John 10:14 DE-CALVINIZED | Dr. Leighton Flowers | Soteriology 101 | Calvinism | Limited Atonement

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, De-Calvinizes John 10:14 with Dr. David Allen.

Check out the full video here:

DOWNLOAD OUR APP:

Or @soteriology101 on Twitter

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

#Calvinism #DrLeightonFlowers #LimitedAtonement

[OkieAllDay]

As David Allen would say, "Limited atonement is a doctrine in search of a text."
Not a single verse says Jesus died only for the elect, but many verses say that He died for the world, everyone, all, etc.

[AlexanderosD]

Limited Atonement is one of my biggest issues with Calvinism.
The Calvinist philosophy has the hubris to tell Jesus who He is allowed to die for.

[a.k.]

Pretty much the only thing I disagree with Leighton and David is eternal security, but that's not essential doctrine. Keep up the good work guys!

[Ajsirb]

"This fold" is old covenant Israel. "The other sheep" are the Gentiles, and the "one flock" is the new covenant "Israel of faith" where there is neither Jew or Gentile. Because all who have faith become part of the heavenly Israel.

[richardcoords]

Analogy: If I give a dinner party, and afterwards someone comes up to me to thank me for the food, I might respond: "You're welcome. I did it for you." It's certainly a true statement, because their gratitude justifies my expense to put on the dinner, but at the same time, it certainly should not be taken to mean that I *only* did it for them, which illustrates the logical flaw inherent to the "Negative Inference Fallacy."

[jeffreybomba]

I have recently been struck by the similarities in the foundations of Calvinism and Catholicism (which both stem from Augustine) dispute their historical opposition.

Both rely on isolating fragments or scripture used to form a lens through which you must decide plain texts into something else. In Catholicism the mechanism is Apostolic authority, revealing extra biblical “truth” that all other texts MUST be understood through because only the Apostolic line can really understand scripture. In Calvinism, all of the plainly contradict texts are a method of hiding the truth from the reprobate, and once you are saved He reveals the Calvinist decoder ring used to decipher the plainly contradictory texts.

Either way, they are both very Gnostic sounding.

[kevinburtnick]

I encourage you to carefully analyze and break down each verse and every so-called "proof text" related to Calvinism, explaining them in simple and easily understandable terms within a two-minute timeframe. May God bless you in this endeavor.

[barryallen]

It’s specifically the false doctrine of double predestination and denial of human free will that turns God into the author of sin and a morally objectionable Creator, who gives the damned no free will choice whatsoever and allows them to go to hell for eternity. That’s neither biblical nor historic Christianity, and it is morally contemptible.

[Obrandoporlaverdad]

Dr. Leighton have you ever checked out Dave Hunt's work againts Calvinism: "what love is this"? I think it would make a great episode.

[LogisticallyMisrepresented]

Calvinization is the narcissist's policy for interpretation of the bible.

[OkieAllDay]

Calvinism is heretical, plain and simple. It's not biblical and it's not historical.

[JimmySonny]

Imagine God the Father sacrificing his Son, who lived a perfect human life, brought on himself ALL of the wrath of God that was to be poured on humanity, and then still punishing those the Son supposedly atoned for. This is what denying limited atonement is, it is a denial of the perfect work of God being sufficient, effective and a denial of God's prerogative to apply it.
.
Besides, on John 10, while it doesn't say that God didn't die for the sheep only, neither it does say anyone can become a sheep (where do they get that from John 10 is a mistery to me).
.
The context of John 10 starts in John 8. Jesus is in the Temple, he has a discussion with the Jews in the Temple, exits the temple, heals the blind man just outside of it, the blind man is questioned, then the Pharisees come to Jesus to ask him about his healing and the blindness, spiritual and literal. Only after these two chapters the sheep discussion comes but it is all in the same day, the same context, the same "act". In John 8 they don't believe because they have not been freed by the Son, the Son frees you from sin (including unbelief), in John 9 Jesus gives sight to the blind to see him, in John 10 Jesus reveals only the flock of his believes in him and hears his voice.
.
The picture is very clear, the sheep are sheep already, even those "other sheep" are already sheep, even though they have not heard his voice yet. I mean, think about this, was the Lord Jesus talking about us not yet born Gentiles in verse 16? If so, we were sheep even before we were born. Also, there is no invitation to believe in John 10, he's explaining actuality.
.
Before you say "but he knew about their belief in advance that's why he calls them "other sheep"!" I'd love to see where is that hinted in the text, and where it is written, or implied, that those once were not sheep and would've become one after hearing the voice of the master.
.
Going back to the claim that verse 15 doesn't imply Limited Atonement, well, once you understand the sheep to be a set number of people, for nobody can make himself a sheep (for the metaphor implies they already are one), then you have no reason to believe beyond what the Lord said and that is: I lay down my life for the sheep.

