Who gets to say what’s a heresy?

Hus and Luther were officially condemned a heretics, and by extension all Protestants.

Do you affirm believer’s baptism over infant baptism? Luther and Zwingli persecuted the Anabaptists for holding this belief.

Have you ever been accused of being a Pelagian, condemned by the Council of Orange? Do you believe God decrees evil as Calvin, White, Piper and many other Calvinists do – which is anathema according to the same Council of Orange?

Do you hold to Limited Atonement? You mean the teachings of Gottschalk of Orbais that were condemned as heretical at two councils? Limited Atonement which Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, 1/3 of Dort, 1/4 of Westminster and many other Reformed rejected?

What exact percentage admixture of God/man do you say Jesus Christ was composed of? Explain in careful and exact correct orthodoxy, or you’ll be exiled to the farthest corners of the world by the Imperial Church.

Go back even further, to when Jesus was condemned by the Jewish leaders for alleged blasphemy by claiming to be God – followed by the persecution of the first Christians for being part of the ‘sect of the Nazarenes’.

Many of us have been accused of heresy for all sorts of reasons. When do you think YOUR turn will come? Do you really think it will be never? Flip open a history book sometime.

So forgive me if I rather take my chances standing before God to explain why I DIDN’T persecute someone for ‘heresy’.

YES DR. WHITE, SOME THINGS ARE IMPLICIT ALTHOUGH NOT EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE TEXT

James White during the #FlowersVSWhite debate 2024 accused Leighton Flowers of the following:

“If we’re going to many of the ways around this text, try to insert a break in verse 44 to where you have people who are drawn by the Father, but then they have to do something… They have their Free Will actions or whatever else it might be. And those who are raised up at the last day become a different group? You cannot do that with the language.”

And:

“What has happened is, Dr Flowers has inserted an entire anthropology – not from Romans 1 – but an entire anthropology into verse 45, which grants to people the capacity to hear and learn; and therefore they follow the Father; and therefore they’re given to the Son.”

But is Flowers wrong in assuming (or presupposing, a word that came up a lot in the debate) that the people who are drawn have to do something else, not mentioned in John 6:44-45?

Well as mentioned from 11:00 onwards in this video:

There is another statement by Jesus that we can use to compare against Jon 6:44. It comes just a few verses earlier:

Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man SHALL give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. – John 6:27

Emphasis on SHALL, because that is the key point. Jesus seems to be making a certain statement, the text itself mentions no conditions or mere possibility. But read on further, and basically the entire crowd of people whom Jesus addresses – the same ones He says that He SHALL give the enduring meat – walk away from Jesus. They did not receive the meat. Clearly, there is an implicit condition that is not stated in that particular verse!

Isn’t that also what we see in John 6:44-45?

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I WILL raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they SHALL be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, COMETH unto me. – John 6:44-45?

A lot of statements of certainty in those verses, yes? But does that mean there are no implicit conditions? (This is aside from Flowers’ argument that v45 itself states the conditions for v44, everyone is drawn but only those who hear and learn (actively, not passively) will come to Jesus.

Oooooooh wait, I missed one non-certain word there: CAN. That implies mere possibility, not the certainty which is asserted by Irresistible Grace!

Anyway, for more implied conditions, look at many of the prophecies which are worded as if they are certainties with no options given (e.g. Keilah in 1 Sam 23; Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20; Nineveh in Jonah 3), but the actual results ended up different because of people’s responses to the warning.

ANATHEMIZING OPEN THEISM – A DIRE PREDICTION FOR CALVINISM

NB: Forgive me for any imprecise or inaccurate descriptions in the following.

I’m going to make a prediction – it is not something I HOPE will happen, but something I FEAR will happen.

I predict that if Calvinists push hard enough against Open Theism (and Dynamic Omniscience) – if they draw a hard line in the sand and insist that all other believers choose a side – they will encounter serious, unintended consequences.

The line in the sand is this: Open Theism is formally declared anathema, heresy, a non-negotiable reason to break fellowship and exclude from the Kingdom Tent, not even fraternizing with this enemy will be tolerated. We already see a lot of this going on, but for an easily observable example, say that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) formally declares that no leeway will be given to Open Theism. IIRC this was narrowly avoided in past dicussions.

