Featured The rise of Calvinism?

He has a good point. If one is exposed to only one position that is typically the first position they accept. Perhaps this explains the reason for the movement within Calvinism to "reform" its teachings (they reevaluate what amounted to indoctrination). That said, I don't know it is a bad thing. It was the same with 16th century RCC teachings leading up to the Reformation).

 

I think he has claimed that he was a Calvinist (not that he is one), and having understood Calvinism he is able to teach Calvinism as well as the position he now holds.

 

I don't know that makes you an "odd-ball". I arrived at Calvinism much the same.

I was saved in a very non-Calvinist church (a small SBC congregation in Marietta GA). I came to see things that did not "fit" with Scripture but absolutely rejected Calvinism.

After a long period of prayer and study I came to accept Calvinism. I kept what was true of my previous belief and "spit out the bones".

After years of being a Calvinist (preaching and teaching Calvinism) I came to realize there were key elements that did not fit with Scripture. Ultimately I was led out of Calvinism through prayer and the study of Scripture. Like before, I gained much but "spit out the bones". God, I believe, leads us where we need to be. We have to be open to this leading.

The issue is when people just adopt what is offered. It is best to pray, study, and struggle with Scripture (as you and I have done) to arrive at a position.

 

I am a bit of a loss to explain how Mr. Flowers was a Calvinist for so long, since his objections are pretty much entry-level problems that I would think would be resolved, one way or he other, before he became a doctor of theology. But those kinds of things happen, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Still, the objections don't seem very sophisticated.

I am also puzzled how he takes a swipe at Arminianism with the old "God looking down the corridors of time" canard. This is especially true because he is essentially Armininian (except he won't give up once saved, always saved, although it conflicts with the rest of his soteriology with libertarian free will and all). Of course, he rejects total depravity, which Classical Arminians and Wesleyans affirm.

The truth is that he espouses in his "Traditional" soteriology a melange of beliefs that few Southern Baptist have accepted until modern times, roughly the middle of the last century.

Lastly, it is interesting that he believes that Baptist young people are being led astray by the prevalence of Calvinism on the internet. There may be something to this, but it seems odd that what he calls Traditionalism has had its hands on the levers of power in seminaries and pulpits for decades and has apparently failed to extinguish the heresy of Calvinism which he so desperately fights against.

 

The issue, I believe, with Flowers is that he has taken an "anti" position (rather than advocating for what he believes he has chosen to fight against what other Christians believe). In so doing his arguments (on Soteriology 101) are emotional rather than logical.

I have also noticed that his "attacks" on Calvinism are misplaced. They address characterizations rather than legitimate belief and express a lack of understanding (at a basic level) of Calvinism. I suspect he held to Calvinism as many Calvinists have held to their former positions.

We see this on both sides (some anti-free will theology folk claim free will theology denies divine sovereignty, makes men save themselves, etc. ). This is an issue when people take such agendas.

Regarding "traditionalist" in the SBC, I am not sure how they arrived at that title. The SBC has always held a mix of people on this issue. Early leaders like RBC Howell were moderate Calvinists. I think both sides try to tweak history towards their camp.

 

I had a professor of theology who actually taught theology. I did not know he was a Calvinist until a discussion after the course had ended. He was very careful to avoid indoctrination to his own view and focused on people being able to express and defend their position. I admired that about him.

I am not sure why you think we cannot mention Leighton Flowers as it is his video and Soteriology 101 is his project.

 

I understand. The issue is not discussing what people have stated but violating BB rules concerning privacy.

For example, if Bill M has a video I can discuss Bill M's statements and his video. But I cannot link Bill M to a member's profile by referring to him as Baptist_Bill.

Does that make sense? Even if we know that someone is a member we should not make the link without that members expressed permission.

I would be wrong, for example, to link your blog to your identity here as Reformed (if you have a blog and I knew it).

 

No. The post did not even mention Mr.Flowers.

It spoke of a member here who has had no involvement with this thread.