Amen. Thank you folks for being here tonight. If you could turn up this mic just a little bit. And we have Dr. Flowers joining us in our living room tonight. One of the teenagers came up to me and they said, it looks like there's a living room on the stage, but hopefully a little more casual tonight, opening up some conversation. And I just want you to keep in mind as you're here at the beginning of the service, if you don't have one, if you don't have a question, You're in trouble right now, OK? You need to come up with a question. And no, that's OK. If you don't have a question, that's fine. We certainly don't want you to just make one up. I haven't asked him what his favorite color is. But I might. If it gets super boring, we might get there. But tonight, I just wanted to give you some considerations for your questions before we begin. I'd like questions. I know we have people here who aren't a part of our church. I'd like to just ask here at the beginning that if you do ask a question, that it be respectful. There's a nice way to ask a question, and there's a way to ask a question that, don't know how to put it any better, that's kind of a liberal news anchor slanted question. Have you ever been watching, I don't know, a specific president be asked questions, and there's a message, and kind of a mean message behind the question? I said, I'll just call them fake news and move on. Okay. All right. So, so try not to ask any fake news questions tonight and try to be respectful. Certainly, uh, the fact that this is, this is our church and this is our guest. Uh, so please be nice to him. Uh, please be kind to the guests that we have. And I know you will be, uh, please keep your questions brief, but also try to frame your question. Try to put a frame around your question that can help us understand what you're asking. There can be a way to ask a question that's so short, so abbreviated, that you don't really have much content to cover there. It's just kind of a yes or no. So try to frame it with why you're asking the question and what led you to that, but try to do that in a brief way. And please, if you have a question, please ask it. I have a few that I'm gonna start with, and then I have a few from our church members that aren't able to be here right now. There's some serving in our kids' ministries. So first, I'd just like to give you a softball and have you give us your personal Christian testimony when you got saved. Yeah, I hinted to this this morning when I talked about being raised in church. My parents raised me and asking me when I came to know Jesus as Lord is like asking me when I came to know my parents. I've just always been raised in the church. There was a time in my life where I like to say I was provoked by envy, like the book of Romans chapter 11 talks about the fellow countrymen being provoked to envy so that they may be saved. I was provoked to envy by my big brothers because both of them were older. and had been saved earlier. And so they were getting to do a lot of things with the church and camps and clubs. Matter of fact, they even had a Bible club that they went to. I wasn't allowed to go to because I wasn't a Christian yet. And so I kept asking my mom, when can I become a Christian? Because I wanted to join the club. I like to say I was provoked by envy where I began to ask questions. My mom and dad both, you know, walked with me through the sinner's prayer and what that means, what it means to... They put me off for a while because they wanted to make sure I was ready and not just coming so that I could be in the club, but that I was really understanding what sin is. And so I remember praying with my mom specifically one evening to receive Christ and then going through the process of baptism and all that goes with that. But one of the things that I talk about in my testimony is how when you're saved at such a young age, at the age of seven, what I struggle with is something that's very common among Christians that are saved young, is that you have a time of doubting salvation because there's not really a rags-to-riches testimony. You know, you hear all these stories of people who just went from being a horrible, bad drug dealer and gang member, and then all of a sudden God changed their life, and now they're preaching around the world. I don't have that kind of testimony. And so sometimes I was kind of jealous of all these awesome testimonies that people would have. And it would make you wonder, okay, well, if there's never a huge change that took place, because what is your testimony? Like before I became a Christian, I was six, seven years old. I mean, I used to, break my brother's crayon when he wouldn't look in and read a book in bad light, but now I'm all better. I had a lot more sins after I became a Christian than I did before when you come to Christ that late. And so there wasn't like this moment where there was this huge change, this Damascus Road kind of experience. And because of that, you don't have something to hang your hat on to say, that's when it happened. Because I think when you grow up in the faith, there's not a point in time where it just happens. It's like you're sanctified into the faith when you're raised in the church. And an understanding that was a big part of my own spiritual maturation and journey to understand that Christ, I've been in Christ and growing in Christ throughout my life. And so there wasn't this huge change that took place. And I don't need to rest my faith on a huge change that took place, but I need to rest my faith on who Christ is. and what he's doing in my life now, currently, that's where my assurance is, is who I am in Christ today, not who or what I did when I was seven years old, if that makes sense. So that's a part of my journey and my testimony, and I've had messages and things where I talk about more in depth about that, but that's really the root of it. Amen. My wife has a similar testimony of getting saved over and over again. And my wife has been baptized now, I don't know, 12 times. But most of that is because of me having to practice on her. I've never baptized anyone. But she had been baptized in kind of an apostate church, and then her and her whole family got saved. But she dealt with that going to camp. And I've been able to share with our teenagers that you have to come to a point where you know, and it's kind of like the Ben Shapiro line, facts don't care about your feelings. it's more so trusting in Christ's finished work than how good you were to accept it. You know, trusting in his grace. So that's great. That's wonderful. What was the catalyst for you starting Soteriology 101? What was that moment where you said, this is a ministry that needs to be founded? What was the catalyst for that? Well, backing up a little bit, having been a Calvinist throughout my twenties, became a Calvinist around 1920 and then left Calvinism around 2930. And then I ended up going back to get my doctorate degree in my mid-30s. And so I ended up writing on soteriology, on the doctrines of salvation with regard to the Southern Baptist Convention, the rise of Calvinism into the Southern Baptist Convention, and talked about some of the theological issues with that in my dissertation. So that forced me to go really in depth and to study the doctrines. And that all happened prior to 2014, where I was teaching, actually teaching at Dallas Baptist University, just up the road, as an adjunct for theology. And just one of the courses was on soteriology, and I'd been doing all this doctoral work, and so I kind of dumped my learning onto these new students, poor things, that all these things I've been teaching. And the class lit up with interest when we began to introduce this topic. It was like I lit a fire under them. All of them have questions. There's debates going on in the class. And I finally have to go, guys, the class is over. We've already covered this material. We've got to move on. And even the next class coming around, they want to go back to that discussion. I'm like, I've got my new material, guys. We've got to get through. And so it was one of those webinars where you record stuff on the webinar. And I said, I'll tell you what, I'll start recording some of this material that I'm learning. And if you want to watch it, it'll be optional. You can watch it. It'll just be extra. And what you can tell as a professor who's watching it, and almost every single student watched those because they were just so interested in the topic and, and, and the comments underneath it were like 10 times longer than any other comments on any other topic. And I was just like going, there's something about this topic that make people very interested. And one of the students in the classes came up to me and he says, Dr. Farris, you should put that on a podcast. And I was like, well, what's a podcast? I didn't, you know, I didn't listen to podcasts, didn't know what they were. And, and so I began to investigate a little bit, um, just using YouTube and stuff like that, figuring out how to do this. And so that's why it's called Sociology 101, because that was literally the name of the course work for that day. And I wasn't very creative. I just said, oh, I'll just carry the same label over for this course. And it just kind of stuck that way. And it started out just a podcast. It wasn't a YouTube channel. And I thought maybe a few dozen students might watch it that was interested in it from DBU, but I never dreamed it would grow to what it's grown to and had the impact it's had. So praise God for that. And for those of you that don't know, this is a pretty popular YouTube channel he's talking about. And I don't know how popular the podcast is, but some of