people have accused me of having a ghostwriter for this segment, but according to Calvinism,
don't we all have a ghostwriter? Don't we all act in accordance with God's sovereign decree?
One of the often debated issues related to Calvinism is how can one possibly judge behavior
if it isn't a product of free will? I mean, think about it. Calvinists argue about their doctrine and
other teachings on various public platforms on a regular basis, but isn't that all for naught?
I mean, if God decreed that, for example, our guest tonight reject the teachings of Calvinism
based on his sovereign will, upon what basis does James White judge him? I've also never
met a Calvinist, by the way, who's ever admitted that they've been chosen to be a reprobate, but
that's a different topic for a different time. Also in view is God's dealing with mankind.
Does he act as a puppet master in heaven pulling the strings as he sees fit? Does he damn people
to hell based on a decision he made on their behalf? Or has he given his creation free will?
The free will to love, to hate, to do right, to do wrong, to get saved, or to reject the gospel
if they choose that. Now all this isn't just theological jargon, all right? The implications,
if Calvinism is true, are immense. Our very understanding of the nature of God's character
is at stake. Key passages of scripture could possibly be turned on their head if we're wrong
about this. But I submit to you, we're not wrong. We're not wrong. All the Calvinists are. And my
hope is that, like our guest tonight, many of them repent and acquire the Baptist bias.
Thanks for joining us on The Baptist Bias. I'm your host, Pastor Shelley. And we got a great show,
we got a great guest that's coming on, and we're going to be talking about Calvinism specifically.
We also will be taking some calls in later. I'm going to go throw it to my co-host, Ben the
Baptist. How's it going, Ben? Going great. I'm excited about the show tonight. We're talking
about a key issue. And you know, when it comes to this doctrine, Pastor Shelley, I feel like it's
one that a lot of people are mixed up in. There's definitely been, I think though,
a new movement of people that are coming out of Calvinism and realizing its implications because
when they study this doctrine and they realize they understand where it leads to, suddenly there's an
awakening there. But I'm just kind of curious from your perspective, Pastor Shelley, is this something
that you've had to deal with, like in your family or personally at all, this doctrine? My family's
never been really Calvinist. I actually grew up in a church that was actually against Calvinism,
but I did have some family, like extended family and stuff that dated people that were Calvinist
and things like that. My in-laws actually went to Southern Baptist Church and they got a new pastor
kind of towards the end of me living in that area. But he actually was coming from Southern,
and I think that that's a major Calvinist stronghold. So he was definitely heavily
influenced by Calvinism. And so I've definitely heard a lot of sermons from Calvinists.
I never really, I never subscribed to it personally, but the people that believe this,
it's just, they're very adamant. And so I'm really interested to bring our guest on because
I believe he was a Calvinist at one point and he's kind of transitioned away from that. And I'd
love to hear his testimony and story. So we're bringing on Layton Flowers from Soteriology 101.
Thanks for coming on the show. Glad to have you. How's it going?
It's going very well. Thanks for having me, guys.
And just for our audience's sake, can you just kind of introduce yourself a little bit
and kind of explain maybe what I said about maybe your transition from Calvinism?
Sure. First, I am a professor of theology at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological
Seminary. And I also host a popular broadcast on YouTube called Soteriology 101 where we discuss
the very issue we're discussing tonight, our doctrine of salvation. And I talk about,
as I've written in my books as well, my journey in and out of Calvinism. I was raised by parents
who are not Calvinists. Still to this day they're not Calvinists and never have been in a church
that's not Calvinistic. Never was. Still isn't today. But I went off to college and was mentored
by a Calvinist friend who I still consider a friend, by the way. I have a lot of friends who
are Calvinistic or Calvinistic leaning and some family members even who are also Calvinistic.
And so I don't besmirch them in the sense that I don't cast them out of the kingdom. I don't just
assume that because someone's a Calvinist they're not a Christian, even though I don't believe
Calvinistic doctrine in specific is Christian doctrine. I don't believe it's taught in the
Bible. And so I am very clear to state that somebody can be a Christian but not hold to
a Christian theology. And I think that Calvinists have made a mistake with regard to how they
interpret passages like Romans 9, John chapter 6, for example, Ephesians 1, and maybe several
other sporadic texts throughout the scriptures. But I was introduced to this through John
MacArthur, a book I'd read that was given to me and kind of just swallowed the whole systematic
and way of thinking, hook, line, and sinker, when I was about 19 years old. And became
a proselyte for Calvinism in a lot of ways. I converted a lot of people to Calvinism over
the 10 years that I held to it all through my 20s. And about the time I was about 28-29-ish,
I started reading outside of my echo chamber of Calvinism and began to get challenged in
what I was being taught and really began to have some serious doubts about the Calvinistic
interpretation of some of the texts that I just mentioned and others. I began to see some of the
fault lines of what I believe now are Calvinistic mistakes that they've made. And over the course
of two or three years of studying, I eventually recanted Calvinism and went back and repented to
my home pastor that I helped split his church over the topic and over the doctrine and helped
to start a Calvinistic church that still exists today in Wiley, Texas. And as you mentioned,
I repented of my mistake. I do believe I made a mistake. And as the intro, I think,
so eloquently put, I do believe we're right about this. And the truth of the matter is,
we're either right about the sovereignty and the glory of God and salvation or God has decreed us
to be wrong for some unknown mysterious reason. And that doesn't seem to make much rational sense.
I've still not heard a cogent, rational answer from a Calvinist as to how they can explain why
some of his children would be ordained in eternity past to become people who don't believe
right theology, who interpret the scripture wrongly. I think that can only be explained
rationally by means of free will and the fact that he's given us the ability to make our own
deliberations and make our own choices. And thus we make mistakes as Christians. We misinterpret
some scriptures because of our ability to do so. And I don't believe that we make mistakes because
God decreed us to. In other words, I don't think it's because God chose for us to be this way,
or in any way decreed for us to make the mistakes that we make.
Yeah, I'm kind of curious from a Calvinistic perspective, if someone was a Calvinist,
and I guess they kind of believe that you're going to believe in Jesus, you're going to have
the works, you're going to kind of be serving him as like an evidence or a fruit of your election.
But then, let's say you quit being a Calvinist, but you still believe and you still have the works.
Do the Calvinists think that you're still saved? I'm kind of curious. Are they still elect?
Yeah, every Calvinist is different. It's not a monolithic group and there are different heights
and groups of Calvinists. Most Calvinists, even you mentioned James White in intro, he affirms
that I'm a brother. He doesn't deny that Michael Brown and other people that he's debated on this
topic are brothers in Christ. And so, he doesn't go to the extreme of casting people out of the
kingdom if they don't hold to the five-point sociological systematic, though he obviously
very firmly holds to it and is willing to stand on a stage and debate for it. There are others,
however, well, in another debate I had down in Houston with Dr. Jonathan Pritchett there
with a colleague there at Trinity. Those gentlemen, however, did question our salvation,
and they were a little higher Calvinists that even other Calvinists didn't like too much,
because it didn't represent Calvinism all that well. If you watch the debate, you'll see what
I'm talking about. So there's just different kinds of Calvinists out there, and some of them
don't think we're really saved if we deny Calvinistic sociology.
So most of your Calvinism teaching is coming straight from John McArthur.
Was there other individuals maybe in his circle that influenced you as well?
R.C. Sproul was a big one. I got his Lingonaire tapes in the mail back when he had the cassette
tapes and I would listen to them religiously. And by the way, I learned a lot from Sproul. That has
nothing to do with Calvinism, much of which I still hold to today and still admire his teaching
and his ministry in a lot of ways. He had a huge amount of impact on me. And John Piper later
became more popular through a ministry that my dad was associated with. And Louis Giglio is a good
friend of my father's and Louis Giglio was really the one who brought John Piper into the mainstream
through choice ministries, ironically. And it's been one of those things where he became a huge
influence on my life. And even I even had him come and speak at some of our events. Piper was
another huge influence on my life. And there were others along the way. Voti Bakum was another
speaker that we had come speak at a lot of our events that I very much admire still today, admire
him, but obviously disagree with his sociology. But there are many others on that list that have
influenced me over the years. But those were the main movers and shakers at the time that were
really popular and also probably still popular today who really had a huge influence on me.
I'm kind of curious, Ben, because you've watched the James White debate and some of these other
shows and you made some clips here. Is there kind of a clip that you wanted us to introduce
our audience to and get a little sample here? Yes. I want to first of all say to our guest,
thank you for coming on. And one thing that stood out to me in the debate that you participated in,
I believe it was seven months ago with James White on the topic of John chapter number six
and verse 44. And by the way, if you want to pull that up, maybe we could read the verse just to get
a little more context there. But there was a particular section of the debate and to our
producer, I'm referring to clip number four, clip number four, where you describe in clip number
four here that we're going to play the issue regarding Calvinism of moral accountability,
and I touched on it a little bit in my opening segment there, and that's meant to just be kind
of entertaining and things like that. I do realize there's good people on both sides of this issue,
but my whole point is that it does seem to be one of the big Achilles heels, if you will,
the Achilles heel of Calvinism, the issue of moral accountability and how one can hold to this doctrine
while also holding others accountable for their doctrine, for their behavior, for their morality,
and for their salvation. You bring this up multiple times over the course of the debate.
Here's one of the times at which you did. Clip number four, let's play it.
Into this moral accountability, because I think that's the major Achilles heel of the
Calvinism. Is that going to be in John 6?
That's exactly dealing with John 6, because it's by default, you say it's by default,
in your own exposition of John 6, you say it's by default, they're unable to believe.
And so that is the... Because of their sin, yes.
Because of their sin, because they were born in that decreed state.
Yes, they are the sons and daughters of Adam, that's what Romans 5 teaches.
So let's put ourselves in the shoes, let's give a name and a face to one of these people
in the crowd that's Gungus moving. Let's call him Rob the Reprobate. He Gungus moves,
and then Rob turns around, he walks away, and he drops dead of a heart attack. He's non-elect,
so he goes to hell. On what basis is Rob judged? He had absolutely no control over whether he
listened and learned from the Father or Jesus. Why? On what basis is he condemned? Okay, absolutely
no control means God must extend his grace to rebel sinners. That's what's being said. I didn't
say that. That is what's being said. If you say he has no control, that means he is being forced
to be a bad guy, and God's standing there with a gun, he would be a bad guy. No, he's not. In fact,
God is restraining his evil. He is justly judged for the love of his sin. It's not a matter of being
forced into doing anything. It's not a matter of being incapable of doing anything outside of one
thing, and that is if you're a rebel sinner, you need the grace of God that doesn't just try to
save, but actually saves. Did I ever say that God owes anybody anything? You are definitely implying
it, yes. Did I ever say that he owed Rob anything in illustration? No. Continue on. Okay, so on what
basis, I'll ask again, on what basis is he being judged? And I already answered the question. He's
being judged on the basis that he's in Adam, and therefore he stands before... So he's being judged
really for Adam, Sam. That's all right. I've given the answer. There's no reason. It seems like when
you get to a point in the debate where James White no longer interacts with your argument,
you are winning. I'm curious your response to that clip, sir.
