Leighton Flowers's video is about how he defines "sovereignty" as opposed to how Calvinists define it. He argues that he believes in God's sovereignty but he does not believe that the Bible defines what that means the way Calvinists like Pastor John Piper teach it.
Professor Flowers defines "Sovereignty" through making a distinction between the scope of God's
power versus what God has decided to do with Creation. He argued that God is indeed control of everything but has chosen not to be in meticulous control of everything such as human free will allowing us to make decisions. He quotes A.W. Tozer when Tozer taught that God in his infinite power chose give us the ability to choose between good and evil.
Flowers further tells us that Calvinists misunderstand Sovereignty because Calvinists like John Piper teach that God determines and decides all human decisions and actions because God is Sovereign. Flowers counters by saying "Sovereignty" does not mean that. Flowers and several Arminians think that Calvinists are arguing that evil thoughts and motivations originate in God himself. And despite the way he played the re-contextualization of John Piper's statements I do not think that Calvinists like John Piper, John MacArthur, and James White are arguing that at all. I have heard Flowers agree that most Calvinists would not affirm that God is the author of evil, but he thinks that it's inescapable that their theology demands that conclusion. I do not think that is a fair assessment.
Here is why. Years ago James White, who is Calvinist, debated George Bryson, a Arminian, on this issue on the Bible Answer Man radio program. Bryson asked White if God predestines the rape of children? I think James White gave the good answer: God has a purpose for any evil God allows to happen. White did not say that God caused the evil. For example, God does not hold a gun to your head forcing you to do evil. And yet God knew what was going to happen and for his own purposes history and lives play out the way it does.
We have to remember that when people sin it is not God's fault because it is the fault of the sinner.
12 Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. - James 1:12-14
Instead God, can turn acts that had evil intention by the people committing into something good for his people. Recall that when Joseph was betrayed by his own brothers and sold him into slavery and about 30 years later, God raised Joseph into being second only to the Pharaoh in Egypt allowing him to save so many people from death by salvation. Please recall how Joseph understood what happened to him and the part his brothers played in his life.
19 But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God?20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.21 So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them. -Genesis 50:19-21
There are many scriptures that shows us exactly that. God predestines what occurs, but we cannot always know the reasons why God does what He does. When Calvinists teach that God predestines everything they are not saying that God is the author of evil - no evil comes about because of us.
I grew up in a Church of God In Christ, which is predominantly Black Christian denomination. While I was growing up there was never any discussion of the Calvinist position on Soteriology. It was assumed that every human being had free will and if they ended up in hell it was because of their own free will choice to deny Christ. We never really discussed any other train of thought. As an adult, I've realized that it way more complicated than I thought. It is my experience that many African-American Christians do not discuss or concern themselves with Soteriological issues beyond being born again and going on to serve God as much as their White brothers and sisters. This is why I really like the following video because it's four black Christians honestly discusses it and given that they don't have the same background and experiences as guys like James White, John Piper, Leighton Flowers, or any of the prominent scholars that I see discuss these things. That is why it is interesting.
I love the Because Science show from the Nerdist channel. I love the way Kyle Hill explains science concepts using sci-fi, fantasy, video games, and comics - you know stuff that I love. In his latest video, he uses law and psychology to ask the question: Is the Joker really insane?
Truth is many other YouTube shows have also tackled this topic and came to the same conclusion. But this particular episode does something different than just ask "Is the Joker is responsible for his crimes?" but goes further in asking "Is anyone responsible for their actions, if no one has free will?" Very interesting. Kyle Hill agrees with a growing number of scientist who disagree with the idea that people have free will because so little (if any) of our lives are determined by our choices.
What really amazed me was the fact that while an atheist, godless perspective can raise such questions and even recognize that there is a problem and consider that the implication of such things, but it can not even begin to answer anything or offer any help.
Dr Michael Brown is a great preacher and proclaimer of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I have seen successfully evangelize all kinds of different people - especially Jews. He is a Messianic Jew and he is a renowned Biblical scholar. He has spent years of study and in prayer and much of what he has taught has been a major personal help. However, I can't really agree with his conclusion on Free Will and God's Sovereignty.