these videos have hundreds of thousands of views where people have gone into these subjects. So it's no small thing. I served under a pastor in Indiana. His name is Mark Monte. And Pastor Monte kind of has a niche in that speaking with one of my, my, my pastor mentors once, his name was Jim Shetler. And I was asking him, what do you think about this niche that my pastor has? You know, he's, he's always talking about politics and you know, he goes way further than I would ever feel comfortable. They had a, they had a make America great again, trash truck at the front of their church, you know, near voting day. Like he goes way out there, uh, way more than I'm in. And Jim Shetler encouraged me, you know, some men are called to those specific areas to bring light to something and they hit on something that that society and that specific culture, might really need at that time and he would apply it to biblical principles and things like that. But one thing I noticed in Pastor Monty is that he would grow weary because he felt like he had cornered himself as the political guy. He would get weary of people asking him political questions. So much so where he would get info war guys, you know, that came to his church because it's a political church. And he felt, do you ever get tired of talking about Calvinism? And is there ever a point where you're kind of weary and like, can we talk about something else? Well, yes and no. I mean, Because it is, I dedicated the podcast kind of off on its own because I didn't want it to interfere with my other apologetic ministries at the time I was a director of evangelism apologetics for Texas Baptist. And this is an in-house discussion among Christians and it can become very contentious and a lot of comments like with the videos. And so I created it over on its own page because I didn't want it to interfere with my evangelism and other ministry pages. And the truth is you, I just don't talk about Calvinism all that much because I have the broadcast that covers it over there. And so once a week or so whenever I do a broadcast, um, I'll pull up something that I'm contending with or that I'm talking about or bringing up a point that needs to be Out loud or having guests on or something like that But in my day-to-day life or when I travel to speak unless I'm being invited specifically to cover a topic like this in this situation It's just it doesn't even it didn't come up or I'll just come to like I preached on this morning, you know That obviously didn't get into sociological issues. That's something that is normal for me when I've preached I try to remind people who think this is all I do. I know I had a life before 2014, you know, there's been a ray of ministries and evangelism ministries and other things. Apologetics is something I love to study and talk about as well. But so yes and no. Yes, in that sometimes it's the same questions. You know, you get the same questions again and again, and that's to be expected because there's some repetitive things. That's one of the reasons I started to broadcast into the videos because instead of saying, you know, hey, let's spend two hours talking about this. There's a video you can watch or a book you can read. that can help you kind of catch up to some of these basics. But I enjoy talking about theology in general, so it's not usually a problem for me. I usually enjoy diving into deeper subjects and helping people to understand what I believe is true about the character and goodness of God and our salvation. Very good. Well, I for one am thankful for your YouTube channel, and that's how I found you. I'm thankful specifically and just want to thank you publicly that you put out these shorter videos on these specific verses in the Bible that are on their face sometimes confusing and sometimes require a broader context of the book or the chapter or an understanding of soteriology. I just want to thank you. for putting those specifically out because I'm not a guy who's going to sit there for three hours and listen to all the bad people. You're like normal people. Theology geeks. The geeks are the ones that said that. I want to thank you for that and it's been a blessing to my ministry and in effect it's been a blessing to our people. because I have been a better preacher as a result of hearing that and hearing you clearly articulate some of these things. I want to thank you for that. Thank you. All right. Well, at this time, we're going to open up the floor. We have Jeremiah and Rex for questions and we already have Ms. Hannah up here. So Rex, if you could cover maybe this side and Jeremiah, you can cover the opposite side and whoever's closest to the person. You got your mics up here. We chose the slowest guys in the church. So you have time between questions. All right, so go ahead and bring it to Miss Hannah, Jeremiah. There you go. You can stay seated. So I've been pretty familiar with Calvinism. I've learned more today, and I appreciate you being here. I get a little bothered with certain topics of Calvinism as a mom, because I immediately jump to the thought of what happens to the babies who die in the womb, who die early, who pass on at a young age, because those little ones would then turn to an adult who would have been predestined for either hell or heaven. So my question to you is, how do you see the Calvinists that you've either known or you and your past being a Calvinist, was that a topic that was kind of hard to talk about or do they just bounce around it? Just like I said this morning, not all Calvinists are the same when it comes to any question theologically. There's not a monolithic group. And so John Piper, for example, John MacArthur, for example, these well-known Calvinist, what I call mainstream Calvinist, almost universally say that they believe God shows grace and mercy to an aborted baby or an infant that dies or something like that. So even if our Calvinistic brothers may disagree with us on a lot of points, I'm thankful we can all agree that God obviously does not condemn an innocent baby. In fact, there's a John MacArthur video that talks about aborted babies and he says they're innocent for goodness sake. You know, there's, you know, God, God is a gracious God. Um, however, there are some higher Calvinists that do believe that God elects, maybe elect some babies and not others and this kinds of things. I think that's preposterous. I have called it out as preposterous for those that I've come across that believe and teach that. Um, and, and, uh, I just don't think that that's biblical at all, and I don't know how anybody can keep a straight face and even do ministry that believes something like that about character and the goodness of God. It just doesn't make any sense to me. But at the same time, I can very vehemently disagree with those Calvinists, but at the same time, be respectful to the fact that they're trying, I think they're trying to be true to the text and to say, basically, I think their argument is God's free to save whomever he wants to. And if he wants to elect babies and not elect some babies, that's his prerogative. Who are you to question God type of mentality. And they're typically kind of hardcore, God can do what he wants to do kind of guys. And they don't really think very emotionally about things. And so it's easier for them just to kind of brush off the difficulty of that I'm sorry, I just can't relate to you on that point. That's just not something I could ever say. And I think that there's a very definite age of accountability doctrine throughout scripture. It doesn't give us a specific age, but it does give us very clear principles that God does not hold young ones accountable, especially those who die early and those kinds of things. And there's several examples of that. In fact, if you go to soteriology101.com and type in age, Age of Accountability in the search, just type in the word age, it would be the first one that come up. And read through that, and it cites several passages throughout there that very clearly shows the principle of the age of accountability that God does not hold young ones accountable. He talks about with the entering in the promised land, and how below a certain age they didn't get held accountable for not going in whenever God told them to and that they were allowed in because they were not of age. And there's other examples and principles like that. Ezekiel gets into that about how the children are not held accountable for the sins of their parents, very specifically in Ezekiel 18, 20, I believe it is. And so there's very specific scriptures about that. And so it's a theology that should not be even debatable as far as I'm concerned, but unfortunately it still is. Can I add on to it? Can I ask a little follow-up? That's up to him. Go ahead. Do you find that really contradictory to what Calvinism, like what Calvinists teach? Yeah, in my book, Drawn by Jesus, which I did not bring, it is on there. I have a section on infant damnation, and I know that's a hard topic, but the reason I have it is because James White, the guy I'm contending with and debating, does hold to that harder view, and I show why James White's view is actually more consistent within Calvinism, even though it's a very unbiblical and imbalanced view. And he's embarrassed to even talk about it because he knows it's very unpopular. And so he doesn't like to talk about it because he knows that most people are very repulsed by that view. And so I highlight it because it really does highlight, I think, the Calvinistic misinterpretation of Romans 5 with regard to some aspects of inherited guilt, and those kinds of things that a baby is born guilty for the sins of Adam. And not all Calvinists