You know, it's frustrating because you have time limits and you can't continue to push,
you know, that came to the end of that time. And so I wasn't able to push him further to say on
what basis is he judged because the obvious answer is based upon a federal headship that
he's really judged for Adam's sin is basically what he's saying because he's born in a condition
where he can't respond positively. He can't listen and learn from the father. He can't listen and
learn it from Jesus. He can listen and learn from any other spiritual teacher out there. He can
read any other book in the entire world and believe it and dedicate his life to it. But
God created us all in such a way from the fall that we are in a condition, according to Calvinist,
that we cannot willingly follow God. We cannot listen to what he says and learn from what he says
and respond positively to it. We can't. And yet we're still judged for not being able to do that.
And if you push them on that, they'll say, "Well, we can't because we don't want to." And you'll say,
"Okay, you can't want to." Why? Because God created you in such a way from the fall,
judged for Adam's sin, condemned under Adam, and you can't want to even repent of what Adam did.
You can't even repent for what Adam did because you can't want to. Because your desires are so
corrupt from birth that you can't want to respond positively to anything that the Bible says,
that anything that God says, anything that Jesus says, and why are you judged then? On what moral
basis are you judged? They can't answer that question. All they can do is continue to repeat
their talking points, which is what you heard Dr. White doing there in that clip.
Yeah, I'm kind of curious because I feel like I've seen James White in other debates and
it seems like whenever they ask these questions like, "Is God responsible for evil? Is he
responsible for murder and rape and all these horrible atrocities?" that he never really wants
to just be like real clear. He just kind of says, "Well, everything's for God's glory."
Or, you know, "Of course, this has an ultimate good," or something. But I feel like that's
probably the Achilles heel to a... It's the Achilles heel to the Calvinist position that,
you know, it's how is God judging someone for evil if God's the one that's doing it?
And I'm just kind of curious when you were a Calvinist, did you feel like you had a good
answer for that or how would you have answered that? Honestly, I don't think I was pressed
ever on some of these issues as a Calvinist. When you're in a worldview where you're surrounded by
people who all teach like you do because you tend to step into that echo chamber where you're only
hearing the people who are telling you what to believe and what the other side believes.
And so really only thing I knew about not being a Calvinist was to be an Armenian. And I was having
people like Spruill and MacArthur, and God bless them, they have no idea what they're talking about
with regard to what Armenians taught or what Armenians in general teach. And I don't even
call myself an Armenian, by the way. I have some disagreements with typical Armenianism. But
nevertheless, I've played video after video after video of Spruill and MacArthur and Piper and
others describing Armenians and doing a horrible, horrible job. And then me showing with receipts,
documenting how Armenians don't say what they are being accused of saying. And so that's the only
thing I knew about non-Calvinist is what the Calvinistic leaders were telling me. And so
once I actually started doing my own homework and reading for myself what some of the best scholars
from the other side were actually saying, I began to realize I was being indoctrinated.
I'd surrendered my sense making to somebody else. And so even when I had questions kind of gnawing
at me, you know, the burr and the saddle as we say here in Texas, you know, there's something wrong
here. I would think to myself, well, I'm just little old latent flowers. I am nobody. I don't
know the answer to that question, but I bet R.C. Sproul would know the answer to that question.
MacArthur would know the answer to that question. The big dogs, they would know the answer.
And it was only when I started digging and trying to find their answers and then hearing them
use fallacious answers. And again, I'm not just accusing them of this. I have demonstrated on my
program video after video of them doing this. And so I'm not trying to bring blanket accusations
without the receipts. When I bring an accusation, I show people here's what they said and here's
why it's fallacious. Very few Calvinists will do the same thing for me. Very few Calvinists actually
play me in their words or put the Arminius words up there or put the leading scholar from our side
up there with their actual words and then say, "Here's why it's wrong." Now, some of them will,
but the big dogs don't. The MacArthur's and Sproul's and the Piper's, they rarely
deal with the best of the best scholars from the other side. They don't still man their opponent.
They tend to straw man their opponent. In other words, they give a false view of what their
opponent believes and then attack that straw man. And when you realize they're doing that,
you begin to realize you've been sold a bill of goods and you begin to go, okay, maybe they're
still right, but they're just not very good at argumentation. Maybe they're just not very good
at representing their opponents. And so you have to be good Bereans and do your own homework and
do your own study. And I think if people objectively do that, they'll begin to realize
that the Calvinistic systematic is a house of cards. It is philosophically indefensible
and it's biblically unsupportable. Now, I know that's a huge claim, but I don't just make that
claim. I actually argue for that claim with citations, with videos and other books and
resources to help people see how and why I've come to that conclusion. I'm kind of curious,
and I want to make sure just even if you said this, but what was kind of the first domino
to fall for you in kind of a transition away or what was, was there a verse or was there a moment?
I'm just kind of curious. Yeah. Well, I was reading a book by RC, no excuse me,
A.W. Tozer, who I just assumed was a Calvinist because Piper quoted from Tozer in almost all of
his books. He always, he loves Tozer. And I just assumed Tozer was one of us because he's smart
and he's biblical and he's strong and all those kinds of things. And so as a Calvinist, you know,
the kind of that way of thinking you just assume that if somebody's smart and biblical, they have
to be a Calvinist, for goodness sake. And I was reading, I think it was A Knowledge of the Holy
by Tozer and he just said something that didn't fit the Calvinistic paradigm at all. I mean,
it was contradicting Calvinism. And I started doing some research and found out, I actually found a
sermon from Tozer denouncing Calvinism. I mean, harshly denouncing Calvinism. And the same kind
of thing I came across with C.S. Lewis. C.S. Lewis was another favorite of Calvinists that was often
quoted who also spoke very vehemently against Calvinistic theology. And that was kind of a
shocker for me. It was almost like I have such a high respect for both of these scholars. Why in
the world would they reject Calvinism? And again, that didn't make me leave Calvinism like, "Oh,
okay. I'm going to just follow these two guys." It made me just go, "Why didn't they believe this?
This doesn't make any sense." And I had debated in high school and in college, and you have to
take both the affirmative and the negative. You're trained to do that. And so you have to drop your
biases, drop all your preconceptions and those kinds of things, and argue for the other side
vehemently. And so I kind of took on that project for myself as a theology geek that I am and began
to pick up Arminius himself and began to read him. And the guy sounds like a Calvinist. And
when you go back and read Arminius, he sounds very Calvinistic in a lot of his writings and
a lot of his teachings. In fact, he was a student of Geneva. He was a student of John Calvin.
And so it makes sense that he sounded a lot like Calvin in the sense that he talked a
lot about the glory of God and the sovereignty of God and the power of God and his immutability
and all the things that you hear Calvinists really like to emphasize and in which you should
emphasize. But he made some arguments and some things that I had never really thought through
and just got me thinking about some things from a different perspective. And then that led me to
other scholars who have written on the topic and just begin to see their arguments. And I just begin
to ask myself the question, you know, like, okay, if they don't read Romans 9 like I do, because it
just seems like black and white to me. I mean, this is obviously Calvinism in my mind. I was like,
okay, how would a C.S. Lewis, for example, read Romans 9 and not walk away a Calvinist? And so
I began to look at commentators and others that wrote from a non-Calvinist advantage point of how
they interpret this. And some of them, to be honest, weren't very satisfying. I felt like some
of them were stretching the text and some of them were going all over the place. And it took me a
while to kind of work through all of that myself. But I did eventually just begin to see how people
were understanding the text from a more corporate perspective, talking more about Israel than
individuals. The westernized mindset that we have when we think of the Scriptures, we think in a very
"me, I, my" individualistic way, whereas in the original text, in the original language,
it was very more of a familiar or corporal kind of language where they speak more as a group of
people. And when you understand that Romans 9 is really addressing the nation of Israel and their
hardened condition and God binding them over, hardening them in their unbelief so as to bring
about the crucifixion and the redemption of the world through them, then that text takes on a
whole different meaning in that context. And once I saw that, when the light came on from the other
side, I go, "Oh, now I see what they see." Now, I didn't necessarily accept it right away. I just
finally saw it for the first time. Oh, I get what they're saying. It makes sense to me because
before I just thought, "Well, they're just ignoring the Bible. They just mark this out of their
scripture or something stupid like that." But once I realized that there are very intelligent,
well-intending scholars, matter of fact, most scholars have not walked away from Orman's 9
reading it and concluding Calvinism because they go on and read through 10 and 11.
Because that's a detriment to the Calvinistic interpretation when you really begin to read
through it consistently. And so it's just things like that, the whole hardening thing, the speaking
in parables. Why would you speak in parables less they see, hear, understand, and turn if they're
born unable to see, hear, understand, and turn? Does it make any sense? That's a good point.
Things like that were just kind of the, again, the burr and the saddle for me. And I'm like going,
there's a reason Jesus was hardening the Jewish people in their rebellion. And he could have just,
if Calvinism is true, he could just say, well, I'm not going to regenerate these people. I'm
not going to change their nature because their nature from birth is by default going to reject
me. So I don't need to speak to them in parables in order to keep them in the dark, in order to
bring about my plan and purposes through their rebellion. And so things like that were just
really gnawing on me. And it wasn't until I kind of removed those Calvinistic lenses that it all
just kind of fit together perfectly in the text and begin to understand the narrative of the New
Testament, what Christ really his strategic purpose was of redemption by ultimately coming
to his own and his own don't receive him. And so he blinds them. He even weeps over them and says,
"But now these things have been hidden from your eyes." Well, who's hiding it from them?
He is by speaking to them in parabolic language and not entrusting himself to them because he
knows they're following him for the wrong reasons. And he's bringing the message to
the nations of the world. And he's doing that through the unbelief of the Jewish leaders of
that day. And once you get that, once that sinks in, then all those little proof texts of Calvinism
just kind of disappear and they fit right in line with this concept and idea of what is sometimes
called the messianic secret or judicial hardening, the concept of God using Israel in their rebellion
to bring about his plan of redemption. Yeah. I'm also kind of curious just about free will
in general, because for me, you know, that's been the most untenable idea for me as far as
Calvinism. And it seems like to me, free will is kind of the whole focal point, even of the five
points of Calvinism. You have the tulip, the total depravity is kind of there at the very
cornerstone of free will. And all the other points are based on the idea of free will just not
really existing, God being kind of this puppet master. And for me, you know, I guess it seems
like when I have those ideas of these concepts, but I talked to Calvinists, maybe they say,
"No, I believe in free will." But they affirm it somehow still. I guess, and I want to make
sure I understand this correctly, because I've tried to want to explain it. But to me,
a Calvinist view of free will is that you're a puppet and you just don't realize you're
a puppet.
A moist puppet, as I was saying. Well, I don't know, how do you answer this?
Kind of briefly, this gets into the philosophy of libertarian free will versus compatibilistic
free will. And what compatibilist, i.e. a Calvinist, would argue, those who don't know
what they're talking about anyway, a lot of Calvinists have no idea about the philosophical
underpinnings of these different doctrines. But what a compatibilist does is they basically,
in my estimation, they basically define free will in such a way to make it fit their doctrine.
And so it's not free will like you would typically think of free will, the way even
Augustine argued for it back when he first left Manichaeanism and argued against the
Manichaeans of his day. When he talked about free will, he thought of it like the most
of us do, the ability to do otherwise, the source ability that the decisions from you
not determined by something or factors or individuals outside of yourself. That's basically
what we understand as free will. Well, a compatibilist says, "Well, no, no, you're free as long
as you're doing what you want." But behind the curtain, like in Wizard of Oz, behind
the curtain is that your wants are ultimately being controlled by the decree. And so as
long as you're doing what you want, it's free. Now think about this for a second because
I'll push Calvinist on this. And I've even heard Calvinists like Jeff Durbin and others
use this analogy of a lion. If he's given a bell of hay and a pile of meat, we'll always
choose the pile of meat to eat. Whereas a cow will always choose the pile of hay. Why?
