Popular MISREPRESENTATIONS Of The Non-Calvinist Views Of Romans 9 | Leighton Flowers | RC Sproul

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, responds to RC Sproul's 3 misrepresentations of the Non-Calvinist view of Romans 9.

Check out the full video here:

DOWNLOAD OUR APP:

Or @soteriology101 on Twitter

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

#LeightonFlowers #Calvinism #RCSproul

[kalewidman]

I have a joke about Calvinism...

But it's not for everybody.

[CynVee]

Wow Dr. Flowers great reminder of who's misrepresenting and slandering whom. All I kept thinking was that there was a time you followed and admired Sproul unconditionally. Being cleansed of Calvinism and its adherents is so freeing. Many are exhaling and knowing the love of God for all who believe and not just the select elect thanks to you and others. Good work sir.

[primeobjective]

Misrepresenting the opposition is the KEY to keeping your fallacies afloat.

[leiarphaxad]

Hello from the Philippines, Dr. Flowers! I would like you to know how great a blessing you are, along with everyone over at Soteriology 101 for me and for those who continually uphold to the doctrine of Free Grace. I agree with you that the main problem we encounter is the lack for both resources and teachers/preachers that support our view, compared to the numerous and should i say popular proponents of Calvinism. I am saddened by the "conversion" of many of my contemporaries within the Fundamental Baptist circles who by now have become loud and proud calvinists WHILE still pastors of those fundamental churches - which when unchecked, will result to the "conversion" of those churches to reformed theology. Thank you for what you are doing, I have been using your resources and videos as I now myself embark on a LOTUS presentation to the three churches that I'm currently pastoring, and hopefully to others who would like to listen in the future. God bless you!

[ruthertvph]

Would love to see you do a conference in the Philippines Dr. Flowers :)

[colmortimer]

It's like he said, they can't call me out for making a strawman argument, if I make 3 strawman arguments.

[st.christopher]

RC Sproul gets an “F” in the “What is the gospel of Christ 101?” class.

[CosmicalChrist]

Thanks Leighton. You're one of the major reasons I'm still a Christian.

Pls I made a short from one of your videos you should definitely add to your YouTube shorts. I posted it on Twitter but it seemed you missed it.

[oterosocram]

Romans 9 should NOT be treated independently from the rest of the chapters, yet there is more books written in just Romans 9 than any other chapter of any book in the Bible. Just reading chapter 9 will lead a person to come up with all sorts of issues I’m convinced that that’s Calvinism

[emilesturt]

Calvinism in a nutshell:

Far worse than God being the author of all things (and not merely "permitting" in freedom and love - and ultimately identifying with us by the incarnation) but "determining" the fall and everything connected with it, and picking some individuals for glory and not others...
is us having the audacity to believe there's such a thing as free will!
Go figure?

[toomanymarys]

Dr. Flowers, an important addition to your main talking points is that creation was made FOR THE SON (Col 1:16). Why ? Because of the love of the Father for the Son, who will lay down his life for his sheep, and then, after all things have been placed into submission to him, will place everything in submission to the Father.

[d.carpenter]

Thou shalt not bear false witness!

I'm writing a book on defeating Calvinism using some arguments I have never seen used. I wonder how I'll be misrepresented.

[James-gww]

The heat of this debate is what amazes me. I know the arguments from both sides and usually when I'm asked a question about how to interpret a verse I just ask, "do you believe in free will or not?". Then I'll give them the response and then they ask me, "well what's the other view? and I tell them and then they ask "well what do you believe?". And I'll say "based on what, science or the bible or philosophy or all the above?". Then they are like "huh?". And I'll say "you have to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling but I'll point you to the information, let's not make this a one time conversation because this debate has carried on for nearly 2000 years".

[SantaFe]

How do you respond to the charge that Arminianism, or perhaps any non-Calvinist soteriology is either Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism?

[markriley]

Calvinism is relatively easy to get out of... if you can read and understand the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. This will seperate your identity from truth and allow truth to be walked around, examined and pondered without prejudice.

The argument is very simple if you avoid the cliché and the false arguments.

Calvinism requires God to hate most.... but Love you....with yourself being the proof. Men cannot testify or witness for themselves.

Not Calvinism requires God to Love you know or prove you are loved by God's love of your neighbor.

This is what it means to love your neighbor as yourself.

God's love of everyone else is your proof of being loved by God.

Calvinism is neighbor hating or a weaponized God.

[mikejones]

If calvinism were true, and we have no free will, the God is throwing people into hell that perfectly followed His will.

That is NOT just, nor merciful.

[rhavenlynn]

I have learned to not engage with a Calvinist. But this issue of not being able to disagree with the brethren without all kinds of ridiculous assumptions made. I dont belong yo either camp. I prefer to be with Jesus outside the camp 😊

[JohnQPublic]

On the number 3 excuse, on Calvinism, the foreknowledge of the sovereign Calvinist potter Baal God does not look down the corridors of time, no, his foreknowledge is solely based upon the fact that he is the planner, author, ordainer, decreer and predestiner, i.e. the *CAUSER* of, the circumstances, thoughts, beliefs and actions of men.

[shawnmason]

You’re gonna get in trouble, Sproul is one of the Calvinist’s idols.

[devinjones]

I hear you take issue with the representation of "non-calvinist", however, I did not hear your explanation of a more accurate representation. For example. You said Sprouls' explanation of corporate election was incorrect, yet I did not hear (I rewound the video to confirm) him use those actual words. Then you did not respond with the more accurate or correct view of corporate election. One could argue that you would be misrepresenting Sprouls simply based on how you approached this video. Even in your contention with his paraphrasing of what you referred to as corporate election I heard no distinction in the spirit of the explanation, only in what you later referred to as vernacular. If someone is misrepresenting your position then you should reiterate your position to prove the distinction, not simple say that he's wrong.