyed your questions because they are logical/rational questions
And IMHO this is where Calvinism breaks down – because the more you discover about the foundational core of Calvinism (which is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM) the more you discover it to be a self-refuting belief system.
.
The Calvinist – per the doctrine – has no way of knowing if anything he perceives is TRUE
.
According to the doctrine:
1) A perception cannot exist or happen within the human brain – unless that perception was decreed
2) The decree is infallible – and does not grant anything within creation to be OTHER than what it was decreed to be
3) Both FALSE as well as TRUE beliefs and perceptions are decreed to exist within every human brain
4) The decree being infallible – cannot be counteracted
5) If the human brain were to DISCERN a FALSE belief as FALSE – doing so would counteract the decree
6) As long as the decree stands – the brain will not be able to DISCERN the belief as FALSE
.
CONCLUSION:
Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees stipulates the human brain is never granted the ability to discern FALSE beliefs – at pain of counteracting an infallible decree.
.
.
You can start to see how Calvin’s theology breaks down and essentially destroys itself.
.
This is why we observe the Calvinist’s *PRACTICAL LIVING* in contradiction to his belief system.
.
The Calvinist – in order to retain a sense of human normalcy – must lives *AS-IF* his belief system is FALSE.
.
Once we understand the underlying foundation – and understand how it destroys itself – then we understand the dilemma the Calvinist embraces.
And we can have compassion for people like Calvinists and Jehovah’s Witnesses etc – who fall into theological traps.
.
.
Blessings!
br.d
I so appreciate your videos Dr Flowers. Unfortunately we had to leave a church that was openly teaching Calvinism when they hadn’t before. After speaking with the Pastor, we knew we had to leave. We are now in a great provisionist church.
I want to teach a Bible study on John with the women in my community that is non Calvinist. It has been very difficult to find one. I would like it to be simple enough for nonbelievers to understand. Do you have
some recommendations for non Calvinist studies? Thank you for any help you can give me. Doreen
Hello Doreen and welcome
.
Thank you for your wonderful testimony.
.
Dr. Flowers – due to his schedule – is not able to respond to posters here.
But if you are a face-book user -you may find him there.
.
Concerning your question – let me ask Brian if he will respond.
.
The Lord has obviously blessed you with wisdom to see that is happening – especially in regard to “COVERT” Calvinism.
The Lord continue to bless you – and increase you in knowledge and wisdom.
.
blessings
br.d
Hello br.d and Doreen,
I also have been caught up in a calvinist Church takeover which ended up with my writing a book on the experience. Perhaps this could help you Doreen. The title is Chronicles of Calvington and just released on Amazon. Prof Brian who chats often in this group even helped with some of the Greek 🙂
And br.d… I greatly appreciate your comments and you’re managing of this chat. Should you have time and interest, I would cherish a review.
br.d
Thank you Larry!!
.
I just purchased the kindle version of the book
And it looks like it will be an enjoyable read! 😀
.
Hats off to you for publishing a book!!!!!
.
blessings!
br.d
If pastors are preaching Calvinism covertly, that should be a HUGE RED FLAG to that pastor that it is wrong doctrine!
br.d
Hello Diana – you would be surprised at the amount of justifications that can happen!
.
A few years ago there was a controversy over a group of churches which were experiencing dishonesty by reformed pastors in applications for non-reformed congregations.
.
This group put out a plea – begging reformed ministries to please be honest about their theology and not try to deceive congregations.
.
I remember one reformed ministry responding and saying “The true gospel does not come without controversy”
.
This was his way of communicating – reformed ministries find ways to justify dishonesty.
.
A great deal of the “COVERT” nature of the dishonesty – is the use of “CLOAKED” language.
.
It has consistently been observed – Calvinists have the same vocabulary as normal Christians – but they do not have the same dictionary.
.
For example – the term “Permission” is from the Latin “permettere” which is defined as: To let pass, to let go, to let loose, to give up, to hand over.
.
All of those meanings are ANATHEMA in Calvinism – and yet Calvinists will use “Permission” language – knowing they are misleading their audience – knowing their audience understands “Permission” according to its standard commonly understood meaning – which is ANATHEMA in Calvinism.
.
Another example – are statements which strongly infer humans are granted CHOICE or AUTONOMY.
.
Once again – the Calvinist is aware these statements are designed to mislead people who are unaware of the idiosyncratic nature of Calvinsit language.