Because it's their nature. So my question is, why don't we torture cows for eating
hay and torture lions for eating meat? Because they're just doing what they're made to do
by their maker. They're doing what they're doing by nature. And so that's the way they've
reduced free will to this animal instinct that we're doing what we desire to do because
we're instinctively programmed. And as a matter of fact, that's words from MacArthur. He actually
says we are pre-programmed to believe lies. He actually uses that in sermon. I'll quote
it in my book because that's exactly what, it's by default. We are automatically just
like the lion's going to choose the meat. We are automatically going to choose to reject
the gospel because it's our nature. But they call that free because you're not being compelled
physically like with a gun to your back, your head or physical manipulation. Well, who cares
if it's physical manipulation, if it's mental manipulation. If I were to walk into a bar
and pick up a woman and throw her over my shoulder and walk out with her and she's screaming,
everybody would be like, "Oh, a crime. That's a crime." But if I walk in and I put a potion
in her drink that causes her to love the first person that speaks to her and I put a potion
to drink without her knowing it, she drinks it, I speak to her immediately and she goes
out willingly because of the potion's effect on her, wouldn't all of you and everybody
watching this think that's just as criminal? You use something to manipulate that woman's
desires to do something that was against her nature, her desires, her choice. That is just
as criminal as picking her up and physically carrying her out. But a Calvinist, I don't
think has a good rational answer, has that why and how God is just to do one but not
the other. And I always push back to Calvinists, what if it's physical manipulation? What if
he ties Cain to the tree and insists Cain bring the right sacrifice but Cain can't bring
the right sacrifice because God tied him to a tree? Who are you to question God, oh man,
if God wants to hold him accountable even though he didn't bring the right sacrifice
because he was tied to a tree? That's a physical impalement. What's the difference between
that and an internal spiritual impalement that he has no control over? And that's exactly
the issue that Calvinists, I don't think, can rationally deal with, is why in the world
would you hold somebody accountable for something in which they have no meaningful control over?
Yeah, I like that. I really like your nature argument and I would even take it to another
level like if you see a lion eating a gazelle and saying like why aren't we holding the
lion guilty for, I mean, basically violently destroying a gazelle and eating its carcass
and I guess animal actors would be like that's murder or something like meat murder or something
like that. But again, we don't hold that accountable to the lion because like you said, a good
argument like that's their nature. So if human beings are just evil, if they're created to
do evil and they're just doing evil from their puppet master, then it really kind of puts
into question God having a love of or love action or being holy or just or righteous.
I mean, I think a verse is like when it says neither this come in my mind, like there's
there's verses where God's like looking at evil and saying like this never even came
into my mind. How is that even compatible with a Calvinistic view of he's making them
do something that he never thought of? Well, different Calvinists have different ways to
explaining Jeremiah 19 five, and it's referenced other places as well. And, and it sounds like
double speak to me. A lot of it is, you know, the rationalizing their their doctrines to
make it fit the scriptures in my estimation. And I'll let them speak for themselves on
some of those different verses, because for me to go through it, there's like there's
literally three or four different ways in which Calvinists interpret or deal with that
text. But to be fair, the Armenian or the Provisionist non-Calvinist also has various
ways in which they deal with texts that are difficult for our doctrines. And so that's
not necessarily a fault on their behalf. It's just a limitation of our time to be able to
go through all those. But the other thing I was going to point out is when Jesus marvels
at their unbelief, why would Jesus marvel at something they were born unable to do?
It would be like walking up on the swimming in the lake and going, "They can't swim in
the water? They can't breathe underwater?" Then marveling at the fact that they can't
breathe underwater. No, they were born unable to breathe underwater. Why would you marvel
at their ability? And then marveling at the great faith of the Centuria. Well, why would
you marvel at something God's gifted him and caused him to do? Those kinds of things just
don't fit the narrative of Scripture. I think Calvinists, some Calvinists at least, recognize
that and are even willing to acknowledge it while at the same time still holding to the
doctrines for whatever reason. I mean, you can judge as to what motivations, I'm not
saying they're necessarily nefarious. I think that they're just so convinced that Romans
9 or Ephesians 1 and others teach their theology that they're willing to deal with whatever
other passages seem to fly in the face of those interpretations. Well, you brought up that analog
of the woman who had a substance in her drink that changed her "nature" and then the other example of
the man just picking her up. To me, no matter how you want to explain it, no matter which example
you're going to hitch your wagons to there between the two you brought up, either way, I think when
you follow it to its inevitable conclusion you're coming to a lack of free will. You're also coming
to a conclusion that would state that behavior is not a byproduct or a product of one's autonomy,
which then begs the question, and you did this multiple times in the debate with James White
that I'm referring to seven months ago on John 6 44, how in the world can there be any responsibility
placed on the shoulders of the creation of God for turning against him or not believing
on the Lord Jesus Christ, for example. And in my mind, I just don't think that Dr. White
addressed your objection in a satisfactory manner and just kept arguing that you were
waiting beyond the scope of John 6 44 and that you were going beyond the scope of the debate
that evening, when in fact you actually weren't. I think that you were remaining within the scope
of the application of John 6 44, which says, "No man can come to me except the Father which hath
seen me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day." And verse 45, it is written to the
prophets, "And they shall be all taught of God. Every man, therefore, that hath heard and hath
learned of the Father, cometh unto me." But in my mind, there just has not been a satisfactory
response to the free will argument that I've heard yet. And in that debate with James White,
it doesn't seem like he did a great job either and just kept trying to make the argument that
you were moving beyond the scope of the debate that evening when you really weren't. How do
you feel about that? Well, that's been his memo, his mode of operation. He did that with
John Lennox when he responded to his book on the subject. His debate with Michael Brown,
he did the same thing. His debate with Steve Craig, he did the same thing. He just says,
"Oh, you're out of bounds." Moves the goalposts. You're out of bounds because you're talking about
something that's outside the text. Well, that's begging the question. It's assuming the very point
up for debate. And you can't assume that when I attack your premise and your presuppositions
that I'm outside of the scope of the debate because those presuppositions are leading you to your
conclusion of that text. And plus, we're arguing over what is Jesus teaching, okay? And what are
the implications of what He's teaching? And if you've got two interpretations being put in front of
you, one of them leads to these horrible gross implications of God holding people accountable
for something they have absolutely no control over. And the other one, where He's actually
judging them for their sin and their unbelief and the fact that they're following Him for
nefarious reasons, they're not there for the right reasons, and that's the reason He's not being
entrusted to them is because they're not true believers. They're following Him. Yes, outside
they look like they're ready to be baptized and saved, but He knows their hearts. And because He
knows their hearts, He's not entrusting Himself to them. They're not being given to the Son because
they did not listen to Moses. They did not listen to the Father. And so that makes sense. So this
view makes sense. It doesn't make God into a moral monster judging people for something they have no
control over. And this one doesn't. I have every right to show the audience, look at the implications
of what He's saying Jesus is teaching here and look at what that means to the audience. Think
about it practically. Does that work? And if He just says, "Oh, I don't want to talk about that
because it's too emotional," or "Yeah, no, that's outside the scope of the debate," who are you to
be the judge and the arbiter of what's outside the scope of the debate? I have every right as the one
challenging your interpretation to look at the implications of what you think Jesus is teaching.
Amen to that. You also mentioned in your opening statement and even a little bit tonight about this
idea of the total depravity human beings essentially by default, right, do not want anything to do with
God and things like that. But I really like the distinction you made where you had talked about
it's not by default, it's by their fault. And so you're putting the onus, the responsibility
on the unbeliever, not by default, by their fault. Can you develop that a little more for us? Because
I find that to be an easy way to help explain this. Well, the Calvinist says it's their fault, too.
They just say the default is their fault and they can't explain why default is their fault.
And so the lion, it's the lion's fault for eating the meat. But why is it the lion's fault? Because
we said so, because of our interpretation of Romans five and federal headship, I guess,
whatever. But you can't just assume the very point up for debate, you've got to establish it.
And so if he's going to argue that we're held accountable for what Adam did, because of his
interpretation of Romans five, then he's got to argue for that, or he's got to establish that.
And in my book on John six, I go through both Piper and MacArthur's disagreement with White's
view with regard to federal headship and the innocence of children. That's why we kind of
get into and touch on the concept of the spiritual condition of infants, because that goes to the
very root of this concept of inherited guilt and inherited inability. And White didn't want to go
there, obviously. He claimed it was off topic and claimed it was emotionally based and all these
kinds of things. No, this is the heart of the issue between us. You assume they're born guilty. So if
that same man, Rob the reprobate, had died when he's two months old, you're saying he would have
gone to hell justly? Why? On what basis? That doesn't make any rational sense. That whole Rob
the reprobate thing and me pushing on the child and the infant all pointed to that major issue
of assuming without precedent, or I mean without biblical argumentation in the debate at least,
that we are born not only guilty but unable to respond positively to the message that is
given to us by the Father calling us to repentance and faith. From a Calvinist perspective,
is there any consensus at all on the spiritual condition of infants or do they typically just
say well it's up to God's will or sovereign decree? The mainstream Calvinists that most like MacArthur,
Piper, I think Spruill probably landed here too if I remember correctly, all taught that they believe
God would show mercy to infants that die or aborted babies. White has argued however that he
thinks infants would be just like adults, that some are some are like some aren't and that's
God's judgment as to what he does and it's his prerogative and you can't question God and his
judgment to do that and so that's a harder line obviously but the reason his argument for the
reason he has three-fold argument and I covered that in the book too but one of the biggest ones
is that he doesn't want abortion to be the greatest heaven-filling device ever created
because by aborting people you're sending them directly to heaven and what's interesting about
that is MacArthur actually uses that same exact argument as to argue for the fact that he believes
all aborted babies go to heaven because he sees God as merciful and the baby is innocent and so
he says you know every tribe nation and tongue according to scripture will be represented in
heaven and God may be in his sovereignty because MacArthur is a Calvinist and his sovereignty may
be fill in heaven with all these tribes, tongues, and nations through infants that die and abortion
and those kinds of things and so both men, Calvinists, take that argument a different route.
MacArthur says he's actually using those atrocities to fill heaven whereas White says I don't want to
say that those atrocities fill heaven so I'm not going to make that claim. I'm kind of curious
because I've never really believed in Calvinism but you kind of brought this up and it seemed like
to me like the age of accountability doctrine sounded Calvinistic to me and I was just kind
of curious like have you ever thought about that or like what is your kind of explanation
on that particular subject? Well Calvinists have typically, at least the ones I'm familiar with,
have typically argued against the age of accountability kinds of argument. Now MacArthur
may be an exception to that because he's more of a Baptistic kind of Calvinist and kind of a weird
dispensational kind of a Calvinist which is a really weird combination but he's kind of grown
more and more Calvinistic over his ministry. If you haven't noticed as he got closer to Piper and
the big Young Restless Reform movement he became I think more staunch and more vocal about his
particular brand of Calvinism. But nevertheless the Age of Accountability is I think a very
biblical principle and that is that you're held responsible when you get to an age where you
understand the difference between good and evil and I've written an article it's also in my book.
