Is Leighton Flowers' Soteriology 101 Biblical?

#WWUTT #PastorGabe #Soteriology #Soteriology101 #Provisionism #LeightonFlowers

[kathyheavner]

Calvinism is the only thing that makes sense if you read the entire Bible.
Jesus has made it known to me in my old age.
Praise God for his precious gift of life ❤

[booner]

I think it would help many people if they would come to grips with the term paradox. Who wrote Romans, Paul or God? Yes. Did God will for sin to enter this world and is man responsible for sin? Yes. Is it an abomination to justify the wicked and has God justified the wicked? Yes. Many are fine with the 1st and 3rd but not the middle one. Psalm 119:160 The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.

[oracleoftroy]

It's amazing how many of the comments are just emoting offense that you would speak against their idol, yet so few even attempt to refute the video or offer a positive alternative. Leighton's theology is awful and has been condemned by the church for far longer than Calvin has been alive. I would love for him to walk through the Canon of Orange and show how his view is not condemned by it.

[michaelfaber]

Your entire "rebuttal" is based upon two half sentences ripped from their context and spun with a Calvinistic eye. "Granted" in John 6:65 only speaks to the ability to come, and does not speak to who as the ability to come. Further, it refers back to John 6:44, which is explained in verse 45 that God's drawing is His teaching, which is the gospel. So, all that hear the gospel are able, then, to respond.

Likewise in Romans 8:30, Romans 8:29 says that we are "predestined to be conformed to the image of the son", not to believing, not to initial salvation, but rather to something that happens when we are resurrected. So we need not be predestined until after we believe, as this predestines us to something that happens at resurrection.

This does typify Calvinist "exegesis" in that it rips verses from their context, twists them into something the author isn't saying, and then tries to present them as something to tickle the ears of those who would listen.

[Hannodb]

I saw a video in which he took Acts 13:48 that says: " as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed", and with clever sophistry turned it around to say the exact opposite: " as many as had believed, were appointed to eternal life". How do you take a text that clearly states the cause and effect, introduce clever argument to swop them around, and then claim to be defending the Bible rather than human tradition?

[osks]

An excellent exposure of the false teaching of Leighton Flowers!
Ultimately, Flowers’ commitment to Autonomianism - the idea that the ‘sovereignty of man’ somehow eclipses the absolute sovereignty of God (particularly in a soteriological sense) - is predicated entirely on a doctrine that is ‘after man’ rather than ‘after God’…
I really do understand why Flowers insists on subordinating the sovereign will of God (Eph 1:11) to the ‘sovereign’ will of man… the (so-called) ‘problem of evil’… the idea that, because God commands implies responsibility which necessitates ability… our common sense intuitions that strongly seem to suggest (Libertarian) free will… However, all these ‘issues’ are obviated and defeated when one comes to know that God is and that He is God over all (Rom 9:5)!
To support his diatribe against Calvinism (really against the clear teaching of Scripture), Flowers proceeds to eisegetically shoehorn his Autonomian presuppositions into (carefully selected) ‘proof texts’ - bad theology!
Disciples of Leighton Flowers will do well to heed the words of the Apostle Paul… “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ” - Col 2:8

[davevandervelde]

Thank you. Why is this so hard for people.

[JonathanGrandt]

Maybe Gabe doesn’t understand provisionism?

[ladillalegos]

So half of this video is Ad Hominem some Straw man and the rest is complaining about how Leighton is anti Calvinist, no refutation whatsoever

[eleazarfernandez]

There's a video of a debate between these two . I recommend it

[elbertsorrell]

If you pay attention to Leighton Flowers' teaching, you will find that he is seeking to teach a proper view of Scripture. Is he trying to disprove Calvinism? Yes! He makes that clear. That shows his integrity. You know up front, where he stands. SOTERIOLOGY 101 is a good name for the site.

[GaryWGrice]

"He doesn't understand calvinisum"

He was a calvinist for 10 years I think he might know something about it. He knows enough to know its false.

[parkplace]

In order to become anti Calvinist he became unbiblical person

[garymcfarland]

It seems to me there is so much lost in these men who set out not to preach truth but to disprove Calvinist. It’s like they are on a hate mission .

[shawnmason]

You really misrepresented Flowers and his ministry.
People should check out Soteriology 101 and see for yourself.

[rob]

The problem with both the Calvinistic and Arminian interpretation of what they call the golden chain in Romans 8 is that they both pack the word 'Forknown' with a lot of esoteric meaning.

The word simply means and refers to those God knew before, Romans 8 is speaking of the same people God knew before that Paul mentions a little later as foreknown in Romans 11:1-2. Paul is referring to the Old Testament saints. This is why all the statements in the Romans 8 chain are in the past tense. These OT saints have been glorified however, this is not yet true of those to whom Paul is writing.

In Romans 8 Paul is simply reminding the believers in Rome of God's faithfulness towards the OT saint as an encouragement to them. He is not talking about those God pre-selected for salvation before the foundation of the world, whether such a thing was by sovereign decree as in Calvinism, or based on foreknowledge as in Arminianism.

[TheLysineContingency]

So you disagree with his interpretation of scripture. Why not focus on that instead of critiquing which paragraphs have what information?

[shawnmason]

Leighton understands Calvinism very well. Even better than most who call themselves Calvinist.

You really should watch his videos and see because this video her is lacking truth.

[zionred]

you obviously don't understand the text

[UNKLEnic]

You should really change your name 'when you misread the text in 2 mins clips'.