Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The elect are choice meat?
- Thread starter SovereignGrace
- Start date
Read it and cry.
In the 42 second video clip in the guy's Twitter feed that you linked to, Dr. Flowers says the word choice is sometimes used a an adjective, and not a verb.
Where does he say the "elect" are choice meat? Please provide the time stamp from the video so I can watch it. Or where does he say that God shows elective favor on someone because of their righteousness? (Which is what the Twitter guy alleges.)
Where does he say the "elect" are choice meat? Please provide the time stamp from the video so I can watch it. Or where does he say that God shows elective favor on someone because of their righteousness? (Which is what the Twitter guy alleges.)
The funny thing is that LF makes the Monergist's point! James White was right to call him out on it. Choice meat. Absolutely hilarious. Now, before we are too harsh on LW, my fellow Monergists should be careful not to make the same mistakes. Good theology is based on the text of scripture. Analogies can be useful but they can also come back to bite you as this one did to LF.
He said choice meats, something that moves ppl to them. That’s how he defined choice in election. There was nothing ‘choice’ in the elect that attracted God to them. He elected them based on nothing good in them...because there’s not, but Himself.
What Dr. Flowers is saying is that God’s election is favor. And it is that, unmerited favor, grace. However, this is not based on those He favors. If there is something favorable in the one He chooses, then that no longer is grace, unmerited favor. There was something in them that merited His favor. That’s not grace at all.
The whole speech was on twitter.it was also posted on the Dividing line.
When you build theology on sand, it never holds up.
List the specific time stamp on the recording where he says God chooses people for salvation based on their righteousness.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL
I was driving when I listened...it was perhaps 2/3 through it...on YouTube you can forward it by dragging the little circle forward.
He used to post such things here often.
Aaron, P4T, Sg, and others were on that like white on rice.
I cannot find the archives but it is plain to see. You search better than I do.
He compared election to choice. Then he used the choice meats section a an example of choosing those choice meats because they were, well, choice.
Election is unconditional, as He never based His choosing someone based on who and/or what they are.
He said that the quality of meat is what makes it choice. He stated choice in that instance is an adverb that describes what type of it is, choice. Carry that over to election. He still has God choosing some over others, just that those who have better quality(characteristics) are chosen by Him and the other lesser cuts of meat are left to themselves. 
In his zeal to do away with unconditional election, he has opened another can of worms.
And where can I see and hear this "carry over to election" in the You Tube video? What's the time stamp on the video?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Go to the link in the OP. That video is only 43 seconds long. He mentioned election and then used choice. He then used choice meats as an example of why ppl are drawn to them.
It's been responded to for quite some time.
Choice Meat & Bad Form
I'm not going to discount everything someone says and say the theology has to be wrong because someone in that theology made a mistake.
Not that I agree with LF's theology as it is known that I disagree with both LF and JW. But GOTCHA is not really going to advance the conversation.
It might be funny and fun to point out, but thinking you've actually "won" is silly.
Choice Meat & Bad Form
I'm not going to discount everything someone says and say the theology has to be wrong because someone in that theology made a mistake.
Not that I agree with LF's theology as it is known that I disagree with both LF and JW. But GOTCHA is not really going to advance the conversation.
It might be funny and fun to point out, but thinking you've actually "won" is silly.
Leighton Flowers (transcription of oral comments):
"When we ask about election, we're talking about mainly God having favor - Him choosing somebody over someone else. Matter of fact, when we use the word "choice," a lot of times we're thinking of kind of the verb form of it, like, "I made a choice between these options." But if you go into the grocery store, later today, and you go to the "choice meat" section. The word "choice" there is used more as an adjective. It's describing the type of meat. It's the type of meat that is favorable over the other lesser favorable meat. And so when you talk about something that is choice, you are not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat. There's a reason to have the choice of that meat."
I got this transcript from Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Responding to Leighton Flowers' "Choice Beef" Argument
Dr. Flowers, from the get go, speaks about election. He then carries that over to the choice meats analogy. He talks about how choice meats are more favorable than less favorable meat. He is using that analogy to describe, in his view, how God elects, chooses those who are saved. Those who are more favorable are those He elected. No way getting around that. And by doing so, He passed over the lesser favorable meats. Either way, he has God passing over ppl.
Leighton Flowers (transcription of oral comments):
"When we ask about election, we're talking about mainly God having favor - Him choosing somebody over someone else. Matter of fact, when we use the word "choice," a lot of times we're thinking of kind of the verb form of it, like, "I made a choice between these options." But if you go into the grocery store, later today, and you go to the "choice meat" section. The word "choice" there is used more as an adjective. It's describing the type of meat. It's the type of meat that is favorable over the other lesser favorable meat. And so when you talk about something that is choice, you are not always talking about necessarily God choosing something for no apparent reason, but you're choosing that meat because it's a favorable meat. There's a reason to have the choice of that meat."
I got this transcript from Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Responding to Leighton Flowers' "Choice Beef" Argument
Dr. Flowers, from the get go, speaks about election. He then carries that over to the choice meats analogy. He talks about how choice meats are more favorable than less favorable meat. He is using that analogy to describe, in his view, how God elects, chooses those who are saved. Those who are more favorable are those He elected. No way getting around that. And by doing so, He passed over the lesser favorable meats. Either way, he has God passing over ppl.
He also has God choosing (electing) people based on their own merit. There is something within them that makes them more favorable than others. That is not what the Bible teaches. God's choice according to election has nothing to do with our being more favorable. It has nothing to do with foreseen faith. It has nothing to do with corporate election (God choosing a people for Himself and then allowing the choices of individuals to determine whether they are part of His corporate choice). It has all to with God's sovereign choice absent any man-made condition.
Thank you! That's been my point the whole time.
If God chose us based on our own merits? Whew boy! Universal damnation. None would be saved.
OK, I'm seeing what you guys are objecting to now. Unfortunate use of words.
I presume he meant that the meat was favored because it was chosen, not that it was chosen because it was favorable.
But, yeah, that's not what he said.
I presume he meant that the meat was favored because it was chosen, not that it was chosen because it was favorable.
But, yeah, that's not what he said.
Honestly, I think he knew exactly what he was saying. He’s been saying it for years.
Yes, it was an unfortunate use of words. We’ve all had our Freudian slips. But this was his intention, it just came back to bite him...HARD!