Well my book God's Provision for All is it's in there as well but you can find it online as well
if you just typed in Sociology 101 and talked about the age of accountability
and I remember as a Calvinist kind of rejecting that doctrine for a while because I thought it
was just something well I was told it was just a doctrine that was made up to comfort people who
lost you know infants and it really wasn't a biblical doctrine but there are actually a lot
of passages in scripture that I think directly teach this principle as much so as the doctrine
of the trinity in my estimation and so I make that argument there in my book as well as in several
online articles for those that want to go a little bit deeper into that. Thanks for that. Do you have
another clip Ben? I want to get a few more clips in here too because I know our audience hasn't
seen some of that so I was just kind of curious if we could watch one more of these clips. There's
plenty and we're just dealing with one debate here but there's plenty to talk about as it relates
to this debate. I'm curious about let's go to clip number eight and I want to set this up while our
production team, while they're quick, but I want to set this up. You guys in the debate went back
and forth. This is the cross-examination and you make an argument out of the book of second
Corinthians that I thought was really good. Let's play the clip now. Dean says if anyone is in Christ
he's a new creation but yet you have them being a new creation prior to being in Christ. I find it
mere game playing to contrast differing texts as if they are all meant to provide a specific
ordo salutis by order. You never do that do you? To be in Christ, you are placed in Christ by the
Spirit of God and that involves being raised to spiritual life. Throughout John 6 we're called
to come eat drink of Christ so as to live which is consistent with John 5 40 you refuse to come
to me so that you may live. So how is it that one is made alive prior to coming to Christ?
Again spiritually dead individuals need to be given spiritual life so they can have true faith
in Christ that endures and is focused upon who he is and not merely looking for signs and food.
So 2nd Corinthians therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new creature chapter 5 and verse
17 of course. All things are passed away behold all things are become new and you bring up the
difficulty there of having a Calvinist presupposition while reading that passage.
You bring up John chapter 6 as well but that little jab I really appreciated that you never
do that you know because you know I think of Romans chapter 8 for example in the way that
they interpret it and order is so important there for them. What do you think about 2nd Corinthians
chapter 5 verse 17 as it relates to Calvinism? That I don't believe you really got much of a
response there. Go ahead and give me your answer. No, I mean all he does is says all he says is
that verse is not applicable and why isn't it applicable? According to your worldview but go
ahead, sorry. Yeah, no, I mean the whole the word regeneration means to bring somebody to life.
That's what it means and he agrees with that. We all know what the word regeneration means
and that's one of the reasons if you watch the debate they're so frustrating for me and I get
frustrated in my cross-examination because I'm trying to get him to own up to his own words
because I read his book. I've got it marked up. I've quoted from it my own book a dozen times so I
know exactly what he taught with regard to the word helco drawing. He links it to regeneration
in his book. He links it in his broadcast what I've displayed and then in the debate he acts
like drawing has nothing to do with regeneration and then even asking about it is off topic.
And I'm like what in the world is going on? It was baffling to me. I didn't know how to deal
with him just completely changing his perspective and then refusing to answer the question with
regard to because you can't come to Jesus unless you've been drawn. Well, what is drawing? To be
made alive on Calvinism, to be regenerated. And yet he's trying to say, well, that's not really
what's involved in the word. I've never said that. That's not what I argue. I know that's false,
which I've proven after the debate. I've shown videos of it. I've shown it in this book and
everything else. And he had to run from that. I believe that he purposely, after seeing my debate
with Gabe Hughes, where I cornered Gabe Hughes on this issue, and Gabe Hughes floundered and even
admitted he floundered in another discussion with regard to how do you get life before coming to
Christ if Christ is a life giver, he floundered in how to answer that question. And White watched
that debate preparing, and so what he does is he takes the tactic of saying, "Well, I'm going to
just obfuscate with regard to the word helco and drawing and just run away from my previously stated
views with regard to that involving regeneration." Because if he just came out, admit what he teaches,
then I could press him on where in the scripture does the word drawing ever connote the idea of
regeneration, or where is it ever linked to regeneration in any way, shape, or form. Because
I can show you verse after verse after verse that says it's by believing that we get new life,
and it's by coming to Him that we have life. It's by eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood
that we are made alive. I can show you dozens of verses that support our ordo salutus, including
the Corinthians passage you already mentioned. Where's yours? Because in this text, you're using
it as one of your major proof texts of pre-faith regeneration, of drawing being that regeneration,
and now you're obfuscating with regard to what you've taught in the past regarding what that word
means, which I think is telling. Another analogy that I thought was helpful was the one involving
a teacher in a classroom. And this teacher may be teaching everything right and dispensing
information, but students still have the autonomy to either accept or reject the information.
And I know for me, you know, I was a little rascal when I was in school,
wasn't always paying any attention. Some classes I was sleeping, admittedly, all right,
where I'm confessing my faults here. But, you know, how about that? I feel like that's a pretty good
way to explain the fact that people still have the autonomy to either accept or reject
what scripture teaches and, of course, the gospel itself. Imagine, I mean, playing off that analogy,
imagine if you have a teacher who's known to be a good teacher, respectable, good at what they do,
genuinely loves students, genuinely wants them to learn. But let's say only 10% of her class
actually retains the information and believes it. And then the audacity to think, well, that must
be because the teacher doesn't really want the other 90% to learn, because that's exactly what
Calvinists are having us believe. The reason that everybody doesn't believe what Jesus says or what
God says is because God doesn't really want them to. He didn't flip the regeneration switch. He
doesn't really want them. They're not really His. He flipped the reprobate switch from birth for
them where they're born by default, unable to believe what He says is true. And therefore,
the teacher is flawed. They would never say, obviously, that God is flawed. I'm not saying
that. I'm saying, by implication, that's what they're ultimately saying, is that it's the
teacher's fault that these students aren't learning and listening and heeding the words
of God. And I'm going, no, don't give them that excuse. For goodness sake, this is their fault.
They have closed their eyes. They have turned from the truth. They have turned from a God who
actually loves them and has provided for them. On Calvinism, they're turning from a God who
hated them before they were born, salvifically speaking, who did not send Jesus to die for them,
who created them to be displays of His wrath. To me, I'm thinking those people are victims.
I feel sorry for the reprobate, the non-elect person of the Calvinistic worldview,
because they're born hated by their Maker without the capacity, the moral capacity,
to respond positively to what seems to be a very loving, gracious Savior, but not really.
Behind the scenes, it's a secret will. He doesn't really want them. He doesn't really love them,
and he doesn't really want them to learn. That just completely undermines the gospel,
and it takes away the blameworthiness of the student. And I don't think we should take away
the blameworthiness of the student, because I think the teacher's a good teacher. He teaches well,
he teaches clearly, and people who reject that teaching should be blamed for rejecting that
teaching. Amen to that. Hey, Pastor Shelley, we'll bring this analogy to church. When you
get up and you preach and people don't apply your sermon and do the opposite of what you said,
I guess that means you wanted them to. Yeah, in your secret, in your secret will.
In your secret will, yeah. Obviously, it just gets really complicated. I feel like, you know,
the thing about Calvinism is you kind of have to be taught it. I just don't see people just reading
the Bible and then just coming up with this. And obviously, someone did at some point, but I feel
like it's just people sitting around just thinking and daydreaming all day or coming to the Bible
preconceived ideas. A lot of it's coming from the early church fathers, right? Yeah. And it's like
you hold the one doctrine and once you get that doctrine there, like it may be the doctrine of
predestination of this concept from the Calvinistic predestination. And once you get that concept in,
then the next layer is, okay, well, how do I deal with this text or how do I deal with this question
or how do I deal with this question? And so they layer different views on top of that to make that
underlying foundational layer work. And so, and that's why it sounds to somebody who's new to it
or somebody who's never held it. They just, most of them go, what in the world? That is, that seems
ridiculous. But it doesn't seem like that when you're a Calvinist because you've adopted one
layer at a time and they slowly build onto each other to where you kind of like the frog in the
boiling pot. You slowly kind of get used to this doctrine and all of the talking points and answers
come to you in time that typically placate your questions. But when you throw all those things
out at once to somebody who's never studied these things, it's like throwing the frog into
a hot pot. Immediately, you just bounce out and go, why in the world would I stay in there? That's
ridiculous. And so I think that's kind of what's happening with some folks.
How about limited atonement? I mean, I feel like this is another big Achilles heel because,
you know, the Bible obviously couldn't be more clear. "Whosoever believes in him should not
perish but have eternal life. Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely." You know,
he's the appreciation for our sins, but not for ours only, but the sins of the whole world.
It seems to me that scripture is so clear that all means all, that Jesus Christ died for all.
What's your reaction to limited atonement and have you encountered any kind of response from
the other side that you felt was, you know, actually like satisfactory or anything like that?
Well, limited atonement is something that's very much debated among Calvinists. So men like Bruce
Ware there at Southern is considered an Almoraldian or a four-point Calvinist. And matter of fact,
of the Calvinistic movement, the Almoraldian four-point Calvinist is growing a lot because
of the lack of biblical material supporting the L of the limited atonement. It's arguable that
even John Calvin didn't hold to a limited view of the atonement, nor did any of the early reformers
or many of the early reformers. Even Augustine, who's known to be kind of the father of more
Calvinistic thinking, did not hold to a view of limited atonement. And so it's a doctrine in
search of a text, as my friend David Allen likes to put it. He's written the kind of atonement on
this topic that I highly recommend. He's also got smaller versions as well. And the reason it's so
huge, like 800 plus pages, is because he quotes from reformers. He quotes from other Calvinists
because a lot of Calvinists won't listen to someone like Leighton Flowers or David Allen,
but they might listen to Calvin. They might listen to some of the earliest Calvinistic reformers that
did not believe in limited atonement. Now, I don't like to really focus on that portion of the debate
because whether you're a four-point or a five-point Calvinist, it all comes back down
to the same exact thing. If God is ultimately the one who's controlling your will, either through
total inability from birth, which is God's doing, not the person born, they're just born that way,
and/or rebirth through regeneration, irresistible grace, that's the T and the I. Every Calvinist
holds to the T and the I. That's undoing human accountability, as far as I can tell. So,
what does it matter about the atonement aspect, whether it's provided for every single person or
not, if God's ultimately the one who's controlling, if you're born by default unable to accept His
atonement, unless He irresistibly graces you? And so, I know that's probably the most debated
of all the points. I just think it's the least relevant with regard to what Calvinism's error
really is. So, I was looking at some of the chat questions. Someone has a question in here
about Romans 1 and the idea of the reprobate doctrine. I guess just out of curiosity,
what is your interpretation there of Romans 1? Because I think I've heard Calvinists say that
everyone's kind of a reprobate and then they get elected and they come out of that. Whereas at
least from our perspective, we think that reprobation is something that happens to someone
who rejects the gospel over and over or decides to hate God in their heart. So, I'm just kind of
curious, how does Romans 1 work from your previous Calvinistic understanding to now?
Yeah. I confront Al Moller, who's the president of Southern and also a Baptist, a Calvinist,
a very well-known Baptist Calvinist who, again, a very respectable man in a lot of regards.
But I read from one of his sermons and his commentary on this, and when he hits Romans 1,
he starts with verse 18. And you'll notice that's where all of them start when they're defending
this concept and idea of the wrath of God being revealed to the world. And they're explaining,
"This is the condition of every man from birth." And it's the default condition.