I do not agree that God cannot hold us accountable for something we cannot change because He cannot change his nature. We have to align ourselves to him. He does not change what he is doing or wills for us
Well it is October 2019, almost a year out to the next Presidential Election. One of issues already becoming polarizing is the issue of whether or not the United States should pay Reparations to African-Americans who are descendants of slaves? As a nation we can't seem to agree and even more baffling to me is that not all African-Americans agree one way or another. I have to admit that being a direct descendant of several slaves makes me see this in a certain kind of way from people who are not African-American and I should not expect everyone to see this the way I do. That being said, many of the arguments I have heard people use has just blew me away because of how utterly untrue or nonsensical they are from my point of view.
I wanted to write this post to explore some of those ideas and why I think they don't make sense.
I would answer the above question with YES, the United States should pay some sort of reparations due to how descendants of slaves have suffered due to institutionalized racism and slavery itself. True, not all people would answer this question as I have. I also need to point out that I am not advocating for each one of us to get a check. I don't really know what the best from of reparations should be but I would not rule out money. I think we have to first have the discussion and agree that it is right and necessary. This is going to be the hard part. For example, checkout Burgess Owens in the following video "Why I don't want and Don't Deserve Reparations".
Obviously, I disagree with Mr. Owens, but I believe I understand what he is saying. As amazing as it sounds you can live in this country in a bubble where the evil of racism and the ramifications of slavery don't affect you that much even if you are black. You can be successful and wealthy and have opportunities to achieve levels that would have been undreamed of by our people in generations past. And to that, I say "Thank God!".
But don't we have a responsibility to the majority of our brothers and sisters who don't get those opportunities? Given that all the statistics and numbers show that Americans who are descendants of those who were brought here against their will in chains do not have the same opportunities and the same resources as those who are not descended from slaves. I think that most people would agree that the poorest places in America - the ones with really bad schools, high crime, drugs, high unemployment, and just all-around poverty are populated by people who were descended from slaves. You can be born into poverty just like some people are born into wealth.
Many of the points Mr Owens raised are the same arguments against reparations that I hear white people use. Just looking at a few of them, I can't believe people say them with a straight face.
1. They claim that it takes away the responsibility of black people to own up to the issues in their lives and stop blaming others.
I don't know everything but even I'm not naive enough to think if we got rid of all racism all my problems and the problems of all black people will go away. Slavery and its legacy, as well as discrimination, segregation, personal and institutionalized racism are not good enough excuses to not make the best of whatever talents and resources that I do have. This is not about trying to take stuff from what other people have earned. For me this about "leveling the playing field" - the resources and opportunities available to everyone whether you have money and access or not.
2. It destroys the dignity of black people and makes them victims.
I was amazed the first time I read the Constitution. We are taught to love it. We are taught to respect it. But if you read it, you realized that if you are Black, Female, or not wealthy it was not written with you in mind. Remember women were not allowed to vote. And Black men were counted as 3/5 person so that the southern states could still kinda use their slave population as an excuse for greater representation in the House of Representatives. The truth is for Black people in the United States if you succeeded in life positively contributing to society - any kind of way - you did it despite American "democracy". Simply put: God blessed you in spite of institutions hell-bent to keep victimized, if not outright destroying you. Truth be told, it is no different today.
Like Mr Owens, I come from a long line of Men and Women who didn't let slavery and racism stop them from doing somethings great with their lives. I stand on their shoulders. But just because we have people who learned how to get around obstacles in their way, I see no reason to add more obstacle and to not remove unfair ones.
Needing a hand up out of your circumstances is not being a victim, especially when you are facing circumstances not of your own making. And some of the circumstances people find themselves are because of their skin color and racism.
3. The Civil War was enough to make up for the sin of slavery.
Given all the families that slavery destroyed. All the people who suffered and died for no other reason than the color of their skin during slavery and afterwards, the Civil War was not restitution. Just the beginning of judgment. I am angry. It was not right. It was not justice. Black slaves were treated worst than pack animals in some cases. Some were medically experimented on during slavery and afterward. This is all indisputable. And the atrocities against black people did not end with slavery.
Somebody should pay for this. The Civil War does not even begin to cover it, because the evil did not end with slavery.
