« God’s Time & Plan vs. Yours | Main | Against Andy Stanley: Why the Virgin Birth is So Vital to Christianity »

My Exchange Between Leighton Flowers (& others) on Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention

Here is an online exchange I had between Leighton Flowers, (President of the SBC of Texas Youth Ministry) myself, and a few others over the topic of Calvinism. The specific topic was whether or not Calvinists believed that God was "fatalistic" and thus programmed all of us like robots.  My initial article that Leighton quoted can be found here.  His article in which he rebuts me can be found here.  My comments begin at the 2:04 am mark of Dec. 16 (and they are listed below), for those interested.  A later debate between he and James White can be found here.  Below are the comments between Leighton, myself, and a few others; as we kicked around these issues.  Hopefully it was all done in a spirit of Christian charity.

 Shane Kastler

  • I appreciate your kind tone in referencing my article above. Obviously I think you misunderstood or at least misrepresented what my article said. By isolating one paragraph from my article out of the context of everything else I said you prop up a “Calvinistic straw man” to tear down. You conclude the following: “If you go back and re-read the Calvinistic explanation posted above you will notice that there is no difference in the actual claims of the Calvinist and the Theistic Fatalist.” If you had read my entire article it defends the exact opposite proposition that you make. The difference between a Calvinist and and a Fatalist is that a Fatalist would care nothing about evangelism since all is “pre-determined.” Theologically speaking they are “Hyper-Calvinists.” A Calvinist believes that God’s ordained means for saving the elect involve activity on the part of the believer through gospel proclamation. And as my article went on to say; the Apostles, as well as church history, bear this out. Calvinists and Fatalists do agree on some things. Just as Calvinists and Arminians do agree on some things. But there are many differences as well.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Shane, I did read your entire article and it was well written.

      You said that I misrepresented your article when I claimed there is no difference in the actual claims of the Calvinist and the Theistic Fatalist, but that’s not all I said. I argued that there is no difference in the belief that God ordains the ends as well as the means…in other words both would affirm God is in meticulous deterministic control over the ends and the means. But the only difference (which I DID acknowledge) is how one chooses to apply that common belief. Hyperists choose not to care about evangelism and good Cals (like you) choose to care about evangelism but you both have the SAME view of theistic determinism (which is what you pointed to as if it was a distinction).

      So, why do some theistic determinists choose to be pro-evangelistic and others choose to be hyper anti-evangelistic if not because that is exactly what God determined for them to choose, Shane?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Pastor Flowers writes, “So, why do some theistic determinists choose to be pro-evangelistic and others choose to by hyper anti-evangelistic if not because that is exactly what God determined for them to choose,…”

        That God is at work in His people seems to be acknowledged by all – A pastor or evangelist speaks of God calling him into the ministry (of course, some, under sin’s deception, make such claims when God has never called them). People in general speak of praying for God’s leading in a decision. Believers all seem to believe that God is active in their lives and if not determining fully what they do (as Calvinists say), at least helping to determine what they do (as non-Cals say). All believers are somewhat deterministic in their thinking.

        What about the anti-evangelistic – those whom God has not called to the ministry. Has God determined their disobedience by not calling them. Well, of course. God leaves many people to their own desires and rather than pulling them one way or the other toward Him, He merely restrains them so that they can only go one way or the other away from Him.

        God is either actively involved in a person’s life determining them for good or God is passively uninvolved in a person’s life restraining them from greater evil than that which they desire.

        Like

      2. Leighton, in response to your question: “So, why do some theistic determinists choose to be pro-evangelistic and others choose to be hyper anti-evangelistic if not because that is exactly what God determined for them to choose, Shane?”

        This is, in essence, the very same question Paul’s opponent raises in Romans 9 (which some have already mentioned). If God is truly as sovereign as we say, then “Why does He still find fault, for who resists His will?” Of course, whatever Paul’s answer to that question is should also be our answer to that question, since ultimately, we want to be informed by the Bible beyond anything else. Paul’s answer was not, “Yes, you are destined for Hell so don’t worry about it.” Rather, Paul’s answer was, “Who are you, O Man, to question God?” I don’t think it’s an accident that Paul uses the phrase “O Man” because in so doing he blatantly points out our status as creatures contrasted with God’s status as the Sovereign Creator. Paul never questions that God determines what comes to pass. And if Paul, writing under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration doesn’t question this…..Should we?