.
So Calvinists are fully aware that they use language that is designed to mislead people.
.
But as you can see from the example above – they simply find ways to justify various forms of dishonesty.
.
WHAT IS ALTRUISTIC DISHONESTY:
Dr. Bella Depaulo Social Scientist, in her book: The Hows and Whys of Lies
-quote
“Altruistic dishonesty occurs when a person is working to protect a ‘target’. A high percentage of people who rationalize the use of dishonest language, experience some sub-level degree of discomfort, but which is effectively outweighed by rationalizations. And they generally do not regard their lies as lies. And this is especially true with people who are working to protect a ‘target’.”
These are called “other-oriented” or “altruistic” dishonesties. Protecting the ‘target’ allows them to perceive themselves as honest rather than dishonest. For the sake of protecting the ‘target,’ a high percentage report they would have felt worse if they had been honest, because honesty would have revealed things about the “target” they do not want people to see.”
.
.
A battered wife may choose to restrain herself from communicating anything that may paint her husband in a bad light – even if she knows what she is communicating is false rather than truth-telling. She is simply protecting the ‘target.’
.
How much more would a Calvinist refrain from communicating anything that would in any way reflect badly on his god or his gospel. He would feel worse if his language were truth-telling – because it would reveal things about the ‘target’ he doesn’t want people to see.
.
.
blessings
br.d
Thank you, Brian, for this thorough and informative explanation. It makes me wonder why more of them don’t eventually see the misinterpretations and feel angry about the way it is done!!! We NEED to be bereans! We need to be hungry for the truth and diligently seek it. God honors that and gives wisdom when asked.
God bless this ministry!!!
Diana
Actually, Diana, Br.D is not me! 🙂
Hi Diana – its br.d here
.
There are here and there – some people within the Calvinist fold who eventually start to break out of the system.
.
But there are characteristics of the system which make that very difficult based on the nature of the doctrine.
.
For example – the Calvinist social structure has its own unique value system – and is often identified as a “CLOSED” system of logic.
.
Within the value system – for example – certain forms of honesty are deemed sinful – while certain forms of dishonesty are deemed pious.
.
There was an exchange for example between Calvinist James White – and Dr. Timothy Stratton.
Dr. Stratton – unpackaged Calvinism’s doctrine of decrees and what it stipulates.
.
Parts of what Dr. Stratton unpackaged were recognized by James White as unpalatable to any believer – and were specific to Calvinism as consequences of what the doctrine stipulates.
.
James White’s response – was that Dr. Stratton should repent.
.
In such case – speaking the truth – because it is unpalatable to the Calvinist is deemed a sin.
.
On the other hand – withholding the truth – would be deemed and act of piety.
.
So you can see the Calvinist social structure has its own unique value system – where certain behaviors which OUTSIDE of Calvinism would be identified as Christian honesty – are WITHIN Calvinism deemed as sins.
.
.
It has been observed for many years – the issue of questioning the doctrine is highly problematic.
.
The doctrine stipulates – a person’s faith has to be given to them by supernatural divine decree.
.
Questioning the doctrine is identified as a manifestation of a lack of faith.
.
Lack of faith is identified as a manifestation that the individual is NOT-Elect – and therefore doomed for eternal torment in the lake of fire.
.
You can understand – the pressure for conformity this puts upon all Calvinist believers.
.
The Apostle Paul instructs the believer to “Examine All things – and hold fast to the good”
.
It is impossible to “Examine” something without questioning it.
.
But that is FORBIDDEN in Calvinism – because any sign of questioning the doctrine – serves as an indicator that the individual is not elect – and that individual is likely to be shunned by the congregation and may be subject to church discipline – where they are excommunicated temporarily until they publicly repent.
.
IMHO: There is a form of mental ensnarement at work.
.
blessings
br.d
Amen, Brian! A feeling of arrogance at work!
Diana, I think you meant that “Amen” for Br.D. 🙂
Hi Brian, thank you for responding. I believe you missed the last part of my message. I will paste it here. Thanks.
I want to teach a Bible study on John with the women in my community that is non Calvinist. It has been very difficult to find one. I would like it to be simple enough for nonbelievers to understand. Do you have
some recommendations for non Calvinist studies? Thank you for any help you can give me. Doreen
Hi Doreen… Jensen’s Bible studies for each book are good, imo. I have 3 Bible Studies in John’s Gospel that I use with unbelievers. They can be found here – https://www.academia.edu/attachments/56959888/download_file?s=portfolio
Thank you Brian!