And they start at verse 18 and read on. And I'm saying, well, you're missing Paul's point,
because if you back up, you'll recognize that he just now talked about that the gospel is the
power of God and salvation. And then he says, "The righteous live by faith." But, verse 18,
"But the wrath of God is being revealed to those who reject him and reject his truth or trade
the truth in for lies." In other words, the contrast in Paul's mind is those with faith
versus those who refuse to believe. And that those who refuse to believe are without excuse,
because it is understandable. It is very clearly made known, even to those without the law,
because the conscience, the law is written on our heart. So Paul's argument is not everyone's born
in this default condition where they're only going to hate and reject God. Paul's argument is the
righteous live by faith. And those who reject God are guilty, even if they're a Jew or a Gentile,
because all of us have sufficient revelation to respond to and to know God and respond to him.
And we're all accountable for what we do with the light and revelation we've been given.
That's Paul's point. And Calvinists use this as a kind of a universal proof text for inability.
There's nothing in that text about that. It says if they trade the truth, their hearts become
defiled. Not that it was born that way and they couldn't help it. It talks about it's a warning
text in a lot of ways. Almost saying, "Hey, you have no excuse for your unbelief because he's
made this abundantly clear not only through the law and the prophets, but through conscience and
through revelation, through nature. God's made himself abundantly known. And so you're accountable.
All of you are accountable, whether Jew or Gentile, because he's made himself known and the righteous
live by faith. Now does that mean everybody with faith is righteous? No. Job was called a righteous
man, but was Job perfect? No. Abraham was called a righteous man. Was he perfect? No. What's it mean?
He is credited as righteous because of the grace of God. So he believed and therefore he was credited
with righteousness, which is exactly what he goes on to talk about in chapter four. He goes to chapter
three. No one's righteous, no, not one. Well, how does that fit, Paul? Job is righteous according to
scripture. Abraham was righteous according to scripture. You even argue that Abraham is
righteous in the very next chapter. What's he talking about? No one is righteous with accordance
of the law. Everyone has fallen short. We've all messed up. Abraham, Job, all of the people, Enoch,
all the people who are called righteous, messed up. They sinned. So they are credited with
righteousness based upon what is provided through Christ. And he's not obligated to do that for
anyone. He chooses graciously to do that for those who put their faith in Him. If you trust in Him,
God will be gracious to you because He's gracious, not because He owes it to you
or not because faith merits anything. Faith is a filthy rag without the atoning work of Christ.
It would be almost like saying, "Oh, well, Abraham earned his righteousness by believing
and willingly sacrificing his own son," and saying, "Okay, well, therefore Jesus doesn't need to die."
Well, no. He didn't earn anything. He still had a debt he could not pay. And it's only
through the atoning work of Christ that the account is made right or justified,
and therefore he's accredited with the righteousness of Christ by grace through faith.
And, of course, the Bible says that they've changed the truth of God into a lie,
which I think also indicates that they had autonomy in that process as well.
You can't trade something you don't have. You have to have it to trade it.
Exactly right. Exactly right. So I appreciate your response to that.
And one question I wanted to ask, and you'll have to forgive me if I'm jerking the steering wheel
here abruptly, but you brought up earlier the distinction between Calvinism and Arminianism,
and that you have some issues with Arminianism. In my mind, there appears to be a bit of a false
left-right paradigm between these two theological concepts, because I think it's very plausible
to reject both. But there is one theological concept that I find to be intriguing, which
is Molinism, and I've seen William Lane Craig defend this in debates. I'm curious if you
had a thought on that at all.
On Molinism in specific?
Yes, sir.
Molinism, you can be a Calvinist and still be a Molinist. You can be an Armenian and
still be a Molinist. You can be a Provisionist, which is kind of a term I've coined to describe
where I stand and be a Molinist.
Molinism is a philosophical explanation as to how God works, an all-knowing God works
within a temporal world. In other words, he's given an explanation as to how it could play
out. In other words, he's explaining that you're explicating the inexplicable. You're
trying to philosophize about how this could possibly work, and Molinism offers one possible
explanation as to how an all-knowing God can engage with libertarianly free creatures.
Molinism is one of many philosophical answers to these kinds of questions. I think it happens
to be probably the strongest of them. I've never claimed to be a Molinist, one, because
it would force me then to have to defend it and understand it well enough to do so. And
I'm not trained in philosophy and don't feel confident enough to be able to defend, nor
do I, as a theologian, see the need to be a Molinist. And I hate to disagree in any
way with William and Craig on any issue, just because he's so much brighter than I ever
hoped to be. And I know him personally, he and his wife Jan, we went to Israel together
with a group and got to know them very well and love that family to death. And I think
he's kind of the modern day CS Lewis of our day. He's one of the greatest living apologists.
And I have a huge amount of respect for him, but there are several times in which he will
appeal to Molinism to answer a particular proof text that I don't think necessary.
In other words, I don't think you need Molinism to deal with some of the texts that he does.
I think they could be answered very easily from a theological vantage point versus the
more philosophical nature of what Molinism holds to.
Now, with that said, the determinists, theistic determinists like a Calvinist is, they're
also philosophical. And there's theologians and there are philosophers. That's why I
was talking about compatibilism earlier. And philosophers like Binyong and others are written
from a Calvinistic vantage point frame and others that have written on these topics that
are more from a philosophical vantage point. And that's where you'd have someone like
William Lane Craig and Binyong engaging each other on those issues because they're really
primarily addressing the philosophical side of things. And theology is kind of secondary
to the philosophy. Whereas I tend to, as a theologian, start with the theology and what
is the Bible intending to teach and then allow the different philosophical views to speak
into that. And so I have no idea how it works. I don't know how God created something from
nothing to be honest, but I believe that He did because that's what the Bible teaches
and that's what faith demands. I don't know how God knows what I'm going to choose
to do tomorrow when I don't even know what I'm going to choose to do tomorrow for sure
on everything. I have no clue. I just believe that He does because the Bible seems to indicate
that He has knowledge of future free events. What I don't do is speculate that because
my mind can't get around that, then I have to say, "Well, the way He knows it is because
He decreed it. He's ultimately the one who decides what you'll decide and that's how
He knows what you're going to do tomorrow." Versus, "Well, the way He knows what you're
going to do is that He actualized a world based upon what He knew this world would look
like in eternity past and through a monastic model or something of that nature." I don't
know. I don't think that either one of those are necessary for us to be Bible believers.
I think it's perfectly within our range to be able to say God knows those things is beyond
my understanding and my finite mind to be able to comprehend fully.
I feel like with these labels sometimes I don't know if I understand them fully, but
I've taught this in the past and I had this idea that God, He knows what you're going
to be like and He knows what decisions you're going to make in the future. He creates you
as far as physically and the parents that you're going to be in that situation based
on the decisions you're going to make. I think of Abraham. He talks about how he knows
he's going to command his children after him. So he kind of knows that or he creates the
devil and obviously created with a good purpose. He's anointed chariot, but also knowing his
pride and everything like that. He's created the way he is. God created hell for the devil
and his angels. And I think that was prior to their particular downfall. So he kind of
knew that. So I guess my idea is that based on what the decisions we're going to make
and the choices are going to make in the future, God kind of gives us the attributes or the
characteristics that we would be. So I look at it like a comic book, like Superman can
fly and he's strong and he's smart and he's like the good guy. And the bad guy has these
particular characteristics because of what he's going to do. But it doesn't change their
free will. It's just God using his foreknowledge and his understanding of who we are to put
us in the situations that we're going to be. I'm not sure what your thoughts are on that
viewpoint.
Yeah, some of that's similar to what Mullenus would say, maybe in a different way. But yeah,
we could talk all night long on the philosophical side of things on how that works. And from
the time of Boethius back in the sixth century and the consolation of philosophy, that's
the issue he tackled, is how does an omniscient God rule over a libertarianly free world and
with a world with free creatures? How does that work? Is it really free if God knows
it in advance? Or is it determined by his knowledge? Or does he determine it therefore
knowing it because he determined it? And those are all those kinds of quandaries that those
philosophers are attempting to address and attempting to answer. What I think is really
important is not to assume that knowledge is casual. In other words, just because something
is known to be certain doesn't mean it's necessitated by the one who knows it. And so I think God
has the capacity to know what you will freely choose to eat tomorrow at noon. And it's your
free decision. And so if you say, "Well, could I have chose otherwise?" Yes. Well, how could
I possibly choose otherwise if God knows what I'm going to choose? Well, because his knowledge
is not casual. His knowledge is not dictating what you're going to choose. He just knows
what that choice will be. Peter denying Christ three times before the rooster crows is a
perfect example of this. Just because Jesus predicted it doesn't mean that Jesus caused
it. Does it mean Jesus decreed it? Yes. And why would you blame Jesus for what Peter chose
to do? The fact that he prophesied and knew that he would freely do it is what makes Jesus
divine. And I think it undermines his divinity to somehow think that God is just predicting
what he's causing. If I had an avatar world that I created over here with all my little
avatars that I programmed to do exactly what they do, and I told you all what they're all
going to do tomorrow, you would go, "So? What's supernatural about you telling us what you've
pre-programmed your robots and your avatars to do?" Nothing. There's nothing supernatural
about that. If I could tell you what every single one of the listeners watching this
program right now we're going to do tomorrow, then you would say, "Oh my gosh, that guy's
a prophet." That's amazing. Why? Because I have no causal link between myself and what
they're choosing to do. I am prophesying about what other people will freely and independently
choose to do. That's why the divine is so supernatural and mind-blowing. We can't get
our minds around that concept and that idea. Whereas the Calvinists have stepped in and
we know exactly why God knows the future. He decreed it all. He's the one who causes
it ultimately. He's the one who brings it to pass by sovereign decree. And I think that
undermines His divinity. It makes it sound like He's just foretelling what He's causing.
And that doesn't make any rational sense, nor is it biblical, as far as I can tell.
The pattern I notice is that those who have this Calvinistic worldview look at passages
that primarily deal with the foreknowledge of God, and then they turn it into God acting
in a way that violates free will. But one other thing I want to add is, and this is
just more of a fun analogy here, I'm not suggesting that it has no issues or anything
like that. Okay, this is more just kind of fun, fun type thing to think about. But you
know, if I were to record the football game, DVR it because I was out doing something else,
and then I accidentally found out what the score was. You know what I mean? Like somebody
spoiled the game for me. So I already knew the outcome. But then I go home and I watch
it anyway, knowing who won, knowing the Cowboys lost already. All right. I didn't make the
Cowboys lose. So I get there's holes in that. But I feel like that's also another analogy
that you could use to illustrate the point that foreknowledge does not necessitate causality.
That makes sense.
Absolutely.
Yeah. I'm kind of, I was going to put the number out there again. You can call 231-227-8478.
It's 231-Baptist. You can call the Baptist bias. Also, you can check out Leighton Flowers
website so Terryology 101. Why don't you give us a little bit of info? Like you have this
ministry now. Are you dedicated to basically confronting Calvinism or is it more geared
towards like evangelism? I'm kind of curious what your main goal here. Obviously, so Terryology
is the doctrine of salvation itself, but I'm just kind of curious, what does this ministry
mean to you?
