In the past several weeks I have been watching an online back-and-forth between James White and Leighton flowers over Calvinism. Nothing new. The current debate centers on where John Calvin and Martin Luther got their ideas during the Protestant Reformation. Leighton Flowers and many folks who reject the ideas of Calvinism try to argue that the idea that salvation is outside of people's free-will choice was introduced to Christianity by Augustine and no early Christian church fathers believed in the total ability of man or God's meticulous control of reality, decreeing all that happens, before Augustine taught it. They even take it far enough to that Augustine was influenced by Gnosticism.
Of course James White disagrees and has been interacting with an interview of Ken Wilson by Leighton Flowers on his podcast and a book Ken Wilson has written on how he believes that Augustine was influenced by 4th century Gnosticism. James White is spending several hours on this because he is also explaining what Gnosticism was and reading quotes from the Church Fathers.
I think both sides are talking past each other and not really interacting. Both White and Wilson have said that they want to debate each other. I sure hope this will happen. I think they need to agree on definitions including on what James White and Ken Wilson believe about what Calvinism and what Provisionism are and what they believe before they really get down to the fundamental questions that their disagreement raises: "Was Augustine the first to introduce the ideas, regarding Human free-will, that gave rise to Calvinism?"
Here are two videos that really sum up Ken Wilson's arguments.
James White has not finished his arguments but he has presented evidence that some Church Fathers did affirm God's sovereign control over everything.
Here is an example from White's webcast.
I don't think James White has answered Wilson's thesis yet, but I do appreciate White going through all this history and thought I have not been exposed. I sure hope he will answer the video where Flowers and Wilson speak to White's critiques directly.
Here are some questions that I want answered in the debate between White and Wilson:
What is "predestination"? What is "free libertarian will? Is it autonomous? Was the a single early Christian author agree with libertarian free-will? Is there anything "good" in me or you apart from God?" How do we know what "good" is? Does God control human will? Has God ever controlled human will or just responded to it? Is there a difference between the New Testament and the Church Fathers use terms like "Boulimai" and "Thelo"?
This is a long but important debate. WCF is the acronym for the Westminister Confession of Faith which is a statement of faith by Presbyterians in the year 1646 AD. Leighton Flowers and Chris Date debate what the authors believed about Free Will. Although the authors of the Confession were Calvinists, Flowers argues that they affirmed Libertarian Free Will.
I have noticed several videos from Leighton Flowers in which he concisely explains why he believes Calvinism is wrong regarding specific scripture passages and arguments. In this video he, tackled the argument many Calvinists favor in that many use the story of God raising Lazarus from the dead ((John 11) as a picture of how people are dead to the things of God and unable to respond to God's offer of Salvation through Jesus without being regenerated by God first. He tries to argue that Jesus' Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15: 11-32) is a more apt comparison. In this article I am going to use terms and jargon that are common part so this discussion. If any of them are unfamiliar, please feel free to ask about them - or where you can get more information.
Professor Flowers raises these arguments as an objection to the way many Calvinists view the concepts of "Original Sin" and "Total Depravity". He is a Christian so he does not reject either but he does have the view point that although people are sinners and undeserving of Salvation, we still retain the same kind of Free Will that Adam and Eve possessed before they fell under the curse of sin and death. Although he agrees that we are sinner but does not believe that makes us unable to respond to Jesus' out-stretched hands to us.
This leads Professor Flowers to argue against the idea that physical death does not mirror the spiritual death of unrepented sinners. The problem with all parables and symbols when it comes to the nature God's relationship with humanity is always going to be incomplete. It is impossible to come up with a single simple picture capturing it all at once. That is why I think Jesus told so many different Parables so we can look at things from different perspectives.
The reason why many people look at the death of Lazarus as a picture for what being dead in sin is like is because scripture describes the lost as being "dead in sin".
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. - Ephesians 2:1-3
The way this reads to me is as a description of being caught in something that you can't get free of and so hopelessly entrapped you don't even know you are caged. Jesus describes people in this state as being enslaved. And although I have been in Christ for many years I did not realize that this had been my state to that degree before I was in Christ.
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. - John 8:34
This is why I think the scripture is saying the sinner is more than just separated from God by their sins. When Professor Flowers appeals to scriptures about how believers should be separated from sin considering themselves dead to sin (ie Romans 6:11) I do not think that this means the same thing as being "dead in sin" but describe being separated from sin - which describe the Elect of God. The Elect are those who have attained salvation by faith. The argument comes up when we ask, "where did this faith come from - a gift from God or grasped by our own free will?" I am going to skip the question right now about whether this "will" is just described as "libertarian" and/or "autonomous" because it should be covered and distinguished in greater detail not just conflated together. It matters.