The unintended consequence will be this: Calvinism will suffer the same fate it consigns Open Theism to.

The rationale is this: By forcing every Christian to denounce Open Theism, many of these churchgoers will realize they actually dislike and disagree with Calvinism even more. The mental block, politeness filter, gentleman’s agreement will fall off – or rather, will have been ripped off by Calvinism forcing the issue.

In fact I think we already see some of this in action. Open Theism seems to be growing, and I think the actions of Calvinists contribute to this.

I’ve often seen Calvinists push the dichotomy that either God knows the future, OR people have real free choices – pick one. Those Calvinists pick the former, reject the latter – “God foreknows because He predestines” etc. And I’ve seen the exact same dichotomy pushed by Open Theists, who pick the latter instead.

Meanwhile, many Calvinists try to force the false dilemma that it’s EITHER Calvinism, or else you must affirm Open Theism. It’s a boogeyman scare tactic similar to their “You think man can choose God? Are you a Pelagian?” canard. James White has said on multiple occassions that “The only consistent non-Calvinist is an Open Theist.”

But the more that Calvinists push on this “Either you’re with us, or else you must be one of those HERETICS” false dichotomy, the more Christians are pushed AWAY from Calvinism. And if they buy the Calvinist’s false dilemma, they think therefore must turn to ‘the only other option’ – that being Open Theism. The Calvinist’s own plot backfires and turns around to bite them.

We might not realize it in our little (and it IS comparatively little) Internet Theology communities, but I hazard to guess that among regular churchgoers… Calvinism’s claims come across as much WORSE than “God does not / cannot / chooses not to know the future”. To the “I used to be Arminian, but then I learnt the truth of how the Bible teaches the Doctrines of Grace” folk out there, think back to how jarring Calvinism first appeared to you. Dragged kicking and screaming and crying into it, like Sproul and Piper said.

Of all the many odiferous teachings of Calvinism, in my experience I have found that the most shocking, horrifying and unacceptable doctrine is simply this: That Christ DID NOT give His life to save everybody. If you force the average Bible believer to pick a poison, they will sooner swallow the one labeled THE FUTURE IS OPEN.

And the bad example set by Cage Stagers doesn’t help their fellow Calvinists. All other things being equal, a non-aligned Christian forced to pick a side would probably not be partial to the guys calling them Pelagian, synergist, worship pagan goddess free will, barely saved, heretic, think they can save themself, stealing God’s glory, just hate God’s sovereignty… The more Cage Stagers tighten their grip on people’s throats, the more will slip through TULIP’s fingers.

And so to loop back to the line in the sand, what will happen if Open Theism is held up to the spotlight and every Christian forced to denounce it? Some time after that, people will realize that they felt all along: “You know what, Calvinism is actually worse.” The mental barrier preventing outright breaking of fellowship will have crumbled, and massive divides will ensue. Disagreements and debates like Calvinism/Traditionalism in the SBC will devolve into full on splits and parting of ways. The gloves will have come off, and it will have been the Calvinist denouncement of Open Theism that pulled them off.

Sure, Open Theism calls into question God’s ability to know the future – but Calvinism calls into question God’s good character. Go look up hashtag #KeepOnSinnin if you want the most egregrious examples. As Leighton Flowers has compared before, it’s one thing to belittle someone’s ability (you can’t herd a room full of kids very well) – it’s a whole ‘nuther thing to insult their character (you’re a child abuser and enjoy it).

So to the Calvinists, go ahead and continue prodding and provoking everyone else on the Open Theism issue. Mock Leighton Flowers for his lambasting the push for Open Theists to be pushed out of the SBC. Just don’t complain if you get pushed off the cliff next, in the mad stampede you triggered. You will have opened the floodgates, but the waters rush both ways. Both ends of the pendulum swing will be swept away by the flood, one cast out after the other.

You only will have yourselves to blame… Or maybe, blame God since it would have been God’s secret will all along having been unchangeably decreed in eternity past, right?

Let this be a solemn warning, and not an unwitting prophecy. I hope that I myself will not fall victim to it, being very big tent when it comes to these matters.

#FlowersVSWhite Debate 2024 – My Thoughts

The following are my opinions edited from live note-taking.

WHITE OPENING:

White talking about us moderns are too individualistic in our interpretation? You don’t say, rejectors of the corporate view of Romans 9?

His appeal to hermeneutics to interpret against Catholics, Unitarians is just a cheap pop appeal. It’s like when a WWE star says the name of the city, knowing everyone there will show affirmation.

How does proving that the Father draws result in Unconditional Election? White asserts several times throughout the debate that it is obvious, without explaining why.

I reckon it’s because if Total Depravity is presupposed, then everybody is equally worthless and unable to accept God. Hence the Father choosing some to draw must be unconditional, since there is no meaningful difference between anybody.

This is exactly what Flowers warns about presuppositions skewing whatever grammar or Greek is interpreted from the text.

FLOWERS OPENING:

Exegesis and Greek doesn’t override starting with a wrong presupposition.

Flowers is spot on. The Father draws sure, but WHERE IS THE UNCONDITIONAL?

Condemned by default VS by their fault, good mnemonic he will repeat several times.

Mentioning blinding those born already blind, what I call the Total Redundancy or Totaller Depravity problem.

Hahaha walking through the text, unity of the Father and the Son, he dares use White’s own spells against him!

Flowers is mentioning a lot of Calvinism’s touchpoints, I predict White will say he isn’t sticking to the text. But as some have noted, Flowers may have the bigger goal of putting a pebble in the shoe of Calvinists and fence-sitters on topics like blinding those born blind, faith precedes regeneration being the clear teaching of many passages, those who have no chance to receive Christ being condemned for that.

What he is doing is what Calvinists often do, mention other texts or Bible events briefly to bolster his thesis. It’s not quite a shotgun.

Baffling that Jesus marvels and weeps over those the united Godhead didn’t grant regeneration to.

WHITE REBUTTAL:

White asserts it, but doesn’t explain HOW it is obvious that if the Father draws then this is UNCONDITIONAL Election. Remember the title of the debate. The debate is NOT “Is John 6 teaching Total Inability”.

Backwards reading from v45 to v44? What verses? There are no verses in the original autograph. John didn’t suddenly stop between the ‘verses’. Forcing the text into two halves is to rip a tear in the middle of a flowing narrative, chopping it up into artificial parts. White himself says “Some people try to insert a break in v44” completely without any self-awareness or else without any consistency!

Documentary about sheep choosing Shepherd? Real sheep need to LEARN the voice of the shepherd, which supports Flowers’ view.

FLOWERS REBUTTAL:

Just because it’s emotional doesn’t mean it’s not true. Didn’t take the chance to say “Jesus wept” though, although he’s been referring to Jesus weeping over Jerusalem refusing to be gathered.

White talks like a dry ivory tower lecturer, Flowers preaches like an impassioned southerner.

Repeated, exegesis and Greek doesn’t override starting with a wrong presupposition.

Finally says, you say we don’t know why the Father gives to the Son, I say we do… NOT UNCONDITIONAL. I still feel he should have pressed and reminded more on this point, since it’s the debate title.

The bread of life is given to a crowd that includes those who won’t follow Jesus, not just to those who will be irresistibly drawn. This is similar to what John17apologetics mentioned in his video on John 6 hoping to give tips for this very debate, wonder if Flowers picked it up from there? I’ll post video link in comments below.

WHITE QUESTIONS ROUND 1

Flowers is very quick in response to White’s constant attempt at gotcha questions to cite a passage to explain his position. I think this is impressive to the churchgoer audience, giving Flowers an aura of Biblicalness. Honestly it felt like the teachers of the Law trying to trap Jesus with complicated questioning.

Smart to keep referring back to what White himself wrote or said, this is another of White’s old debate spells.

Flowers should have mentioned the meat thing tho.

Plain Common sense, student’s responsibilities to learn when teacher teaches.

FLOWERS QUESTIONS ROUND 1

Oof, quoting page 25 of White’s own book Drawn by the Father “When we come to him, when we believe on him, he becomes the source of our spiritual life”

But White dodges on whether people get life thru regeneration first

In White’s own exposition by default they are unable to believe

“I’ve given the answer” as a dodge, White’s usual tactic of not answering yes or no on a question where he knows a yes represents his views accurately but sounds horrible to the audience.

WHITE QUESTIONS ROUND 2

White keeps trying to pin Flowers to ONLY 6:44, Flowers keeps bringing in other passages especially from John to clarify the verse. White is the one who coined the phrase “We believe in Tota Scriptura”

What if v45 describes v44? Didn’t White opener scold for reading backwards???

FLOWERS QUESTIONS ROUND 2:

Flowers makes a good comparison to White’s own lectures and Jer 32:33, teaching does not equal the hearers choosing to learn

White dodges on the infant damnation of a Reprobate, appealing to the moderator that this is not on topic. This is classic James White, refusing to give a yes or no answer because the yes is accurate about his views but he knows how horrible it sounds to the audience. We saw this multiple times in the Craig vs White debate on Unbelievable on the question of whether Calvinism makes God the author of evil.

White also appeals to other passages, Jer 31 to explain 32.

White just contradicted himself, they have tremendous light and God has to harden them EVEN IF they are ignoring that light. So God is preventing them from doing something they wouldn’t do???

Capernaum vs Tyre Sidon, John17apologetics point about impossible to repent without drawing in addition to signs (see comment for link). Flowers presses on whether Jesus didn’t really mean it, but White throws a pointless jab at Middle Knowledge.

White quote, you believe because you’ve been made a new creation in Christ. White agrees yes.

2 Cor 5:17, John 6, 5:40 come drink eat to live flatly contradicts, but White does the usual Calvinist word dance around the Ordo Salutis.

White actually agrees, spiritually dead individuals need to be given spiritual life so that they can have true faith in Christ.

WHITE CLOSING:

Says he’s won because Flowers admitted that if White’s view is correct then John 6 is about effectual drawing, then asserts that he showed how his exegesis is the correct one. I still think that Unconditional Election does not clearly follow from that, Irresistible Grace would be closer and only indirectly supports Unconditional Election. Again I need to ask, what in the entire passage shows the unconditionality of the drawing? Just because the Father draws, says nothing of any conditions.

Asserts that he has been consistent in exegesis and allowing the text to speak, while Flowers has not.

FLOWERS CLOSING:

Pushes on infant damnation because that’s the entailment of Unconditional Election (remember, that’s the topic of the debate).

Oof, using White 1987 saying this is an inconceivable idea!

Keeps bringing it back to White having presuppositions. Listening and learning are active, not passive (at first he gets it reversed due to being flustered here).

Brings up again White’s Calvinistic reversal of people doing something before living, citing multiple instances from the Bible.

Both believe the Father gives people to the Son, White says because they were unilaterally picked while Flowers says they listened and learned and believed. This doesn’t affect the flow of text or Greek grammar.

Flowers is using the closing to put a huge pebble in the shoe of listeners, the sharp pokey rock of Unconditional Reprobation in Calvinism.

Question about responsibility, White tosses out a remark about not being chosen because we’re choice meats, but fair enough Flowers already started with that joke about taking White out for some Texas choice meats in the introduction way back at the start of the debate. uses the chance to refer to Sproul as a Calvinist who agrees with his own definition and recapping that Augustine introduced ideas 400 years late, citing more Calvinists (Boettner, Bavinck).

Good answer on God being frustrated over people’s choices, Calvinists paint it as God trying and failing but that projects their own system where God uses Irresistible Grace. White then says “In answer to the actual question”, which made me feel he’s insinuating Flowers didn’t answer the question… But then says the (real) question is whether God is shocked or stunned because He’s unaware of the future, which are both NOT ‘frustrated’. Those words imply initial surprise, frustrated does not.

The why preach Gospel question feels like a waste of time to me, having been commonly asked and answered of Calvinism. Maybe I’m just way too exposed to these issues, but maybe it could be a softball question tossed by a White supporter. Flowers takes the motivation back to love rather than Law command, persuading them like Paul – remember he was up until recently the Director of Evangelism for the Texas Baptists, whatever jokes about One String Banjo.

Common gotcha question, what is the difference (is he better) if one guy believes and another doesn’t. If you listen to Flowers you already know his response, it’s Calvinism which says we need to be choice meats, a new creation in order to believe in Jesus. Christ is the choice meat, the better quality one – cites several people the Bible calls righteous, based on their belief in Christ. White tries to divert it back to God’s choice rather than (the yucky, man-centered) individual’s choice.

Can’t God make it up to our choice? White again won’t simply agree on a simple statement, but diverts to the ‘real question’ being about what John 6 shows. Flowers smartly brings up the “Could God create a rock He CHOOSES not to move”, which lets the audience hear that Provisionism is not about limiting God’s sovereignty but rather WHAT the sovereign God wants to do.

Is John 6 conditional election? Flowers says it’s not conditioned on morality or nationality, but their listening and learning from the Father citing v64.

Can the Father draw all people but only give those who believe to the Son? White says it’s a sure thing and this gives us eternal security because it’s not up to us. Flowers once again brings in examples from the wider Bible in Cornelius, a Gentile who believed in YHWH and thus was given to Jesus.

Is Christian conversion a supernatural work of God, a miracle? Flowers says the Gospel is the inspired word of God, the inspiration of Scripture, the Incarnation, revelation and light as grace that comes before are supernatural. This is to debunk the caricature that Provisionism says we don’t need God to move first ala Pelagianism. White says he didn’t answer the question, focusing on the actual point of conversion – men are dead in sin so supernatural action is needed.

Is it not possible that John 6:45 is describing what happens on v44 so is chronologically first? White says it’s an explanation, all who are drawn are raised up and Flowers gave nothing on this. Flowers retorts that this is untrue and White is just getting talking points out there to be repeated on Twitter.

Tough question on if God has same salvific love for all, why create a world where He knows many will never hear the Gospel? (I note that Molinists, Open Theists, Universalists all have responses to this but Flowers is none of these.) Flowers says this is one of those things appeals to Romans 1, revelation of conscience so none is without excuse, read his book for and a MacArthur sermon from 1981 for more. White chooses to use slanderous wording, Provisionism detests and attacks God’s decree at every chance.

Does Jesus say all who are drawn by the Father come to Him, or all who come to Him are drawn by the Father? White says one is descriptive and another didactic, but drawing leads inevitably to coming. Portrays it as God’s sovereignty versus creatures allowing God to do things. Flowers instead uses his response time to rebutt the earlier claim that Provisionists hate God’s decree, they just think God decrees good and not all evils like child molestation – a clear jab the clip of White’s infamous claim that child grape (sic) is meaningless if God didn’t decree it.

Last question, why the 5000 who were fed didn’t follow Jesus? Easy one for Flowers to go into judicial hardening of already self-hardened Jews (not synergists in Romans 9) in order to bring about the Crucifixion and being redemption to the world. I would have added that Acts 2 shows thousands of such hardened Jews then came to believe. White just asks why Jesus didn’t use harsh language with Nicodemus, kind of a non sequitur (Jesus did use analogies which flew over his head, born from above which Nicodemus took as literal born again from his mother’s womb).

MY CONCLUSION:

Overall I got the impression that White wants to stick to John 6 only, while Flowers shows the whole counsel of Scripture to understand John 6.

While White can win technically the battle (again, I don’t think John 6 supports Unconditional Election and a much stronger case can be made for Irresistible Grace from it), Flowers gained much ground in the war by showing how Provisionism is strongly Biblically based and putting lots of sharp pebbles in the shoes of those affirming or flirting with Calvinism. He had an audience of thousands and far more in the online viewers who got to hear his views unfiltered through White’s caricature of what Flowers, Provisionism and nonCalvinism are all about.

So let that be my takeway, Flowers gambled on potentially losing this battle in order to win the larger war.