        Of course this raises many questions for us; as you have done quite well in your article. One question is this: How do we respond to the information we’re given about God’s absolute sovereignty? Paul’s response was still to evangelize and to try and “persuade” unbelievers to come to Christ. How could he do this when he knew full well that God was sovereign over all things? I think the answer lies in the fact that Paul submitted to what the Lord said, rather than arguing that God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility didn’t make sense. Logic can be a good servant, but it makes a lousy master. At the end of the day our logic will only take us so far, then we need to submit to what the Word says and simply admit that many things about God are “past finding out.” Does this mean my response to God’s sovereignty was pre-determind by God? Yes. Does it mean someone else’s rejection of this is pre-determined as well? Yes. But it might also be pre-determined that the rejector changes their view and comes to embrace a Biblical view of God’s sovereignty. And the Bible never calls me to try and figure out who God will change. The Bible simply calls me to proclaim the truth and leave the results in God’s hands.

        So why does God reveal things to us that baffle us? There are several reasons, but the simplest reasons are that it glorifies Him and it humbles us. My conclusion is that while it is good to wrestle with these questions, my final answer must be to submit to the teaching of Scripture and live my life and base my beliefs in accordance with this truth.

        Like

      3. Shane,

        Thank you for your reply. Appealing to Paul’s rebuttal to a hardened Jew in Romans 9 has become the “escape hatch” for Calvinists on this problem, as it was for me for many years.

        But I believe this is a very bad case of eisegesis. In my commentary over Romans 9, I go through the entire text line by line to show that the interlocutor is not in reference to:

        1. A reprobate born unloved and unwanted by their Creator who has no hope of willingly responding to the gracious appeal of the gospel.

        2. Nor is it (as your application above suggests) a hyper evangelistic theistic determinist who has no hope of wanting to evangelize because God decreed it to be that way.

        No, the interlocutor is an Israelite who once was able to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing but has now (because of his own free choices) grown calloused (Acts 28:27-28), and God has judicially hardened them (sent them a spirit of stupor, 11:7-14) in their rebellion to accomplish redemption through their disobedience.

        The exact same interlocutor in Romans 9 appeared in Chapter 3:1-10 too, and clearly that is a hardened Jew being used by God in his rebellion in order to bring about God’s redemptive plan.

        So, for Calvinists to take the example of God judicially blinding a group of already calloused Israelites in their rebellion so as to accomplish redemption for the world, including those very ones who have been hardened, as an example to prove that God meticulously determines every desire, thought, and action of all creatures is beyond the pale. It is the textbook example of eisegesis.

        Like

      4. The problem is Shane, the Scripture does not teach that everything is predetermined! You have no clear reference for such. And all the conditional statements, universal invitations, and verses about God still making determinations after creation, make such a belief in the predetermination of all things just plain wrong and an view that distorts the perspicuity and authority of Scripture!

        The “Man” in Romans 9 was resisting God’s will as evident by Paul’s response. Paul’s rebuke was so that that hypothetical man would humble himself under God’s sovereignty, because Paul believed God’s mercy was available to him to do so (Rom 11:32)! That God’s plan includes His suffering loss, is clearly seen in the incarnation! So belief in the resisting of His will should be a no brainer! But belief in His loving provision for all to have the opportunity to receive His gift of mercy is a no brainer also!

        Like

      5. Brian — Not only do I agree with you that man can resist God; I would even further and say that resisting God is ALL MAN EVER DOES in his natural condition. The question is whether or not God can and does OVERCOME this natural resistance in the case of some. Clearly He does in the case of the elect. Regarding Rom. 9, you did a wonderful job of changing Paul’s answer to the question for him. Paul’s response was not to tell the man he has it within him to change. He answers “Who are you to question God?”

        As for your statement: “Scripture does not teach that everything is predetermined! You have no clear reference for such.” This is simply absurd as evidenced by some of the passages I cited earlier (Eph. 1:11 for example). You may not like the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty; but you cannot rightly argue that such a belief is not taught in Scripture.

        Like

      6. I do like the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty as it is Scripturally defined, Shane! You seem to like to make Eph 1:11 say more than it actually says about God’s present working with all things according to His plan from His desire. But what I itemized as His clear revelation of how He is presently doing that work should not be undermined by the false statement that all things were predetermined before creation!

