You'll constantly hear people that are Calvinist harp on this. They just keep repeating it and they repeat it so much you start to think it's a biblical truth. Jesus stands outside the tomb of Lazarus. He says, Lazarus, come out. And Lazarus said, I can't. I'm dead. That's not what he did. Lazarus came out. To me, to tell me a dead person can respond to the command of Christ. Well, I can talk over your head like that. I know the Hebrew, the Greek. I've done theology. You can tell I know. Do you really believe that it parallels the method of exegesis that we utilize to demonstrate those other things? Um, no. Some new Calvinists, even pastors, very openly smoke pipes and cigars just as they drink beer and wine. Even Jesus cannot override your unbelief. Word of the way, man o'er all's right. O man of God, don't you... You quote a verse like that to him, you know what it would sound like if he were listening to it? He wouldn't make any sense to him. A self-righteous, legalistic, deceived jerk. You are stupid, baby, like Jesus said. And you need to realize that he's gone from predeterminism. Now he's speaking of some kind of middle knowledge that God now has to... I stand, I deny and categorically deny middle knowledge. Then don't beg the question that would demand me to force you to embrace it. Lord, serve our hope this day. From age to age, I'll stay. And now, from our underground bunker deep beneath the faculty cafeteria at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, safe from all those moderate Calvinists, Dave Hunt fans, and those who have read and re-read George Bryson's book, we are Radio Free Geneva! Broadcasting the truth about God's freedom to save for His own eternal glory. You know, I've never actually listened to my encounter with Brother Tassie, because I don't consider it a debate. So hearing that was a dark reminder of that evening. He was going to force me to embrace middle knowledge, I think is what that was saying. I don't know. And, of course, to start off with, that was a Stephen Anderson quote I've never heard before. The, uh, bop bop, sovereignty of God thing. Yeah. And, um, and, you know, I hope Leighton, you know, Leighton's, we're going to be talking a lot about Leighton Flowers today because we're doing the interview he did with Andy Stanley, though we're primarily looking at Andy Stanley. Um, but I, I hope he's, he's proud that he's now in the Radio Free Geneva introduction, even though he only got two words in. Uh, no. Uh, no. Because as Tim said, who of course does the Radio Free Geneva introduction there, he said that's where the debate was. It was over at that point. Yeah, I'm using one form of exegesis for my stuff and a different exegesis for everything else. So there you go. And evidently from what Tim says, it's not difficult for him to Move those clips back and forth and move around and and and stuff so i you know. Someone for example just asking channel can i still watch the vine line while standing on a stump though and my son like texted me and said i miss the guy staying on his hands. And so i texted back yeah but nobody knows who that is anymore. That's that's the sad part is that almost all of our our reader listeners readers are listeners now. I don't have a clue he hasn't done anything that I know of for couple years now and so I mean that that blew up in twenty ten we're coming up on nine almost a decade ago now and. So thanks to Tim Bushong for for the new updated. A couple of them, even he doesn't know who it is. So don't ask me. There is one guy. The guy said jerk or something at the end. I don't know who that is either. But so I'm not sure where he dug that one up at. But there is our new radio free Geneva. Yeah yeah under the know the faculty cafeteria faculty cafeteria at new orleans baptist theological seminary. Which when you think about it you know there was almost no place to eat when we were bruton parker i mean. We were shooting raccoons, uh, to, to, to have something to eat. And so now we're in Nolans and wow, we've got, we've got food all around us. So we're, you're probably gonna see us picking out, getting bigger and bigger. That's, that's certainly very spicy, but that's certainly what's been happening to me over the holidays, uh, unfortunately. And I think everybody else as well. So there you go. Yeah lane just came in channel and he completely missed the the steve tassi thing dude oh dude that is that's horrible you have to go back and get that. People if anyone if if if jonathan is listening right now who is sending me a message on twitter asking me about books. For the class next week, which none of them are eight hundred ninety nine dollars. I assure you. Now is not the time to be asking that question, which sort of got our things going on right now anyway. Alright, so most of you are aware of the fact that there was an announcement made a couple of weeks ago. that Leighton Flowers, who I think I'm being fair, if you look at the Soteriology 101 website, is primarily focused, okay, 99% focused on combating an idiosyncratic definition of Calvinism that is all based on the idea that we know the content of God's decree. Which we don't, we don't claim that, but he's a former Calvinist, so he gets to say. And so, everything Layton does, everything I see him doing, is against Calvinism. That's just, that's just what he does. That's, that's his thing. And he announced he was going to have Andy Stanley on to talk about the impact of Calvinism on pastoral ministry. And a lot of us are like, Um, okay, uh, Andy Stanley is, uh, busily unhitching the Old Testament from the church today, and many people, not just myself, but many people have offered pretty strong criticism of just having an orthodox bibliology. Um, but most important thing is um why does anyone think andy stanley knows anything about calvinism at all i've i've never he's he's he's a dallas grad and he's always been anti-lordship i've never seen i just could not think of a single reason in the world why you would interview There's just as much reason to interview Andy Stanley about the impact of coherence-based genealogical method in textual criticism as there is on Calvinism. I'm sure he's never heard of CBGM, wouldn't have a clue what it is. So why in the world would... Why would I invite Andy Stanley on to talk about something that Andy Stanley has no expertise in? Well, it's pretty obvious why. The reason that Leighton Flowers had Andy Stanley on is a big name. And he had made a donation to support the webcast as he openly admitted at the beginning of his program. So why not? Hey, every voice against Calvinism is our friend, right? I guess. And so there are a couple times when Andy Stanley specifically says, but you know, but I'm ignorant. This isn't the water I swim in. And that's normally either right after or right before. He completely strawmans the reform position and attack something that no one actually believes. And of course, Leighton sits there. He's always down the bottom right hand corner and just lets it fly because, you know, again, you're not looking. See, when you're just against something, you don't have to worry about presenting a consistent positive side. You don't have to worry about you can bring everybody on that has 47 different perspectives against Calvinism. Because you'll accept 47 different perspectives against Calvinism. It doesn't matter if they're consistent with one another. The only people that have to worry about being consistent in their criticisms are the people that are putting forward a very positive, full-orbed theology on their own. And this traditionalism stuff, you can call it many things, but positive and fully-orbed are not descriptions that you would use of traditionalism as a whole. And so a lot of us were like, what is this all about? Once we listened to it, the response from everybody that did listen to it that I talked to is the same as like, wow, that was ugly. But what was ugly other than the, you know, I don't know how a Calvinist can exegete the gospel of John, And again, plainly, Stanley has never heard, never taken the time. He doesn't read the books, doesn't, you know, this is just, it's your standard, this is why we do Radio Free Geneva, 95% of the criticism of people who will not take the time to either have a clue what they're talking about, or if they do, they're not going to take the time to actually accurately represent, even though they know what it actually, Reformed theology actually is. But aside from that, it then got into some real hardcore pragmatism. And again, Layton's down there going, yeah, that's great, great pragmatism stuff there. And we even get Andy Stanley saying stuff like, you know, we just need to make it as easy as possible for, you know, just try Jesus, just, just try Jesus. And, uh, you know, it's, it's easy to try Jesus. Just try Jesus for a while. Maybe someday you'll find him to be, to be your savior too. And this is allegedly what Jesus called people to do. And we're all sitting there going, Mark chapter 8, hmm. You know, take up your cross, deny yourself, join the death march. Seems to add to what Jesus taught, and I'm hearing something completely different here. And you're just left wondering, how does this happen? I don't know. So, I've taken the time to put together a bunch of little clips here uh... and i'm just gonna We're going to listen in and make some comments on all of this. A lot of people said, oh, I don't even know how you did that. I mean, I can only listen to 10 minutes of it. And of course, I've had to listen to all of it multiple times just to put this material together. But I think it's important because I've found Andy Stanley's stuff sitting on the kitchen table of solid friends of mine when it's talking about Doing small groups and you know practical stuff like that what's how it gets its on tray these these multi campus sites and and stuff like that. Oh by the way there's a guy in Kent young he just texted me can't let me tell you something. Um, Leighton Flowers was given the opportunity to do a full debate with me. I traveled all the way to Dallas to do the debate with him, and the debate was supposed to be on Romans 9, and so for him not to give the exegesis in the debate on Romans 9 when I did, claiming didn't have enough time to, and then put out in an e-book later that is a rip-off of my own title, I don't need to spend the time doing that. He had his opportunity, Mr. Young, and he didn't take it. Okay? So take it up with him, ask him why he wasted our time, and why you wouldn't put his exegesis, the real exegesis, out there for actual examination like I did. I don't have respect for that, Mr. Young. I don't know why you do, but you can't force me to have it. All right? Thank you very much. I like being able to that that was a whole lot more than a hundred and eighty character two hundred and whatever it is you got to the two hundred forty characters like that and so I'm thankful to be able to do that. And then we go over here and then we go up to person and we go to mute and we go forever boom gone they very much don't worry about that anymore now getting to. the actual done live. There we go. All right, so before Andy even starts, we... Are you ready for this? You're ready. Okay, and I've got the audio plugged in. Here we go. And I think when we begin to understand, and you listen to Andy's explanation as to why he said certain things, it makes sense. But you have to have the level of graciousness to go and to actually hear him out. Now, in reality, a lot of us have been spending a lot of time hearing him out and playing entire portions. I mean, not just, well, you know, people listen to this little clip here. Look, if you can play three or four sermons, where entire points are on the idea that the Apostles were unhitching the Old Testament and and It was all about the resurrection and we keep going but the problem is everything they said about who Jesus was was Scriptural fulfillment and the scripture they had was the Old