believe that, not all reformers have believed that, and certainly not all Protestants believe that. And so there's some really good material on that by Dr. Adam Harwood, who has a book called The Spiritual Condition of Infants. And he talks about more of an imputed guilt, just like you have imputed righteousness by believing, you have imputed guilt by when you actually sin. So when you reach an age, you actually sin, you're imputed with the guilt of Adam as our federal head. Just like when you reach an age where you can put faith in Jesus, you have imputed righteousness. And it's a perfect balance of reading John 5 that way versus the concept and idea that you're born guilty for what Adam did. I just don't think that's a biblical concept personally. Have you missed Jessica over here? Okay, go ahead. I had a young man ask me, why did God create unbelievers? And this was just a repetitive question. It goes through a lot of myself. I'm going through doubt. And it shows a signal in the gospel. It says that the message is to regain the lost. It isn't to make them lost, which was in the messages of the gospel. I forgot exactly where it is, but do you know the answer to that? Or not know the answer, but you can also answer after the service. Yeah, let's talk about that more after the service, but I'll just say that God doesn't create people to be unbelievers. That's something that people could choose to do, but we can talk more. Then I think Jessica had one and then Preston next. I have two questions, so I'm just going to read them off. So the first one being, I have some family members that have mentioned things that make me wonder if they're Calvinist or Reform-leaning. One example is they don't believe it's right to invite someone to church, a church service, if they're unsaved. Another example is that I've had conversations with them where they seem critical. of not just the unsaved, but the saved and like-minded individuals on the basis of sanctification. They use the word sanctification a lot. As I discuss it with them, they don't say it outright, but it seems like they have a bit of an elitist attitude and are able to accurately assess someone's spiritual state based on their perception that they have of the individual. So my question is, In your experience, does this sound like they are dabbling with Calvinism or reformed thinking, or do you think these are separate issues? Most likely separate issues, but there may be trends towards certain things among certain groups or theological beliefs. But the truth of the matter is, like I said, and I'll say it probably a dozen more times, Calvinism is not monolithic. So you'll have some Calvinist who will be like the big bearded guys with tattoos and they like their whiskey and cigars. and they're very liberal with their sanctification concepts and they're very easy to get along with because they're not going to rule you, you know, with fundamentalist kind of, you know, uh, hardcore stuff. They're going to be just the opposite of that. And then you got the Calvinist on the other side who are more fundamentalist and they're, they're rules and you are strict and we don't, we don't drink or smoke or goes go with girls that do. And you're no very strict line kind of Calvinist. And so, and that's across the theological, It's not just about Calvinism. Now there's some aspects of Calvinist that can have certain tendencies, the elitist mindset, things like that. Sometimes they're known for more of that kind of mindset. But I also know some non-Calvinists that are that way too. And so I'm careful about categorizing. It's almost like stereotyping. you know, with race or something like that, you can kind of stereotype a particular theological group too, because for every one example I can show from a Calvinist, I can show a non-Calvinist that's just as bad or vice versa. And so I don't like to blame the theological views for necessarily all those ills or problems. I don't think that's fair to them. Having been a Calvinist, I don't, I wouldn't describe myself from that vantage point. So I don't think it's fair to do that. So I try to be careful not to. But there are some things that are kind of warning signs that, that I see when, when talking to Calvinist and sometimes it can be more of the frozen chosen kind of mindset of, you know, the churchist, you know, I have jokes among pastors, jokes talks about, Well, that Calvinist pastor came into that church and grew it from a thousand down to 250, you know, in a couple of years. And, and because the church becomes so kind of inward, everything's about, you know, the frozen chosen and it's all, we want to keep everything strict and you know, this, this, and this, and then people don't feel welcomed or these kinds of things. But that's just simply not true of all. Matt Chandler's church, for example, the village church, I mean, good night is exploded and he reaches people and it's very evangelistic and it's not that way at all and so it would just not be fair to categorize you know all Calvinist or all forms of Calvinism in that way though I'm sure there are aspects or examples of that. And then this question's for my husband he's out in the lobby but he said Of all the men on the Calvinistic side of the aisle that you have either debated or read much about, which do you hold the most respect for and which one do you find the most unlikable? I'll probably neglect to answer the last one, but the first one, John Piper by far. Because he's probably one of the most humble that I've met and worked with personally. We did some ministry together and he's just a genuine humble guy. Very down to earth. Though he's sold thousands of books, he lives in the same house and drives the same kind of car and he's just a humble servant and very mission minded. I like a lot of his sermons and what he preaches. Just disagree with his Calvinism. And so John Piper, by far, is on the top of my list as somebody I truly do respect and have a lot of admiration for. And if people who watch my program, you probably know who's probably at the bottom of the list, but I just won't mention any names, but you could probably guess. What color is my mic? The band? The white stripe there? White stripe. Anyways, Preston. I have two questions as well. So how do you reconcile God's foreknowledge of our acceptance of him or not if God can't be wrong? I was actually talking to a gentleman before this started about this very thing. And this is oftentimes what's referred to as a modal fallacy, but that knowledge is casual in the sense that because something is certain, it must be necessitated. And that's a modal fallacy of conflating certainty with necessity. And so the example you can give is that if we had a crystal ball here, and I know crystal balls don't exist, but if we had a crystal ball here and we could see what, let's say Putin eats tomorrow for lunch, and we could all watch it, Now, none of us have anything to do with Putin, I don't think, and have anything to affect his life, but just because we watched and knew exactly what he was going to do tomorrow at noon, does that mean it's necessitated? In other words, it's determined that he do that. Are we the ones causing it because we know it? Well, no. It's happening independent of our knowledge of it. So knowledge isn't necessarily causal. And so this is an important kind of philosophical, because that is a very philosophical question, not a theological question. So it's more of trying to understand an infinite God in our finite way and saying, okay, so if God knows what I'm going to choose to do tomorrow, does that mean God determined what I'm going to do tomorrow? I would say no, just he knows it because he's God, because he knows all things. He can see all things because he's outside of time, you might say, or he's above time. So he's not determining what I will do tomorrow, but he does know what I'll do tomorrow. Peter is a great example of this because Jesus prophesied, you will deny me three times before the rooster crows. But I don't know any theologian that believes that Jesus is the one who made Peter deny him three times before the rooster crowed. Prophecy doesn't make it happen. Prophecy is telling what's going to happen freely. And so Peter is responsible for what he did because he chose to do it freely. The fact that Jesus knew he was going to do it beforehand doesn't affect that fact at all. Now that is beyond our full comprehension. When you start thinking about future knowledge, infinite things, your brain can easily explode because we don't fully understand that. But I think it's theologically wrong to assume that if God knows something prior to it happening, even as creator, that he must be somehow the one who determined it to happen. That what he's knowing is not the choices that he has caused. What he's knowing is the choices that we have made freely, and if we had made a different choice, that's what he would have known. So in other words, his knowledge is contingent upon the choice that we make. Our choice is not contingent upon his knowledge of it. If you want to study this more in depth, I would recommend Dr. Tim Stratton and Dr. William Lane Craig. Both of those guys are trained in philosophy, whereas I'm not. I'm a trained theologian, but not a philosopher. They're trained PhDs in philosophy, and they get into this a lot more in depth for those that want to dive into that topic. And then I had one more. Sure. So why does it appear that non-Calvinists cherry pick versus when Calvinists point to chapters at a time, and those chapters look obvious and require a lens to obtain your view from them? I would ask the same thing, the opposite, because it feels like the opposite's happening to