Sure. Well, my full time ministry for 20 years was the evangelism director, youth evangelism
and then the evangelism director for Texas Baptist. And so I started this podcast as
something I did on the side as kind of an outflow for my work and my dissertation on
the topic of setriology. Having gone through becoming a Calvinist and leaving Calvinism,
I ended up writing on that topic because it was obviously a hard issue for me having gone
through what I went through. And so the main focus of my ministry for those 20 years was,
like I said, as a director of evangelism. It's only been recently, matter of fact, about
seven months ago that I left Texas Baptist and went full time with Trinity as the theology
professor, which I teach on a range of various topics as well. But I created, you mentioned
the Dallas Cowboys, just somebody might create a fan page for the Dallas Cowboys. That doesn't
mean that's the only thing they do. That's just that page is set apart to be about the
Dallas Cowboys and being a fan. Well, I created Sochiology 101 separate from my evangelism
ministry and what I'm doing and apologetics and other things, because I know it's a hot
button topic. I know that it has a lot of intramural discussions and debates among
Christians, and I didn't want it to distract from and override the other aspects of my
ministry. Now, some people see that, like James White and others, and they accuse me
of being a one-string banjo, and I even have my little one-string banjo here because...
Can you play anything on that? Yeah, you can play. There's been videos sent to me about...
Like, "Jesus Loves Me" or something? Well, people playing with one string, you know,
and doing a real good job with one string, and how well you can actually play with it.
Probably nothing but the blood or something. The point is that if you're ignoring the swath
of other focuses in ministry that someone's doing based upon one particular channel or
one particular ministry that was created for a specific purpose, then it can give the impression
that this is just something that's an obsession, it's all I ever do. The truth of the matter
is yes, I do write and talk about this topic more than the average person because that's
what I did my dissertation on. It's just like a podiatrist who's going to talk a lot
about feet. Why? Because he's a foot doctor. I'm a sociologist, as my boss, Braxton Hunter,
there at Trinity, calls me. That's what I did my doctoral work on. That's what I studied.
I'm a former Calvinist. I've written books and debated on this particular topic. So yeah,
I've become kind of the face for being anti-Calvinistic and pro-provisionistic. That's fine by me,
but I also understand, and I say this often on our broadcast, that we don't need to be
imbalanced as Christians to where we become so enthralled with one particular doctrine
or one particular thing. I see people do this with End Times and other doctrines, that they
just become so consumed with that, that they neglect the other weightier matters and their
own disciplines and Christian brotherhood and fellowship and those kinds of things.
So I warn against that because theology geeks can tend to be overly committed to one particular
thing over another, and we've got to remain balanced. But I don't think that there's
anything wrong with Christians addressing something they see as an error within the
church, especially one that has been as influential as Calvinism has obviously been over the last
20, 30 years.
Well, Ben, do you have one more clip? I think we should do at least one more clip here.
And while we're kind of waiting, I'm trying to see if anybody is calling it in.
Yeah. Well, let's look at clip number... Let's see here. Let's go to clip number three, clip
number three, where you guys are dealing with John chapter six a little bit.
And then you ask a really good question about how a judge can condemn somebody for something
they have no control over. And I thought that was a really good point. Clip number three,
go for it.
What support do you have for equating this concept of regeneration with the word "draw"
in the sense that you obviously believe that drawing must involve regeneration because
it has to precede their believing, doesn't it?
Well, again, I'm here to debate John chapter 6. If you want to talk about all sorts of
other things, that seems to be your thing.
I just talked about "draw."
But that seems to be your thing, and I realize, Leighton, it's all you've got, but the reality
is, as we have seen, what is found in verse 44 is the assertion that no one has a certain
capacity unless something happens, and that drawing is an effective drawing. It's not
talking about issues of regeneration, it's not talking about adoption, it's not talking
about sanctification, it's not talking about a lot of things, but what it is explaining
is that without it there will be no eternal life.
Can you explain from your perspective why this audience can't believe and why they're
being judged for their unbelief if that's a default condition from birth that they have
no control over?
Well again, God is demonstrating to the entire universe His justice according to Ephesians
chapter 1, the praise of His glorious grace.
So you think it's just for God to condemn somebody who by default can't believe?
I will continue with my answer to the initial question, unless you just want to say we're
not going to be able to get anywhere with this.
Go ahead.
Okay, good.
Yes, He is demonstrating the praise of His glorious grace from Ephesians chapter 1 in
both the salvation of a undeserving people and in the condemnation of people who love
their sin and remain in their rebellion.
That's the answer in Ephesians chapter 1 verse 6, that's the answer I give as well.
So it's a demonstration of God's justice to condemn people for something they have no
control over.
I utterly reject and you should know as a quote unquote former reform minister that
that is a gross misrepresentation.
That we believe that the non-elect love their sin, that they are invested in their sin,
and to say that they have no control over it means that as the incarnate one Jesus
had no control over what he did in time as well.
We reject that because we believe everything the Bible teaches rather than just small snippets
that we believe.
I feel like you can feel the smugness from James White every time he talks, and that's
just my opinion, but I'm kind of curious, have you ever met a non-elect Calvinist?
I'm kind of curious, does that exist?
Actually there are former Christian Calvinists, matter of fact I've got a little clip here,
I don't know if I can share things, but there's a clip from Derek Webb who was a very influential
Calvinist back when I was in college because he was the lead singer for Caiman's Call
and he's become an atheist now and he actually writes a song about maybe this is all real
and I'm not chosen.
He believes the Bible teaches Calvinism but he just doesn't believe in God anymore so
he says well maybe it's all real but I'm just not elect and then he basically is arguing
in this particular clip, you know, why are we trying to convince people, why are Calvinists
out there trying to convince people because if God wants us to believe, he'll bring us
to life, you know, just like Lazarus out of the grave and just as the Calvinist will misinterpret
that narrative to be such a logical one and obviously that's not the story of Lazarus
is about at all, he pretty much gives the talking points for Calvinism saying I'm not
sure why my Christian friends are trying to convince me if God wants me to believe, he'll
make me believe because Calvinism and so yeah there are people who are rejecting, I've got
about four or five other clips of people who've rejected the faith altogether citing Calvinistic
doctrines as their reason for doing so, which I think is tragic.
There was one of the defectors from the, and this is a very, very weird cult, but the Westboro
Baptists, they...
Megan Phelps, she's one of them.
Thank you for giving me the name, I had forgotten the name, but she did an interview on a podcast,
I believe it was Joe Rogan, and she had cited their interpretation of Romans chapter 9 as
justification for her actually abandoning Christianity altogether, which goes to show
you how damaging that could be.
Now obviously they have a ton of other issues, but they are big time Calvinists, and I am
not trying to equate them with other Calvinists or anything like that.
We've actually had Calvinists on our show as a guest, and it was a really great discussion,
so please don't think that I'm doing that at all.
Pastor Shelley, your thoughts on all this?
Yeah, I mean, when it comes to the idea of non-elect, and this is kind of my viewpoint
here, and this is what I really don't like about Calvinism, is I don't think that all
Calvinists necessarily teach the same on salvation itself, so I don't want to broad brush, but
a lot of the Calvinists that I hear about are kind of teaching this idea that you won't
desire sin, that if you're elect and you're going to be kind of like completely different
and you have all these new desires, and to me that doesn't match the human experience
for anybody, period.
And so people that are in church that are sincere in the sense that they want to be
elect, they want to be saved, but they don't understand that salvation is a free gift
by faith, they're just kind of thinking, you know, it's just an automatic something that
happens.
And then since they don't have that, they kind of start turning away and then just maybe
abandon the faith thinking like, well, obviously I'm not elected.
And for me, it's similar to I grew up in charismatic churches.
So what they taught is that God will like talk to you audibly all the time.
And I just remember growing up like always praying and basically like asking God to like
have all these private conversations with me.
And because it was never happening, I kept wondering like, am I not saved?
Am I not somebody that's, you know, a child of God or something, is there something wrong
with me?
And I guess I could just feel like maybe that's a similar experience that a lot of these people
growing up in Calvinist churches, they're thinking like, well, I'm not like these other
people.
I kind of want to sin or I kind of do have bad thoughts or I don't have the same desire.
I'm not zealous or something.
So I guess I'm not elect.
And then it just causes them to just abandon Christianity as a whole and not even actually
want to hear the gospel and get saved.
And I'm just kind of curious your thoughts on this experience because I haven't grown
up these circles or anything, but I'm just kind of curious.
Well, that was part of my testimony as a young Calvinist.
Like I said, I adopted Calvinism when I was about 19.
And in dealing with my own sins, about that same time was about when the internet hit.
And that introduces a whole new set of temptations as most men are very much aware of.
And so when I was struggling with my own personal sins, private sins and the shame that goes
along with those things, I began to think first, I began to doubt, okay, maybe I'm not
elect because would somebody who's elect and regenerated struggle in this way with sins?
And I went to a mentor and talking about that who happened to be a Calvinistic mentor.
And you know, he kind of assured me that doesn't mean that I'm not saved if I have these temptations
that every man, you know, Steve Archibald's book, you know, every man's battle and dealing
with lust and all these kinds of things is something we all struggle with.
And he even said something about how God can ordain such things to keep us humble, like
the thorn in the flesh from, you know, from the teaching of Paul.
And so that to me was detrimental to my healing because ultimately he told me, whether he
meant to or not, that my sin was God's doing.
In other words, the lust and the things that I was dealing with was ultimately something
God ordained for His glory and my good.
And that's what every addict is looking for.
Every addict is looking for justification for their sins.
And if I can say, "Well, God ordained me to do this," because according to Calvinism,
God ordained whatsoever comes to pass, which would include my lusts and my desires to do
things that are based on the flesh.
And He's doing it for my own good, in fact, and His own glory, in fact.
I really don't have a control over it.
So it went from, "Maybe I'm not elect," to, "Oh, maybe I actually am elect and God has
ordained this sin in my life to keep me humble."
And so it's actually a good thing that this is happening.
That's the process.
Now, again, Calvin, is it someone I can come and talk to?
That's even weirder.
Not only is it justified, it's good.
I had a family member tell me that.
They said they were having inappropriate relations outside of marriage, and they said, "Well,
it's okay, because God obviously wanted me to do this for some reason," and I just couldn't
believe it.
Yeah, and that's the thing.
Like a John Piper, somebody, if they happen to be watching this, I know that they're
not going to be counseling people saying that.
Obviously, they're going to be calling you to repentance.
They're going to be saying, "No, that's wrong.
You shouldn't do that.
It is your fault, even though it was ordained by God.
It's somehow still mysteriously your fault."
All those kinds of things, yes.
But my point is that the implications, when they're logically played out, in my mind at
least, we're not healing because I think we all have to own our decisions and our mistakes
as our own.
We can't have this philosophical underpinning of determinism and this concept and idea that
God's ordaining our sins for His own glory and our good in order to find true healing.
We've got to own it.
We've got to say, "No, that was Leighton's decision.
I did those things.
I made a mistake.
I went away from God's will.
I'm not secretly doing exactly what He willed me to do.
I'm going against His will."
And that's why I'm having these struggles.
That's why I'm having these trials.
And it is embedded, Calvinistic philosophy is embedded within the church because you'll
see a lot of this in Christian counseling today where people will ultimately be blaming
God for their circumstances, and you're going, "Well, actually, don't blame God for where
you are in your life.
Look at all these decisions you made along the way.
