Any Credible Critiques of Provisionism? | Leighton Flowers | Soteriology 101

Dr. Leighton Flowers responds to a book recently published by Matthew Cserhati titled, "A Critique of Provisionism: A Response to Leighton Flowers's 'The Potter's Promise.'"

Join us LIVE as we demonstrate how Matthew's arguments never get off the ground by surviving even the most basic level of unbiased scrutiny.

Or @soteriology101 on Twitter

Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!

Thanks for watching.

#Leighton Flowers #Predestination #Calvinism #Provisionism #Calvinist #Salvation

[aussie]

Dr Flowers taking no prisoners! Love it! Great job!

[d.]

Thank you for these quotes!!! Loving this site and God's provision in Christ!!

[larrybedouin]

God created man with freewill that man might choose to freely love Him.

[bobthrasher]

Even most leading Calvinists acknowledge that the Ante-Nicene fathers didn't teach Calvinism.

[jonathandavid]

Leighton is giving a Master Class on what Jordan Peterson refers to as High Resolution Thinking regarding complex topics such as theology.

LF carefully exposes in detail the inaccurate flawed logic of the book, as well as its mis-stated position of the ECF.

If you want your book to be credible, get your facts and logic tight - your flaws will become apparent to the astute reader.

[jc]

Thank you for explaining your arguments so clearly. It has helped me a lot as I wrestle with this topic, especially in my soteriology class at DTS.

[newcreationcoachingllc]

This whole thing makes me think about authorship in particular. It would be wonderful if the church was cordial enough that we would take time to challenge each other's work before publication of something like this. This seems an oversight that just handing the book to someone not in the author's own "camp" could have been brought up within the first few pages. Looking forward to anything else you have to share on this. We learn something from the process... 🙏

[samuelflores]

You said it all Dr. Flowers! God bless you brother and your ministry! To God be All the Glory!

[eusuntaici]

Your name seems predestined to take the TULIP head-on and dismantle it, petal by petal.

[chaddonal]

15:10 THE ISSUE IS: Who will exercise faith toward Christ? Those who have been eternally elected from the foundations of the earth and are then given faith to exercise? Or those who respond in faith to the gracious activities and gospel message of God? Are we part of the elect and then we respond? Or do we respond and become part of the elect?

[SpaceCadetJesus]

Goodness! The early church fathers' quotes included in this book testify against deterministic salvation and refute the contention of the books author.
Why include them?
I believe the Calvinist glasses are literally super glued to his head, he cannot remove them.
All by deterministic design, of course. 😉

[R.L.KRANESCHRADTT]

13:10... question; If God "causes" someone to humble themselves against their will... can it really be said it is they who are "humbling themselves"? Dr. R. C. Sproul was asked to respond to the polemic accusation that salvation under Calvinism is no more than 'spiritual rape'. He responded that he did not appreciate the term... but he could not dispute the sentiment. He wrote;
"I personally do not like the term “rape” for the Reformed position concerning regeneration (i.e being born again) prior to belief. Yet with that said, I think I understand why non-Reformed folk invoke the term, for despite protestations, when one breaks down Reformed soteriology, one is left with the fact that regeneration occurs against the will of the unregenerate sinner—THE SINNER HAS NO CHOICE in the matter; as such, there is some truth to the claim that it is “a forced love”.
SO... NOWRAPE... BECOMES... 'FORCED LOVE'🤔
Dr. Sproul reluctantly agrees with it but like to say it 'nicer'. Which is typical of Calvinists when confronted with their own doctrine in 'plain' terms'.
"Forced Love" is NOT love. And our Heavenly Father, who is the very personification of 'Love', (a noun), would know the difference, it would not be satisfactory for it is no more than deception, which is diametrically opposed to God's nature.
Calvinists have God slipping man a 'mickey' to make him think and act 'as if' he loves God because he cannot risk the rejection of a man who might freely refuse him. Calvinists have reduced the supreme ruler of the universe to playing checkers with himself to keep from losing.

[mrdandrea]

Matthew Cserhati is like, "Back to the drawing board".

[kander]

Maybe this has been said before but it's worth pointing out again. The reason Calvinists MISS THE POINT OF CONTENTION is they immediately loose the argument if words and ideas are expressed with clarity.

[CT-]

Even Calvin admitted that the Church Fathers believed in libertarian free will and he criticized them for it.

[nickl.]

Poor Calvinist guy is horribly mistaken regarding pre-Augustinian Church Fathers. They were universally synergistic / free will

[jeangreen]

The world needs to follow Jesus Christ's perfect Word. I don't understand how another ism is helpful.

[joshuawhitlock-brown]

Didn't know you were from Garland Can you recommend a church near Irving Texas, or North Fort Worth? I've found many are either somewhat shallow or VERY reformed, but I haven't found many in between.

[thomaslehner]

9:35 What is orthodox and what is heterodox depends on the point of view of the speaker. For Catholics Catholicism is orthodox. For Baptists Baptism is orthodox. For Orthodox Christians, well, Orthodox is orthodox 🙂

[T.Ravikumar]

When you clearly point out that church history construed as heresy Calvinistic theology, why are you not calling Calvinism as heretic?