4. I was never a slave so I don't deserve to be paid for work I didn't do.
NO ONE achieves anything on their own. We are always standing on someone else's shoulder. I see no difference between people inheriting wealth and getting what your ancestors should have gotten through their work They built this country like everyone else, but many of them didn't get to share in results of their labor. Paul wrote.
For who makes you different from anyone else? What do youhavethat youdidnotreceive? And if youdidreceive it, why do you boast as though youdidnot? - 1 Corinthians 4:7
Owens' used the story of his Great-Grandfather to make his point so I will also appeal to my fore bearers. Mary and Lewis Lucas were my Great-Great Grandparents. They were born in slavery in southern Georgia and they were slaves for about 30 years. Towards the end of the Civil War, they were sold away from one another. This happened to a lot of slaves, but fortunately they were blessed to find each other again after the war ended. Not everyone was able to re-unite their families. I am especially grateful because although they had many children, my Great-Grandmother, Cynthia, was born after they were re-united. Had they not found each other and resumed their life together, I would not be here today...as well as hundreds of other people (I have a really large family). I tell this story, because of the suffering they went through but they didn't let any of that stop them from building good moral lives, All that being said, why should they have worked all those years for nothing? Some of what they would have earned would have been passed down to me and my generation anyway. It's about justice and just what is right.
5. I do not deserve to get money I didn't earn from other people's hard work.
Who said reparations have to be money of some amount paid to individuals? Not I. It could take a myriad of forms: tax beaks? Scholarships? Free-ride education to deserving and willing descendants of slaves? I do not know. But we can and should do something.
I want to turn to something else. Why is it that other persecuted groups that have suffered unfair treatment and persecution have had reparations paid to them, but descendants of African slaves in America have not gotten a thing but more racism? Take a look at the following graphic.
I realize some people might look at chart above and dispute the numbers or what not, but the question I asked is relevant as long as the United States has paid reparations to any group at any time it has treated them unjustly. I think without question we would all have to agree that the United States not only apologized for interning people of Japanese descent (including legal citizens) due to bigotry and fear but they and their descendants got money as well. I agree they should be compensated. And the US would never ever let any thing like this happen again,,,,oh...yeah...nevermind.
So did Japanese-Americans suffer more in their internment camps than the Jews did in the Nazi concentration camps? Did they suffer more than African-Americans did during the Middle-Passage, Slavery, Jim Crow segregation, lynching, and all the red-lining and gentrification going on to this day? Did they get reparations because they deserved it more? It's unjust to do these kinds of things to white people but okay to do it to Black people? I hope no one would say that they deserved it more. So then why do reparation for the others but not Black Americans descended for slaves?
This is a complex issue, but it is important. Answering it shows what kind of place America truly is. Is it really the "land of the free"? But it truly is the "home of the brave" because you have to be brave to make it here if you are not wealthy and white because again American institutions are not set up for everyone to succeed but instead actively tries to ensure failure and no upward mobility for a few types of people from jump. For many African-Americans, reparations could be a tool to help them take the share of the American Dream our ancestors dreamed of even while they still were in chains. And for the rest of America, reparations is an opportunity to quit pretending to be fair and balanced and open but truly live up to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. You know...the stuff Captain America stands for?
One last example for why we must be prepared to make radical changes in society to fix the brokenness of our institutions because of the racism baked into them is to look no farther than the "Star Spangled Banner" - the National Anthem. Ever wonder why we never really sing the third stanza in public very often? Read it for yourself.
"O say can you see, by the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming, Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming? And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there; O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep, Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes, What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep, As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses? Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam, In full glory reflected now shines in the stream: 'Tis the star-spangled banner, O long may it wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion, A home and a country, should leave us no more? Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution. No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave: And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave, O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved homes and the war's desolation. Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.' And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"
Francis Scott Key was a racist individual he although he was moved to write this, he still felt the need to take a swipe at Black slaves who wanted to fight for their freedom, although the battle he was watching had nothing to do with slavery. Read an article by Jeffery Robinson giving more detail. But this is an example of how ingrained in America racism is to the degree that we ask have to ask the question "Should the United State make restitution for Slavery?" and seriously come up with reasons why not because the people who were directly harmed by it are black.