Hi, I have a family member who is Calvinist but I am not. He was recently talking about how my parents love Calvinist teachers (Vody, MacAurther, Piper, Huff ect) but how its funny that they don’t ascribe to the calvinistic theology. I said, “well they’re very good teachers. Their sermons are so intelligent and just meaty”. And he replied “yeah, it’s kind of like that scripture that says they’ll be known by their fruit” which essentially he’s saying that’s how you know Calvinism is correct because the preaching that comes out of the Calvinist theology is so deeply and beautifully taught. I just didn’t know how to answer him. Can you help me answer that statement? I’m going through the potters promise and I’m learning more about Calvinism and I know I’ll never out debate him or convince him, I’m just trying to have an answer for why I don’t ascribe to the Calvinist theology when or if I’m ever asked.
Hello Kate and welcome
.
There is a phenomenon with all Calvinists – but especially with Calvinist pastors and teachers
Calvinist – especially current day Calvinists – do not live congruently with their doctrine.
.
John Calvin – during his day – was the sole promoter and defender of his doctrine.
He understood – he could not afford to back-pedal or be wishy-washy about his doctrine – because people would not take him seriously.
.
Consequently – Calvin’s writings are saturated with *IN YOUR FACE* declarations of divine malevolence.
.
Calvin’s god – creates the vast majority of the total human population – specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure.
.
John Calvin
-quote
by the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the reason does not appear, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
.
Calvin’s god also creates a large percentage of believers for the lake of fire – also for his good pleasure.
These believers are called CHAFF believers – whom Calvin’s god deceives – giving them FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation – which he does not permit them to discern.
.
John Calvin
-quote
But the Lord….instills into their minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
.
-quote
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
-quote
A small and contemptible number are hidden within a huge multitude.
A few grains of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff.
We must leave to god alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation is his SECRET election. (Institutes 4.1.4)
.
.
You should be able to see why Calvinist pastors and teacher are not going to be congruent with the doctrine.
.
Calvinists will go around calling their doctrine a *DOCTRINE OF GRACE* when the TRUTH is – it is predominantly a doctrine of *GOOD-EVIL*
.
Whenever you hear a Calvinist calling it a *DOCTRINE OF GRACE* you know that Calvinist is being taught a white-washed version of the doctrine.
.
That is why pastors like Vody, and MacAurther, and Piper etc are as popular as they are today.
.
They do not preach or teach *TRUE* Calvinism.
They understand – the more *TRUE* Calvinism they teach – the smaller their congregations will be.
.
There is video on Youtube where Piper is commending MacAurthor for his ministry.
Piper in his commendations to MacAurthor commends him for *OBFUSCATING* his Calvinism in order to increase his popularity.
They are not even ashamed of it.
.
When I look at youtube videos of Vody, and MacAurther and Piper – and I look at the Titles of their teachings I see *DENIALS* of *TRUE* Calvinism.
.
That is the reason they are so popular.
.
.
blessings!
br.d
The Calvinist’s Need and Use of Cosmetic Language
.
Cosmetics, whether physical or linguistic, serve two essential functions:
.
1) Concealment: They hide features that would provoke rejection, discomfort, or negative judgment if left fully visible.
.
2) Social Calibration: They create an appearance calculated to be acceptable, intelligible, or reassuring to others within a given social context.
.
.
These functions are not about deception, but about managing visibility in order to preserve social viability.
What cannot be comfortably seen must be softened, reframed, or hidden.
.
Exhaustive Divine Determinism and Human Normalcy
.
Calvinism grounds itself in Exhaustive Divine Determinism (EDD): the belief that God infallibly decrees every impulse and perception within the human brain prior to human existence. The direct implications of this doctrine are the complete eradication of alternative possibilities. At no moment could reality have unfolded otherwise than it does.
.
For every human event, and every human impulse, the decree never grants more than one single predestined rendered-certain option. And man is granted no say in the mater of what that option will be, and no ability to refrain.
.
This creates a profound tension with normal human cognition. Human beings universally experience themselves as:
– Facing genuine alternative options
– Deliberating between possible courses of action
– Making choices between alternative options which appear as real
– The ability to have been or done otherwise than what we did
.