Testament and and you look at all the Apostles wrote and it's this constant reference the Old Testament and this was the Bible the early church and and all sorts of people including Al Mohler, have criticized Andy Stanley on this point. And Andy Stanley's response in here is going to say that Al Mohler has a man crush on him. Yeah, that's how you respond to something like that. Sure, I get it. No, it does not actually make sense when you do that. No matter how hard you try to make it look like it makes sense, it doesn't. For adults. And sometimes, yes, there's going to be people sitting over at the children's table who have nothing better to do but to fling food at the people at the adult table. And I think it's time to put the people at the children's table in another room so that the adults can talk. Yeah, so this is obviously how Layton thinks about anyone who has been criticizing Andy Stanley. They're flinging food, they're at the children's table, and so now he's going to have an adult conversation because Al Mohler and myself and everybody else has pointed out that the utter unorthodoxy of Andy Stanley's view of the relationship of the Old Covenant, New Covenant, the Tanakh, to the New Testament scriptures, just children flinging food. And if Layton Flowers is looking to, you know, to step up the being respected thing, doing that when it's been a very wide ranging criticism from a wide number of people, It's not really the way to do it latent but anyway that's sort of how that's gonna go by the way in the background for the whole time. Andy stanley is on is this sort of pretty. It reminds me i have a. I have a screen saver not screens everything but it's it's a desktop wallpaper animator program. Window for magic window 4k or something is is what i have and it looks similar to that. But it's a little annoying because you know you just see this stuff moving and it's it's it's like it's you're trying to concentrate what he's saying and then there's a stuff in the background moving around. Just so you know that it's there and because some people. You know still freak out about the lava lamp and then we had the tesla thing back there people were really freaking out so there there there you go just be just be aware. Okay, check out this phraseology. Normal, whosoever will type theology. So that's the normal. The normal is whosoever will. Now, of course, that's a biblical phrase, but we've talked about it many, many times, and there is a particular interpretation traditional interpretation, not a biblical interpretation, but a traditional interpretation that is attached to that. That is that there is no sovereign decree. There is no doctrine, any meaningful doctrine of election, things like that. It's not God's choice. God just chooses plans, not people. But that's the normal thing. That's that's what's normal for folks. And so anything else is, I guess, abnormal. And so he's comparing his upbringing with Andy Stanley's and some of the parallels between them, and that's where this is going. It wasn't the version I had grown up on, but they were so defensive, they were so antagonistic toward Christianity, and I would think, why wouldn't everyone want to be a Christian? And then, you know, there was a side of me that would look at their life and lifestyle and think, look at you. I mean, why wouldn't everyone want to be a Christian? Well, again, if you have the idea that being a Christian is like finding the best whitening toothpaste ever, and if you just use it for three months in a row, you will have gloriously white teeth. If that's what Christianity is, if it's a try me type thing, try me and things will just be better for you. Then, okay, I guess I can get that, but doesn't the Bible very plainly say that the natural man is at enmity with God? And Jesus taught that if they've hated me, they're going to hate you, and the cross is repulsive, it's the stink of death to people. There's all this stuff that just doesn't seem to have a place in Stanley's understanding. It's just missing. There's a massive imbalance when it comes to having a biblical anthropology and a recognition of the animosity that the natural man has toward the claims of Christ. So it's if I wouldn't ever want to be a Christian, I would never want to have straight teeth and white teeth and and beautiful hair and so on and so forth. But that's not that's not what the Christian faith is about. And so I guess that's. Probably why I'm confused at that point. By the way, to the makers of this program, I really like Note Studio, but to the makers of the program, you need to make it so that when you click in the notes on a line, it takes you to that time index in the video. That is the one thing this is missing. I'm having to manually do that, and it would just be so much better if I didn't have to do that. it still works and uh and i like i like it i guess you see him moving all over the place i do that but you know so it gives you his best best thing to do because up till now i would have done all this audio It's fun to watch. Yeah, I wouldn't have done the video, I just would have done the audio, because there's too many starts and stops, but at least we can do it that way now, so. Anyway. ...education. It was certainly not Reform, although we studied Reform theology, it wasn't Covenant, although we studied Covenant theology. So he's talking about his education at Dallas Theological Seminary, and I'm just like, Okay, if you're going to make the claim to having studied covenant theology, reformed theology, then why later on do you, you know, seem to not know the difference between being a Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist and all the things that are associated with that and the differences between them and you just cram it all together into one mass and then say, and I don't know how these folks can possibly do children's ministry, and I don't even know how they can possibly exegete the Gospel of John or, you know, do evangelism. They don't even need to do apologetics. He's going to say that. He's going to say, and of course, they don't need to do apologetics because, you know. And I'm just sitting there going, you do realize that the biggest names in apologetics over the past Well, since the Reformation have been reformed, you know, maybe I mean, the deepest thinkers in that area. No, no, of course not. I'm sorry. With all due respect, DTS, you're not going to get a meaningfully balanced presentation on on Calvinism out of DTS. And Andy Stanley certainly didn't come away with anything like that by. by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever. So yeah, there you go. Okay, now we're starting to get into some of the criticism. ...over and do such a fabulous job doing so. When you take the New Testament documents for what they originally were and who they were originally presented to, I just think you have to do a lot of, you know, exegetical gymnastics to land where some of our friends have landed. So that's that's the short version of my story. Exegetical gymnastics. Unfortunately, what didn't get in what they didn't get into was to substantiate any of this. Could you give us some examples? You know, could we walk through John six? Could we walk through? John 8, John 10, John 14, John 17, well there's a lot we could walk through just in John, where the exegetical gymnastics, if you want exegetical gymnastics, Check out my debate with Leighton Flowers on Romans 9. There's exegetical gymnastics. It wasn't on my part. I managed to get through Romans 9, at least the part we're supposed to be debating in 20 minutes, and my opponent decided to debate the subject of the abilities of man, because there wasn't enough time to do Romans 9. So if you want exegetical gymnastics check out latent flowers attempt to deal with pro egg no. Romans eight for no wow i have that cute up i've i've got that saved. And that's gonna that's gonna take some time because it's one of the most convoluted. attempts to escape the plain meaning of the text right in front of you that I think I've ever seen. And it also explains some guy that I ran into on Twitter months ago who was trying to tell me, well, what it means is that God knew the Israelites in times past. And I was like, where are you getting this? has nothing to do with what he's talking about. Where did you get this? He got it from Leighton Flowers. Or maybe Leighton Flowers got it from him. I don't know, but that's Leighton Flowers' position. He's talking about the Israelites. How do you put any of that together? I do not know. It is just one of the plainest examples of, I've got my goal, I'm going to get there, and I'm going to use whatever means is necessary to get there. That's how that works. If you want exegetical gymnastics, we will be demonstrating that on the part of Layton Flowers. Now, this next part is really interesting because he's asked about his dad and what his dad thinks about, reform theology and what's happened in the sbc and stuff like that but at the end of the day uh... there was a you know basically celebration in the streets of the southern baptist convention have been saved and now to watch it you know to fully embrace uh... conservative theology but to swing as far as it has to a specific theology is a little bit disconcerting and My dad and I talk about this all the time. He's 86, so he's not going to jump back into that fray. But it's so disappointing to him, as I know it is to some of the men who were part of that transition back in the day. Yeah, so he's talking about the conservative resurgence. And there's no question that when you look at the coalition that was put together, it was not a primarily reformed coalition. And when you look at someone like Paige Patterson, I mean, the man hates Calvinism, just just hates it and detested. And so, yeah, I would I would imagine. But what they could not foresee, you know, for back in the 80s, Southwestern was was the largest seminary. And they had their anti-reformed program going on and stuff. But the fact of the matter is, reformed theology is biblical theology. It's consistent. It is based upon the highest view of scripture. It will not long last. It will not long last in the seminaries that are abandoning the highest view of scripture. It can't. But when you have the highest view of scripture and you want to see everything that God says and accept everything that God says and have the highest view of theology itself, this is where it's gonna lead you. And that's why you have seen the shift in the demographics. Now, will that continue? I'm not a pragmatist. I believe that the state of the church is the direct outplaying of the decree of God as to what God is doing with a particular culture or in the world as a whole now. I mean, what happens in our culture has great impact on other cultures today. And could what happens in the United States serve as a warning to churches in Africa? You know, I see a lot of people talking about how the center of Christianity is moving south. Well, I guess in a sense. But when you look at Africa, are there good churches in Africa? Yes. Are there a tremendous amount of really bad, there's a tremendous amount of bad teaching and churches that call themselves Christians that aren't Christian at all? Sadly, yes. Are there great people that are trying to do everything they can to honor God and the proclamation of the truth in Africa? Well, yeah. I haven't been in a lot of Africa, but I've been in South Africa and Zambia, and there are people giving their lives to do those things. Could what happens here end up being an example to those people? of what not to allow happen to happen there. Could they see, for example, the current degradation of our seminaries by the influx of neo-Marxism and the social justice movement that has such unbiblical categories and then avoid it themselves? Well, we can hope so. On the negative side, we might export that garbage and end up causing problems elsewhere. that happens as well. What's going to happen? I