Leighton Flowers lately posted the following video attempting to answer the objection to the flavor of soteriology that Leighton Flowers represents that asks what is it that distinguishes those who put their trust in Christ from those reject Christ? Leighton Flower's side postulates that believers choose to humble themselves before God and trust Jesus for salvation due their own free will choices. But Calvinists counter that this would mean that people are no on equal footing if a person on their own can embrace Christ and those who don't out-right reject. Wouldn't that mean that the believer is more moral? Smarter? Better -in some way? More spiritually sensitive?
I cannot find myself really moved by Leighton Flowers's answer. I think he starts in the wrong place. He assumes that like Adam and Eve, fallen human beings are just as morally free as they were before they first disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden.I disagree because scripture describes people born in sin, shaped in iniquity, and unable to obey God - lacking any desire to do so - unless we get a new mind and a new heart from God.
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
And
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slavetosin. - John 8:34
Flower argues that because people have the ability to choose to believe in Jesus therefore God holds us responsible for rejecting Him. I disagree that the question presumes determinism is true. He presumes the our will is free like Adam's. Flowers' argument that we willingly choose God then is going against the given scriptures posted above.
His point that some people use the doctrine about human inability as an excuse for rejecting God does not work, None of us are looking for God or trying to serve Him unless God carries us.
We love because he firstlovedus. - 1 John 4:19
God holds us accountable not responsible
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? - Romans 9:19-21
Here is an amazing interview with Dr. Michael Brown.
I was raised in a Pentecostal church myself. I have never understood why people could concluded that God does not give spiritual gifts today. I have experienced the move of God in my life and in many churches.
We all tend to live in our own bubbles. It can be really scary when your bubble is breached. When Donald Trump was elected President, it became clear that many white evangelical Christians were willing to overlook Trump's habit of telling lies and record of racism because they believed he would eventually help get rid of abortion because he claimed to be a Christian. Jemar Tisby. at the time wrote an opinion piece about so many white Christians would support racism and how it made him feel "unsafe". When James White (a Reformed Baptist Theologian/Apologist) read his words it really rubbed him the wrong way, prompting many a Twitter battle between some white Christians and Black Christians. James White and others like John MacArthur see the criticisms of racism brought by black Christians like Tisby and Thabiti M. Anyabwile as divisive and unproductive in spreading the Gospel and leading people to Christ. They argue that being Christian transcends race. However, the reason they can ignore the inequities and prejudices endured by black people in America and around the world is because they don't got to live with them. I have heard James White and John MacArthur have harsh words for all people who call for the repentance of White Christians and change in how White and Non-White Christians interact and the power dynamics in Church. They argue that they embrace socialism, Critical Race Theory, Social Justice, and Black Liberation Theology. Many Evangelicals have signed a formal statement - Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel - explaining they disagree with their perceived shift in the church toward social justice.
One problem is the definitions of Social Justice does not match what neither what I nor any Black Christian would say it is or what accountability we have to one another when it comes to respecting each other despite the color or skins. They argue against the crazy people who say that white people should put themselves in servitude to black people to pay penance for racism and slavery. Men like Jemar Tisby and Thabiti Anyabwile are not arguing for this at all or changing the Gospel message in the slightest. See the following video below in which Anyabwile defines the Gospel message.
However, given that many black Christians do not have a background in Reformed Theology, Anyabwile is uniquely qualified to discuss some insight on that and I found his viewpoint helpful.
Interesting? There are increasing reports of Muslims around the world having unexpected dreams of Jesus telling them the He loves them and this is leading them to Faith in Christ becoming Christian. Sounds like the God I serve.
I love to listen/watch Justin Brierley's Unbelievable? podcast. He always having engaging conversations/debates. This one is no different. This one has Young Earth Creationism (YEC) vs Old Earth Creationism (OEC). Ken Ham vs Jeff Zweerink.
This is by far not the first time I've seen Ken Ham debate this. And he seems intractable as ever. It's like he does not listen to any viewpoint other than his own. Don't get me wrong. I do think that Ken Ham loves God and that he is a real Christian although I disagree with him on his conclusions. My biggest problem with him is that he does not see that other Christians can love God, respect the Bible, and yet disagree with him. For Ken Ham, his Young Earth Creationism is a litmus test for orthodoxy. He doubts your sincerity and your salvation if you disagree with him on the age of the earth. This is not a salvation issue. As Frank Turek once pointed out, Jesus is not going to kick you out of heaven if you get this wrong. But I want my views to be true.
