Truth about Reprobation
- Thread starter fltom
- Start date
Josheb
Well-known member
Flowers: I agree with the Calvinist when he says, "Election means God chooses a person to save."
Flowers: I agree with the Calvinists when they say God does not explain how or why He chooses who He chooses. He just picks people and it seems random but it's not. You're not elected based upon your own moral conduct, but you are elected based on whether or not you are in Christ. If you are in Christ then you are elect. Jesus is the chosen one, the elect one.
Flowers: I disagree with the Calvinist position God chose who He would save in eternity past so as to receive the benefits and blessings of being in Christ. I believe Calvinists eisegetically read in determinism where I do not.
Flowers: Matthew 13:20 specifies "the elect," but I do not believe it is the elect, those chosen before the foundation of the world. I believe it is those who believe.
Flowers: We start in Ephesians 1 with the first verse. Paul is writing to believers (those all already saved). I read the "us" of Ephesians 1 to be believers in God but not ones God chose before the foundation of the world. The plan of God to save those who would believe existed before the foundation of the world, but not those to whom the plan would apply. God did not choose the "us" ahead of time.
Flowers: Even though other scripture explicitly states what Calvinists apply to Ephesians 1, the Ephesians 1 text itself does not say any of those things. I, therefore, think Calvinists are eisegetically imposing their doctrine on Ephesians 1 (even though everything I've just stated in criticism of Calvinists is elsewhere found in scripture).
Flowers: Calvinists point to the scriptures plainly stating the reasons for God's choices are actions are in accordance with the kind intention of His will, but I say it is unknown. Apparently, God could choose anyone for anything, salvation or not, according to the kindness of His good intention but we have no idea why that is. Calvinists have no idea why He chooses who He chooses within His kind intention, and I don't either but they're wrong and I am correct.
Josh: God chooses who is in Christ (a distinction without a difference). Being saved and being in Christ is synonymous. No one is saved apart from being in Christ and all who are in Christ are saved.
Flowers separates "those chosen from the foundation of the world" from "those who believe," where Cals see no separation. Those are chosen, believe, and those who believe are those chosen. God does not choose fruitlessly or without effect. To imply or suggest God acts without effect, or acts in a manner where His choice and His commensurate action is powerless is antithetical to the premise of the God of the Bible who is always and everywhere sovereign and almighty.
Flowers plays fast and loose with the definition of "eisegesis." If scripture makes multiple and diverse statements about any given person or condition, then all of those statements simultaneously apply. It is NOT eisegesis to read all the (seeming) diversity as a whole.
I stopped listening at 11+minutes because tere are too many logical and exegetical errors in Flowers' commentary for the video to be considered veracious.
Flowers: I agree with the Calvinists when they say God does not explain how or why He chooses who He chooses. He just picks people and it seems random but it's not. You're not elected based upon your own moral conduct, but you are elected based on whether or not you are in Christ. If you are in Christ then you are elect. Jesus is the chosen one, the elect one.
Flowers: I disagree with the Calvinist position God chose who He would save in eternity past so as to receive the benefits and blessings of being in Christ. I believe Calvinists eisegetically read in determinism where I do not.
Flowers: Matthew 13:20 specifies "the elect," but I do not believe it is the elect, those chosen before the foundation of the world. I believe it is those who believe.
Flowers: We start in Ephesians 1 with the first verse. Paul is writing to believers (those all already saved). I read the "us" of Ephesians 1 to be believers in God but not ones God chose before the foundation of the world. The plan of God to save those who would believe existed before the foundation of the world, but not those to whom the plan would apply. God did not choose the "us" ahead of time.
Flowers: Even though other scripture explicitly states what Calvinists apply to Ephesians 1, the Ephesians 1 text itself does not say any of those things. I, therefore, think Calvinists are eisegetically imposing their doctrine on Ephesians 1 (even though everything I've just stated in criticism of Calvinists is elsewhere found in scripture).
Flowers: Calvinists point to the scriptures plainly stating the reasons for God's choices are actions are in accordance with the kind intention of His will, but I say it is unknown. Apparently, God could choose anyone for anything, salvation or not, according to the kindness of His good intention but we have no idea why that is. Calvinists have no idea why He chooses who He chooses within His kind intention, and I don't either but they're wrong and I am correct.
Josh: God chooses who is in Christ (a distinction without a difference). Being saved and being in Christ is synonymous. No one is saved apart from being in Christ and all who are in Christ are saved.