don't know. God's in charge. We pray for God's will to be done. We only know his prescriptive will. We do not know his decree. That's one of the big problems that almost everything I've seen, almost every person I talk to, I take them back to the scriptures, I show them where the scriptures use those two distinctive things. You've got God's sovereign decree that he accomplishes. You've got his prescriptive will, which is what's given to us. That's what we pray in accordance with. That's what we work in accordance with. They are constantly trying to make those things clash with one another. If you believe all the Bible, you won't do that. If you have traditions that you believe more than the Bible, you will. So whenever I encounter somebody who tries to put those two things in conflict, they'll never walk with me through Genesis 50 or Isaiah 10 or Acts 4. They can't. They won't. because their tradition's more important than Scripture is at that point. It's just very clear, very, very clear. So, yeah, those folks, I'm sure, are somewhat upset about what is going on. And he goes on from there, and he says that it's going to be damaging. Here's that section. Dr. Griffin McClendon Theological, what we might call complexity. Others might call it sophistication. But at the time, it was simple, and to see what's happened, I'm not Southern Baptist, so in some sense, you know, I still care because that's my heritage, but I think ultimately it's going to hurt, or it is hurting the Southern Baptist Convention, especially those schools, as you've talked about, who basically made Reformed Theology the litmus test, or Calvinism the litmus test for who they will hire in those seminaries. Now, the irony here is, how many of us, who hasn't, if you keep track of what's going on among Southern Baptists? There are numerous documents circulating around that are being distributed amongst churches in the South, in the Southern Baptist Convention, on how to smoke out a Calvinist, how to make sure you don't hire a Calvinist in your church. And the irony here is I've been on the receiving end from the other perspective. I taught for years at a Southern Baptist Seminary, and I did a good job for them. My students will tell you that I did. But it was Paige Patterson that made sure that I would not be able to continue to do that. Why? For one reason. Because I'm reformed. So I've experienced it on the other side. And it's interesting, the seminaries that are declining and the seminaries that are showing themselves to be tremendously um, weak in being infected by radical forms of the social justice movement neo-marxism, um, are the seminaries that have been the most anti-reformed. It's not that the reformed ones are immune, as we thought we were, and we're not, um, but it started there. Uh, so, yeah, um, okay, um, Yeah, anyway, then there was this little brief little thing with Bobby here in Leighton's comments that I found weird. I agree, so we'll see. The difference between being in control and being controlling, as we've talked about, obviously. There is a difference between being in control and being controlling. I guess what's behind that is the idea that, well, God is in control, but he has chosen not to be controlling. This takes us back again to that issue of whether God's will is autonomous and free, or whether man's will is, because you can't have both. And the amazing idea, there are many people who want man's will to be autonomous and free. They want to say God's will is autonomous and free, but they basically want to make it empty. That his will is to just capitulate to his creature. And let's see what happens. That's why, again, the only consistent Arminian is an open theist. Because that would make sense in open theism. Let's see what happens. Let's give man complete freedom and then we'll just do the best we can. Southern Baptists aren't allowed to do that, technically. The Sun Baptist faith and message denies that open theism is within the realm of acceptable belief in the SBC. And even though Leighton Flowers says he considers it a valid expression of Christian faith, I do not, he says he does not embrace it. I don't know why. It would make much more sense in his system. But if God knows all future events, then this idea of control and controlling is a major, major problem for his perspective and his system. He doesn't really want to go that direction. Anyway, okay. This is where it'd be so much nicer if I could just simply click on something, but I'm not complaining. I'm just simply saying it's a great program. That's just the one thing it's missing. Or maybe I haven't found it. Someone will tell me where it is. I've clicked on about everything there is to click on. My personal experience, which is very limited, is not that at all. The young, somewhat, when I say radical, I don't mean theologically radical, I really mean just the young pastors who have a lot of energy around this, who want this to be on the front burner all the time. So notice what he said, my experience, which is very limited. Yeah, it is. I would not expect that Reformed theology would be a big issue in the Andy Stanley world at all. I would imagine that that is the case. But he even says, my experience, which is very limited. There's going to be a couple times he's going to basically be Honest and saying, yeah, I don't know a lot about this. And that again leads us to then why do this? You know why? You know, you can send your money to whoever you want to send your money to. But when they then invite you on to talk about a subject where you have to sit there and go, I'm ignorant. I don't know. There's not something I deal with. I don't know. Yeah. Anyway, OK. I'm going to get a crick in my neck if we don't move the camera pretty soon. I'm going to be in a lot of hurt here. For those of you that maybe want to be watching along, 1758. I have been a part of it for a long, long time. But again, I don't run into people who used to go to our church or who used to be pastors or staff members of our churches who've said, you know what? I needed something deeper. I need more theology. So I've gone a different direction. As long as, uh, you know, it's right. That's, this is sort of like what I've said about the non-denominational denomination. As long as you convince yourself that people are not leaving because they need the whole counsel of God, um, you're going to keep losing them. Um, It's sort of like the current controversy that Jeff Durbin and I are having with the NIFBs, the New Independent Fundamentalist Baptist. They are doing what they're doing because they keep losing people to the likes of us. It's not like we're trying to get them to come to apology or something like that, because most of these people outside the Phoenix Tempe area, obviously all across the United States and world. But every time we put something out on this, we just our comment boxes are flooded with people saying, man, I used to be there, man. I'm so thankful for Alpha Omega Ministries, for Apologia, for Jeff, for James, for everybody who, you know, introduced me to Reformed Theology, got me out of King James Onlyism, helped me to see what the Adiaphora are, you know, just helped them to get a firmer foundation. that's why they're angry about things. And I just sometimes don't think that people understand why it is that there is an attraction to Reformed theology. And when I say that, I'm not talking about following the crowd. If you follow the crowd into Reformed theology because you think it's cool, You you like what i do or what jeff does or you like all the john piper memes or whatever that is not. No one will ever ever ever find me having told people that what you need to do is you need to become reforms you can be cool because it's not cool. The only reason to be reformed is because you are absolutely convinced that it is the consistent teaching of the Word of God and that that's where you're going to stand, that you have to, that by using the exact same method of interpretation that you use to defend the central aspects of the faith in regards to who God is, and the Trinity, and the work of Christ, and the resurrection, you apply the same standards to the teaching of the gospel, and specifically the relationship between man and God, and God's purposes, you come to a Reformed understanding. That's what I believe. And that's what I've defended. And it's not a matter of being cool. And there's, believe it or not, there are different kinds of Calvinists. And sometimes there's very jerky Calvinists. Sometimes there are Calvinists who have the same idea that independent fundamentalist Baptists have, that you have to dress in a certain way, or look a certain way, or act a certain way, you know, have a very narrow spectrum of expression, so they're Calvinists like that. There are all sorts of different kinds of Calvinists, but the ones who will remain Calvinists for 20, 25, 30 years, their entire life, are the ones who become Reformed out of conviction Not out of convenience and not out of coolness and so when I see people who I was a Calvinist once I just want to I want to find out Exactly how they got there Because I mean you can be right you can be born into a reformed family there still needs to come a time where you you make that your own and And so I've seen people, yeah, I was raised in Calvinism and you, when you talk to them, they never had the root in themselves. They never had that love of the holiness of God and that. I've described as that soul shattering experience of realizing God is God and I am not and I am clay in the potter's hands and he has the absolute right to do with me as he wishes and part of that really is the antidote to the flowers Stanley stuff here and and that is they really do have the idea that God has to conform to external standards of goodness. But when you realize that God is the standard and that there is nothing outside of God that can constrain God, that's when you start to get the idea of what real sovereignty means rather than some human version of it. So just keeping that in mind, he says, hey, I've just not run into those types of people. He just may be missing them. I'm sure that they are indeed out there. And it might be helpful to him to encounter them. All right. Here we go. It would require a level of literacy. And as you and I know, in fact, everybody who watches your program knows because they're smart people in the first century. You know, unless you lived in a city, 90% of the folks by conservative statistics would say that these were illiterate people. Peter and John were illiterate. So if deep is information and deep requires literacy, we're not talking about the dynamic we find in the New Testament. Now, this is a weird part of the discussion. It really was. If you've read John or Peter, if you want to call them illiterate, what do you call someone who can quote Old Testament scripture and weave it into the narrative? Even if you, you know, Peter did use an Emanuensis, okay, but Peter knows the Old Testament scripture. they were, the Jewish culture was a culture based upon literacy in the sense that, I was just in Israel, every single synagogue we visited had Moses's seat, and right next to Moses's seat is where the scrolls were kept. It was a central part of the worship. In the synagogues in Galilee, where you have fishermen, You have the Torah, it's there, you have the scrolls, and they're handed to Jesus, who is a carpenter's son, and he can read them, and he could read them not because he was God! They didn't hand it to him because, you seem to glow, you must be God, you must be able to read this, here. No. There was a much higher emphasis in Judaism upon the written word than there was in the surrounding cultures. And so, this idea was basically to try and say, you know, this Calvinist stuff isn't really deeper. what we mean when we speak of deeper is consistency across the entire spectrum of scripture. Rather than having our traditions which constrict our attention to these little