You went against God here, you went against God here, you went against God here, and
now your life's a wreck and you're going to blame God for where your life is?"
No, you made decisions that were obviously against the Word of God and went away from
God and now you're suffering the consequences of some of those things in your life.
Don't blame God for that.
Don't say it's God's will for your life when those things happen.
That's detrimental, I think, to true healing and finding wholeness.
From my perspective as well, just looking at an issue like this biblically, you know,
the Bible talks about, for example, in 1 Peter 2 when it says, "I beseech you as strangers
and pilgrims abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul."
You have the apostle Paul in Romans chapter 7 describing the internal conflict between
the flesh and the spirit, saying that, "In him that is in his flesh dwells no good thing,"
etc.
And I think of the dual nature of the believer and the fact that once you get saved, your
sinful flesh is still there and it's up to you talking about free will to either walk
in the flesh or walk in your regenerated spirit, the new man, if you will.
And so do you concur with that or do you have a different view but just sort of that dual
nature, the war that we all struggle with as believers and especially the sin you brought
up as men, we all struggle with that as well.
But that is a war that's happening internally and it's something that we have the autonomy
to fight ourselves and ultimately the responsibility to fight ourselves, in my estimation.
Absolutely.
And as you mentioned, Paul mentions that body of death, and we look for the glorification
where our flesh is redeemed and that we no longer have that battle.
But yes, that is a battle that we fight each day and that that battle is the mark of a
true Christian.
You know, one who's truly been redeemed has that nature within them that's continuing
to fight and continue to strive to be more holy and like God and to separate yourself
from the things that distance you from God. But yes, that's your responsibility. That's
one of the things we mentioned at the very beginning. If I have a false theology or an
errant, you know, I have a sin in my life or a mistaken interpretation of Scripture,
all those kinds of things, that's on me. That's not on God's decree. That's not on the secret
will of God. I don't blame God for that. That's all un-latent. I misinterpreted the Scripture
because I wasn't being careful enough. I wasn't studying the Word well enough. I wasn't being
objective and a good Berean. I was surrendering my sense-making. That's my fault. If I look
at pornography or if I allow myself to be in places where I'm influenced by people of
opposite sex or surrounding myself with input that's going to continue garbage in, garbage
out, that's my fault. God must have sovereignly decreed this or blah, blah, blah, or given
me a thorn in the flesh for this. No, the thorn in the flesh is probably a health issue
that Paul was dealing with. Most scholars say it's probably some of his eye and his
vision and stuff like that that he was dealing with. It had nothing to do with a moral sin
in my estimation. And I certainly don't think that God gives us a desire for or some kind
of a fleshly addiction or something like that, morally speaking, in order to keep us humble
or those kinds of things. It just doesn't make any rational sense. And we've played
videos of Calvinists who are teaching this kind of stuff. And I think that that kind
of stuff just for all practical purposes is devastating to finding healing and wholeness
in our sanctification process.
I'm kind of curious because from our perspective, we believe salvation is just a complete free
gift. And once you have it, you have it. You become a child of God. And of course, when
you're saved, you do have the new spirit, right? Behold, all things have become new.
You have the Holy Spirit inside of you. And kind of as Romans 7 describes this dichotomy
of you're warring with the flesh and the old man, and you have that new man. And I think
that that's a good way to understand how even when you're saved and completely elect and
made new that you're still going to struggle sin and you could even just continue to walk
in the flesh and never really do anything. I think some extreme verses like Romans 4-5,
"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodliest faith,"
this kind of righteousness kind of indicates you could technically, in theory, believe
in Jesus Christ and have no works and still be saved. But obviously we should walk in
the news of life, we should walk in the Spirit, we should evidence fruit of our salvation,
and of course that's what God wants us to do. I'm kind of curious from a Calvinistic
perspective though, would they say that Paul's not even saved in Romans 7? I mean, he's
saying, "I'm carnal," and he's doing things that he wouldn't want to do. How do they
even get around? I don't understand. I feel like Romans 7 has got to be so complicated
from a Calvinistic viewpoint.
Again, they're not monolithic, so you'll have different Calvinists interpret the passages
differently and even non-Calvinists will have various interpretations of whether they think
Paul was talking about himself as a Christian or not one, and so it just depends on the
particular Calvinist. So, you know, really what it all comes back down to is the blameworthiness
of the sinner, whether a Christian or not. It's still, whether you're a Christian or
you're not a Christian, I still, what I'm fighting for, if anything, is the blameworthiness
of the sinner. You're responsible for what you choose to do. God's not responsible for
that.
Accountability.
It's about accountability. It's personal accountability for your choices and your actions
and who you listen to. If you don't listen to God, that's on you. It's not because you
were born that way, and you couldn't have done otherwise, and God didn't really want
you to listen to Him, or He decreed for you to be in a way that you couldn't listen to
Him, or any of those kinds of things. That's nonsense. If you're refusing to listen to
the people of God and the Word of God and the revelation that the conscience is written
on your heart, that's on you, not on anybody else.
If you're a Christian, you're a follower of Christ, but you're finding yourself drifting
into sin or getting involved in temptation, that's on you. That is your fault. Don't
blame God for those things. Don't say, "Oh, because of the parents you gave me, the circumstances
you put me in, blah, blah, blah." No, you're responsible. It's personal accountability.
That's what I'm arguing for. I think whether Calvinists intend to or not, they are undermining
human personal responsibility. And in so doing, they're undermining the character and the
goodness of God, because they don't have a God who's loving and desiring genuinely the
salvation and the sanctification of His people, because He's only saving and providing salvation
for some, and those even He provides salvation for, some of them He doesn't obviously ordain
for them to be sanctified at the same level of someone else, because He's ordaining some
of them to misinterpret scriptures and to have more sin in their life than others. It
totally and completely undermines the entire accountability. Well done, the good and faithful
servant, enter into the rest. I've prepared advance for you. The whole concept of reward
and punishment is undermined by the philosophical underpinning of deterministic theology and
Calvinism.
I think it also, here's another big thing. I don't know if we really covered it, but
just it makes God, like I say this, God is different than man in two big ways. Number
one is that he can create life from non-life. So he can take dust and breathe into it the
breath of life and it becomes a man. And while we can create things, we can't really give
that free will life. We can obviously take a bunch of components and make a robot, but
we can't really make a robot that has free will. And so you kind of have two elements,
I think, that separates man from God is that God can make something alive out of nothing
or from basically non-life, he can give it life. And then secondly, he can give free
will. And it seems like the Calvinist viewpoint is almost like a human reasoning where they
limit God to being like us, that everything that God creates is actually, does not have
free will, it's only subject to its creator. And I think that the main component, the application
out of this, though, is that God actually desires genuine reciprocal love. And without
free will, you don't have people choosing Him, you don't have people choosing to believe
in Him, and then you don't have people choosing to love Him out of their own free will actions.
I mean, there's a lot of offerings in the Bible that are just called a free will offering,
which I mean, think about how contradictory, that's so contradictory in my mind, that
God's like, "Hey, I have this free will offering that I'm going to force you to do to me, give
to me because I really desire you to make this quote free will offering that you didn't
even want to do."
But I guess what I'm trying to get at is, doesn't Calvinism almost undermine the reciprocal
love aspect of God's creation?
He doesn't want puppets.
Yeah.
The whole reason that our theodicy is free will advocates, free will theologians, C.S.
Lewis, The Problem of Pain is a great book if you're interested in a free will theodicy.
And that's the whole thing, the reason why put the tree in the garden?
Why even give them a choice?
Why give the son, the young son and the story of the prodigal, why give him your inheritance?
Why give him a choice?
That question is seen throughout the scripture as to why God would give people the ability
to go astray.
And I think C.S. Lewis does the best job of anybody at least articulating that concept
and idea as you just mentioned, Pastor, about it's necessary for true love and relationship
worth having, where I think Calvinism undermines that and their theodicy is flawed because
now the theodicy, the problem of pain, is basically because God decreed it for His glory.
So God's glory is best demonstrated through Him decreeing molestations and all the horrible
heinous things that we see happening in our world.
That somehow that's going to be a better theodicy than this concept and idea of God permitting
free agents to act freely and to live outside of His will and thus suffer the full weight
and consequences of those decisions that He make, that they make, and therefore He removes
His hand of protection, lets the world go its own way.
And that's what we're experiencing.
The reason there's such horrible, heinous evil in this world is not because God decreed
for us to do it, but because God removed His hand and allowed us to will and to do our
own thing with the full weight and consequences of what happens in a world with free creatures.
Now, both Calvinist and non-Calvinist still have issues with handling and answering hard
questions that are difficult.
I'm not denying that both groups have hard questions to grapple with.
Why doesn't God step in and stop this from happening or that from happening, especially
when it's your child who's being hurt or something like that?
Why wouldn't God step in and save them or do something?
Yes, all of us have those kinds of hard, difficult questions to answer.
I just think the Calvinist answers to those questions, again, remove personal individual
responsibility, and they undermine the goodness and the character and well-intending offer
of the gospel.
And I think that has to be stood up against.
You know, there's one other thing that I kind of wanted to address, and we're probably going
to be wrapping up here, but is the idea of sovereignty, because that's a big buzz word
that they have.
And from my viewpoint, if God's 100% in control of every single thing that's happening, and
he's basically, in a lack for a better word, just a puppet master, that to me doesn't make
him as powerful as someone who can actually give complete free will to his opponents,
and then his will is still accomplished.
So in my mind, actually having an understanding of free will being just that, actually free
will, it seems more victorious, more powerful, and more sovereign that he can genuinely give
all of these people free will, and the gospel still accomplished.
Jesus still died on the cross, was buried, rose again, even though many attempts to stop
it.
We had Herod trying to kill all of the babies in Bethlehem, failed.
We see the devil trying to tempt Jesus Christ in the wilderness, and failed.
And we see all these different times where the Jews were trying to kill Jesus, and they
failed.
And ultimately, those who try to destroy God's people fail.
No weapon formed against these shall prosper.
But at the end of the day, you also have this glorious moment.
It's described in Philippians chapter number two, where it says, "Every knee shall bow,
and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord of the glory of God the Father."
That's a pretty powerful moment in the concept of free will, whereas just from a puppet master,
it's like, "Yeah, I got all these people to just say I'm Jesus."
But it's like, not only does he get them to say that, he gets them to say that from a
perspective of they had free will and they were given these opportunities, but he's conquered
them all.
And it's like you do that wrestling match with your brother and you hold him down and
you say, "Say uncle, say uncle," and then they finally have to say uncle.
And so it's like all these atheists and people that have hated God and gnashed on them with
their teeth and despised the Lord, well, at some point, they're going to basically
declare Him Lord, and that'll be kind of a triumph, a big moment in the timeline of
the universe because of God.
I almost think that God's sovereignty is even greater in that concept than this idea
of just, "I have all these puppets on my finger calling me Lord," or something like
that.
I'm kind of curious what your thoughts are about that.
Yeah, I've often argued that our view of sovereignty, Calvinists are huge on talking about sovereignty,
and they have such a high view of sovereignty.
And I argue actually, I think C.S. Lewis, Tozer, other non-Calvinists have a higher
view of sovereignty than the Calvinist does, for the very reason you were just articulating
pastor.
And the illustration I've used before is like if you were at a park and you were walking
along and you saw a man sitting behind a chessboard and he's playing the black piece
and he gets up and walks around and plays the white piece and you walk up to him and
you say, "Sir, why are you playing both sides of the chessboard?"