.
Under Exhaustive Divine Determinism (EDD), these experiences are not merely limited or imperfect—they are infallibly decreed false perceptions.
.
This represents a radical departure from ordinary human self-understanding. It implies that what feels like choice-making, deliberation, and moral agency are in fact, infallibly decreed illusions.
.
.
THE SOCIAL COST OF OWNING TRUE CALVINISM
.
The Calvinist’s Deterministic belief-system – if clearly recognized – is guaranteed to provoke immediate resistance and rejection from most people.
.
Calvinists intuitively recognize this social and psychological cost.
The belief system, if left unadorned, appears profoundly abnormal.
.
LINGUISTIC COSMETICS IN CALVINIST REPRESENTATIONS
.
To manage this tension, Calvinism employs what can be called cosmetic language.
This language functions in the same way physical cosmetics do.
.
1. Concealment:
Calvinist language conceals the denial of alternative possibilities by avoiding direct statements of its implications.
Instead of saying that no genuine choices ever occur, Calvinists speak of:
– “Choosing according to one’s desires”
– “Doing what one most wants”
– “God not forcing, but ordaining”
.
These expressions are designed to hide the fact that alternatives do not actually exist for people to choose.
All impulses within the human brain (desires etc) are infallibly predetermined, and no alternative impulses or possibilities were ever actually available.
.
.
2. Social Calibration
At the same time, Calvinist language is calibrated to mimic libertarian freedoms and libertarian human functions.
.
Phrases such as:
– “We are not robots”
– “Human responsibility remains intact”
– “People freely reject God”
.
create an appearance of normal moral agency. This makes the system sound compatible with everyday intelligible reasoning, even though its metaphysical commitments deny the foundations of that reasoning.
.
WHY COSMETIC LANGUAGE IS NECESSARY
Calvinism’s use of cosmetic language is not incidental or merely rhetorical. It is structurally necessary.
Without it:
– Moral exhortation loses coherence
– Pastoral care becomes unintelligible
– Human responsibility becomes something assigned to a person before that person exists
.
.
The maintenance of the Calvinist’s belief system depends on borrowing the language of choice, responsibility, and deliberation – while Calvinism’s divine sovereignty infallibly eradicates the existence of those very things.
.
CONCLUSION
Just as physical cosmetics hide what would provoke rejection and create an appearance designed for acceptance, Calvinist linguistic cosmetics:
– Hide the radical implications of Exhaustive Divine Determinism (EDD)
– Create a facade designed to mimic the normal human experience
.
.
The result is a theology that can function socially only by masking its most disruptive features.
The cosmetics are not optional—they are required to preserve the system’s survivability within a world which contains normal concepts of human reality and abilities.
.
.
blessings
br.d
Hi Kate,
Regarding “out debate him”, I get that — a suggestion: Tell your family member you have a new friend (me!) who wrote a book (Chronicles of Calvington, available on Amazon) which details his walk through the fruits of a Calvinist church takeover. Get him a copy and ask him if he’d read it. Tell him that your new friend would also enjoy corresponding with him about Calvinism (BadCalvin.com@gmail.com). Or, if you prefer, send me his postal address at that same email and I’ll mail him a complimentary copy.
Leighton, please take a look at my book when you can (free online and at Amazon), and please help me promote my joyful BIBLICAL (anti-Calvinist) predestination message.
You can google for my book by searching for “Biblical Predestination to Glory vs. Calvinist Predestination to Faith: Romans 9, John 6, Ephesians 1”
Hi, this is off topic, but I just read that this idea that JESUS was separated from the Father on the Cross is a reformed position starting with John Calvin. Is this true?
Does Soteriology101 hold JESUS was separated from the Father in the cross? Would you happen to have an article, video, or a book you could point me to if you don’t?
Thanks
— Donnie
Hello Donnie and welcome
I am not familiar with that aspect of Calvin’s thinking – let me ask someone here who might be.
.
Blessings
br.d
Hi Donnie. Sorry for the delay in replying. There is no official position in Provisionism as to how “Why have you forsaken me” and other related verses should be interpreted. I personally take it to mean some kind of “separation” in the experience of the Son from the demonstration of love from the Father while the Son was bearing the divine penalty for the sins of the world. Brian
Since we hear so much about this word “Providence” could you provide a traditionalist’s or provisionist definition ?Thanks!
