The rise of Calvinism?

[37818]

I found this former Calvinist teacher. What do you think?

His web site: SOTERIOLOGY 101

The Lamb’s Book of Life

In short, this view of the book of life is not my view.

 

[Reformed1689]

I can't watch youtube.

 

[Iconoclast]

[edited, gossip about another member not participating on this thread removed]

I was at one time dispensational. I can still teach it .
Now someone who would claim to be a real Dispensationalist, like JOJ, could perhaps point out inconsistencies in my understanding that would lead him to believe I never really grasped the core of it.
If he explained to me I was never really a dispensationalist , or I had a defective understanding of it, that would be his right and i would be forced to re-study it.
I do not pretend I am a dispensationalist and then try and undermine the position ...

 

[Iconoclast]

here you go;
The Major Mistake of Calvinism?

 

[Scott Downey]

I looked at that site and what comes to me is there is only the book of Life, why separate this into the book of Life, and the book of Life of the Lamb, there is no life outside of Christ, so how can there be a Book of Life outside of Christ. They are the same Book.
People who support another way to have eternal life are antichrists. Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father and the only way to eternal life is through the Son.
People who try to enter another way are thieves and robbers.
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Christ is the Door of the sheep.

I have had serious 'christians' argue with me that people can be saved outside of Christ, like people who have never heard, God judges them on their works and if they were good enough, they go to heaven.

 

[JonC]

I found this former Calvinist teacher. What do you think?

His web site: SOTERIOLOGY 101

The Lamb’s Book of Life

In short, this view of the book of life is not my view.

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).

 

[Scott Downey]

EXAMPLE of what I said earlier that it is the same book. Paul is writing about these christian people who labored with him,

Philippians 4:3And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life.

Beware of people speaking perverse things, like having multiple books of life, as in one for the Christians, and one for the others.
These things tickle the evil imaginations some people develop about God and Christ.
I am certain some people will reject what I am saying here ...

 

[Reformed1689]

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 guess I must be an oddball then, because I came to Reformed Theology after years of denying it.

 

[JonC]

I do not pretend I am a dispensationalist and then try and undermine the position ...

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 was at one time dispensational. I can still teach it.

Many of us have left dispensationalism behind because of how as a system it fragments the word of God rather than seeing it as a whole unit that blends together.They use the phrase "rightly dividing" when they wrongly fragment the word.

 

[JonC]

I guess I must be an oddball then, because I came to Reformed Theology after years of denying it.

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.

 

[rsr]

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.

 

[Reformed]

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 creator of the video in the OP* is guilty of the same thing he accuses Calvinists of doing. He is preying upon those who do not have a broad theological acumen. And yes, there is cognitive dissonance in his belief system. James White convincingly dismantled this gentleman's arguments in the debate they had. Still, he has a merry band of supporters that are solidly in his corner. They are the only ones who take his arguments seriously.

*I will not mention his name because those that do wind up getting warned.

 

[JonC]

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.

 

[JonC]

The creator of the video in the OP* is guilty of the same thing he accuses Calvinists of doing. He is preying upon those who do not have a broad theological acumen. And yes, there is cognitive dissonance in his belief system. James White convincingly dismantled this gentleman's arguments in the debate they had. Still, he has a merry band of supporters that are solidly in his corner. They are the only ones who take his arguments seriously.

*I will not mention his name because those that do wind up getting warned.

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.

 

[Reformed]

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

Jon, I made that comment because another Baptist Board member had portions of his posts clipped on a few occasions for mentioning he-who-shall-not-be-named. I figured his name was verboten.

 

[Rob_BW]

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

Jon, I made that comment because another Baptist Board member had portions of his posts clipped on a few occasions for mentioning he-who-shall-not-be-named. I figured his name was verboten.

Was Leighton Flowers the reason post #3 in this thread was edited? That was my assumption.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I made that comment because another Baptist Board member had portions of his posts clipped on a few occasions for mentioning he-who-shall-not-be-named. I figured his name was verboten.

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).

 

[JonC]

Was Leighton Flowers the reason post #3 in this thread was edited? That was my assumption.

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

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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).

The 2 main attempts to reform Calvinism, NCT and the so called new Calvinists have not gone that well!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

there has been a long history of particular Baptists here in USA, all the way back to our founding times, and there are really no moderate Calvinists, as all "real ones" hold to 5 points of Grace !
many think like Dr Geilser, who claimed to be a moderate Calvinist, but was really a 3 point arminist in theology!