me. So it's just a perspective like of the duck and the rabbit that I was talking about earlier. It feels like to me that Calvinists are cherry-picking verses that fit their theology, and I'm sure they feel the same way about me. It's, it's, it's all about perspective. And when I was a Calvinist, I felt the same way. I thought Armenians and non-Calvinists were just ignoring the scripture. What do you don't ever read Romans nine? My gosh, you know, are you stupid? You know, you just, you just have, when you, once you, when you're in a particular camp, it's really easy. Once you put those, those blinders on, so to speak, that, that the glasses on of that view where both sides can do it, then you see everything through those lenses. And it's really hard. to take off the lenses and try to look at it from their perspective. I think it's Aristotle that says it's a mark of an educated mind that can entertain a thought without accepting it. In other words, being able to put yourself in the Calvinist shoes, or vice versa, is a mark of an educated mind. It's hard to do that. Very difficult. And understand it where they're coming from. And so they're reading a passage of scripture and helping to say, okay, I understand what you're saying. I get it. I see how you're getting there, but I disagree. And here's why. And vice versa, them being able to say the same thing in my, in my experience, very few, especially young, new Calvinists have taken the time to do that for the non Calvinistic side. They think they've got it figured out because they've heard their echo chamber of Piper and MacArthur and those guys. and they haven't really entertained the best scholars of the other side because they don't really think there's any scholars on the other side. Calvinists can get very arrogant in this way. I was one of them because I just thought the Calvinists were the smart ones and the Calvinists were the educated ones and the Calvinists were the big philosophers and theologians because that's what I'd surrounded myself with. And it was only out when I got outside of that theological bubble and begin to listen outside of that theological bubble, I began to realize actually throughout history, there have been a lot stronger theologians and philosophers who are not Calvinists throughout Christian history. They may not be as well known or as, you know, theologically available. Um, this is another point in history that I like to remind people is that Calvinist, I love, I love Calvinist and remember that, but the Calvinistic system is a deterministic philosophy. And people who are drawn to deterministic philosophies tend to be gruffer, meaner, a little bit rougher around the edges, especially the male form of them. And throughout Christian history, the Calvinist, the deterministic guys were the theological bullies. And they would burn the people and the books of those who disagreed with them, quite literally. Calvin had people burned at the stake for believing things differently than he did, and even if they were claiming to be Christian or whatever, as did Luther and Zwingli. I mean, Zwingli had Balthasar Hubmeier, who believed in believers' baptism, and because he believed in believers' baptism, burned him and his works at the stake and had his wife with a millstone tied around her neck thrown into a river. There's a horrible history of people, okay? And some of that was just the way of the times, they say, I like to point out, it wasn't the way of Balthasar Hubmeier, he was a man of peace. He said that we should try to win people not with sword and fire, but with persuasion and love and patience, because that's what Jesus did for us. And so his theology drove his methodology, and so I think the history shows that there's a lot of teaching that's more deterministic, but that's because the determinists burned all the other books. The people of the more timid people that were oftentimes more pacifist, their stuff was getting burned up and thrown away. And so it's it looks like when you look at throughout Christian history that there are so many more Calvinists out there when the truth is there was always has always been a strong line of people who did not believe that way and have not taught that way and It's just harder to find them because of the way the history has developed. We have Chris here. Thank you, Dr. Flowers, for being here tonight. I'm really loving this. My question is framed by Galatians 1, 6, and 7. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel, which is not another, but there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. And Pastor, if you can help with framing this with what I'm about to say next, if you feel that you could do that, that'd be great. But my question has to do with an appreciation for your grace that you show towards Calvinists and those that believe differently from us, and that they are Christian brothers and that they do preach the gospel. But I specifically reference this because when you encounter somebody, and this happened to me twice, You share the gospel with them, and they believe with you. And then the next day, they maybe say, well, I don't know if I'm chosen. I'm not actually saved. And then who knows what path goes next, hopefully a good path to where you can guide them back to the truth that it's not a matter of being elect, it's a matter of belief and faith. Is there a point where that gospel with a mix of Calvinism becomes a different gospel? and it becomes anathema, it becomes something that's wrong because that person believes they need two things. They need faith and they need to be chosen. Is there any point where Calvinism becomes that or not really? So Chris has had a brush in with hyper-Calvinism and has a counseling situation with a specific person who has some family members that are hyper-hyper-Calvinistic. and he's had that experience. So I guess Chris's question is, at what point is it such false doctrine that you would say that there's no cooperative fellowship to be had with this brother? I get that question a lot and that is difficult because it's hard to be really respectful to the individual Calvinist while at the same time preaching that their doctrine that they're teaching is another gospel and those kinds of things. Matter of fact, there are some Calvinists that are guilty of doing that to us where they'll say that you know, Calvinism is the gospel. And if you don't believe Calvinism, then you don't really believe the gospel and those kinds of things. And I call them out for this too. Um, but I, it's hard to say without knowing the individual and what they believe and who they are and what they're saying. So I can't give like a blanket statement for all Calvinist or all views. I will say for me, I know that if, if someone denies the, the well-meant offer of the gospel as it's referred to, in other words, that God genuinely, um, expresses his love and desire for the salvation of all people and wants everyone to know that, If anybody gets to the point where they're denying that or undercutting that, I personally would feel uncomfortable fellowshipping with them in the same church. Now, people like John MacArthur, for example, even have written a book of God's love for all because he's trying to combat the higher Calvinist that tries to say, oh, God only loves the elect and he, you know, this, this and this, and the kind of the more hyper views. He's trying to counterbalance that. And so I think it's inconsistent theologically and I've, had broadcast to explain why I think MacArthur's inconsistent, but at least it's a blessed inconsistency in that he's being biblical to proclaim God's love and desire for all to be saved. And so when a person is so consistent within their Calvinism that they deny the well-meant offer that is the expression of God's loving desire for the salvation and the offer of the gospel to all people, when they start denying that, that for me would be when I as a pastor would say, you know, love you, but I don't think that you're going to fit here theologically with us. I don't think you need to be a part of this denomination or even maybe this church or this denomination, maybe even because of, of your particular stance on that view. Um, doesn't mean, I mean, even an atheist who's an unbeliever, you can show respect to that person. And so how much more so can you show respect to a person who is claiming faith in Christ and believing Christ, but may have a misunderstanding, of certain theological concepts and ideas, especially philosophical, like the brother brought up over here with the God's knowledge. And I mean, infinite knowledge of God, there's a lot of people who call themselves Calvinist based on that alone. They're just like, well, God knew everything before he created it, therefore he must have determined it. And it's just a philosophical automatic conclusion they just come to. And it's not really anything, they don't live their life any different. It doesn't really affect them. They live like free will is true and everything else, but they just kind of say, well, Calvinism must be true. I mean, it's just kind of, God knows everything, so it must be true," or something like that. And some people come to that kind of baseline philosophical conclusion, and that's not somebody I would split hairs with and are getting, you know, like, you can't be a part of my church anymore because they may just have a philosophical quandary or a misunderstanding differently than I have. Where it becomes an issue is when it affects evangelism, when it affects your proclamation and love to people when it's keeping people from it, it's causing the little one to stumble. See the point there. I mean the Bible is really clear. You do not cause