areas and allow us to do things like unhitching the Old Testament from, which ends up leaving us with an extremely shallow understanding of the New Testament because you know, if any of you saw the sermon I did at Apologia a few weeks ago, going into Isaiah 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and bringing out the themes that are found there that are developed in the New Testament, that's called going deep in what's called intertextuality, the relationship between two different texts, in this case, between Isaiah and the entirety of the New Testament documents as a whole. that when we talk about deep, what we're talking about is establishing a, on the basis of the highest view of scripture, a recognition of what is foundational and what's built upon the foundation and how all of Christian theology relates So deep for us is not having the mailbox thing where you have your doctrine of God here and even your doctrine of the Trinity is over here and Jesus is here and resurrection is here and the Bible is over there and the theology is down there and the church is down there if you even have a doctrine of the church. And then of course there's a big old section for eschatology. That's what we're saying is that's wrong. That's bad and trying to say that Paul and John were illiterate when they recognize those things and show it in their writings missed me. I was really a little bit surprised at what that was. That was all about some. Alright, we press forward or we'll never get through all this because we're only at 23 minutes and it's a over hour long thing here, so we gotta keep pressing on. That's a recipe for being a Pharisee. And so I think we all have to be careful regardless of what theological perspective we come from. But my personal experience with the super-reformed, hyper-Calvinistic types... Okay. Now, I'm actually going to agree with some of what Andy Stanton is going to say here, but I have to stop and say, He doesn't understand what he's talking about. Hyper-Calvinist to him is a over-emphasis upon Calvinism. He doesn't seem to understand its historical meaning, the vast difference that being a hyper-Calvinist has in one's view of evangelism, God, church, all that kind of stuff. He has the surface level insulting view of hyper-Calvinism. And there's Leighton just sitting there. You know, instead of going, well, Andy, you know, we need to differentiate between a historically reformed perspective that would be based in the Westminster Confession of Faith, London Baptist Confession of Faith, that would be represented by the Westminster Divines or by the Framers, the 1689, or by someone like a Charles Spurgeon. Or something like that. And in our modern day, you know, a scroll and people like that. And the historic hyper-Calvinists who would look for signs of regeneration before presenting the gospel and things like that. That'd be nice. But it doesn't happen instead you just get this mix matt miss mash of stuff. Which is inaccurate it's it's it's it's this guy again you know mister mister straw man is is being put out there because andy stanley doesn't really know what he's talking about here. And i saw you i've got a hold andy accountable. For going on a program that is going to be seen by all sorts of folks, including people who are reformed and just saying, I don't know, just seems to me, I sort of feel this way. When he doesn't appreciate if people do well, and I really don't, I haven't, I didn't listen to Andy Stanley's thing, but I, I heard somebody say that Andy Stanley's doing this. What's the difference? And then, of course, lighten flowers for having invited him, knowing that he doesn't really know this stuff, and then offering no correction, as if he's in a position now to do so, I suppose. What's he gonna do? Bring this guy on, and then when he messes everything up, go, well, you know... It's been, um, there's a level of arrogance. Um, there's a level of being judgmental that, you know, the rest of us aren't quite to where they are. And as you are so fair in this suit, you're so kind on your program and you're always quick to say, that's not everybody. That's not everybody. And it's not everybody. But, um, in my experience, there's, there's a bit too much of that. He's right. He's right. I mean, all you gotta do, for some reason, there was a clip taken from Dividing Line from a couple years ago, where I was talking about the Calvinist club. There are a lot of really jerky Calvinists, and sometimes I'm a jerky Calvinist. And we shouldn't be. There's no ground for that. There's no basis for that. I mean, if you're talking about the doctrines of grace, graciousness, and the doctrines of grace, should probably go together. And if you're not a hyper, then you have to sit back and go, I was I was a Christian long before I was a colonist. And, you know, I struggled with things and there were inconsistencies and in my upbringing, you know, I had elements of Reformed theology provided to me, but I didn't have the vocabulary to put them together. And I was in – when I really started having a desire to know my faith, because I was getting involved with apologetics, I wasn't in a church that was – well, The problem was, I was in a church that, on one Sunday, the pastor would preach on Isaiah 6. I remember this one Sunday, the holiness of God in Isaiah 6. It was fantastic! I mean, you could have preached that sermon in almost any Reformed church in America, and you would have gotten amens coming down from the rafters. And the next Sunday, there's a sermon that isn't even close to being consistent with the foundational elements of the week before. And this, this is what really, you know, hit me. Then we have the cage stage. And that is a real stage. Where you just want to put a newly reformed person in the cage so they hurt themselves or others. And because they misrepresent things and it's all they ever want to talk about and you don't want to have them over for Christmas dinner or anything at all. And you want to block their email address, because they're sending you Arthur W. Pink quotations all the time. And yeah, there's that. That hopefully everybody grows out of eventually. Some people don't. But most of us eventually do. But yeah, you know what? We are not consistent. And where there is... But at the same time, I should point out that to someone who has a lower than appropriate view of scripture, someone whose theology is based upon the highest view of scripture will seem to them to be arrogant and unkind. So I've had people, when I just simply take them to the scriptures and press the need for consistency. in what you're seeing in John and what you see in Paul, they interpret that as arrogance on my part when it's actually flowing out of their own less than fully formed understanding of the consistency of scripture and they don't even believe in it. So, I'm not going to say that there is not elements of truth. In this, I will say that I certainly see a tremendous amount in the same context of arrogance, dismissiveness, and nastiness amongst people who oppose Reformed theology, who likewise think that they've gotten it, who likewise think that it's cool to mock the sovereignty of God by saying, well, you're a predestined one way or the other, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Something that I really think they need to think about if they ever stand before God to answer for all that. But it goes both directions, unfortunately. And I also think that the fact that so much of this conversation takes place in social media, in a written forum, exacerbates all of this. At least what we're doing right now is you're hearing them out, and I'm speaking my critique, rather than typing it. For some reason, I find that there is a difference in the temperature level in that context. You know, maybe I'm wrong, but anyway, I think there was some more to this. Let me see. And as you know, because I've read your story and heard your story, and you and I both know some other high profile leaders who have come out of Calvinism, they are quick to say, as you've acknowledged, that people in that world who sort of protect themselves in that bubble, when they come out, they acknowledge that there was a level of spiritual arrogance that they're embarrassed about on the other side. So, again, I don't want to paint with too broad of a stroke. Now, if you're depending on supposed converts, so far I have yet to find a convert story that was overly convincing to me because When I listen to quote-unquote former Calvinist. Look, I'll be impressed by former Calvinist that actually accurately represents the Calvinism. He allegedly has abandoned but I don't find that I find people who had twisted versions partial versions all sorts of stuff like that and what they've ended up getting into. is normally not overly good either. I just, I just have not, I don't know of anyone, when I hear someone say, even Michael Brown, even my dear brother, Michael Brown, I've criticized him many times because he says, well, when I was a Calvinist, and then it's like, well, then you should realize that this isn't what Calvinism says here. This wasn't what Calvinism says there. And we've, we've had to have those conversations. And so I, When he says, you know, they all talk about that bubble and stuff like that. Well, I suppose there are people in a bubble, but Andy, given how little you actually know about Reformed theology that you're criticizing, don't you think you're in a bubble? I mean, if you're going to talk about Al Mohler having a man crush on you, that's about as bubbly as it gets. If bubbly is a proper term to use here. But yeah. So let me see here, trying to get this to scroll over here. Okay, it's more of the same for a little while, and let's pick up about here. Biblical humility. Feeling special, really special, because you were picked arbitrarily out of a crowd of sinners is not what God means by humility. But it's a feeling of special, like you feel special. You feel like, wow, God picked me, and I don't even deserve it. Yeah, again, we're all left going. Layton, you just don't know what you're talking about when you try to pretend I was a Calvinist that I somehow feel special special. in what way? The only special that I can understand when you consider that I was completely undeserving of any of God's grace and mercy toward me is special in not receiving the punishment due to me, not special in being better than someone else. The whole point They were talking about how we will say that Calvinism, when it's properly understood, if you read, for example, The Practical Implications of Calvinism by Albert Martin, what he will emphasize there is that, and Spurgeon said the same thing, everybody who's written on this subject, Warfield, it doesn't matter, Hodge, whatever, they all said the same thing. And that is that if you really understand Reformed theology, it will create a humility because there wasn't anything in me that attracted the graciousness, mercy, and love of God. Everything in me was repulsive to all of those things. Grace is not unmerited favor, it's demerited favor. I deserved what I don't get, and what I get I did not deserve. And that means that that's the case for every single one of the elect. That there's nothing in me. It's not, it has nothing to do about, I was picked versus somebody else. See, this is, this is again, Leighton Flowers has a completely man-centered view of Calvinism too. I have never seen evidence that Leighton Flowers can escape from his man-centeredness. His theology is man-centered, and his representation of Calvinism is man-centered. That's why it's a straw man. And we've said this over and over and over again. You won't hear it, can't hear it, whatever, I don't know, but the point is that this is a good illustration of exactly that. That, well, as Calvinists, I've been picked. No! It's that everything in me was against God picking me, and yet in his purpose, he has been merciful to me, and it had nothing to do with me. It