[sebroach]

Hi Dr. Flowers,
Please could you answer this question as I have been struggling with Calvinism myself.
I haven’t heard a non-Calvinist interpretation of Luke 1:15. Is the work of the Holy Spirit free in the baby John the Baptist?

[kristianmontalvo]

In the book calls the other side of the calvinist from Lawrence Vance he stated; sheps in the bible never be related to belivers, just to Jewish.

There is none reference to believers as sheeps in the doctrinals letters of Paul.

By the way I'm not calvinist

[jeffreybomba]

Calvinist must assume this, and then assume that the WORLD only means the determined.

[brucegolston]

No need to de-calvinize. These passages were never calvinized in the first place. They were simply abused by the out of context hermeneutic.

[willtrantham]

This is a topic I've brought up a few times, but I haven't been able to get a satisfying answer yet.

I bring it up because, as much as I disagree with Calvinism, this is the one thing that does seem to get it some validity, a thought that makes me shudder.

I don't know if I've worded it right, so let me try my best.

I've asked about the inherited sin nature before, but I don't know if ive gotten to the core of my issue.

From what I've gathered, all people will inevitably sin if God leaves them alone to test them. From the first man to the last, if God leaves us alone to test us, we will inevitably miss the mark and disobey.

So, my question is, why does God test us (from the first man to each of us) in the first place if we will inevitably fail?

And if we are going to inevitably fail, why punish with death?

Unless God is living in the person, that person will fail; so he is punishing us for a choice that only He can affect the outcome on. To put it another way, He punishes us with death for our sin, but we only sin because he left us alone to test us - but we can only choose the right choice if He indwells us...see the problem here.

Death is called wages, it's what we owe God for our missing the mark, but the only reason we owe it is because God put us in a position - not indwelling us - to where we would have no choice but TO owe it.

So why is God making us pay wages for a situation HE put us in by giving us a choice that's not actually a choice?

You might say, so we can have a choice to accept or reject Him. But again, unless the Holy Spirit lives in us, we can't choose to make the right choice and reject sin on our own, so the choice doesn't ultimately matter. So, it would be better if the test was never there, so we couldn't inevitably sin.

Calvinists don't believe in free will (some will disagree, but the ones consistent with the doctrine of calvinism, divine determinism, won't) - and that is something I and many who frequent this site dosagree with. But this scenario that I've presented is perhaps the strongest case I can think of in favor of their position.

I need help answering why it is wrong, that is why I am so adamant about this inherited sin nature
/actual choice issue. So, if anyone on this channel or in the comments can give me an answer, I need it.

[KevinEDF]

Jesus told the pharisees if you were blind you would have no sin but since you say you see your sin remains, God doesn't condemn those who are blind, let alone blind us from birth. We are judged based on our current knowledge or light which seems to address eternal condition of children or those who never heard.

[carlking]

This may not be relevant, but Isiah says that all we like sheep have gone astray.

[T.Hydenberger]

Question: If those who have faith become the Lords Sheep, what were they before being a Sheep? A goat? Or, is there no mention of what the person would be called before being a Sheep or a Goat?