        Like

      7. I do receive the replies vie email and read along. When I have a few minutes, I’ll jump in.

        “In my commentary over Romans 9, I go through the entire text line by line to show that the interlocutor is not…”

        Ok, you have your commentary. Of course you are aware that Lin by line commentaries have been written over the centuries expounding exactly what Shane has put forth. Really so many commentaries on Shane’s view that the number is beyond counting.

        So there’s your commentary and there are other commentaries. Simply waving off Shane’s (and thousands of other commentaries) as “beyond the pale” is well, beyond the pale. We disagree on the interpretation. We each have scriptural reasons for our respective views. Well ok.

        Like

    2. There’s a subtle difference going on between two claims that sound alike when you say:

      The difference between a Calvinist and and a Fatalist is that a Fatalist would care nothing about evangelism since all is “pre-determined.”

      There is argument one: Because all things are determined I should not care.
      Then there is argument two: Because all things are determined my lack of caring is unalterable.

      I would agree argument one is flawed, but two seems to stand. This is quite a puzzle to me under determinism: How can the man in Romans 9 say anything *but* “Why did you make me like this?” That’s the way he was *made.* In other words, God’s response should be “Yep, that’s my pot for destruction there saying exactly what I decreed it to.” But Paul seems to get frustrated and say “This logic doesn’t work.” The question is why doesn’t it work? I try to get right down to it with no “BS’ing” in this short commentary on Romans 9 https://dizernerblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/an-arminian-dares-to-read-through-the-text-of-romans-9/

      Like

      Reply

      1. Leighton, while Paul may be addressing a hardened Jew, it’s important to notice the example Paul uses of “determinsim.” It is of Pharaoh that Paul, quotes GOD in saying: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and compassion on whom I have compassion.” (vs. 15) And Pharaoh was not a hardened Jew, he was pagan King. Paul then goes onto say in the very next verse: “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” Those verses alone drive a nail in the coffin of your view. This passage is not an “escape hatch” for Calvinists, nor is it eisegesis. And you and I both know that Paul argues in Romans that all (both Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God and deserving of judgment. Furthermore, Romans 9 is not the only place in Scripture where God’s absolute sovereignty is taught. “He ordains all things after the counsel of His will.” (Eph. 1:11) “For no one can stay his hand or say to Him ‘what have you done’” (Dan. 4:35) “And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48) It seems as though the absolute sovereignty of God was rarely questioned in the early church. They simply accepted it as fact. I suspect living under Roman rule gave them a much better understanding of a sovereign King than most of us have.

        Like

      3. The “I will have mercy on who I will have mercy” quote is not in reference to Pharaoh. It was a quote taken from Exodus when the Israelites were being unfaithful but God mercied them in order to carry out his promise

        See Rm 3…God promise doesn’t depend on the faithfulness of Israel.

        Please take time to read the commentary as I don’t have time to restate it all here, but I assure you Paul is not support theistic determinism in this diatribe. The fact that you acknowledge the interlocutor is a hardened Jew virtually disavows the entire Calvinistic application of this text as proof for their soteriological position. For if its a Jew God desires to be saved (9:1-3; 10:1; 21; 11:14-23) but who grew calloused over time (not born rejected/reprobate) then the objection were raising has NOTHING to do with the objection you’re applying it to.

        Like

      4. In veses 17-18, Paul applies the concept to Pharoah.”For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”

        Maybe Paul should have consulted with you first😉

        Like

      5. You really need to read the commentary, not because it will convince you of anything, but because comments like this reveal you have no clue how we interpret Paul. I say that with respect, but in order to engage we need to understand each other first.

        The Exodus event with the golden calf is an Historical example of God mercying Jews when they deserved to be killed so as to accomplish his promise through them.

        In Pauls day however God is hardening, instead of mercying, the rebellious Jews to accomplish that same purpose. Pharaoh is a foreshadowing of this event, for just as God hardened rebellious Pharaoh to accomplish the first Passover, so too God hardened rebellious Israel to accomplish the real Passover. (Irony at its finest)

        Like

      6. So unless I agree with you, then I have “no clue how to interpret Paul”? Does that just apply to me or to the numerous Bible scholars who also disagree with you? This sounds very prideful. I think we should be able to disagree more amiably than that.

        Like

      7. Shane, you misread my comment. I said you have no clue how we interpret Paul in Rom 9 which makes it difficult to engage over our actual points of disagreement. (I.e. We talk past each other)

        Like

      8. Shane, please let me know that you understood my comments rightly because I don’t want you leaving thinking that I said what you represented me saying above. Anyone who knows me knows that one of my greatest desires is to remain amiable in conversations with my brethren.