Instead, I think it's important to point out that I think Prodigal son parable should not be used here. if the Father in the story represents God, then one who had always been sinner would not be a son. This isn't the story of a sinner having a "come to Jesus" moment but of a back-slider coming home and how other believers should treat the ones that are coming back.The man had been a son. He knew his father not coming to home for the first time. A sinner coming to Jesus for the first time becomes adopted not having been a part of the family before that time of adoption. Such a person was deserving of the wrath of God.
Again, the reason why all of this resonates so strongly for me was that I missed the part that this was me. I would read these passages for years and never once connected it to me. I knew it described sinners deserving of hell, but I never really had owned that for me. I mean I was a sinner and I repented but never really thought I deserved to go to hell...that next guy sure....but me? Hitler? Of course. White colonist raping, stealing, enslaving and murdering my ancestors? Oh I just knew they should all burn, Me? Nah. Come to find out that the scripture was talking about me too.
Here is one of many scriptures about our inability to turn to Christ on our own terms and our own power.
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace.7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:5-8
Sorry, Professor Flowers, but in that analogy of trying to climb up the rope to safety given in the video does not fit the above scripture. Paul points out that if you are living according to your flesh you are not just dead to (or separated from) the things of God, you are dead - unable to even see the rope that have been let down for you let alone to climb it. Not just that - we are so hopelessly depraved we don't even want to get out of the situation. Even the desire to be free is a gift from God because without it we have nothing but enmity (as the King James Version puts it) towards God. Like Joseph Stalin on his death bed, we shake our fist at God with hatred and a rebellious heart.
I think that there is a modern parable that can be used here: The Matrix from the Matrix movies. Remember how Morpheus explains to Neo how the people who are still plugged into the Matrix are a danger to them? Sounds like being trapped in sin to me.
So, how is it that any human being gets past ourselves and makes it to God? It's a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. This discussion is far from over, but I think that describing the event of human beings coming to Jesus and obtaining salvation - freedom from sin and death - as being just as miraculous as Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead is a very good comparison.
A couple of weeks ago, James White had a debate with Bob Enyart. The Debate was on the topic of Open Theism. The point of contention was about the nature of God and the conclusions that Open Theism brings to those who consistently follow it. I have not yet been able to find the whole debate on video but the audio has been put on YouTube.
Anyone who listens to this debate has to honestly conclude that James White won this and that the Bible does not support Enyart. However, Enyart has added to the "discussion" on is own radio program, Bob Enyart Live, and has tried to spin the debate his way. Fortunately James White has posted a few rebuttals that I think are worth looking at:
The Tremendous Dishonesty of Bob Enyart
And true to his word, James White posted a few videos providing more information and his point-of-view:
Of course this has been in the works for a while. Both men have been talking Open Theism for years. Here is a clip of Enyart giving a seminar on Open Theism.
Here is a video of James White giving comments before the debate.
If you are interested in hearing Bob Enyart's programs, you can hear them at the following links!
John Loftus has posted a link to a list of questions for theists from another blog. Rather than answer all of them in a single post, I will take each of them one at a time. Today:
11. If you believe humans have free will, why would humans have free will if God exists? Why are we able to exercise free will in some situations but not others?
I don't believe humans have free will. The Bible says, and observation and personal experiences bears it out, that people are enslaved to sin. We are not free willed because we can't choose not be under the guilt of sin. Our guilt is deserved because everyone of us sins - either voluntarily or involuntarily. The first question doesn't make sense from this point of view and besides why make God's existence contingent on our free will? It doesn't. The second question actually supposes that we don't have free will (as much of philosophy expresses it "libertarian free will"). If we had that kind of free will I would expect that we would be able to do anything we want in any situation and we cannot. I'm not saying that humans have no will of our own - we do and it is enslaved to sin. The Gospel is that Jesus came to free us and you can be freed and finally see and think clearly. This is what Jesus taught and what the Apostles taught. How does God's sovereignty and our will interact? That depends on what God decides. Sometimes God supersedes that and changes us so that we don't even realized that we would have willed something else - that is definitely the case whenever anyone of us does something "good". And sometimes God makes it plain God is doing something outside of our own will be allowing us to see things transpire contrary to our desires.