had nothing to do with my cooperation. It was before I ever came into existence. He fully knew all the things that I would do even as a Christian to spit upon his grace, and yet despite all of that, He chose me. It doesn't make me in any way, shape, or form better than anybody else. It just doesn't. It's just not there. So, you know, when you hear this kind of stuff, it's like, well, okay. We continue on 2606 for those of you who are actually making For the Calvinist, it's the central theme of the gospel. It's God has chosen you, and you need to know that God has chosen you. Well, you hope God has chosen you. I mean, I know this is a bit extreme, but it becomes a little bit Mormon-esque. Okay, now notice that he is going to say this is a bit extreme. So he knows that this is balderdash. It's absurdity. But he's gonna go there anyway. Mormon-esque. He's gonna say atheist-esque here in a second. I just wanted you to catch this. That... I... I don't know, I guess we should listen to the whole thing so you can... I don't know, what do you say? Shave off the rough edges of this statement. See, this is how Andy Stanley takes shots but defends himself because he knows that any reformed person worth their salt is going to not only be offended by this, but going to blow this statement away because it's grossly inaccurate. But it didn't stop him. He's still going to do it. Practically speaking, I feel like that hyper-Calvinism is a... No, hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism? Does he know what hyper-Calvinism is? No, he does not. He does not have any functional understanding of hyper-Calvinism. I mean, this is really frustrating. It really is. It's like atheism with eternity thrown in, practically speaking. Hyper-Calvinism is a little by atheism with eternity thrown in. I certainly get clear evidence that there's been some serious reflection and study behind this. Theologically, but practically speaking, everything is determined. It's just that if you're an atheist, everything's determined, and when you breathe your last breath, it's over. For hyper-Calvinist or hyper-Reform or the determinist, everything's determined, but eternity gets thrown in. I don't know. Now, just on a real basic level here, The difference between a naturalistic universe, where nothing is determined. Because if you're talking about atheism, when they talk about determinism within atheism, all they're talking about is that you are the sum total of your genetics. What you're going to do with that, how you're going to behave is not determined by the universe. Because there is no universe to do it. So you have two completely philosophically, philologically, theologically different uses of determinism being crammed together into one. That's the first utter inanity in this statement. The Reformed understanding of determinism, that is that God has a sovereign decree, Ephesians 1, 11, Psalm 135, 6, Daniel chapter 4, we could go on and on and on, that God is accomplishing his purposes in his own creation means that God is so powerful that he can create time, make time meaningful, and yet accomplish his self-glorification and the redemption of the people through Jesus Christ. That is not what atheism is talking about, and I don't know what any of this has to do with Mormonism, which doesn't have anything to do with either one of the two types of determinisms I was just mentioning, because I can guarantee you Andy Stanley doesn't know diddly about Mormonism either. That's obvious. That's painfully obvious. But he's going to throw it out there anyways, because hey, why not? In terms of practicality, how there's that much difference in It seems like a very difficult worldview to live out, but somehow they manage it. Yeah, and that's definitely been one of my arguments. Seems like a very difficult worldview to live out. Well, I don't know what you're talking about, because it didn't have anything to do with the reform worldview, because you don't understand it. But I could understand why you would think that way, because you clearly haven't taken any time to try to understand it. And Layton Flowers ain't gonna help you do it. You've come to the wrong place. If you want to get any deeper in your understanding of Reformed theology, LF is not the place to go. It's not a tenable way of living life. How do you raise your kids that way? I mean, you were a parent. It is not a tenable way to live life. So from Augustine onward, everyone who's held these views, it's just not a tenable way to live life. Well, why not? Well, we know what Leighton Flowers is trying to say. Leighton demands that we forget. just abandon the distinction between God's decree and his prescriptive will, he conflates the two, simply will not repent of making that error, and demands that we all do the same thing over and over and over again. He demands that we live on the basis of allegedly having knowledge of what God's decree is. And then says we can't live life based upon that. Well, yeah, we could not live life based upon the idea that we as creatures have an absolute knowledge of God's sovereign decree. You're exactly right, but that's not what we believe and you know it. So stop saying it is. I know it's the only argument you got, so you're gonna stick with it. I know that. No reason to go back over it. doesn't keep us from pointing out that your arguments are made of paper, and they don't survive anything. When you were a Calvinist, right? Yeah. How do you raise your kids, hmm, the way God told you to? How do you raise yours? I mean, how do you raise your kids in a world where, assuming you're not an open theist, and assuming you're not a Molinist of some kind, Um, God knows what your kids are going to do one way or the other. And he knows where they're going to be saved one way or the other. But you're still going to pray for them, right? I mean, God, do you not believe that God knows with absolute certainty what's going to happen with every one of your children? And there's nothing you can do about it? There's nothing you can do about it! He's already putting out a 100% effort. So why are you praying for your kids? I pray for my kids not to try to convince God to be better. but to change me. Okay? I know that's not why you do it, but I'm just explaining how it's very tenable to follow the prescriptive will of God. to instruct your children in the ways of the Lord. I don't have to know their hearts, and I don't have to be in control of that. I am following God's prescriptive will. He will use my obedience to His honor and glory as He sees fit. And sometimes you see wonderful, beautiful results down the road which are exactly what we prayed for, and sometimes you don't. There are the children of David who never brought grief to his heart, and then you got Absalom. And that's just the reality. And you have examples of this over and over and over again in scripture. I am called to do what God calls me to do and gives me the knowledge and guidance to be able to do. I can't change hearts. Now, obviously, I would I have some serious questions as to exactly what Andy Stanley's doctrine of original sin is. And how central it is and how real it is. I could be wrong, I didn't address it in this. But yeah, how do you raise your children? The assumption, the assumptions that he's making. as to the nature of Reformed theology are extremely surface level and show no primary source study on his part at all. At all. Okay, well, we're actually right next to the next one, so let's press on. I'm asking, honestly, this is one of my questions for you is, do you allow your child to pray a prayer of repentance and salvation and then you just hope it took and then when they repray it? Now, check this out. Check this out. This is really important because I forget who it was that told me this. Who was it that told me this? It was someone in the SBC. Might be the troublemaker in Texas. Might have been Josh Bice, he's a troublemaker in Georgia. I know a lot of troublemakers. But someone told me that the average Southern Baptist gets baptized 2.7 times. Once in childhood, once at a crisis point in teenage years. And then many as a young adult figuring all the rest of them were just there to young 2.0 and ends up being 2.7. You're gonna hear that exact breakdown here it's a exact breakdown. Andy stanley recognizes this very same phenomenon but he's using it as an argument against us so when he says you know how do you. Do you allow them to make a profession of faith? You call your children to belief in Christ. And you also recognize that a seven-year-old child wants to do what mommy and daddy want them to do. I made an extremely early profession of faith in Christ, and I believe it was real. Because as I look at my life, there were evidences of that. and understanding as well. But I also recognize that there are literally hundreds of thousands, let's just use the United States, hundreds of thousands of people in the United States who made a profession of faith as a child, who are living a life today that demonstrates it was not real. Now, if you're an anti-lordship person like Andy Stanley, you've got your ticket punch going to heaven one way or the other, I suppose. But from a biblical perspective, there is wisdom in continuing to encourage that child, but also to recognize the teen years are coming. The hormones are coming. And there have been few things that are more indicative and explanatory and exposing of where somebody really is than when those teen years hit and the hormones hit. And if you're involved in pastoral ministry and you don't know this, you need to because it's a reality. And it's a heartbreak. And all I just, you know, he was just so into church, you know, and he was nine. Now he's 14 that wants nothing to do with it. Well, golly, really? Hmm. It's all my fault. No, maybe not. No, maybe not. How does denying God's sovereignty and salvation in any way change any of this? Again, there's clearly a presuppositional aspect here functioning in Andy Stanley's mind that is in error as to what reformed theology is all about. If you can't tell a difference between being reformed and a hyper-Calvinist or whatever else, you're going to have these problems. How do you raise your kids that way? I mean, you were a parent when you were Calvinist, right? Yeah. I'm asking honestly. This is one of my questions for you. Do you allow your child to pray a prayer of repentance and salvation, and then you just hope it took, and then when they repray it at 12, you hope that one took, then they go to camp and they repray it again? Are you, as a parent, and then when your child's 17 and decides he or she is going to run off and have abandoned faith, do you think, oh, no problems, because they prayed that prayer when they were eight? What do parents do when their children walk away from faith? Do they shrug and say, They weren't one of the elects, good thing I have three other kids, or what's the... See, how does he answer these questions? I mean, these are questions for all parents, and how is that only relevant to a Reformed person? I mean, he's evidently thinking that we somehow, again, have access to the decree of God, therefore we know what's in the hearts of men, and we don't know any of those things. you call your children to repentance at every point in their life as we are all called repentance which unfortunately is not a part of what he was taught in an anti-lordship repentance is an optional thing type of a type of context which i hope he's gotten away from i i don't know uh you know maybe some people who know north point better than i do might Explain whether the term repentance is a regularly used term the vocabulary from the preaching of the pulpit. I don't know, but it seems to me that this is at least you saw there. He recognizes these points in time in and it's their experience. of this stuff. Then it's interesting, Leighton jumps in. For me personally, there was probably a cognitive disconnect there. There would have to be as a parent. But I