        Like

  • Shane,

    By your comments it appears that you are confusing “sovereignty” with **complete control of every action and thought”.

    You ASSUME that sovereignty means that God directly and completely controls every action and thought” of every person. But THAT is not sovereignty.

    In the Bible the sovereignty of God means that ****He can do as He pleases in any and all situations**** and that no one can stop him from doing something that he purposes or decides to do. We all believe in sovereignty when we pray (e.g. if we are praying for the healing of a seriously ill person, we will pray for that person to be healed knowing that God can do so if He chooses to do so, He can also choose not to heal that person, THAT is sovereignty, that the decision is up to Him).

    “It seems as though the absolute sovereignty of God was rarely questioned in the early church.”

    Yes, they believed that God was sovereign, not that he directly controlled every thought and action. It is interesting that even your own illustration undercuts your assumption about sovereignty and supports the biblical notion:

    “They simply accepted it as fact. I suspect living under Roman rule gave them a much better understanding of a sovereign King than most of us have.”

    Look at any King in history (including Roman Emperors), any “sovereign King” as you put it, and none of them directly controlled every action and thought of the people they were sovereign over. These Kings had power and authority, including sometimes the power of life and death over subjects. But they did not completely control their subjects. Subjects could still rebel, question the King, even assassinate the King.

    These Kings had authority over their subjects, but not total control.

    So your illustration fails to support your assumption that sovereignty means total control. It never has meant that, either in history with Kings and their subjects or in scripture with God and human persons.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  • Shane,

    You made a comment earlier, that also contradicts the notion that sovereignty means that God completely controls the thoughts and actions of people:

    “Not only do I agree with you that man can resist God; I would even further and say that resisting God is ALL MAN EVER DOES in his natural condition.”

    Shane if God directly and completely controls the thoughts and actions of people, then how are these people resisting God???

    You say that is ALL that they do, how are they resisting all the time if God is completely in control?

    Or put it another way, how are they resisting all the time if God **is** sovereign?

    How is their resisting all the time compatible with God being sovereign???

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Their resistance of God is compatible with the sovereignty of God the same that Pharoah’s was. The Bible says God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and it also says Pharaoh hardened his own heart. As for your earlier statement about Roman emperors not having complete control over their subjects, I would obviously agree with you. You pushed my analogy beyond the limits of what any analogy will do. All analogies we use to try and understand God will eventually break down. I simply meant that those living under Roman rule understood sovereignty better than most of us today…… As for your statement that I was confusing sovereignty with determinism; that was the reason I used the phrase “absolute” sovereignty. Eph. 1:11 says that God “ordains all things after the counsel of His will.” You say that God has the ability to do anything, but chooses not to. If this is true, then He is still determining what comes to pass. If God has the ability to change your heart, then CHOOSES not to do it; then He is determining that you stay unregenerate. The only way you can eliminate God’s absolute sovereignty is to limit His power to intervene (not just His desire to).

      Like

      Reply

      1. Your Calvinist “slip” is showing, Shane!🙂 You said – “Eph. 1:11 says that God ‘ordains all things after the counsel of His will.’” Is that from a new Calvinist translation that I haven’t seen yet,🙂 or just what you think that you see beneath the surface of what Paul actually said? And if you are to be consistent with your subconscious reworking of the text, you should have said “God ordained”, if you are tying to prove from this text that all things have been predetermined. But the Holy Spirit must have allowed the truth to creep out, for the verse is about what God is doing now… He is “working with” all things, and one determination for those in Christ, but no further details about His plan, like how detailed or open it might be.

        The verse only talks about one thing having been “ordained” for those who are “in Christ”… that they will receive His inheritance for sure!

        Like

      2. “Works” all things after the counsel of His will can also be “ordains” – And you said “this verse only talks about one thing” – I think your conclusion is odd because the verse says “all things.” I do agree with you that those in Christ will receive the inheritance for sure! And why is that? And how did they come to be “in Christ”? According to vs. 4 it’s because “he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.”😉 — It’s been nice chatting with you all. I must go for now. Blessings to you.

 

December 23, 2016 in Apologetics, Calvinism, Living The Faith |

| | Pin It! | |

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search

Categories

Listen to Past Sermons