In addition, I see no reason to conclude that believing the Bible means denying science or common sense one way or the other. Although I do not agree with Ham that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, I also know that does not mean that Ham , or those who agree with him, are stupid and/or evil. Simply put: the conclusions you draw depend on the assumptions you make. Ham's conclusions are based on his Biblical interpretations that I do not agree with.
Ken makes some of the following assumptions. Green means that I can see how one can see that. Red means I think he is reaching.
1. The six days of creation are six twenty-four hour days like we experience now.
The Hebrew word "yom" was translated "day" but at it's core it means "a period of time". God is all powerful. Any period of time would have suffice. 1 Billion Years. 1 trip around the sun. 1 second. Or even 1 attosecond, God can do whatever He wants to do - even six twenty-four hour days. The Bible does not clearly tells us how those periods were measured. Given that there is no mention of "evening" on the 6th day, the terms "evening" and "morning" may be symbolic. I don't know and no one can honestly say they know.
This is where science comes in. It can help us understand what God did and how God did it.
2.The genealogical lists in Genesis list every individual in the line
Given that all the other genealogies in the Bible demonstratively do not include every single people in the line, there is no reason to think that the lists in the Bible are complete. It is a newfangled idea to list everyone in a family tree because back in Biblical times each genealogy has a point that is not to show just who was related. You can see this by just comparing different list. For example look Jesus' line in Matthew vs Luke vs the lists of Kings in the Old Testament. You will see that some are longer than other because each list was making a different point. We cannot use those years to count the age of the Earth.
3. Accepting an Old Earth model means accepting macro evolution
No reason to conclude that.
4. The Old Earth model represents people compromising the word of God to fit in with the world.
No reason to think this is true for everyone.
5. Ken Ham disagrees about when and how the Bible should be taken literally and worries that people would be tempted to compromise on other parts of Scripture if they are good with compromising on this one.
This is why we need to pray and follow the truth, not stick to what makes you completely.
6. We don't need Hebraic and Greek Scholar to be the final authority on what the Bible says because we can read and understand the Bible for ourselves.
I agree because we are responsible to know God for ourselves.
7. Implying that there was never anything that died (animals as well) before Adam's disobedience in the Garden, plunging the world into the inevitability of sin and death.
This one has a theological bent built on the doctrine of Original Sin. While I accept the doctrine of Original sin, I think Ham is also assuming that an Old Earth means that macro Evolution must also be true and all living things evolved from a single lifeform while all others died out because they could not adapt to the changing world. I'm not willing to buy that. Truth is I am only sure that the Bible istrue but it does not give us enough to jump to conclusions when it comes to the timeline. We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden and we don't really know if the animals were eating one another or not. More revelation and facts are needed.
On the other hand, Old Earth Creationists (OEC) must also make assumptions, as well as scientists who study other fields. Some assumption that are sometimes made in OEC include:
1. The speed of light is constant no matter where you are in the universe, how fast you are moving yourself and has always been the same.
This is a standard scientific assumption. It's the insight that Einstein had that lead him to postulating Special Relativity. And it can be bolstered by experimentation. In college, I observed this in several experiments and the speed of light was near constant. I'm willing to base my life on this one. Why not? Our technologies that harness electromagnetism definitely are based on this idea,
2. The amount of Uranium 238 equaled the amount of Uranium 235 in the earth's crust when the earth first formed. And their decay rates have remained constant.
Because we know the ratio of Uranium 235 to Uranium 238 in the earth's crust today and the rate of decay for both based on the half-life of each element, we can calculate the age of the planet if we assume both elements were in equal amounts in the beginning, I go along with this until either the assumptions are proven wrong or a better theory comes along. Besides, it makes the math work out.
Leighton Flower posted the following video attempting to give his take on what John 6:44 really says. He contends that it's not about God the Father irresistibly pulling Elect people to Jesus.
I think that there is a major problem in his arguments First, let's look at two of the verses he site.I will be attempting to get a little more context in the discussion.