mean, to be fair, I mean, Piper does talk about in one of his broadcasts, or one of his books, he talks about his children, and even saying, you know, if God, for whatever reason, in his eternal purposes, chose not to elect one of my children, then I must trust him, and so... Okay, let me just stop, and let me just ask. What is wrong with that? Biblically. Biblically. I mean, are you saying that God owes something? To every child that's born? I don't believe that. Grace cannot be owed to anybody. There has always been election. That's what Romans 9 is about. within, within, that's what's Roman 9 about, remember the twins and stuff? Yeah, we tried to talk about that and you went off on other things. What is wrong with that? Biblically speaking, are you actually going to defend the idea that God has to save all the children of believers? So, Absalom All of David's offspring, if you're going to use that as an illustration, there's never going to be a situation. As long as your parents are Christians, you've got your ticket punched. Where's that taught again? I've seen that in some extreme forms of even some covenant theology. There's some Calvinists who actually sort of have that idea, to be honest with you. Good luck defending that from anything I can find in scripture. I have absolutely no idea where you would get any of that. But what does this have to do with you? Because in your situation, God's already doing everything he can. It's up to the kid. Why pray for them? You think you can make God better? You think you can convince him to do something more? He's already putting out a 100% effort to save that child. There's nothing to be added to it, so why should you worry about it? Right? God's already doing everything he can. But it's up to the kid. So you look into that little child's heart and go, I'm so glad that it's actually up to you and not up to God. Because I can trust you more than God. That's what you're saying. That's what you're saying. Is there a reason, are we having YouTube problems, Mr. Kerr? No, it's great. I just, I was, this has got me ginned up. You saw the microphone come over and that means that, yeah. I'm, that should not do that. I'm just reminded of when we were at North Phoenix and how many times it was, that burden was on us. Oh yeah. That burden was on the ministers. That burden was on all the rest of the congregation. You aren't praying hard enough. You're not witnessing hard enough. You need to convince these people to come to the Lord. And it was like, in some cases, like Amway. It really was. It was like, hey, you know, you gotta sell the plan. You gotta convince them of the plan, man. And if they're not getting it, you need to make sure they get it. What was that discipleship program that we used for a long time? Remember that? You're thinking the EE? No, no, no. This would have been before that. No, no. This was something you gave to people after they came forward. And I remember it looked like it was a whole booklet thing. It was pretty slick. But I don't remember what it was now. But yeah, you had to do the whole deal, the whole shtick. But it was definitely all on you. There is a sense in which Calvinists have to come to that realization that maybe one of my babies is loved by me more than God. Did you catch that? Loved by me more than God. So, I hope the Reform folks in the audience are catching the errors, the misrepresentations from Layton, because he's so good at switching terms and stuff. Because when you talk about the love of God, what we're talking about is redemptive love that is gracious, in the sense that grace is demerited. So, love of God that transcends the just, and this is why, amongst quote-unquote traditionalists, original sin is just a, even if it's confessed, it is so watered down and so put off to the side that the idea that your offspring could actually be offensive before God, no, no, no, no, no, no. there is, there must be, by biblical demand and definition, a difference between any category of God's love toward a human being and my love towards another human being, because I'm not their judge. I, with them, whether they're my children, grandchildren, parents, cousins, anything else, we're both rightly under the judgment of the law, and God is not. God is the judge. And so, you see, it's so disingenuous to disassociate God's holiness and justice from discussion of his love, mercy, and grace. But that's what happens when you start with man and try to reason up to God. That's why man-centeredness will never, ever be able to approach a even semi-meaningful biblical theology. Can't do it. just can't do it. Though that's exactly what we're seeing here. I'll make a bet. Now listen to this. This actually got my daughter upset. I'll bet the male Calvinist embrace that and the female Calvinist never ever get there. The maternal instinct would have a very difficult time reconciling the reality of being a mom with that theology. Just a hunch. Yeah, well, the statistics do show that the resurging is very male-dominated right now. Of course it is. It's very young, male, white-dominated. And I'm not trying to be racist in that comment. It just happens to be, the studies are showing, that most of the people in the young, restless reform movement right now are younger, white males. Now, that's not, obviously, across the board. Obviously, there's exceptions to that. But that is predominantly what you're seeing. And even Piper addresses that issue. That's not surprising. Not surprising. Interestingly enough, what was the surprise in the first century when it came to the people who followed Jesus? It was the number of... Okay, then he talks about women in the early church as if that's somehow relevant to that, but then they sort of got back to this idea here, right about here. Women, I think that's something, I just think that's something we should pay attention to. And also, logically speaking, here's another issue, is that if Calvinism is true, then God has ordained for more men to accept Calvinism than women. In other words, God, for some reason, has sovereignly decreed and has determined for men to get it and for women to reject it. Now, I somehow missed Leighton's source. For the male-female number of people who believe these things, I've read about so many godly women. I think of Sarah Edwards and Spurgeon's wife. Isn't it much more probable in light of the fact that there is this biblical teaching about The nature of the eldership and pastors and preachers and teachers that we simply know more about the men. Because they wrote the books and did the preaching than the women who raised the children yeah i think that's probably a much better thing my daughter felt that this was the. Oppression of the patriarchy against female Calvinists and that therefore latent flowers is the patriarchy and But that really Doesn't mean a whole lot. Okay Here here comes the al moeller quote that I've been talking about for whatever reason Wow. Well, here's I have a quote I didn't know if this would be appropriate, but I'll bring it up now. I mean you mentioned al moeller earlier and Al, I think he must have a man crush on me. I don't know. He can't quit talking about me. I'm not sure. I've only met him once. I would love to talk to him. We did have one quick phone call about seven years ago. Anyway, I was at an ERLC conference. Man man crush I I don't know what to say something like that I think what he's saying is that dr. Mahler has taken the time on the briefing And I think in articles to sound a warning against Stanley's clearly Destructive views on the relationship of the Old and New Testament scriptures and I Saying saying as a man crush is not it is not a response those things you know and i would imagine. If any stanley want to talk with our molar and made a request he probably would be willing to do that i mean i'm not making an offer for dr molar by the way i'm just simply just simply saying that but there's. Something very odd about what was just said there then he talks a little bit there for a while about. A quote that Al Mohler gave in an ERLC thing about how the majority of people that are baptized in Southern Baptist churches are our offspring, not new people. And there is a truth in that statement. That's not a disputable thing, I don't think, one way or the other. Doesn't have a whole lot to do with what we're talking about, but anyways. Okay, let's, then we've got a problem here with something that Leighton Flowers said. A biologic, I mean, it's like... Well, any time a Calvinist is consistent in his Calvinism, and he brings... Okay, now here is, this we, let me back this up. This needs to be addressed, because this is a constant canard on Leighton Flowers' part. All of us need to know exactly why it is, so we can just simply shut him down when he does it, because it's just, it's... It's just, just picture this as Layton says these words, because that's, that's, that's what we're getting. What he's talking about is that Al Mohler was criticizing a problem in the Southern Baptist Convention in regards to how evangelism was being done and things like that. And then he's saying, how can, how can Calvinists criticize anything? Because they believe God's decreed everything. This is behind Layton Flowers all the time saying, well, you were decreed to do that. I was decreed not to believe this stuff, blah, blah, blah, blah. What's the problem here? We do not know the content of the divine decree that is God's and God's alone. And by the way, I would just simply mention that if you actually have the slightest bit of meaningful respect, uh... for theological topics what god determines to do should be something that you show tremendous respect for as a creature and when you can market i'd i fear for you it's just think for a moment what if you're wrong and you get you stand before god some days and he asks of you the reason for your mockery of his divine decree i don't want to be held accountable for something like that No, I don't want to go there. We have been given a revelation from God that tells us what is good and what is evil. And we are to pray that God's will be done. Oh, but it will be done! You even say that! Yes, but God has commanded us to pray that it be done because it changes us and glorifies him and you don't have the right to tell him otherwise! Sit down, creature! You live for maybe 80 years and then you die. You are stupid in comparison to God. Shut up and listen to what he says. We all need to do that. He has told us this is good, this is evil. He puts a spirit within our hearts and we are to pray against that which is evil and for that which is good. And that's what we are to long for. And that's what we are to work for. And we are to identify that which is good, and promote it, and say, this is a good thing, this is a God-glorifying thing. And God uses us as a means of then encouraging others. I have been so encouraged by others. Let me give you an example. Zachary Conover. has been assigned as my deacon at apology a poor man i'd i'd i asked jeff what he had against him but and he didn't say christmas eve across my feed comes a spoken word didn't even know he did spoken word a spoken word thing he did on christmas and abortion it was incredible i posted on facebook you wanna go find it just look at zachary conover and probably christmas spoken word abortion it'll come up somewhere It was really great. It was really good. And so there was someone doing something that encouraged me. It made me think about how the Christmas story, the Christmas history, the reality, it's not just a story, sometimes the Christmas story sounds like a Dickens thing, but the reality of the Christmas story is such a tremendous condemnation of abortion. It was a tremendous condemnation of abortion back then, and now, knowing what we know, it's so much more so now. So, by doing that positive thing, God used that means to encourage me, that I can then use that to encourage others. God decrees the ends and the means. Ends and the means. And