Hardcore Calvinists Rob Zins and Larry Wessels (CAnswersTV) cannot string together any kind of sound theological argument for their aberrant soteriology. In a previous post, I demonstrated that Zins' eisegesis of 2 Peter 3:8-9 is blatantly unsound.1 Wessels has resorted to airing heavyweight James White's response to Leighton Flowers.
I agree with White that the biblical gospel and the "gospel" of Calvinism (Reformed theology) are different gospels. (2 Corinthians 11:4). Despite my horror of Calvinism, I have to admit that White does have some valid points to make against Flowers, and frankly, in this video, he makes mincemeat out of him. Flowers' analogy of "sovereign choice meats" is nonsensical. Calvinists themselves do not claim to know the reason why some people are allegedly chosen for salvation and others are rejected, and the verb choose ἐκλέγω is definitely not an adjective. Accuracy is everything.
I also agree with White that Flowers flirts with open theists. Monergism: "Leighton Flowers, in advocating for the inclusion of Open Theists within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and local church membership, suggests that we should sympathize with their philosophical struggles and treat them as fellow believers grappling with complex theological issues."2 Flowers gives a platform to false teacher Warren McGrew (Idol Killer), which, in my view, is extremely foolish and dangerous. McGrew and Flowers supposedly disagree on the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. However, Flowers is apparently willing to collaborate with anyone who will join him in what he sees as his epic fight against Calvinism. Apart from these concerning issues, I have heard Flowers openly admit that he is ecumenical! As such, I have rejected Flowers' ministry, and I regard him as intolerably flaky. His lengthy videos are only of interest to those with the time and stamina to sit through hours of interminable rhetoric, some of it as nonsensical as the above. Flower's syrupy policy of being "charitable" and his ready acceptance of those who should be marked and avoided is unbiblical. (Romans 16:17). Flowers doesn't seem to grasp that Christians are required to contend for the faith and shun heretics after the second warning. (Jude 1:3; Titus 3:10).
White correctly calls out Flowers on his "so too" parallelism. Flowers: "..mankind as represented by Adam in the garden didn't need a fallen sin nature to choose to sin. So too, fallen people don't need God to miraculously give them a new nature in order for them to respond positively to his own appeals to be reconciled through the gospel."
I am struggling to find a meaningful parallel between Adam's choice to sin without a fallen nature and the choice of fallen people to respond positively to the gospel. Both parties make a choice, but there the similarity ends. The obvious parallel is between the entrance of sin through one man, Adam, and the sacrifice of one man, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:12-20). However, these verses do not justify Flowers' statement regarding human choice. Adam was free to make his own choice to sin in the garden. (Genesis 3:6). In contrast, fallen humanity is born into sin, i.e., prior to conversion, people are resistant to the gospel; as White points out, they are "dead in sin.. slaves to sin".
The divine initiative in salvation is obvious in the scriptures. Flowers' statement appears to circumvent the conviction of the Holy Spirit, leading sinners (hopefully) to the point of accepting the gospel. ..because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. (1 Thessalonians 1:5; cf. Romans 1:16; John 16:8; Acts 2:37,16:14). God the Father is actively at work in people's lives before they are converted. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. (John 6:44).
Strongs: "a. (spiritually dead, i. e.) 'destitute of a life that recognizes and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins; inactive as respects doing right': John 5:25; Romans 6:13; Ephesians 5:14; Revelation 3:1; with τοῖς παραπτώμασιν (the dative of cause (cf. Winer's Grammar, 412 (384f))) added, Ephesians 2:1, 5; ἐν (but T Tr WH omit ἐν) τοῖς παραπτοις Colossians 2:13; in the pointed saying ἄφες τούς νεκρούς θάψαι τούς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς, leave those who are indifferent to the salvation offered them in the gospel, to bury thee bodies of their own dead, Matthew 8:22; Luke 9:60."3
Bible Hub: "The Divine Decree is a profound theological concept that underscores God's sovereignty, eternal purpose, and the intricate relationship between divine governance and human agency. It invites believers to trust in God's ultimate plan while recognizing their role in the unfolding of history. Understanding this doctrine can provide comfort and assurance of God's control over all aspects of life and creation."4
2. Rebuttal of Open Theism and Its Inclusion in the SBC by Leighton Flowers |
Monergism Leighton Flowers Says Southern Baptists Were Wrong to Exclude Open Theists
3. Strong's Greek: 3498. νεκρός (nekros) -- Dead, deceased
4. Topical Bible: Divine Decree
No comments:
Post a Comment