And he says, "Well, it's the only way I know how to ensure my victory.
I have to control both sides to make sure that what happens is exactly what I want to
happen because if anybody else is involved here, then it could go awry and I might lose.
And so I can't have that.
So I just need to control both sides."
And then you continue down the boardwalk away and you come along another man sitting behind
a chessboard and he has a line of all the best chess masters in the world standing there
waiting to play this man and one right after another, he's just one board after another
board.
He's just got him going all over the place and he's just beating them all because he's
just so masterful.
He's so much smarter.
He's so much better at chess than all of them.
He handedly beats them all.
Which one are you going to go home and brag about?
Right.
Well, the one who has the capacity because of his goodness, his greatness to beat all
of his enemies, not the one who has to control his enemies in order to win.
And so our view of sovereignty, I think, is much higher because, yes, God is the creator
of all things, but he has obviously given the world over to man.
God sits in heavens and does as he pleases, Psalm 113.
But later in that same chapter, it says, "The heavens belong to the Father, but the earth
he has given over to man."
That's autonomy that you've been talking about.
He's given us to rule and to rule over this land, and there are evil principalities and
rulers that will, yes, one day be held accountable and will be destroyed, but right now they're
ruling.
They're roaming the earth, and God has allowed them to do that.
He's not decreeing them and controlling them.
He has set them loose.
He's set them free, so to speak, but he will bring all things to right.
He will justify all things.
He will hold all people and all beings accountable.
That's what the picture of the scripture, the warring aspect of scripture, is abundantly
clear through the narrative of the Old and New Testament.
I think Calvinism undermines that entire narrative by ultimately saying Satan is a pawn of God.
He's just doing what God has bid him to do, and God is ultimately controlling all these
things behind the scenes.
He's controlling both the sides of the chessboard, so to speak.
Because if he doesn't, then somehow he might fail.
And listen to Calvinists, many of them, that's the way they'll talk.
If God's not sovereign, and then what they mean by sovereign is meticulously controlling
every minute detail, every dust mote is the way Piper put it, then God may fail.
Their rogue molecule, R.C.
Sproul talked about.
Then this whole, we have no hope that this world is going to continue because if one
rogue molecule is outside of God's control, I'm just like, how weak do you think our God
is that a molecule could thwart him?
Rogue or not?
I mean-
It's like he's afraid of competition almost in that viewpoint.
It's like, it'd be like me, you know, there's little sugar ants that are in your cupboards
sometimes.
It'd be like me going, "You know what?
If I don't control every one of those sugar ants, then my entire 2,000 square foot house
could be falling down by the end of the day."
Nobody would say that.
Because they say, "That sugar ant has no power that's near big enough to control."
A molecule or a person for that matter, Satan himself for that matter, is like the sugar
ant in view of God.
He can't thwart what God does and what God is going to accomplish.
Yeah, he could do things that are goes against God's will, but that doesn't mean God can't
know and use Satan and his deceptions and his ways to bring about his good purposes.
I think there's so many better ways to explain how God works than this concept of the divine
decree and ultimately determining what everybody thinks, says, and does.
It's just a low view of sovereignty in my estimation.
Again, different Calvinists hold the different views on that, too.
Sure.
Different ones.
That's one of the reasons you'll always say, "Well, you don't understand Calvinism," because
I may not be confronting your particular brain.
I think that's how all of them start the conversation.
They just start like, "Well, this doesn't sound like you understand the doctrines of
grace."
And maybe if you were higher learning or if you actually read enough, it's like they just
have to have smugness.
We have this gnosis.
You just need that gnosis.
All right.
I'm kind of curious.
One more thing.
You know, you made this transition.
Did this affect your belief, understanding of salvation or how to get someone saved?
Or if someone came to you and just said, "Hey, what do I have to do to be saved?"
Is there any transition there?
And kind of what would you say to someone today, you know, that's just interested?
Like what do I have to do to be saved?
Well, one thing coming out of Calvinism is I began to recognize that the word persuasion
is used almost three times more often than the word predestination yet gets a fraction
of the attention, especially among reform circles.
And I'm reminded of what Paul, which recorded for us in Acts 28 about Paul spending all
day long trying to persuade them using the scriptures, you know, why is he trying to
persuade them if it's basically predestined as to whether they're going to believe or
not or through some regenerative work that is irresistible.
He's trying to persuade them because he actually believes that his persuasion could work.
It could provoke them to change their beliefs.
And those kinds of passages I think speak volumes as to how we do apologetics and evangelism.
I think our arguments and the way we live life, the way we love one another, the way
we treat each other, all can affect how people see God and see the scripture.
And I think that's why those things are so important.
Because we do, because of the way God created this world and the way He's created us to
have responsibility, we have impact on how people see God.
That's why we're held accountable for how we represent ourselves and how we represent
the Scriptures to people.
That's why teachers are held at a higher account because you're very likely influencing people
and how they think about God.
And so that's what Scripture screams over and over and over again.
And it doesn't make any rational sense, at least in my opinion, mind, how somebody could
be held accountable for persuading others of the truthfulness of God's Word if indeed
it's ultimately God's decree, i.e. sovereign election and irresistible grace, that's going
to cause someone to believe or to continue in their unbelief.
The Bible seems to call us to persuade, call us to holy life and holy living so as to convince
more people of the truth of who God is and what His Word says.
And so that gives us the onus to continue to preach with urgency and with a longing
to see our friends and family convinced of the truthfulness of what we believe versus
this understanding of, "Well, I'll just throw it out there and if they're elect, they'll
believe it.
If they're not, they won't," and kind of let the chips fall where they may.
And again, I don't think necessarily Calvinists are always consistently acting that way.
Some Calvinists preach like they're Arminians in the sense that they really preach like
they really should persuade people.
They certainly try to persuade a lot of people to become Calvinist as if it has something
to do with their wills.
So it seems like some of them are inconsistent in that effort, and blessedly so.
I'm grateful for the fact that there are a lot of evangelistic Calvinists.
But sometimes it seems to fly in the face of their philosophies because ultimately it's
God's decision, not the decision of the one they're trying to convince.
So in trying to persuade someone to be saved or be a Christian, what kind of do you go
to typically?
Well, I mean, obviously there's apologetics, but basically the first thing is just to present
the gospel, pure and simple, because you may not need apologetic arguments because someone
may be right for harvest and they just need to hear the truth.
Sometimes apologetics, it comes in later and that usually has, whether it's offensive
or defensive apologetics with regard to answering objections to the Christian faith or whether
it has to do with offense if they're a Mormon or if they're a Muslim or there are some
other theological beliefs.
Sometimes you have to show them why their views aren't true for them to be even willing
to consider your particular worldview.
So there's different, depending on the person you're talking to, different levels of evangelism
and apologetics.
But starting off with just the plain gospel, talking to them about God's love for the
world is provisioned through Christ, presenting just the truthfulness of who Jesus was and
what that is and what that means to you personally and how it can affect your life and giving
testimony to that.
I use this one verse of evangelism, the Romans 6.23, "For the wages of sin is death, but
the free gift of God is eternal life to Jesus Christ our Lord," and that's my evangelism
tool that I love, that I learned when I was a teenager, and I've always used it and write
it out on a napkin.
You don't have to have a track.
I have some, but you don't have to, and you kind of divide it up because you got one side,
you know, the bad news, then the good news, you know, here's the wage of sin, death, bad
news, free gift of God, eternal life, good news on this side, Christ is the cross in
the middle that bridges that gap.
That's always been the tool that I've used when I've evangelized.
It's been pretty effective.
More and more so in this culture, though, you got a lot of people who need more apologetic
arguments and dealing with objections and all those kinds of things as well.
Well, thanks so much.
Ben, do you have another question here before we wrap up?
I think you covered pretty much everything.
All I want to ask is if you would be willing to give one more plug to those who may be
just tuned in or missed it earlier for your content.
So if they're interested to check out Soteriology 101, they can do so.
Sure.
At the YouTube channel there at Soteriology 101 and YouTube, if you typed in my name
or Soteriology 101, you would find everything you need as far as the different videos.
I have a lot of different videos addressing different questions, all of the same questions
we've asked here, but a thousand others that come up.
There's no shortage of information and issues that come around this particular topic.
I have three different books.
The first book I wrote was called The Potter's Promise.
It's really my journey in and out of Calvinism, and it's a biblical defense of what I now
call Provisionism, or sometimes people call it traditional Southern Baptist type of perspective.
It really gets, the bulk of it is getting into Romans 9 and walking through Romans 9
from a non-Calvinistic vantage point.
For those that are interested in that, you can find it on Amazon.
My second book that I wrote is called God's Provision for All.
It's not about Calvinism, but it's really about God's love and provision for everyone,
that God has provided for all people, that there's no one with an excuse, and anyone
perishes, they perish because they refuse to love the truth so as to be saved.
The last book I wrote was in preparation for the debate you were referencing earlier, "Drawn
by Jesus," which is really kind of understanding from the book of John what it means to be
drawn and what the scripture teaches about being drawn by the Father to the Son and
also what it means by when he's raised up, he'll draw all people to himself and what
that means in the context of the book of John.
So those that want to get into that in depth, you can go there.
Well, we really appreciate you coming on the podcast and talking to us about this.
And of course, you know, I was really just curious, you know, especially about your transition
from Calvinism.
And so that's why I wanted to ask all those questions.
And I guess in some ways you didn't have a choice.
So you just had to change.
But no, we really appreciate your time.
And that's going to pretty much do it for us on the Baptist Bias.
We still have one episode.
Next week we're going to have a guest, Donnie Budinski, who hosts all kinds of debates on
the Standing for Truth YouTube channel.
And we're really looking forward to it.
Join our mailing list, baptisbias.com/join.
You can check out this show on Rumble and several other podcasts.
You can go to our website, baptisbias.com.
Is there anything else we need to plug there, Ben?
Nothing to plug other than our podcast that you can check out by using the keywords the
Baptist Bias, and if I may, Pastor Shelley, I want to share one last scripture to bookend
our discussion.
What do you think?
Go for it.
All right, Psalm chapter 37, the Bible says, "The steps of a good man are ordered by the
Lord, and he delighteth in his way.
Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down, for the Lord upholdeth them with his
hand."
And the reason I bring that up is because of the fact that I think that passage, Pastor
Shelley, illustrates how God interacts with our free will as Christians.
And you know what?
He is so much more powerful than the way Calvinists view him, because although you and I still
have free will, although we are going to make decisions through our own autonomy, even when
we make the wrong ones, even if we seem to be going astray, whatever the case may be,
as a good man, hey, God will uphold us, and he is able to interact with our free will
in such a way that he doesn't violate it, yet, you know, he is still present in our
lives and working in our lives in a mysterious way in my mind, and not something I can necessarily
explain fully or a hundred percent, but I know that he does, and that's because he's
more powerful, and I think we explained why earlier, than the Calvinist God, if you will.
So that's all I wanted to say to wrap things up. I really appreciate this opportunity to
be here and to be a part of this really interesting discussion tonight, and I hope you guys enjoyed
it as well.
Look, folks, you've got a choice, and you need to choose to believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ and get saved. Of course, you also need to choose to be a Baptist, because everyone's
got a perspective out there, but you need to get the Baptist bias.