Leaving Calvinism?

Well, from I have seen so far on Flowers website they flat out deny that the Holy Spirit has any direct action upon the soul of a person in order to facilitate their salvation. He has the Holy Spirit being involved in that the words of scripture are inspired by the Holy Spirit but he specifically denies the type of direct action that I mean, or that a classic Arminian or Calvinist would mean. He seems to allow a type of conviction if you will that would be exactly like I would be able to cause in you by presenting a convincing case about some proposal or argument. But on his website he seems to carefully assert that there is no supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit on an individual in regards to their salvation.

 

I can not speak for Flowers but what do you think creation or the conviction of the Spirit or hearing the gospel message does? I do not think it is good idea to use a poem to prove a theological view.

When you read about Wesley's Aldersgate experience you see that it was not conversion from unbelief to faith but rather the order of salvation.

"Aldersgate was not Wesley's "conversion" to faith in Christ. He was a Christian all his life. ... prior to his Aldersgate experience Wesley believed that sanctification preceded justification. The experience on 24 May 1738 helped Wesley "convert" his understanding of the order of salvation. It made him realize that he had it all backwards. When he heard the person reading from Luther's preface to the commentary on Romans Wesley realized that Christ alone makes him acceptable to God. Christ alone redeems and restores his relationship with God the Father. Salvation is a pure gift of God's amazing grace. Nothing he could ever do or say could earn God's love and acceptance. Perhaps, for the first time, at Aldersgate Street Wesley understood the meaning of what the Apostle Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:8-10,

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God--not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life." Discipleship Ministries | "I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone…

The quickening ray would seem to relate more to the insight he gained re the order of salvation than to his salvation itself.

 

What are you basing your conclusion on BF. It cannot be the scripture's that you quoted as they clearly do not support your stated view.

Joh 6:44 God draws men to Christ {how are they drawn, Joh 6:45 tells us}
Joh 6:45 Those that hear and learn from God come to Christ

Joh 12:32 Christ draws all men not just some men

Christ
Offers
Forgiveness
For
Everyone
Everywhere

Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

By the logic you are presenting BF man does not condemn himself through unbelief, God condemns them because He has not picked them out. Your view has no biblical basis.

 

I have gone to his website but I have not found what you are suggesting.

David said, “The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, And His word was on my tongue.” -2 Samuel‬ ‭23:2‬

So, if David, teaching by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, helped someone to understand a divine truth that she didn’t understand before, who should be given the credit? David, the Holy Spirit or both?

Both, right? David is the instrument used by the Holy Spirit to explain divine truth so that she could understand and respond.

Now, here is the question I want you to consider. In addition to inspiring David to clearly communicate divine truth in her language does the Holy Spirit need to do some kind of supernatural inner working on her in order to cause her to understand that clearly communicated truth brought by inspiration?

If so, why? Are people naturally (from birth) unable to understand and accept all truth statements or just certain types of truth statements?

Since people can accept some basic historical truth statements (like who was the first President), is it just truths related to God’s nature and provision that people are naturally unable to understand and accept as true? Can people accept “secular truth” but not “inspired truth”? If so, why?

Further, people can accept false spiritual truths in the form of the doctrines of false religions. A person can read a religious text that is teaching them false truth statements and believe those falsehoods. Someone can believe a lie so much that they willingly die for it but people cannot believe true spiritual truth statements from a true religious text? Why?

We all agree the Holy Spirit must do something to help people understand and accept divine truth. I believe He helps by inspiring people like David to write clear truth for us to read/hear and respond. Some insist the Holy Spirit must do something more than this and I’d like to understand what specifically that is and why it’s necessary and why that is unnecessary in every other walk of life.

NOTICE: I am not meaning to imply that the Holy Spirit doesn’t ever move or work or communicate by other means, He certainly does. I’m simply exploring the sufficiency of all the means He does employ. I believe the means of inspiration is sufficient. Do you agree?

–Dr. Leighton Flowers

Since you disagree with what Flowers has said re the Holy Spirit and understanding divine truths perhaps you can answer the questions he poses.

 

It's not proof of a theological view. But it is a stanza of one of the most popular and best loved hymns used by Calvinists and Arminians all over the world so it is valid to show the popularity of the view.
I'm not sure what the rest of your post is trying to say. I don't think creation or hearing of the gospel does anything without the Holy Spirit. That is, except prove and make official our true guilt and take away excuses. Same with the Law, which, according to a true free willer, should be sufficient to get us on the path of righteousness.

 

Try the link in post 30. If that doesn't work go on the site and put "Holy Spirit" in the search section and it brings up all the pertinent posts/videos. Read down through the supplemental comments. They are not all by Flowers himself, but that is his own controlled website, not Twitter, so I assume he wants them there.

 

@Silverhair. Re post 46, I don't have any problem with the idea that creation, scripture, the gospel message should be sufficient for us to acknowledge God and try to obey him. I may be wrong but most Calvinists agree that that should be the case. They just believe that there is more of a natural animosity rooted deeply within who we are that effectively prevents us from responding on our own. That is our free will.

 

Popularity of what view, that God saves. Well I do not think you would find any Christian that would disagree with that.

