Semi-Pelagianism and Leighton Flowers

[Silverhair]

...and that is where we disagree, I'm sorry to say.

On my end, you appear to see it as "conditional" ( probably because of Romans 4:1-9 ), and because of election ( what Paul wrote to the churches in Romans 8, Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, for example ), as well as what the Lord tells us in the below, I see it as evidential:

" Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.:" ( Hebrews 11:1 ).

This is a description of faith not a definition of faith there is a difference.
Faith definitionally is a choice to trust, a personal choice to trust something it doesn't mean unseen like blind faith.

Evangelical, justifying, or saving faith, is the assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God's testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will or approbation of the heart; an entire confidence or trust in God's character and declarations, and in the character and doctrines of Christ, with an unreserved surrender of the will to his guidance, and dependence on his merits for salvation. In other words, that firm belief of God's testimony, and of the truth of the gospel, which influences the will, and leads to an entire reliance on Christ for salvation.

" For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:"

( Ephesians 2:8 )

Salvation is the gift of God conditioned upon ones faith.

Antecedents and Faith (Eph_2:8-9)
“Grace is God's part, faith ours.” He adds that since in the original the demonstrative “this” (and this not of yourselves) is neuter and does not correspond with the gender of the word “faith,” which is feminine, it does not refer to the latter “but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part.”
“In Eph_2:8 … there is no reference to διὰ πίστεως [through faith] in τοῦτο [this], but rather to the idea of salvation in the clause before.”
A. T. Robertson {RWP} Baker's cmtx

The problem with that exegesis of the verse
While a pronoun's case is determined by its function in the sentence, the gender and number are determined by its antecedent. Therefore, "that" G5124 a neuter pronoun cannot be referring back to "faith" G4102 a feminine noun. But "grace" G5485 also is feminine, so it cannot be the antecedent of [that G5124]. So what is?
If you look backwards for an antecedent, you will look in vain. There are neuter nouns, but they make no sense as an antecedent.
The answer is to know a little Greek!
When Greek wants to refer back to a general thought, perhaps a phrase, the pronoun can be in the neuter. This is "not of yourselves" does not refer specifically to [πίστεως faith G4102] but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part.
["For by grace you have been saved "] {how} through faith. Salvation is a gift that we receive from God because of our faith.
Bill Mounce
Antecedents and Faith (Eph 2:8-9)

That is, salvation does not proceed from yourselves. The word rendered “that” - τοῦτο touto - is in the neuter gender, and the word “faith” - πίστις pistis - is in the feminine. The word “that,” therefore, does not refer particularly to faith, as being the gift of God, but to “the salvation by grace” of which he had been speaking. Barnes

Yes we are in disagreement because you disagree with the biblical text. Faith is not the gift of God, salvation is.

 

[Dave G]

Salvation is the gift of God conditioned upon ones faith.

" not of works, lest any man should boast." ( Ephesians 2:9 ).

Not according to Him, it isn't.

You really don't understand what it is that you're teaching, do you? How that, by making faith the "condition" upon which we gain God's favor, it turns His unmerited gift into a man-made work, which ( supposedly ) God then meritoriously rewards a person who uses the faith ( of Christ, Galatians 2:20 ), to gain salvation from His wrath and eternal life with His Son.

I'm sorry, Silverhair, I've tried many times to get through to you with the Scriptures, but it seems that you just aren't hearing them.

 

[Silverhair]

" not of works, lest any man should boast." ( Ephesians 2:9 ).

Not according to Him, it isn't.

You really don't understand what it is that you're teaching, do you? How that, by making faith the "condition" upon which we gain God's favor, it turns His unmerited gift into a man-made work, which ( supposedly ) God then meritoriously rewards a person who uses the faith ( of Christ, Galatians 2:20 ), to gain salvation from His wrath and eternal life with His Son.

I'm sorry, Silverhair, I've tried many times to get through to you with the Scriptures, but it seems that you just aren't hearing them.

Faith is not a work

Scripture clearly teaches that faith and works are polar opposites.

John 6:29 "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

Romans 3:22 “”...even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe...”

Romans 3:27-28 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.

Galatians 2:16 "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Galatians 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.


Faith is not a work but it is the condition that God requires to be met.

Romans 1:16 “the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes,”

Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Romans 3:26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

These verses should clear up any confusion you may have. I presented the biblical truth for you, if you choose to ignore it that is on your head. I have shown you the truth but I cannot make you believe it.

 

[DaveXR650]

“Grace is God's part, faith ours.”

I don't see anything wrong with that. This is Calvin in his commentary on Ephesians 2:8-10.
"When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded".

But Calvin is also of the belief that the Holy Spirit ministers in some way to bring about the enlightening or quickening or opening of our eyes that leads to faith - that we ourselves do indeed exercise.

The subject of this thread is not the idea of whether faith can be a work (and this is my thread). Faith is not a work and is always contrasted in the Bible with works. @Dave G and @Silverhair , if you want to start another thread on whether faith is a work go ahead.

My question is, Calvin, later Calvinists, Arminians, Wesleyans, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans all teach that there is a direct action of the Holy Spirit upon the heart or soul of every individual who comes to faith in Christ. It seems to me that Flowers denies this. Flowers has become quite popular recently. Do you think this is a doctrinal problem or has anyone discovered some video or writing that would indicate I am mistaken in my assumption about him?

Or, is there some error or presupposition that all the above groups share that Flowers has corrected. And before someone comes on with the "I only follow scripture" line, I would just like to say that's fine, but I am interested in how all the above groups came to a different conclusion than Flowers. By the way, I can show where for each of the above groups, they make the claim.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't see anything wrong with that. This is Calvin in his commentary on Ephesians 2:8-10.
"When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded".