Flowers separates "those chosen from the foundation of the world" from "those who believe," where Cals see no separation. Those are chosen, believe, and those who believe are those chosen. God does not choose fruitlessly or without effect. To imply or suggest God acts without effect, or acts in a manner where His choice and His commensurate action is powerless is antithetical to the premise of the God of the Bible who is always and everywhere sovereign and almighty.
Flowers plays fast and loose with the definition of "eisegesis." If scripture makes multiple and diverse statements about any given person or condition, then all of those statements simultaneously apply. It is NOT eisegesis to read all the (seeming) diversity as a whole.
I stopped listening at 11+minutes because tere are too many logical and exegetical errors in Flowers' commentary for the video to be considered veracious.
Rather the error reside in your understanding.
Those who believe are in Christ.
Ephesians 1:13 (KJV 1900) — 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
before the foundation of the world God chose that those in Christ would be holy and blameless before him in love.
This is corporate election, and the election of individuals follows when one comes into the corporate body of Christ.
Christ is the elect one and when one is Christ one also become elect
See also the op on Romans 11
CookedGoose
Well-known member
Before the foundation of the world, God already knows who will believe.
He doesn't need to wait to see who believes and who doesn't.
Because of this omniscience, election is not corporate but individual.
Election of the individual from the foundation of the world, can be based on omniscience alone.
Josheb
Well-known member
That did not take long. Ad hominem duly noted and given the credence any fallacy deserves. Next time try to keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.
You are a troll.
Thank you for your time.
There was no ad hominem, no attack upon your character
You did not address the following
Those who believe are in Christ.
Ephesians 1:13 (KJV 1900) — 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
before the foundation of the world God chose that those in Christ would be holy and blameless before him in love.
This is corporate election, and the election of individuals follows when one comes into the corporate body of Christ.
Christ is the elect one and when one is Christ one also become elect
See also the op on Romans 11
It's both corporate and individual
The election before the foundation of the world is in Christ
that is corporate
No one was in Christ before the foundation of the world.
Individual men are placed in Christ when they believe
Ephesians 1:13 (KJV 1900) — 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
No one is in Christ until they believe
Ephesians 1:13 (KJV 1900) — 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
and election is in Christ
God's knowing what he will do in the future is not God doing it in eternity
Sketo
Well-known member
Knowing is not doing
Salvation occurs in time not eternity
Men are in Christ in time not eternity
Ephesians 1:13 (KJV 1900) — 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Romans 16:7 (KJV 1900) — 7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
CookedGoose
Well-known member
But election happens in eternity.
A person doesn't become elect when they believe, they become saved.
Corporate election of the church in Christ
But men are not in Christ in eternity but in time
Ephesians 1:13 (KJV 1900) — 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Romans 16:7 (KJV 1900) — 7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
so individual election in Christ transpires in time
before that you are none of his
Romans 8:9 (KJV 1900) — 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
CookedGoose
Well-known member
Right, being in Christ is being saved
Paul (for instance) was a "child of wrath" and elect at the same time.
Once he believed he was in Christ.
This is called being saved, it's not election.
You're inventing new terms now.
"Whom He foreknew these He predestined."
In other words before that you are predestined
Well election is in Christ
no one is in Christ until they believe
Ephesians 1:13 (KJV 1900) — 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
as was noted, men are in Christ in time
Romans 16:7 (KJV 1900) — 7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
LOL
Tom denies Scripture.
The Church was chosen "in Christ" before the world began (Eph 1:4).
Josheb
Well-known member
The evidence proves otherwise.
According to the first comment the problem is not in the case presented in the post, but in the cognitive faculty of the poster. Perhaps the meaning of ad hominem isn't correctly understood.
Argumentum Ad Hominem: attacking an opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine the argument. An argument directed against related to or associated with a person rather than the position they asserted. Ad hominem is a term that refers to several types of fallacious arguments in which a rhetorical strategy is employed where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue.
There's no error residing in my understanding, that claim has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the post or a logical rebuttal thereof, it says nothing about the substance of the post ignored, and ad hominem is always self-indicting (because the Holy Spirit NEVER inspires His people to employ fallacy).
Keep the posts about the posts, not the posters.
The subject of the op (Leighton Flowers' views) and the specific content of Post #2 should be addressed. Nothing else. No one else's views are the subject of this op. That video is specifically and solely about Flower's views. Flowers' view of reprobation and Flowers' views of one Calvinist's (Brooks) view. Flowers digresses in his own video (very little in the first 11 minutes of that video is about reprobation).