others to stumble. And so if your theology is getting so out there that it's causing the little ones to stumble and, and causing people to say, ah, I just don't know, you know, if God really loves me or not, those kinds of things, That, I do believe, needs to be called out as dangerous and as not gospel. It's not the truth of God's Word. And I don't think there's any...there's no reason you can't, in respect for the person, still say that their theology is false and it's not gospel. It's not of God. You can say both. You can be respectful and loving towards a person. Matter of fact, it is more loving for you to call them out for teaching something that's a false gospel or false than it is to just be quiet about it for the sake of unity because that's not really loving. You're not showing that you really care about them if you're not willing to call them out on something that you know is false. I hope that helps. That's why I'm thankful for resources like your book. because whenever I've brushed shoulders with hyper-Calvinists within the church that maybe are visiting or things like that, we don't have any members that are hyper-Calvinist. But I have brushed up with people like we're talking about where I can hand them a resource. And what I have found is that a lot of the people that claim these hyper-Calvinistic views haven't studied it for themselves. They're just parroting a podcast. They're parroting something that they're hearing. It's not really from the depths of scripture they're drawing this knowledge. So to be able to hand someone a resource like Dr. Flower's book or, you know, if their question is Romans 9 through 11 or the other book about God's goodness, to be able to give them that resource and as a pastor put the monkey on their back and say, hey, read this resource and then let's come back together if they're willing to put in that work. That's when I know that this is someone I can continue to really fellowship with and to invest time into. Otherwise, it's just conjecture from what they've heard from someone, and then it gets really difficult to counsel with them. All right, so we'll go to people, first of all, that haven't asked a question yet. I see Brother Bob, and then I think Miss Stevie would be next. Okay, I have two questions. One is, I want to know how Calvinists deal with a few of these verses. 1 Corinthians 9.17, which talks about, for if I do the thing willingly, I have reward. This deals with free will or not, I guess. There's another one, 1 Corinthians 7.37, he that hath power over his own will, it talks about will again. And 1 Corinthians 10.13, there hath no temptation taken you, He will not allow you to be tempted above what you can handle, which suggests that you have free will. How do the Calvinists handle those verses? Depends on the Calvinist. Like I told you before, it's not monolithic, so they're going to have different answers to that. John Piper, for example, would probably talk about the two wills of God. on his perspective, if you typed in the two wills of God, John Piper, it'd be the first article that came up, you can go read it for yourself. But he refers to what's often times called the prescriptive will of God versus the decreative will of God. And the prescriptive will is what he prescribes outwardly, but the decretive will is what actually is going to happen. Because according to Calvinist, God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass and everything. Everything that ends up happening is ultimately happening because God has decreed that it will happen that way. And it's not that just God that knows and allows everything that happens. It's that God actually decreed it to happen for his own glory and for his own purposes. And, and that is very, obviously a very theistic, uh, it's called theistic determinism. Philosophically it's God determines whatsoever comes to pass in that sense, but they'll still argue for mysteriously that you're making your own choices. Your choices are in accordance with what God's decreed for you to want, in the given circumstances that he's also meticulously decreed, but they would still say you're responsible for it because you're doing what you want to do in those given circumstances. And so some of the verses like that, that refer to your freedom of will and the choices that you make, they would kind of drop all of those kinds of verses into the category of God's prescriptive will, that you're acting out in time exactly what you want to do, so you're doing that freely. But behind the scenes, everything that's coming to pass is ultimately in accordance with what God's decreed it to be. Again, I'm trying to give you something that has pages and pages and pages of books have been spilled upon trying to describe all these things in a short little concise answer, and I'm sure I'm not doing it justice, but I'm just trying to give you a touch of how philosophically some of those kinds of issues are handled by Calvinists. And again, different Calvinists would handle them different ways, and each one of those verses would take a little bit of time, nuanced, to try to explain them from a Calvinist vantage point. But the best I could say is probably to look at someone like a John MacArthur study Bible, or you could even go online and some of the Calvinistic resource pages and you could look at their commentary. Well, John Calvin has a commentary that's free online. You can look at John Calvin's own commentary on those verses to see what he might say about it. But like I said, in my first service, sometimes Calvinists have the same vocabulary, but a different dictionary. And so a lot of things they'll say will sound exactly like what you would hear a non-Calvinistic pastor or theologian say, but they might mean something a little different by it. So I know that's not probably satisfying to give a full answer, but I'm trying to touch on how they might deal with issues like that. Okay, my second question is on accountability and not infants, but let's start off by just saying this. Apostle Paul said that we see through a half glass, half darkly. We don't know everything. We're not going to know everything right now. We're just not going to. There's some things we don't know. But speculative, I was thinking about this and I, unaccountably as far as that goes, we always learned about the high priest and how they wanted Jesus put to death. And I know the motives of a lot of them were power and they didn't want Jesus disrupting the apple cart and all that. But I look at people like Nicodemus, and it looked like there was sincerity there, and he just didn't know at the time. And then I look at what Paul talks about where he says he was a zealous for God. I mean, I think he really thought at one time he was doing the right thing. So, as far as Calvary goes, was Paul accountable before he knew better for what he was doing? there's some debate on that. I do think there are some passages of scripture that do indicate, um, and I don't know the citations off the top of my head, but you know, they say something like, because you say you not, you have knowledge of this, um, you're, you're more guilty now because you're not listening. Um, or you're even more accountable now that you do have the light and revelation. Um, there's, there's certain verses that do tend to, to demonstrate the fact that, well, it makes sense. Obviously, if you haven't told your child to do something or given your child the knowledge of something, you're going to be less likely obviously to hold them accountable to that knowledge if they don't know it yet. And, and I do believe there are some passages of scripture which indicate God's mercy for and understanding for those who act in ignorance of certain things. Um, but there's still accountability to what, what the conscience tells us. And the Bible is pretty clear about that in Romans one and two, that what can be known of God is made evident, and not only through nature, but through conscience, that God has built within us at least a baseline understanding of right and wrong. And when we act against that conscience, we're acting against the law of God written on our hearts. And so I do believe God does hold people accountable for that. But keep in mind, no one ends up in hell because of the number of sins they commit or because they were born under Adam. the Bible says that you will be judged by what you do with the words of Christ. And they, they says they perish because I refuse to love the truth so as to be saved. So I, I honestly believe that heaven and hell is not going to be based upon the number of sins because Let's just be honest, there's some people who've sinned a whole lot right here in this room, right? Myself included. And we're bound for heaven not based upon the sins or the lack thereof, but based upon the goodness of Christ and his righteousness. And so keeping that in mind is so important to understand that the way in which we're held accountable in the end on judgment, is what we've done with Christ, is what we've done with the truth, not based upon our wrongdoings or our sin for obvious reasons. I know that gets around, there's a lot of other things we could talk about there, but trying to keep it somewhat brief for other people to have questions. All right, for the remainder of the question time, if you could just have one of your questions, several of you've had two, that's okay, but from this point on, let's just have one per person. There's been this lesson that's been going around that if you try to win an argument, all you are going to do is win their contempt. How do you go about talking to a Calvinist while also trying not to make them defensive, but also sharing the truth in love and them receiving it? That's a great question. And in fact, we've had some, I've had some broadcasts on that very topic. Um, talking about, we talk about when the relationship versus winning the argument. Um, it doesn't mean you have to make weak arguments. It doesn't mean you have to be lax on what you believe is truth. But when, when somebody knows you actually care about them and you're seeking to understand them, it really goes a long way. And I'm not always successful at that by the way. Um, sometimes my emotions get the best of me or my passion for what I believe is true, gets the best of me. And I've had to apologize for that. I think we all run into that at times, but my goal and my desire is to help the person I'm having a discussion with, especially if it's in person. It's one thing that's online. Online stuff can get really messy really quickly because you're talking to avatars half the time and you can't see their face and you don't relate to them as a real human being and it can really stay away from Twitter battles. It's just not worth it in my opinion. And even still, we put up stuff on Twitter because we're trying to get people engaged in conversation to draw us to the broadcast where we can have discussions. But in real life, coffee table discussions with your own friends and someone's disagreeing with you. This is true just of any argument, by the way. All the spouses in the room who have kids that are rebellious or your wife and your husband are having problems, this is just true generally for relationship advice, which I am not qualified to give, but at the same time, here it is. Listening and helping them feel understood before you disagree makes a ton of difference. Helping them and restating basic stuff, restating what you're hearing them say and say, here's what I hear you're saying, Here's what I understand that you believe. I get that. I understand. So being able to say, I understand before you say I disagree is huge. And, and then in disagreeing with respect, say, you know, even saying that, I hear what you're saying. Here's, I understand what you're saying. Here's why I disagree. Love you. But here's why I disagree with that. And that really goes a long way for them to recognize that you're not just trying to argue or win an argument. You really are trying to help them to understand where you're coming from. Again, a lot easier said than done when you're in the heat of the moment and you're back and forth. But I think that's a goal we should all have. And then I see Brother Albert back there. And then you said you have one right over here. Oh, OK. Go ahead. He's got his own mic up there. Go ahead. I have a question. Who is the most, as far as nominations that are known for Presbyterians are probably the most known for being Calvinistic. The Baptists probably second on the list, I would guess. And a lot of times people confuse the once-saved-always-saved or eternal security doctrine with Calvinism. They just assume that's all the same thing because Calvinists do affirm perseverance of the saints, but for different reasons. And so, um, uh, there's, there's been in the history, there's what was called general Baptist versus particular Baptist. The general Baptist believed in a general atonement for all people, whereas the particular Baptist believed in a particular atonement for the elect alone. And so there was a split back in the Sandy Creek revival and all this stuff. If you study the Baptist history, there's always been among Baptist, both particular and general Baptist. And, and that's moved into today's world where you have, The Southern Baptist was actually started by Calvinists. A lot of people don't know that, but they ended up kind of moving away from Calvinism in the 20s, 30s, and 40s, and that's when they exploded into the largest denomination, you know, Protestant denomination in the world was under more of a whosoever will kind of provisionist theology. And so that's what's known more today, so. All right, Brother Albert. You've mentioned different dictionaries earlier. Does God's sovereignty mean something different to a provisionist versus a Calvinist? For the Calvinists that know what sovereignty means, no. And there are some of them. I've actually quoted some Calvinists who correct other Calvinists for misusing the word sovereignty. because the word sovereign doesn't mean determinism or that God determines all things. But that's the way people have used it wrongly in times. And then I quote from some Calvinists that say, actually the word providence is actually the word they should be using because sovereignty means the right to rule as one pleases. So like Psalm 115.3 says, God sits in heavens and does what he pleases. That's sovereignty. The sovereign, the king, the ruler can do whatever he wants to do. And we all agree with that. The question is, what does he want to do? That's the debate. Does he want to rule people that he ultimately controls through some meticulous providence? Or does he want to rule people who have libertarian, genuinely free will, that can make real choices and decisions that make love worth having, as C.S. Lewis argues? So the question is not whether God's sovereign. It is how has the sovereign chosen to create this world? Has he chosen to create a world where people are ultimately determined by his sovereign decree? Or has he chosen to create a world where we're able to make independent, autonomous decisions and choices that we're responsible for? I think it's the latter. And Calvinists, at least many of them, think it's the former. What's interesting about Psalm 115.3, he sits in heavens and does what he pleases. Down in verse 16 of that same chapter, it says, the heavenlies belong to the father, but the earth he has given over to man. And so that that seems to indicate that God's will as the sovereign is to give us a level of autonomy of there's rulers and principalities and authorities in this world that yes will be conquered and are under the control of God in the sense that God is the one who's ultimately controlling all things. There's a difference between being in control though and meticulously determining everything. The leader of a department head can be, he can say he's in control of the department, but he as the control of the department may choose to give his underlings, his staff, certain level of control or autonomy in their departments. But he's still the one in charge. And so the person in charge has at his disposal decisions that he can make. And I believe one of those decisions is to give us, his image bearers, the ability to make free choices, choices that we're accountable for. And again, some Calvinists agree with that. They would just say the choice about salvation is ultimately within God's control. All other choices might be other libertarian free choices. Greg Koukl is a Calvinist like that. I think it's a very, inconsistent form of Calvinism that I've continued with on the broadcast. But there are some Calvinists who do believe, yes, God controls your choice as to whether you'll believe in him or not, but you do make other free choices that God doesn't necessarily determine or decree. And how that's consistent is beyond me based upon the way Calvinists defend their view of determinism. But you can go watch that broadcast if you want to get into that a little bit more in depth. But hopefully that's a little bit more clear. All right. You don't say names out of like respect, but in your time, what was one of the like funkiest or wildest claims that someone of Calvinist beliefs has said? And would you please explain back to us why that's wrong? what was already brought up earlier. Um, when, when some, some Calvinists will claim, uh, when you're talking about salvation of infants, well, they won't come out right out and say any infant that's aborted or any infant that dies goes to heaven, that God would save them. God would show the mercy if they, if they would say instead, God might elect to save some and not others. That's his choice. I, that, that, that to me is just crazy. It's just, uh, it's just so far out there. And, and the reason I think, it's so wrong is because the Bible is very clear about God's mercy and His grace and the innocence of babies. And so I just, that's probably the wildest one and probably the one I speak out so strongly against when I hear it because it's just so, it so impugns the character of God. It's really embarrassing to Christianity as a whole when people hold to it. All right, so Jose up here. And then we'll take three more after Jose, if that's okay with you. and be out of here by around 7.15. This is my favorite thing is talking theology, so I'm good. We'll be here until 8.30. I'm just kidding. So my question is, in all your time that you've been, you know, debating Calvinists and all that, what are some of the more effective ways that you have found to get them to start thinking? Because nine times out of 10, when you're talking to anybody about their faith and you're contrary, their defenses immediately go up. How do you get past that and get them to actually think? Because the relationship is great, but you kind of need something to push them in that direction without being offensive and without being too abrasive. Again, this is a principle across the board, even if you're talking to a lost person, an atheist or something like that, it's the same thing. It's allowing them to have space to know that you care about them. They care about how much you care versus how much you know, that kind of thing that we talked about this morning. That's true with anything. So anytime you're disagreeing with somebody about anything, giving them that space and to say, letting them know you care