so we can decry the evil of abortion, we can proclaim the goodness of life, because God has revealed that these are good things and these are evil things, and there is no excuse and there is no basis for some creature who breathes for a little while on earth to stand back and go, well, hey, you know, if God's in control of all of it, it doesn't really matter, it's all decreed anyways. That makes a mockery of the Incarnation? Christmas story, the whole life of Christ, and pretty much the entirety of the Bible. And if you keep doing it, your heart's going to get hard. Stop it. Stop it. You're just a creature. You don't have the right to do any of that. Well, you're saying that God has a decree. Yeah, because He's revealed that. He's revealed that graciously. I accept it. And I stop there, because I'm not going to tell you what that decree is. Now, I can look in the past and see how it's unfolded. That doesn't mean I can look into the future. God can, because he has his decree. Actually, I just responded to all that before he actually said it, but here is him saying it. Pose to those who are not biologic. I mean, it's like, well, anytime anytime a Calvinist is consistent in his Calvinism and he brings critique of what's happening in the world. there's a cognitive disconnect there, because ultimately, like, okay, so 9-11 happened, okay? So 9-11 happened according to God's purposes and His will. He brought it to pass for His glory. He planned it. Exactly. If Calvinism is true, okay? So, and again, let me read from... And so, if Calvinism isn't true, then God created the universe where 9-11s happen for no reason, but he knows they're going to happen, but he can't stop them, and you say, let's worship that God. Right? Is that what you're saying, Andy Stanley and Layton Flowers? God, maybe Andy Stanley's not a Southern Baptist, he doesn't have to believe that. Maybe he's an open theist, maybe he doesn't believe God knew. Maybe it caught him by surprise. You want to worship a guy that went, oh, I didn't see that coming. Oh, man. Oh, all these Christians just died and all these non-Christians, now they're going to hell. And I was planning on trying to save somebody. That's what you want? That's your alternative? Really? Well, you know, God just gives us his free will. And so, you know, we, you know, yeah, he knew it was going to happen, but it doesn't have any purpose. It's just, you know, but, but that free will is so important. Worship Him for having given us free will. That's basically what it turns out to be. The basis for worshiping God is that He's the origin of free will. Really? I remember that all through the Psalter. That's why we worship God. No, it's nowhere in the Bible and you know it. You know it. Stunning, absolutely stunning. Westminster or the London Baptist Confession here, it says, God hath decreed in himself from all eternity by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things whatsoever to come to pass. Yet he hath not decreed, it goes on to say, anything because he foresaw it as future. In other words, he's not foreseeing it and permitting it. That's not what they mean by decree. That's right. They mean he has brought it to pass, as Piper says in his book by Mark Talbert. In other words, this is something God has planned. Yes, God has a sovereign decree. Yes, Layton, that is exactly right. That's why that's the very foundation and ground of purpose, reason, value. There's value in what we're doing. There's value in fighting evil. But if God decreed it for a purpose, therefore there's value. What if you fight evil and the evil happens anyways? Empty! See the problem? By the way, I just happened to look over. And I do want to pass this along. Kim Roberts says, I'm a female Calvinist. Please let Flowers and Stanley know that I never received my survey. So, and Summer didn't either. In fact, I don't know of anyone at Apologia that got, did you, did anybody get a survey? I didn't, you know, it may have been sent out in one of those things that looks like junk mail and I just throw junk mail out. So maybe that's, that's what happened, but yeah. besmirch that thing, if you say that was a horrible, bad thing, then you've just called God's plan horrible and bad. Ba-lo-ny. Stop it, Leighton. Stop it. You can't find, and you know this, sir, you cannot find a single meaningful, reformed writer, not a single one of the Westminster framers, not a single one of the London Post's confession of faith framers that would have even Every single one of them would look at you and laugh in your face, sir, and you know it. You know it. Don't tell me you don't know it. because they operate on the biblical pattern of the recognition of the difference between God's decree and His prescriptive will. You know that. Stop with this stuff. This is you, Leighton, right here. This is you. This is all you do. It's all you've got. Stop it. Just stop it. That's all you're doing, man. Why? Got little bee things on them there. They'd probably burn first, but anyway. Just stop it. You are not besmirching God's plan. You are doing what God calls his people to do, to be the means by which he ministers. Did you know something, Layton? My book on grieving, my book on grieving. It's one of the small ones out there. See this, Layton? They were passing this out by the carton on September 13th at Ground Zero. I'm very happy about that. I think that's wonderful. But you see, we Christians were a means of grace. He used our seeking to do what is right, to reach out in mercy and grace as representatives of God. But he decreed it! Yes, he did, which means it has purpose and value and meaning. I don't know how you can read Isaiah 10. I don't know how you can do it. I'd like to transport you back, Layton Flowers, and have you stand there in the ruins of the cities destroyed by the Assyrians in Israel. Make your man-centered arguments to them and Isaiah will walk up and smack you in the face That's what I'll do You'll say you don't get it. Do you? You don't get it. God brought the Assyrians here This is a fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28 and 29. This is God's justice taking place here And yet He knows the hearts of these Assyrians And he's going to judge the hearts of these Assyrians. Because that's the basis he judges on. He doesn't base his judgment as if we somehow can thwart his decree. He judged the Assyrians on the intentions of their hearts. Even though they were doing, he describes them as the axe being wielded. The arm, that's God's arm. They're the axe. Then he judges them. That's not fair. Oh yes it is. if you don't have a man-centered system. If you have a theistic system, a Trinitarian Christian theistic system, then it's perfectly just. I can understand from your perspective, yeah, but you don't have a consistent Christian system. That's why. That's why. You've just besmirched what you think God did for his own self-glorification. And there must be a cognitive disconnect for Piper and Sproul, and previously Sproul obviously, he's gone on to be the Lord, and Moeller and others, to besmirch or to call out negative things that they see happening in the convention. that they believe God unchangeably ordained for his own self-glorification. It's like, do you see how logically this just does not play itself out? It does not work for you to be able to critique something that you believe God brought to pass for his own self-glorification. Now, do you see the utter incoherence of the Leighton Flowers critique? Hopefully we've pointed this out. Go to the scriptures, transport this man back, to Acts 4, Isaiah 10, Genesis 50, Genesis 20, almost any place, and sit him down and go, okay, try repeating that argument you just made. And it falls flat on its face. Flat on its face. It's all he's got. It's all he's got. Look at his website. It just repeats it over and over again, puts different dress on it, you know, spray paints the spray paints different colors. Same thing. Same thing. Okay, now, listen to what Andy Stanley says here. Well, they toss it into the bucket of mystery, which did I just toss it into the bucket of mystery. No, I didn't. I addressed it very directly, didn't I? Yeah, to that point, I wrote, and again... Now listen, listen very carefully here. This isn't a world I spend a lot of time in, so feel free to correct me publicly. That's what we're doing. That's what we're doing. You said feel free, so we're feeling free. And we're publicly correcting you. You know, this is your world. I just dance around the periphery. And some of the notes I took as I thought about our conversation, I wrote that essentially, and I read your book, and anyway, that if God causes or is behind or sovereignly institutes all evil, it really blurs. In fact, this takes me back to the parallel between the New Calvinist or Hyper-Calvinism and Atheism. This blurs the distinction between good and evil because anything that glorifies or reflects well on God has to be good. So when evil reflects good on God, then evil becomes good. I just don't know how, again, I don't know how to live with that dichotomy. I don't know how to live in that world where good becomes evil and evil becomes good. And we're back to the question of can you have a basis for morality apart from God? You see why it might be important to maybe possibly pick up a book by R.C. Sproul. He was just such a nice guy. It's not like we've kept the answers to Theodicy a secret. But what's plainly evident is that Andy Stanley has not taken the time to do that. And again, He didn't have to do this thing. He said, publicly correct me. Okay, that's what we're doing. So, if Ephesians 1.6 is true, 1.6-11, God works all things at the counsel of his will and that it's all a result in the praise of his glorious grace, then that makes all evil good and blurs the distinction between the two. Now, what is required for that mess of a critique to make any sense? Again, the fundamental distinction between the decree and our experience in time of the prescriptive will of God are doing, which tells us what good and evil is and hence cannot allow there to be a blurring of these things. And in fact, allows us to find good even in the midst of evil, in faithfulness to God, in seeing the pastors in China. Well, if we're put in prison, we'll start a prison ministry. We were thinking about doing it anyways. Okay? It's evil for the Chinese government to do what they're doing. and they need to be told that they will be judged for that evil, and they are telling them that. But you're so intent upon making God into your image that you cannot conceive of a God who could use the persecution of the Chinese government as a means to his own self-glorification? How many of us have been encouraged in our own lives by the faithfulness of the Chinese pastors as they're being persecuted right now? How many of us have been encouraged down through the years? The persecuted church has always been a special focus of mine. I've mentioned it many times on this program. The Christians who are persecuted under Islam today. Is it evil for Muslim governments to persecute Christians? Yes, it is. Will they be judged for that? Yes, they will. Has God used that to his own glorification? Yes, he has. He has used it in the sanctifying of his people. He has used that in ridding those who are persecuted and those who are observing this of love for the things of this world. Why is your God so stinking small? Why is your God just basically a big man? So if you can't embrace the God that's as big as the God of the Bible, that means all good is evil and evil is good? Somehow a blurred distinction? That's stunning to me! And it's absurd! It's just absurd! Yeah, as someone just said in a channel I just happened to look over, the safest place to be is the center of God's will, Betsy Ten Boom, while in Ravensbrück concentration camp. Exactly! Exactly! You ever watched The Hiding Place? Anyway. And, you know, Christians say you can't have a basis for morality apart from God. The Calvinists