Hello Shelly,
I will let Brian know about your question.
.
However – from my POV – I would say one very viable answer could be found in Jeremiah 29:11
.
For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
.
And that is reiterated by the N.T. in John 10:10
.
“I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”
.
.
Now we contrast that to John Calvin’s image of a god – which made Calvin declare – the intent of his god filled him with a sense of horror.
.
Why would the image of Calvin’s god fill him with horror?
.
1) The vast majority of the total human population (THE MANY) are created specifically for eternal torment in a lake of fire – for his good pleasure
.
2) A large percentage of believers are also created for the same end – being called CHAFF believers – whom he deceives – giving them FALSE PERCEPTIONS of salvation – which they are not permitted to discern.
.
John Calvin
-quote
By the eternal *GOOD PLEASURE* of god though the reason does not appear, they are *NOT FOUND* but *MADE* worthy of destruction. – (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of god pg 121)
.
-quote
But the Lord….instills into their [CHAFF BELIEVERS] minds such *A SENSE* ..as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. (Institutes 3.2.11)
.
-quote
He illumines *ONLY FOR A TIME* to partake of it; then he….strikes them with even greater blindness (Institutes 3.24.8)
.
.
Calvinists – understandably also find this aspect of their belief-system terrifying.
And the typical response is emotional denial.
They will call Calvinism a “Doctrine of Grace” as part of that denial.
.
I can only imagine how terrified they are internally – to know their “Assurance” of salvation has a high probability of being an infallibly decreed FALSE “Assurance”.
.
Must be a terrible emotional burden!!
.
Blessings
br.d
Thank you Br.D for your response. I like that you pointed to a scripture verse. It seems Calvinistic sermons that preach about providence use the TULIP but not much scriptural support. And Gotquestions.com gives only a “reformed “ definition!
br.d – Thank you Shelly
.
Well – the Calvinist does use scripture – but it is widely recognized within Biblical scholarship that Calvinists use the vocabulary that NORMAL people use – but they do not have the same dictionary.
.
This aspect of Calvinism is actually quite prevalent within many religious groups which have RADICAL doctrines.
.
There is a need to make what is RADICAL *APPEAR* to be NORMAL
.
All words within any given language – have STANDARD COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD meanings.
.
But when a religious group has doctrine which is RADICAL they internally recognize how ABNORMAL the belief system is.
.
This causes conflict for the believer – because people are human – and they do not want to be perceived as ABNORMAL.
.
In order to be perceived as NORMAL they will have a high urgency to use words and terms which people understand as NORMAL.
.
Words like “Grace” for example.
.
For NORMAL Bible readers – the word “Grace” is defined as “unmerited favor”.
.
So the concept of “Grace” is tied to the concept of “MERIT”.
.
And the concept of “MERIT” for NORMAL people – is that we earn MERIT based on choices we make.
.
If a person chooses to shop-lift or to commit some kind of crime – then the NORMAL concept of MERIT is that that person deserves lawful judgement based on the crimes they committed.
.
But the concept of MERIT in Calvinism is RADICALLY different
.
MERIT is not attributed to a person – based on what that person IS or DOES.
MERIT is *ASSIGNED* to a person before that person is created.
.
So a new-born baby is created to be cast alive into the fire of Moloch – and is said to DESERVE that punishment – because that punishment was *ASSIGNED* to that baby. That baby is then said to MERIT that punishment.
.
After the baby is dead – it is then cast into eternal torment in a lake of fire – for the divine good pleasure.
In that case – that is the MERIT that was *ASSIGNED to that baby.
.
.
So you can see that Calvinists have very RADICALLY different concepts for terms.
So the term “Grace” in Calvinism includes – creating the vast majority of the human population for eternal torment.
.
.
Now that we understand – Calvinists have RADICALLY different concepts for words and terms – we then can understand they are going to interpret scripture according to those concepts.
.
Consequently – Calvinists have an extremely IDIOSYNCRATIC interpretations for scripture.
Those interpretations are AUTOMATICALLY assumed to be divinely inspired – no matter how self-contradicting they are.
.
.
blessings!
br.d
Hi Shelly… There is no official definition of “Providence” in Provisionism, but the breadth of opinion among Provisionists on God’s Providence would include God permitting free will choices of all open possibilities that still exist up to full compatibilism (soft determinism).