about them, regardless of where they land on this issue, that gives them the freedom to kind of grapple with it. The people that I've had on social media, which is very difficult to convince anybody through social media and debates and those kinds of things, because like you said, the defenses go up. It's hard to even get past it. The times that that's been successful, though, is through the videos and other things that have been sent to Calvinists, and then I'll get testimonies. There's even a Facebook page that was created of former Calvinists that have now been converted, and there's a section of them that credit me or something with that as being kind of the catalyst for it, and there was a little section that was sent to me. And it was real humbling to see that there was all these testimonies of how I had convinced these guys to leave Calvinism. And what was predominantly seen throughout all of them was Leighton was the only guy that wasn't shouting us down as a heretic. He was being nice to us. He was respecting our, you know, our views. I mean, he was going above and beyond it. And they just kept talking about, and I think the only reason I've been that way is because I was a Calvinist for so long and I, And I don't think they're heretics. And I didn't think I was lost in a heretic when I was a Calvinist and going to hell or something because I misunderstood some things. And so I don't treat them that way. And so I think that that helped them to kind of drop their defenses a little bit to be able to kind of look at it from a different perspective. And then you know, not, not allowing it to be the end all be all for the relationship to, to be able to say, you know, even if you'd never agree with me on this issue, I'm still going to care about you. I'm still gonna, you know, treat you with respect and love. I mean, we'll get up to heaven and you know, you'll find out you were wrong, but until then, you know, I'm going to love you. Um, and I'm sure I'm going to find out I'm wrong about some things too. Of course we all are. But that's just, that's a part of being a brother and sister in Christ. Family members are gonna disagree about things. And so in learning how to love each other while you disagree is, it's just a, it's a mark of Christian maturity. This is what's interesting about this. I don't say this because I want you to hear it. When Jesus said, this is how you will know mine. This is how you will know who mine are, who are my children. He doesn't give you a doctrinal fidelity list. Like, okay, they have to believe this doctrine. Check this doctrine. Check this doctrine. Check. Oh, this doctor. That's how you'll know which ones are mine. He doesn't go there. What does he say by how they treat each other by their love? What, what else? How much more clear can you be than that? And this is one of the ways I've really made a decision about the people I will invest my, a lot of more of my time in. If I, if I don't see that they're having, genuine love towards me or respect towards me as a fellow brethren in Christ I've chosen more and more because the bigger the podcast gets the more people who want to contend with me and come and talk and do all these kinds of things and I have to be discerning because I can't talk to every one of them but one of the things that I've that I've used to help me make those decisions is Do they have the love of Christ? Do I feel that they have the love of Christ in them because I'm not going to contend with somebody who is starting in a completely wrong starting place because I don't need to be debating theology with them. I need to be calling them to forgiveness and salvation because I don't know that they are based upon that fruit based upon the distance I have with this person. I don't know him from Adam. If the first thing I hear out of their mouth is just these horrible bad ways of disrespect and lack of love and everything else, I need to be evangelizing that person. I don't need to be debating theology with them. And so that's kind of one of the ways in which I've kind of parsed that out and try to understand that. And again, I may be wrong. That might be just a good Christian brother that's having a bad day. I don't know, but I, I have to be able to have something to help me discern. And the Bible does give us that verse. This is how you will know which ones are mine by how they treat one another by the love. I have a question. Um, what was the thing that made you realize that Calvinism wasn't for you? Was it like a sermon? God just smacking you upside the head being like, Hey, maybe this isn't the way. What was it? Um, it started when the seed really hit was now all throughout my Calvinism, there were little questions here and there that I had along the way, but I would always just kind of placate my doubts by saying, well, I don't know the answer to that, but I know Piper would know the answer to that. If somebody asked, I just, I'll go look it up sometime if I can get to it. But I don't know how to deal with that issue, but the big guys, the smart guys could. And so I'd kind of just push those little issues off to the side when I was a Calvinist. But what really set me on the journey to kind of start questioning is I was reading A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy. And I thought A. W. Tozer was a Calvinist because John Piper quoted him almost every book. Tozer is one of Piper's heroes. And so I assumed wrongly that Tozer was a Calvinist because he was quoted by Piper. And so Tozer, I would thought I was reading in my safe echo chamber, you know, cause I thought he was one of me and I found out he wasn't. And it kind of rocked my world cause I had such a high view of a W Tozer cause I just, his teaching and his work is just so deep and rich. And that shocked me. I was like, how in the world could God be this bright and this knowledgeable, the Bible and be, And not only was he not a Calvinist, he preached against it. You know, it was very strong against Calvinism. Um, and then I found out the same thing by CS Lewis as well. Another guy I really have a huge amount of respect for who also spoke out against Calvinism quite vehemently. In fact, um, when I found that out, I began to go, how could these guys who I have such respect for not agree with us? So obvious it's, I mean, Romans nine right there. I mean, can they read, you know, what's wrong with them? That's I've remembered we're thinking that. And I had debated when I was in college and high school, And in debate, you learn to take on both sides of an issue, and you have to be able to debate both sides equally well. And I thought to myself, I've never really done that with this issue. And so, um, I thought, well, I'm going to strengthen my Calvinism by taking on the other side and trying to defeat Calvinism and trying to figure out why CS Lewis said what he did. Why did a W Tozer say what they said? And I found so many other theologians that would have really strong arguments. And the more I studied those arguments and the more I studied the answers from Calvinists, I began to get more and more disillusioned with Calvinism and begin to go, ah, there's a lot more kinks in the armor than I thought there were. And it started off with just respect for Armenians and respect for non-Calvinist in general. That's what it started with. And I didn't agree with them, but I started respecting them more and I started going, okay, these guys really are serious Bible people because before I just thought they weren't real serious Bible people. They meant well, but they just weren't real serious Bible people like Piper was or MacArthur. Those are serious Bible people. These guys not serious Bible people. That's kind of my mind mindset. Once that shifted and I began to respect them and no, they're serious Bible people too. They just disagree. And then I began to go, why do they disagree? And once I understood why they disagreed and I could not find a good answer for why they disagreed and Calvinists weren't giving me good answers, then I began to, the chinks in the armor, just one after another in the straw broke the camel's back. The biggest issue was parables. Um, and if you, I go in depth more about that. Just type it. So child, you want to one YouTube and you could type in the word parables. Why does Jesus use parables? That was probably a straw that broke the camel's back for me leaving Calvinism. Because when you really understand why Jesus used parables, you begin to understand the theme of scripture and what's happening behind the scenes that many of us miss. And I get really in depth into that in the John six book, drawn by Jesus. And on many of the broadcasts that I do, if you typed in the word parables, so geology, one-on-one parables, you could find some of those and look at some of those. But that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me, really. And we'll take one or two more questions. All right, we'll go with this lady right here. I'm sorry. I don't know your name, ma'am. My name's Rosie Newell, visitor. So my question, what's the difference or the distinction between provisionalism and Arminianism? That's a very good question and very common question. A lot of people call me an Arminian and I don't really get overly offended by that because I know what they mean. They usually mean non-Calvinist. Somebody who's not a Calvinist is often just automatically into the blanket Arminian camp. But what some people don't understand is that Arminius, Jacobus Arminius, the namesake for Arminianism, was actually a student of Geneva under Calvin and Beza and the Calvinistic system. And so some of what Arminius held to was very consistent with the Calvinistic framework, the starting