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:43,44
31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. John 12:31,32
The contention Professor Flowers tries to raise is that "draw" in John 6:44 does not mean "to compel" and then tries to run to John 12:32 to try to argue that "draw" means the same thing there as it does in John 6:44 and it should be interpreted as "invited" not "compelled". Does this make sense?
Well, going to the Greek text could help us in this case. The word "draw" in John 6:44 is the same as the word translated "draw" in John 12:32. The word has Strong's #1670 - ἑλκύω. And according to the Thayer's Lexicon entry I got from StudyLight.org, ἑλκύω means the following:
to draw, drag off
metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel
Which definition fits in John 6:44 and John 12:32? It's can't be the second definition given the context in both passages are about the source - the power - of the drawing is coming from outside of the drawn. That leaves us with the paraphrase: "no one is able to come to Christ unless they are dragged by the Father." Same for John 12:32. The word translated "draw" is also used in the context of the pulling in a net. There is no room here for assuming that the dragging has anything to do with those being dragged. Jesus even says in John 6:44 that the same ones the Father drags to him is the same ones that he will save. No one who comes will be lost and no one who is drawn by the Father will fail to come.
This is the problem with trying to read the context of John 12:32 back on 6:44. Jesus is not talking about the exact same thing. In John 6:44, Jesus is telling why the religious leaders are not believing Him. As for John 12:32, Jesus it talking about his crucifixion and how it will be through his death all people would be dragged towards him but He did not clearly say they would be raised up. Therefore, Jesus is not talking about the same "drawing".
The word "draw" shows up 8 times in the King James Version. One of the great things about the StudyLight.org site is that when you use the online Lexicon it tells you how many times the words appears in the King James Version and the New American Standard Version. Here are the 8 passages from the King James Version:
ThenSimonPeterhaving (5723) a sworddrew (5656) it,andsmote (5656) the high priest'sservant,and cut off (5656) hisrightear*. The servant'snamewas (5713) Malchus.
And he said (5627) unto them,Cast (5628) the neton the rightside of the ship,and ye shall find (5692). They cast (5627) therefore,andnow they werenotable (5656) to draw (5658) itfor the multitude of fishes.
SimonPeter went up (5627), anddrew (5656) the nettolandfull of greatfishes, an hundred and fifty and three:and for all there were so many, yet was (5752) not the netbroken (5681).
Some anti-Calvinists have gone as far as trying to interpret the "drawing" as "gently wooing". They claim that God "woos" us through His loving kindness such that we choose to love and serve Him. No way do any of these eight passages have "gentle wooing" in mind while the drawing is happening. Outside the Bible, the word was used in the first century to describe pulling a bucket water out of well. Good luck trying to woo water in a bucket.
Professor Leighton Flowers has posted another video trying to critique Calvinism doctrine. He argues that Calvinists confuse believers being regenerated through faith by choosing to humble one's self with the choice by God to choosing to save people who believe.
I think that every Christian would agree that one becomes saved by humbling ourselves before our Holy God and agree that we are sinners and submit ourselves to God.The argument here is about how believers reach that level of humility. Professor Flowers does play Professor Sproul explaining how we are regenerated by God but Flowers does not explain how we go from rejecting God to loving God. Scripture is clear in explaining how we are unable to do things that please God apart from His grace. The thing that I think that Professor Flowers is ignoring is that Sproul is not arguing as if God snaps his fingers and then we are free to humble ourselves. We can humble ourselves when we have
been regenerated, No Believer is waiting for God to humble them so that they can be saved because we humble ourselves because God has done that miraculous work in us.
I think that it's really problematic to try to nail down which comes first: The faith and the humility to be saved or the empowerment to live and serve. I think it's akin to questioning your own desires. For example: what if you decided to have corn flakes for breakfast this morning. Is that because you autonomously wanted that or was it because God decreed from the foundation of creation that you would get corn flakes that day? I don't know. You don't either. And think of all the things God put into motion outside of your control leading up to the point that you could make that decision. It's not a simple answer. However given that we all hated God and was at war with him before we were converted, I fail to see how anyone could choose to accept Christ as Lord and head of their lives without God's help.
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.