say, that's right, you can't have a basis for morality apart from God, but when you look at the basis of morality, good becomes evil and evil becomes good because God's behind it all. Why? Why? Because God is behind it all. You are assuming that because His decree determines the very fabric of time, that the decree is the same in intention and purpose for evil acts as well as good acts, right? That's what you're assuming. So you can't tell any difference, biblically, between the intentions and actions of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Jews and the Romans, and the crucifixion of Jesus, and God's intention in bringing about the redemption of God's people through the cross. You can't tell a difference. You really can't. Seriously? I'm sorry, I shouldn't get upset about these things, but this is childish! This is first grade stuff, people. This is absurdity being promoted by a major pastor of a major church. I don't know what to say. Do not even know what to say. And we're not halfway through. Thankfully, the last part doesn't take as long. As it sits right now, I don't see how we're going to get through all this. I really don't. I've been drinking the diet root beer. And for many people, that's probably a good thing, that there is a limit on how long programs can go. And God decreed that there would be a limit on how long these programs can go. And this is a frustrating section this is really frustrating section but it does it does get faster because there's no reason to be covering some of the stuff that comes on later that ends up not having any do this just. And that may be true. If it's true, it certainly does not, the scripture does not bear witness to that, and neither does human logic. But I realize that my human logic is so skewed that I can't trust that either. Back to atheism. I mean, we just sort of end up back with that, you know, that same worldview. So, by accepting God's ability to actually have differing intentions and purposes and to work all things together. God works all things together for the good of them, love God, them, the call according to purpose. That's the theology of rejecting. That's the theology of rejecting. You don't believe that. You just said that takes you back to atheism. That's absurd. That's absurd. Why say these things? It's really hard to understand, but it reveals a lot. There's a quote where he talks about, if our good is God's bad, and our bad is his good, then we can say we worship we know not what. In other words, if you can't have some measure on which to base goodness, and of course the scripture is our go-to to be able to look at God and his revelation and what is good and what is evil, and therefore if God presents good as Christ, who sacrifices himself for his enemies, doesn't sacrifice his enemies for himself, but sacrifices himself for his enemies, then we can say, okay, that's a measure of goodness. Someone who doesn't sacrifice the mass of humanity, i.e., the reprobates, for the sake of his own self-glorification, but instead offers the means by which anyone and everyone can be saved, we can, I think, state dogmatically, in a sense, of saying, this is what's good. Good is self-sacrificial love. Good is unconditional love. Good is providing for the needs of others. Now, let's make application. Okay, once again, let's make application. So what he's saying is God would not be good if he is glorified in the judgment of sinners. That would make God bad. Why? Because we determine what good is by what Jesus did, and Jesus gave himself to try to save all sinners, though God knew that he was going to fail in that. And so, God is good because he made the universe in such a way that despite his self-giving, A large number of people, don't know how many, are going to suffer needlessly with no purpose and no redemptive value, and end up under punishment. Do you see why this eventually leads to either universalism or a denial of the existence of hell, and historically has in Arminian circles? Yeah, it's obvious. Because it makes no sense. You apply these critiques to their own position, and it collapses into the house of cards that it really is. And it's all again based upon bringing an externalized standard of goodness upon God, and it's always a narrow thing. Whereas God is glorified by so many things in scripture. Theirs is always a narrow definition. Why? Because they're starting from man and trying to move up to God. It can't happen. The God of the Bible is too big for these folks to do that. And the scriptures are too big. That's why they have to try to explain away so many of the texts of scripture. that, hey, look, a lot of people out there in evangelical church find to be very problematic. How is God glorified in the destruction of the Amorites, for example? I mean, it really makes me feel uncomfortable, and I'm not sure I want to go there. That's the problem. That's the problem. 15 seconds. Darrell Bock Your worst enemies. That is demonstrably good as I get back and forth on. So that's what's true goodness, and therefore to say God is good is to say God is self-sacrificially loving towards His enemies, all of them, because that's what He calls us to do. And that's why we do this podcast. That's why we're saying what we're saying, is because it is difficult for us to understand how someone can say on one side that God reprobates, that He chooses and creates people for damnation. And I know there's some Calvinists who'd like to soften that. So we do this podcast because your God is too big. He can do things that man can't do. And we think that's bad. Yay. Well, at least we know the purposes now, we know the purposes now. Okay, let's let got to get to this one. I'm going to wrap up at the top of the hour. Two hours is pretty much long enough for anybody. And then we're just going to have to finish up next time around. Whenever that is. Uh, yeah, maybe Tuesday, the New Year's Day. Yeah, I suppose we can probably sneak one in there because I don't leave till the next day. So just, just for everyone's announcement real quick, um, I, you know how many days I'm here in Phoenix in January? 10. 10. Yeah. And part of that's overseas. Part of that's in Russia. And so, if we can get the flights, yeah. So, I'm not sure when we're going to do all this stuff, but we'll do our best. Check this out. For a leader, if you're speaking to them, how does Calvinism and these views impact them practically? I don't know how you present a sincere invitation. I don't know how you preach through the Gospel of John. I don't, I mean, And, you know, I've heard some sermons where... I don't know how you preach through the gospel of John. The John, you know, speaking to unbelievers, all that the Father gives me will come to me, one coming to me I will never cast out. No one can come to me unless the Father sent me, draws him, I will raise him up on the last day. John 8, the reason you don't hear my words is because you don't belong to God. The the John 10, you know, you're not my sheep my sheep hear my voice the John 17 the elect that John Which John are we talking about? I? Mean, I'm just I'm just left going How? Clearly has never even listened to a reform sermon It's never even Never been challenged evidently To sit down and walk through John 6 with someone who has any idea what they're talking about There's somebody who has very thick tradition glasses on. Very, very thick tradition glasses. You know, reformed pastors are trying to exegete... Now listen. Reformed pastors who try to exegete the text description. Now listen to this. ...and navigate through, you know, the passages where they have to... You have to qualify everything. As you've illustrated so many times, you have to make words mean things that the words don't mean. Again... Really? You have to make the words mean things. One of the best illustrations of this. Go to his website now. Go to Soteriology 101 and look up Leighton Flower's article on Foreknown in Romans 8.29. And you will see exactly what he just described. It is one of the most painful examples of how am I going to get around what this means. I'm going to pull from something over here, pull from something over here. Now, all these sources are self-contradictory. They're contradicted to each other. I mean, I'm going to pull it here, I'm going to put it all together. And it's horrible. It is eisegesis on steroids. And it's lighten flowers. Now, I just don't think Andy Stanley bothers to get into a level of depth in Romans 8 to ever have to deal with it. I've never heard him do it. So, to sit there and say, ah, these reformed guys, they're just twisting words. How about giving some examples? I can give you an example. I just gave you an example. The intellectual dishonesty, especially of preaching through the Gospel of John, where at the end of the Gospel, he tells us, oh yeah, by the way, here's why I wrote the book. intellectual dishonesty. See, he thinks that by calling people to faith, that's a contradiction to Calvinism. That is how shallow, inaccurate, and latent flowerist it starts going, hey, yeah, that's right! Again, Layton, this is why those of us on this side, we only have one choice, we have two choices. Either you were the lamest Calvinist ever who had no earthly idea what you believed back then, or you're desperately dishonest now. Those are the only choices we have, because any Calvinist worth his salt knows that God ordains the ends and the means and that we, therefore, are to call people to faith in Christ. Everybody knows that. Andy Stanley doesn't know that. Why did you sit there and let Andy Stanley make a fool of himself? That's the question we have to ask. So, we are only 3740 in, and he's just a few minutes later, He's going to... Let me see if I... Oops. I'll turn this thing off. Okay. Stop doing that. I clicked on something and I can't stop it. Well, I'd better just stop and we won't worry about that. We'll hopefully be able to save it later. I was trying to mark it, mark the spot so we can pick up right at that, that particular point, but I've made a mess of things anyways. There, there's not a ton. Yeah, there's really not a ton of stuff left over. I could probably get in and half an hour or so, but I also had something else queued up. Um, the new independent fundamentalist Baptist are putting out short little. Responses to Calvinism and they're nice and short, but they are as they are as deep As deep as this guy's intellectual life, okay, and there's just nothing to him. I mean, it's it's just really bad But it's so common. I already had it queued up so I guess on New Year's Day we will You got nothing else going on that day? Because we don't got anything going on that day. So, you know, the kids are back in Vegas, and so it's just like, meh. That'll be the last shot we've got to try to get it all done before I'll be in Owensboro teaching next week, New Testament Textual Criticism at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary. And like I said, I'm back for a grand total of, I think, eight days, and then G3. And looking forward to seeing a lot of you there. But I go straight from G3 to Russia and Germany. I'll get back to February. And I especially when I'm overseas, it's really hard to do these programs because the time the time thing. You know i'm gonna be i don't know in russia nine ten nine ten eleven hours i don't know how far it is a big place in a cold place right now so we'll see we'll see but right now we'll plan on on tuesday. New Year's Day, and as long as there aren't any parades that'll keep us from getting here. They're all over that direction anyways, so we're pretty good. So we'll try to finish this up. There's not that much more. We'll try to finish this up and a couple of those NIFB things as well. on another Radio Free Geneva, I guess. Everybody will probably want to hear that opening yet once again. So we'll do that. So thank you very much for listening for two hours now. Hopefully it has been worthwhile and we'll continue it next week. God bless.