points of Calvinism, some of which I've disagreed with. other non-Calvinists have disagreed with, that aren't in that Western Augustinian mindset. And I know I'm saying a lot of stuff that may be kind of outside the purview of your studies, but what I'm trying to get to is that that concept of inability, if you were this morning's session, where I talked about how the Augustinian or Calvinistic assumption is that we're born in a condition where we can't positively respond to the gospel. Armenians, instead of contending with that, they'll just say, okay, we accept that. But what God's going to do is he's going to step in with a pervenient grace and give us back that ability that apparently we lost. And that just seems like unnecessary theological baggage to me. I don't think that we ever lost that ability because of the fall. Um, and so I contend with even some Armenians over that point. And so even Armenians would say, well, that's not exactly what we would, we won't want to claim Layton as an Armenian because we believe differently than Layton does on some points. There's also the issue of perseverance. Um, most Armenians are, um, more known for believing that you can lose your salvation. Um, some of them even so much so like you send too much, God will cast you out, you know, that you can out send God's grace, that kind of thing. And, and that's not all Armenians by the way. Some Armenians don't, I absolutely agree with that, just so you know. But sometimes Armenianism is more known for the loss of salvation concepts. And so if I just come out and say, I'm an Armenian, some people would just assume that's what I am. And that's not accurate description of what I am. That's the shortcoming of labels is that many Calvinists don't like the Calvinistic label. Armenians usually don't like the Armenian label. One of the reasons I've called myself a provisionist is that it's so simple and that it includes a bigger umbrella. I include Armenians under the provisionist label personally because they believe God provides for the salvation of every man, woman, boy, and girl, and that's what provisionism ultimately is. It's the umbrella that's ultimately denying the unique claim of Calvinists, which is that God has selected a certain number of people that he's going to effectually save and the rest are born incapable or hopeless of salvation. And I, I found that to be completely unbiblical. And that's what provisionism is ultimately standing against that doctrine because it's positive affirmation is God's love and provision for every single person. And then I think our last question is going to go to brother Albert back there. That was your question? Okay. Any other questions tonight? We'll take one more. I guess we have a couple. You guys are one flesh. You got to combine your question. I think mine will be more simple. If one is a Calvinist, can they ever have the surety that they're going to be, that they were the one that is predestined for heaven? Logically? No. In my estimation. Now they say they can have assurance. but I don't know how it's possible given that God could have predestined them to think they're saved when they're really not. Because if God's the kind of God that decrees whatsoever comes to past, then, and they do believe there are some people who think they're Christians who really aren't. And I can just say, how do you know you're not one of those people? How do you know if God's the type of person that would do that, then how can you possibly trust that God hasn't done that to you? And I've stumped a lot of Calvinists with that question because I don't think there's a rational answer to it. I think that they, All they can really do is special plead and say, well, I just know, well, that's what everybody who is predestined to just know would say. But how do you know God hasn't predestined you to deny Christ tomorrow? If he's the kind of God that would do that. And that's, that's where it gets into the character of God, trustworthiness of God issues. I don't believe God's the kind of God that would do that to people. And so, um, if you believe that God is the kind of God that would predestine certain people to believe they're saved when they're really not, then how in the world can you call him trustworthy and how can you trust that he's going to save you or that he has your well intentions in mind for you? I believe God has well intentions for everybody and wants all people to be saved. So I don't have a problem with that. That's not an issue for me. And so my assurance rests in him and my belief and trust in his trustworthiness. And so you have to have, you have to have a trustworthy deity in order to have trust and assurance. And I don't think Calvinism can have a trustworthy deity given the claims of their system. Again, a Calvinist would make hay about that. They would not think that that's true, but they're not sitting on the stage right now. So I get to say what I want. Dr. Flowers, I think that is what makes me most righteously angry against Calvinism is that I, as a pastor, I've sat in my office and looked at people in the eye as they cry and they say, I don't know if God loves me and I don't know if I'm elect. And some of you have asked, why am I passionate about this topic? And it seems to come up, it'll come up in scripture because free will is from cover to cover. So it's easy to kind of bash on Calvinism as you walk through it. Maybe I do it too many times sometimes as I exposit, I understand that. But that is one of the main things. So you know from my pastor's heart as we close, I want you to know with full assurance that God loves you. And I believe if you take Calvinism at its word, you can't know that. So that is one thing I think that's really important pertaining to the character of God, is God's love for us, and is a big reason for having you come. So I appreciate your answer to that question, appreciate you asking the perfect final question. Oh, you want me to have Brother Chris? Okay, all right, Brother Chris? He's already got the microphone. Okay, go ahead, go ahead, all right. Hopefully this is an easy one. Last question. My question is, I've heard it said, and it was kind of alluded to in your sermon, or your lesson this morning, is that Calvinism kind of waxes and wanes throughout church history. Are we on a wax or a wane right now? And whenever it increases, is it a threat to the church? Or is it kind of like a fad of just kind of incorrect doctrine that we just kind of wait for it to go away? I have an episode with Al Mohler, who is the president of Southern Seminary, the largest Southern Baptist seminary and probably the most influential person in the Southern Baptist life right now because he really helps to place the theologians and the deans and such in all of the other major Southern Baptist schools. And he is a five-point Calvinist, outspoken five-point Calvinist. And he did a broadcast where he talks about how Calvinism has resurged up in popularity about four or five times over the last 500 years. And it always tends to wane back out. Phil Johnson, who is, um, the president of grace to you ministries with John MacArthur. He's also a very staunch five point Calvinist. And he talks about this same thing. In fact, he predicts that this current resurging of Calvinism, which I think is maybe plateaued and maybe starting to kind of trickle down a little bit. He predicts and predicted years ago that it would die back out. And he said, he believes that it will be eaten up by hyper-Calvinism. And he says he bases that upon the fact that history repeats itself. And that's what's happened the last four times that Calvinism has surged up, that hyper Calvinism eats it and that kills it. In other words, and I always like to ingest, push back to those two brothers and say, why would God ordain that? Why would God decree whatsoever comes to pass and decree for his truth to be eaten out by this philosophy of man which is anti-evangelistic and brings doubt upon the character of God? That just doesn't make any rational sense to me. Truth bears itself out and it's the evidence of its fruit. And Calvinism's fruit has repeatedly shown itself to be destructive towards evangelism. and towards the belief of God's good character and well-meant offer of the gospel. Even despite good Calvinists like MacArthur and Piper standing against that movement, trying to keep it from happening, it still naturally goes that way because the man-made philosophy, I think, is driven to the ground into being consistent with itself. And so I even have one episode with Piper. It's so perfectly describes the fault line of Calvinism because he's answering questions in a prison. He's actually in prison doing like I'm doing here, answering questions just like this. And one guy's asking about these kinds of things. And he's saying, it's so more important to be more biblical than it is to be reformed or to be more biblical than Calvinistic or something like that. And I was like, that's right. And what his point is, is that if you become too Calvinistic, in other words, too consistent with Calvinism, you become anti-biblical. And even a good Calvinist like him can recognize that. And that's the problem with the system, is when it's consistent and it's consistently applied, it eats its own and it kills itself. Proving it's not truth, because truth doesn't do that to itself. Truth works. Truth survives. Truth doesn't eat its own. Truth doesn't die back out. It's eternal. And so, I just have to push back on my Calvinist friends as that should be really good evidence for the weakness of the system as a whole. Amen. Good last question. Dr. Flowers, it's been an honor to have you. Thank you so much for joining us today.