Strange that you would deny the sovereignty of God in allowing Him to save those that call out to Him because of conviction of sins or the wonder of creation.

You require the Holy Spirit to cause someone to believe which is an unbiblical view. While the Holy Spirit will convict people of their sin the person still has to make the decision to trust in Christ. The old saying "You can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink" fits well with how God deals with man, He can give us all the information of who He is and salvation through faith but He can not make man love and trust in Him.

God draws all men but not all will come, in fact most will not. You can try to avoid the reality of free will all you want but no matter how to present salvation though faith, man still has to choose to believe.

 

I found the link just after I posted but did you see my post # 45/ Perhaps you can respond to those questions.

 

I read what you say and then you say that is the calvinist version of free will but is it really freewill if man can only choose one way? Free will means being able to make a choice between two or more options.

If we go by the calvinist divine determinism then the natural animosity rooted deeply within who we are is caused by God via decree. Thus the free will that calvinism speaks of is just a pseudo free will.

 

I didn't but I see it now. Thanks for posting that. That is exactly the portion I was looking at. I'll reply in a few minutes.

 

I admit that on a personal level I wrestle with this but I tend to think yes, something else is going on than just a natural assimilation and evaluation of the information just like you do with common things every day. Yes, coming to a saving faith in Christ is different.

Yes. But this is common for us as humans. We naturally tend to be attracted to the sensual, to error and to arrogance. Now, is it absolutely impossible for us to naturally do anything virtuous? No. But looking at human history and literature everyone agrees that that is not natural or equally as natural as our vices.

You have a point in that should it be listed as a spiritual truth that it is literally and physically impossible for that to happen? But I believe it definitely is true as a general principle, for most people. In other words, it's definitely our tendency and general rule. I'll leave the absolutes to the theologians.

 

Yes, if that choice you made was freely made by you based on what you wanted to do then it is totally free. And I am saying that it would be by definition impossible for you to make any other choice than that without altering your free will.

No one is arguing that you cannot choose between two options. But the choice you make is based on various things about you, like we mentioned before with the cookies and such. It's individual for you as a person and based on your individual makeup and it is real. The only way you could make another choice is either to the extent that the choices are random, like do I turn left or right on the trail; or because our needs and such as humans change all the time. For instance, if I was offered the cookie as in the earlier example, if I had just eaten 3 brownies versus if I hadn't eaten anything for 2 days - well that would completely change my free will decision. But notice, my will changes. I don't try to demand that my will has to be a detached, sovereign, thing. Bottom line, I don't think our wills are as much in our control as Flowers does. And his comparison with God is very telling. Only God is sovereign and self determining because he is not subject to day to day needs, but even with God we can be sure he will act according to what he has revealed to us as his own nature, and I am thankful for that.

 

You wrote "Yes, coming to a saving faith in Christ is different." but my question for you is why would you think that God, who desires for all to know Him and be saved, would make understanding the truth of scripture different from understanding secular truths? You may think He does but what do you base that conclusion upon?

Agreed man does tend to go to the negative side of things but you should not overlook the plus side either. God has given man the ability to make rational decisions. Most does not equal all, while most will not turn in faith to God that does not mean all can not turn to God in faith. Man has the God given ability to make rational decisions based upon the information that is presented to them. As soon as you admit that it is not absolutely impossible for us to naturally do anything virtuous you open the door to man's free will. Reality shows that man does actually freely trust in God through the various means that God has provided.

Men as we know will die for a lie that they think is the truth. Why is it that calvinist's think a man can freely choose error but can not freely choose truth? The fact man sins does not take away his ability to think and choose truth over error. While I agree that rejection of God is man's tendency calvinism has made it into an absolute condition.

 

Dave that is an illogical statement. Do you actually understand what free will means? I suspect that you do not.

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action (aka choosing “otherwise”). This does not require the person to be able to choose anything, nor does it require the absence of other influencing factors. It only requires the ability for a person confronted with a decision to be able to choose from among one or more possible options.

Free will is not informed by what you choose but rather that you were able to choose freely. Choosing A over B and latter choosing B over A does not alter your free will just what you chose by your free will.

From what I have read of Flower's he is just saying that God has a free will and He has given us a free will with which to make real choices. If our wills are as controlled as you seem to think then how is man responsible for anything they do. If man does not have the ability to hear and believe the gospel then why are we held responsible for not doing so? In fact why do we have all the warnings in scripture about rejecting faith in God?

To say man can do anything that he wills to do, eg. save himself, is to take free will beyond what man has but to deny man the ability to make the rational choice to trust in God for their salvation is to deny the free will that God has given to each man.

 

God isn't making anything different. We, when left to our own devices, tend to be at enmity against God and when left on our own we don't tend to choose to follow God. We do much better on our own understanding a book about deception or dirty tricks or warfare because we have a natural tendency to be attracted to those things when left to our own free will. We have 5000 years of recorded history that backs this up. When it comes to obeying God, whether the Law or the Sermon on the Mount our failure and inability is indisputable. What I personally still wrestle with is that I don't know if this means that we can't even say "I give up" and cry out to God for deliverance. Maybe that much we can do on our own. I don't know.