I’m discerning membership at a church I otherwise love, but it leans Calvinist in its teaching. Membership requires signing a short statement (salvation is all of God’s grace, according to His sovereign purposes/eternal plans, and cannot be lost), while stronger Calvinist distinctives (faith as a gift in a determinative sense, election of some) are in a section members don’t have to sign.
I want a clear conscience and don’t want to be divisive. Could you share (1) a wise way to talk with the pastors about this, and (2) whether you generally counsel someone to join/attend when they disagree with a church’s soteriology—especially if disagreement excludes the opportunity to serve in a teaching role. Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Love your work!
Hi Jarrett! Of course, it depends on how far the leadership “leans” towards Calvinism, and how much they will hinder other leaders who lean away from Calvinism from ministering to the congregation. That is what you want to discover before joining and using your spiritual gifts in that portion of God’s flock in your area.
You can ask them to answer these questions in writing –
1. Do you reject that God creates many people who will always be morally unable to freely respond to His gospel invitation?
2. Do you reject that God had eternally chosen before creation some individuals to be saved, but passed over choosing before creation many individuals, who would then with certainty end up in hell forever.
3. Do you reject that Jesus’ death on the cross was only sufficient in value as a payment for all the sins of mankind but was not fully intended or desired by God to be applied to all individuals after, through, and on condition that they freely repent and trust in Jesus?
4. Do you reject that the new birth is an irresistible change of the will of some, where they then can and will passively receive irresistible faith in the gospel when they hear it?
5. Practically speaking, would you ever have a SS teacher who rejects Calvinist doctrine or publicly deal with that doctrine before the congregation with someone who rejects it?
Hello Jarret and welcome
.
Personally – a request for a person to sign a statement – IMHO is a very bad indicator!
I do not see that as an indicator of honesty – but rather an indicator of manipulation.
.
And I would be on the look-out for other indicators of manipulation or trickery.
.
I’ve seen things like that over the years – here and there
And they always turn out to be bad indicators.
.
If it were me – I would consider that a sign from the Lord to look elsewhere.
.
In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird.
.
May the Lord give you insight!
.
Blessings!
br.d
Jarret – here is something to think about.
.
Consider Paul’s letter to the Ephesians – and specifically chapter 4
.
This writing from Paul is focused on the growth of the believer – in the context of the Church.
.
Paul speaks of the 5-fold ministry
-quote
“That we might grow up into the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”.
.
But now look at some of Paul’s warnings
.
-quote
Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor
.
Why is Paul warning Christians about the practice of lying within the context of the Church?
.
-quote
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive”
.
.
The idea that a Christian would be operating in “cunning craftiness” – and especially in regard to “doctrine” – might be seen as a very RADICAL idea to Christians today.
.
When we bump into a profession Christian – the last thing we expect is for that individual to operating in some kind of deceptive manner. Especially if that individual is a ministry of some kind.
.
When I was young in the Lord – I was very naive – and the last thing I expected from any professing Christian – was deceptive practices or behavior. Especially if that Christian was some kind of ministry.
.
But the Lord put me through the school of hard knocks!
I learned the hard way – that Christians – and ministries can operate in “cunning craftiness” just like Paul warns about.
.
If I were your close friend – the last thing I would want from you – is to be put in a situation where you have to eventually discover Christians or ministries have been operating in deceptiveness.
.
It is not a fun experience for any sincere believer!!
.
In my experiences with Calvinists – I have learned Calvinist language is a COSMETIC language – where doctrinal statements are framed to OBFUSCATE things they anticipate people will reject.
.
I would ask you to consider Paul’s warnings about dishonesty within the Church – as an unfortunate reality.
.
If you are going to be walking through a mine-field – you want to be doing it with your eyes wide-open.
.
My sincere best for you!!
.
br.d
Jarret Roloff,
A number of years ago I spent quite some time on various Spiritual Abuse blogs which began sometime around 2010, give or take a couple years, when Neo-Calvinism was exploding onto the scene. One of the major abuses was the Calvinists interpretation of Matthew 18, of what they call the DISCIPLINARY chapter, i.e. Church Discipline.
This contract that they want you to sign is a big part of their leverage against you, in which they can place you in a church discipline if you cross their line, and it’s not gonna be pretty.
I do not interpret Matthew 18 in any way, shape, or form as they do. But that contract is their leverage to do with you what they want.
Matthew 5:34-37
33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.