But Calvin is also of the belief that the Holy Spirit ministers in some way to bring about the enlightening or quickening or opening of our eyes that leads to faith - that we ourselves do indeed exercise.

The subject of this thread is not the idea of whether faith can be a work (and this is my thread). Faith is not a work and is always contrasted in the Bible with works. @Dave G and @Silverhair , if you want to start another thread on whether faith is a work go ahead.

My question is, Calvin, later Calvinists, Arminians, Wesleyans, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans all teach that there is a direct action of the Holy Spirit upon the heart or soul of every individual who comes to faith in Christ. It seems to me that Flowers denies this. Flowers has become quite popular recently. Do you think this is a doctrinal problem or has anyone discovered some video or writing that would indicate I am mistaken in my assumption about him?

Or, is there some error or presupposition that all the above groups share that Flowers has corrected. And before someone comes on with the "I only follow scripture" line, I would just like to say that's fine, but I am interested in how all the above groups came to a different conclusion than Flowers. By the way, I can show where for each of the above groups, they make the claim.

Please tell me this Dave since you have studied Flowers, “Is his beliefs primarily a doctrine of a works based faith or a Grace based faith?”

 

[DaveXR650]

Please tell me this Dave since you have studied Flowers, “Is his beliefs primarily a doctrine of a works based faith or a Grace based faith?”

He teaches, as far as I have seen, a completely proper idea of salvation by grace, through faith alone and not of works. What I have noticed, and was trying to verify in this thread, was if Dr. Flowers teaches that this faith is something every individual can have or come to, on their own, without any effect or action by the Holy Spirit upon their soul.

Christian beliefs vary on this across a spectrum it seems, with high Calvinists teaching that faith is a result of being sovereignly regenerated, to moderate Calvinists teaching that God works faith in us by an overcoming grace and then on to Arminians who teach that God works faith in us by a prevenient grace that is more of a persuasive, resistible and universal nature. But then you keep going and there is a belief that the word itself has actual power to effect the soul but that there is no supernatural effect by the Holy Spirit directly on the soul prior to coming to faith. And then there is the belief that when the word is given accurately there is within men an ability to hear, understand, and respond to the gospel in a saving way. And it is my belief that Dr. Flowers is within one of the last two camps.

So for what it's worth, I have looked into this enough to realize that this is not just a difference with strict Calvinism, but that Dr. Flowers "natural ability" goes beyond not just what Calvinism teaches but it goes beyond Arminians, Wesleyans, Baxterians, and even Roman Catholics and fundamental Baptists like John R. Rice. Then I came across the Lutheran theologian Jordan Cooper and as you can see in the video he had the same concerns. I'm not really sure what to make of it but I am just personally interested in why this is the case and I did not want to get sidetracked into the argument over whether faith can ever be defined in such a way as it becomes a work. I am more interested here in how we come to faith.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

He teaches, as far as I have seen, a completely proper idea of salvation by grace, through faith alone and not of works. What I have noticed, and was trying to verify in this thread, was if Dr. Flowers teaches that this faith is something every individual can have or come to, on their own, without any effect or action by the Holy Spirit upon their soul.

Christian beliefs vary on this across a spectrum it seems, with high Calvinists teaching that faith is a result of being sovereignly regenerated, to moderate Calvinists teaching that God works faith in us by an overcoming grace and then on to Arminians who teach that God works faith in us by a prevenient grace that is more of a persuasive, resistible and universal nature. But then you keep going and there is a belief that the word itself has actual power to effect the soul but that there is no supernatural effect by the Holy Spirit directly on the soul prior to coming to faith. And then there is the belief that when the word is given accurately there is within men an ability to hear, understand, and respond to the gospel in a saving way. And it is my belief that Dr. Flowers is within one of the last two camps.

So for what it's worth, I have looked into this enough to realize that this is not just a difference with strict Calvinism, but that Dr. Flowers "natural ability" goes beyond not just what Calvinism teaches but it goes beyond Arminians, Wesleyans, Baxterians, and even Roman Catholics and fundamental Baptists like John R. Rice. Then I came across the Lutheran theologian Jordan Cooper and as you can see in the video he had the same concerns. I'm not really sure what to make of it but I am just personally interested in why this is the case and I did not want to get sidetracked into the argument over whether faith can ever be defined in such a way as it becomes a work. I am more interested here in how we come to faith.

So ask him yourself… he used to be very approachable. Better to get it from the horses mouth than to speculate.

 

[DaveXR650]

So ask him yourself… he used to be very approachable. Better to get it from the horses mouth than to speculate.

I wouldn't know how to reach him and I imagine he seems to be at a level of popularity where he wouldn't be able to respond to every individual even if he wanted to. So I just keep listening to his videos but I haven't bought his book. I have another one shown here and at about the 35 minute mark is where he explains clearly what I am talking about.

I am not even necessarily saying he is wrong. All I am saying is that all the above groups I mentioned have some type of belief that has the Holy Spirit acting directly upon the heart or soul of a person prior to their coming to faith. He maintains, very clearly I think, that men have their own innate ability to decide for themselves without even being enlightened, quickened, or drawn, much less regenerated, before they can come to faith. And I am wondering why this is. And I do challenge the fact that this is " a Traditionalist" Baptist view. He seems to have invented or at least made popular the term "Provisionist" but to also claim that this is the standard Baptist view I would challenge, especially after reading some of my old John R. Rice books.