I touched on some of the more substantive statements of the video. There were many prima facie false and just plain stupid comments laden with irrationality, such as the statement many people think election means Calvinism (00.54 timestamp). ????? Who thinks that? That's just nonsense and no evidence to support the false claim was provided. The statement is sheer, unadulterated, contemptuous bigotry that has absolutely no place in godly, rational discourse. I skipped those statements.
I posted seven points from Flowers, summarized his comments, and then addressed three points that have to do with Flowers' rationale, his method of reasoning.
The response had nothing to do with anything posted. Now..... do a word search for the word "you" and count the number of times I used that word in this post.
Keep the post about the posts, not the posters.
.
Josheb
Well-known member
I left out one very important point. Part 1
At timestamp 11:23 Flowers comments on the doctrine of Total Depravity (TD) and again attacks Calvinism but Calvinism is not the only soteriology that subscribes to TD. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius and Wesley all subscribed to TD.
This is important for two reasons. First, Flowers is incorrectly, unjustly, and prejudicially separating Calvinism for criticism. Second, since all of Christianity between the fourth century up through modernity has held to TD - even the Reformed Arminian synergists - Flowers is implicitly stating his views are radically different than everything previously held in orthodoxy Christianity AND he's not being forthcoming about that but, instead, veiling it behind selective Cal-ragging.
At timestamp 11:23 Flowers comments on the doctrine of Total Depravity (TD) and again attacks Calvinism but Calvinism is not the only soteriology that subscribes to TD. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius and Wesley all subscribed to TD.
This is important for two reasons. First, Flowers is incorrectly, unjustly, and prejudicially separating Calvinism for criticism. Second, since all of Christianity between the fourth century up through modernity has held to TD - even the Reformed Arminian synergists - Flowers is implicitly stating his views are radically different than everything previously held in orthodoxy Christianity AND he's not being forthcoming about that but, instead, veiling it behind selective Cal-ragging.
Last edited:
Josheb
Well-known member
I'm having difficulty with CARM accepting the post as a whole, so I am having to break it down into increments.
Part 2:
There is a third problem with Flowers' singling and scapegoating out Calvinists concerning Total Depravity (TD) in this video. Because of Flowers' education and experience as a pastor, professor, and theologian he (presumably) knows both logic and the content competing theologies, especially his own personally invented soteriology and that of those he attacks. That knowledge means he's not simply making what we might call "honest" mistakes, or factual errors that could easily be corrected with the correct information. Since he is trained and knows beforehand there are only four options: incompetence, mental illness, or willful dishonesty spoken with an equally willful intent to deceive. There is simply no other rational explanation for singling out Calvinists when speaking of total depravity, and there is, likewise, no other rational explanation for hiding the wholesale opposition to historical orthodox thought, doctrine and practice under the auspices of that scapegoating. Especially since it is very likely Flowers has heard thousands of hours of theology from diverse sources correcting his views.
Flowers knows Arminian soteriology. WE all know Flowers knows Arminian soteriology because we've all seen the Flowers videos where he collaborates with the Arminians. Here's one of the things Arminius wrote about what we now call Total Depravity.
Arminius was so convinced of this that he repeated it four times! If Flowers has read this then his comments in the video are willful deceit, willfully selective scapegoating deceit.
Part 2:
There is a third problem with Flowers' singling and scapegoating out Calvinists concerning Total Depravity (TD) in this video. Because of Flowers' education and experience as a pastor, professor, and theologian he (presumably) knows both logic and the content competing theologies, especially his own personally invented soteriology and that of those he attacks. That knowledge means he's not simply making what we might call "honest" mistakes, or factual errors that could easily be corrected with the correct information. Since he is trained and knows beforehand there are only four options: incompetence, mental illness, or willful dishonesty spoken with an equally willful intent to deceive. There is simply no other rational explanation for singling out Calvinists when speaking of total depravity, and there is, likewise, no other rational explanation for hiding the wholesale opposition to historical orthodox thought, doctrine and practice under the auspices of that scapegoating. Especially since it is very likely Flowers has heard thousands of hours of theology from diverse sources correcting his views.
Flowers knows Arminian soteriology. WE all know Flowers knows Arminian soteriology because we've all seen the Flowers videos where he collaborates with the Arminians. Here's one of the things Arminius wrote about what we now call Total Depravity.
"In this state [the state of sin], the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, "Without me ye can do nothing." St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: "Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing." That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man." (Article VII from Disputation 11: On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers; Jacobus Arminius)
Arminius was so convinced of this that he repeated it four times! If Flowers has read this then his comments in the video are willful deceit, willfully selective scapegoating deceit.
Last edited: