Yep but again flowers view is just the spirit giving information. Historical Arminianism says Yes the the Gospel message is not just information but the holy spirit works with the Preaching the Good news is illuminating that brings about we call FREED WILL so that we can be saved. So Doctor flower's down plays the Work of the spirit
Leighton Flower’s argument by analogy strongly suggest that man can come to Christ by his natural prowess. I’ll try to frame Flowers’ argument with some of his thoughts paraphrased, and see where it lands. (L1) All truths are believable (L2) Sinners (global humanity) are capable and trust all truths that are believable despite the corruption of sin. (L3) 2 + 2 = 4 [m*] is a necessary propositional truth which the sinner is capable of believing. (L4) Sinners incorrigibly and indubitably assent to the propositional truth m*. (L5) The proposition ‘Christ is Lord’ is just as believable as m*. (L6) Since any sinner believes and assents to m*, any sinner incorrigibly and indubitably assents to the proposition ‘Christ is Lord’. (L7) Therefore, all sinners believe and assent to the truth of the gospel. The above argument is motivated by Flowers’ argument by analogy, namely, m*s (2 + 2 = 4) shares the same epistemic access and proper basicality as ‘Christ is Lord’. But we can see that the conclusion (L7) is false. While the conclusion follows logically from the premises, one of the premises must be false. One counterexample can easily falsify the symmetry in (L5). It’s not hard to convince anyone that at least one sinner can affirm m* but reject the gospel. Therefore, the conclusion is rendered false because (L5) is false. So where does this leave Flowers’ view on sin and man? As I see it, it is also false, as he asserts that, his view of communicating the gospel doesn’t ride so much on his view of sin than it is the “sufficient means” by which one assents to its truth claims. But his supporting argument above has been neutralized. And when asked, what makes biblical and the Q’uran different(?), he simply pontificated his bias, “The Q’uran is full of lies”, which, on the converse, the Muslim can also stipulate, which begs the question. As we can see, since there is an asymmetry between m* and assenting to the gospel, there must be a property over and against (ab extra) the mere verbal propositional content of the gospel that overcomes the epistemic blockage in the sinner. Clearly such epistemic obstacle is not intellectual, as Flowers’ would have us believe, but ethical. Neither is Flowers’ view of the Holy Spirit’s operation in communicating the gospel seem to serve any effectual cause. To be sure, his views seems to render the divine activity superfluous. For the propositional content of the gospel would not have any less efficacy absent the spirit’s involvement. Almost all Protestants take on this, however, see sin’s corruption to account for the suppressing the truth, and therefore more than human verbiage seems warranted for a sinner to assent to the gospel. (The differences between groups lie in the *degree* of the Spirit’s activity.) I think that Reformed Arminians are on good grounds in affirming the spirit’s global convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit as a necessary means of the evangelistic enterprise. While human preaching is a necessary means, we can see that it is insufficient. “And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness an judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;” (Jn 16:8-9). This passage was not brought up in the discussion. But it seems to me that Flowers’ would be at pain to locate this ab extra activity of the spirit in the ordo salutis. But once he affirms at any soteriological point, it cancels his one point on which he whole view hangs; namely, human preaching of the gospel is the sufficient means for sinners to assent to the truth claims of the gospel.
@@brothermartin1984 When the spirit brings information the Bible calls it “Revelation”. Why would anyone downplay that by suggesting it’s not believable revelation?
@@Soteriology101 because the down play it would seem to be on your side there no Inward work of the spirit with Enabling Power 1 cor 2:4, 1thess 1:5 There No Power at work from the Holy Spirit illuminating a dead will.
So glad you guys did this. This helps clarify the forest thru the trees of non-calvinism, whether it be Arminianism or Provisionism. This discussion helped clarify alot of issues that rarely get discussed.
This was a great conversation. I really believe that Dr. Flowers and Dr. Abasciano are closer than it seems. Both of them attribute the hearing and believing of the Gospel to the Holy Spirit. They differ on the method the Spirit uses to reach the sinner. Flowers I believe rightfully seed the MEANS by which God has already established such as preaching the gospel, Scripture, etc. Dr. Abasciano’s view also credits the Holy Spirit. Yet he believes there must be an additional work of the Holy Spirit because of the sinfulness of man. I actually strangely agree with both to some extent. I lean more to Dr. Flowers belief that we are not absolutely totally incapable of hearing and receiving the truth. Yet, I agree with Dr. Abasciano that the Spirit MUST be working to assist us with pressing past the fallen condition of man to embrace the gospel truth.
Flowers is a baptist, which means that the Holy Spirit is largely a theological concept and assumed to operate automatically when truth is proclaimed, the problem is the assumption of the strength of our intellect, independent of His Spirit, is sufficient to convince people of sin and the need for repentance. The body of Christ, as a whole, needs to be reconnected to His Spirit in a real relationship, the doctrine of cessanation of the Gifts of the Spirit are a serious offense to Gods Spirit in order to enjoy the full presence of His Spirit. WOW the greatest need within the Church is not truth but the actual guidance of God’s Spirit Himself.
@@glennishammont7414 I don’t believe Glowers denies the need for the Spirit. He believes God’s Spirit can work through things God has already established to “declare the glory of God”.
58:00 one thing that is missing here are the Word of God’s statements about itself in passages like Hebrews 4:12 and John 6:63 being inherently spiritual and powerful 💫
Actually John 6:63 proves his position wrong. It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. John 6:63 Notice the Spirit gives life, it's not merely the word that gives life.
Because God is active within when his word is proclaimed. Hebrews 4:12 is describing God actively searching out the secrets of a person as his word. This is much different than Leighton’s misuse of the verse to say God isn’t active within a person when the word is presented. Who is it that gains knowledge from searching within you, according to Hebrews 4:12? God gains knowledge, not you. So the verse isn’t about God influencing you from a distance by inspired words. It’s actually about God within you when the word is proclaimed! Read the verse in the context of the passage.
I know when I read the Word I feel like God is reading me through conviction of the Holy Spirit. It's definitely a living book. Everytime I read it I ask God to show me something new that I need at that time in my life and He always does.
@@lukegowdy1371 WOW the Word is the means of Gods Spirit, it is Gods Spirit Himself who actually convinces of truth which does not automatically imply regeneration.
All three of these men hold to the divine inspiration of the entirety of the biblical canon. Since they already had that in common - and were only interested in contesting their theological differences - there was no reason to discuss that topic.
If we’re naturally inclined to sin why do we have a conscience which tells us not to sin which is a part of our nature? That seems like the exact opposite conclusion would be warranted.
Read John 1 through the lens of the light all men have being their conscience (I know it's probably more than that, but our conscience is from the Lord
"28:02 What if we changed the characterization of "magical infusion" or "mystical quality" to "inspired"? For instance, regarding 40:02, the Koran wouldn't be "inspired" by the Holy Spirit, thus distinguishing the Koran from God's real Word. I infer the following contrasts: *Leighton's view of Prevenient Grace* - The inspired truth of God's Word registers with our conscience, so that if we willingly submit, we can discern that it is the Holy Spirit speaking to us. In other words, God opened Lydia's heart through the message preached, because she was not resisting it but welcoming it. *Brian's view of Prevenient Grace* - God engages to "pierce through" (32:47), "take action" (33:15), "counter-act" (33:33), "gives a thought" (34:10), "fixes their attention" (34:48) and "knocks down walls" (36:10) through a direct *empowerment* of the Holy Spirit. In other words, God is giving people power, but not metaphysically changing their nature, but closer to awakening.
Are you saying that Prevenient Grace must be effectual and internal? Are you saying Prevenient Acts of Grace are not allowed to be OUTWARD acts that have an INTERNAL effect that draws, influences, persuades, compels, convicts and convinces the heart of fallen man to believe?
Flowers view is Dangerous at the end of the day. What I mean is that If person is Given both the Koran an the Bible to read an the non believer finds truth in both sides an the non believer choose the Koran there must have been a lack of the power of the Holy Spirit That did not bring about a Enabling opening that sinners heart giving him FREED WILL to believe. A Non believer will choose the Koran because there is no illuminating work of the spirit Granting repentance that work of God Does alone.
@@brothermartin1984 The Holy Spirit did not keep peter from denying messiah, or Ananias and Saphira from lying, the Holy Spirit didn’t keep Peter from fearing the circumcision party when fellowshipping with gentiles, The Holy Spirit did not keep the Apostles from quarreling and disagreeing ….. So to say the HS lacks power because someone may choose to believe the Koran is misguided… Perhaps our perception of what the framework of Gods work is mis-understood. Meaning the Holy Spirit can do a lot more it seems but does not…..
@@scottheath8302 so No it is not, Arminianism says Man will not an can Not Desire God without a powerful work of the spirit Enabling a dead will which leads to FREED WILL Dr flowers view say information/ Revelation is Sufficient. The Arminian say The Gospel is Sufficient because of the work of the spirit Enabling a dead will. Dr Flowes does not have that man can naturally respond in the same way as in reading a Koran.
@@brothermartin1984 Who is the ultimate authority that has made law that Prevenient Grace must be effectual and internal in order for it be called Prevenient Grace? Where does that idea come from?
22:06 Leighton says "we have to be made alive in order to get our free will back." Interestingly enough, there's no getting back something you've never had, a "free" will.
If the gospel message is sufficient to save hearers but not all who hear it believe (Provisionism), then it seems to point that it's because of their sin and hardening that they would reject it, though it could also be that they are incapable. On the other hand, if we need prevenient grace and a group of people hear the same message but not all believe, wouldn't it seem like the Holy Spirit could give more grace to those who have hardened their hearts so they could believe? Are there varied amounts of prevenient grace, many of which don't enable hardened sinners to believe?
Does God’s son being raised from the dead count as a miracle that is used to help sinful man believe? Why do men always ask for another sign when they have all the proof they need to believe?
The Gospel is given just preach it! it’s not anyone’s concern who will or who will not accept it. What’s the logic of this discussion let say if one is proven right or wrong? so what? Proving who is right or wrong is just another devil’s ploy to distract and keep believers bickering and busied with each other business instead of preaching Gospel. Let’s all take Paul’s encouragement if Christ is preach let’s rejoice. Philippians 1: 15-18
Leighton Flower’s argument by analogy strongly suggest that man can come to Christ by his natural prowess. I’ll try to frame Flowers’ argument with some of his thoughts paraphrased, and see where it lands. (L1) All truths are believable (L2) Sinners (global humanity) are capable and trust all truths that are believable despite the corruption of sin. (L3) 2 + 2 = 4 [m*] is a necessary propositional truth which the sinner is capable of believing. (L4) Sinners incorrigibly and indubitably assent to the propositional truth m*. (L5) The proposition ‘Christ is Lord’ is just as believable as m*. (L6) Since any sinner believes and assents to m*, any sinner incorrigibly and indubitably assents to the proposition ‘Christ is Lord’. (L7) Therefore, all sinners believe and assent to the truth of the gospel. The above argument is motivated by Flowers’ argument by analogy, namely, m*s (2 + 2 = 4) shares the same epistemic access and proper basicality as ‘Christ is Lord’. But we can see that the conclusion (L7) is false. While the conclusion follows logically from the premises, one of the premises must be false. One counterexample can easily falsify the symmetry in (L5). It’s not hard to convince anyone that at least one sinner can affirm m* but reject the gospel. Therefore, the conclusion is rendered false because (L5) is false. So where does this leave Flowers’ view on sin and man? As I see it, it is also false, as he asserts that, his view of communicating the gospel doesn’t ride so much on his view of sin than it is the “sufficient means” by which one assents to its truth claims. But his supporting argument above has been neutralized. And when asked, what makes biblical and the Q’uran different(?), he simply pontificated his bias, “The Q’uran is full of lies”, which, on the converse, the Muslim can also stipulate, which begs the question. As we can see, since there is an asymmetry between m* and assenting to the gospel, there must be a property over and against (ab extra) the mere verbal propositional content of the gospel that overcomes the epistemic blockage in the sinner. Clearly such epistemic obstacle is not intellectual, as Flowers’ would have us believe, but ethical. Neither is Flowers’ view of the Holy Spirit’s operation in communicating the gospel seem to serve any effectual cause. To be sure, his views seems to render the divine activity superfluous. For the propositional content of the gospel would not have any less efficacy absent the spirit’s involvement. Almost all Protestants take on this, however, see sin’s corruption to account for the suppressing the truth, and therefore more than human verbiage seems warranted for a sinner to assent to the gospel. (The differences between groups lie in the *degree* of the Spirit’s activity.) I think that Reformed Arminians are on good grounds in affirming the spirit’s global convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit as a necessary means of the evangelistic enterprise. While human preaching is a necessary means, we can see that it is insufficient. “And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness an judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;” (Jn 16:8-9). This passage was not brought up in the discussion. But it seems to me that Flowers’ would be at pain to locate this ab extra activity of the spirit in the ordo salutis. But once he affirms at any soteriological point, it cancels his one point on which he whole view hangs; namely, human preaching of the gospel is the sufficient means for sinners to assent to the truth claims of the gospel.
Not quite sure why you’re framing it in the worst possible way by your statement that man can come to Christ by his natural prowess. How about his GOD-given “prowess.” “If” God has created mankind with the ability to believe then would you take issue with that? “IF” He did. So that’s the issue. “IF” God did, then silly arguments or painting it in the worst possible light doesn’t really matter. Now “IF” He didn’t then great. The issue is what does God’s Word say? So if God’s Word says mankind is incapable of believing then great. If not then great. Leighton believes that nowhere in scripture does it say mankind is incapable of positively responding to God’s Divine Initiative. So his view is based on what he believes is the Truth of God’s Word. His view is NOT based on him thinking that man has some sort of magical prowess apart from God.
@@apilkey The syllogism presupposes Flowers’ own argumentative points. Some verbatim, some paraphrased. If anything can be gleaned “in the worse possible way” it’s because Flowers’ strategy, as the syllogism successfully shows, fails to demonstrate what he set out to affirm. You can salvage his reasoning by either recasting, or demonstrate some aspect(s), of his own points to sidestep the worries I laid out. The claim that “nowhere in scripture does it say mankind is incapable of positively responding to God’s divine initiative,” is a strawman in its counter, and referentially incoherent. The issue is not is man naturally “capable” (potentia) to believe “all truths that are believable”, as Flowers’ fallaciously points out. The issue is not rational capability, nor fiduciary. Rather, the issue is does the sinner *want* (not can) to repent from his sins? And would he do so by his own natural reasoning and causal powers, even if such powers have their creative origin in God? Would man naturally convict himself of his own sin? Where would you place the spirit’s ab extra sin-convicting activity (Jn 16:8-9) in the ordo salutis? Why do you think the spirit’s convicting activity is a necessary means for the sinner’s conversion? Why is a “divine initiative” necessary on your view? Even if you collapse this feature with human preaching, it still identifies the activity as “divine” and not human. Therefore, we see divine speech acts either with, through, or (at times) apart from the human initiative. Which ever way you answer, you can’t answer without affirming some sort of human inability. Moreover, any sort of affirmation will, in addition, render your position incoherent. For, on the hand, Flowers’ claims human preaching *alone* is the “sufficient means” by which one hears and believes the gospel. (He does this by cherry-picking some passages, while muting others.) On the other, you affirm a “divine initiative” which either precedes, or is concurrent with-but not identical to-human preaching. Even if you claim that such “divine initiative” is not independent of human preaching, it falsifies on its face Flowers’ claim that “human preaching is the *sufficient* means.” It’s either sufficient or not. To further complicate matters, you also throw in “What about this GOD-given prowess?” Two issues: (1) what use is this, or how does it clinch your position, if a “divine initiative” is necessary?; (2) this is backwards - the point only makes sense, and is consistent with the claim if, humans are in the same state Adam was prior to the fall. After the fall it’s not possible we not sin. We are no longer ‘non posse non peccare’. “No one seeks for God” (Rom 3:11). Further more, as I pointed out, even if your view still accommodate the spirit’s role in human preaching, it’s unclear what exactly that activity is. The dialogue demonstrates Flowers’ does not attribute any sort of efficacy to the spirit’s activity, which logically would render the spirit’s activity otiose. Most Protestants disambiguate the claim by either stating the spirit’s global sin-convicting activity is that specific “divine initiative” (as you affirm one way or another) with or through human preaching; or regenerating the sinner prior to conversion (which I reject). The ‘capability’ objection is wildy driven, I think, by an over-reaction, and correction, to Flowers’ repeated (ad naseum) objection to a necessary reorientation in man’s ontology. He brings it up even when dialoguing with opponents he knows don’t hold to such view (e.g., Reformed classical Arminians). He can’t help himself. At this point in such dialogues, it seems silly to claim “his [Flowers] view is based on what he believes is the truth of God’s word”. But that’s exactly what is being debated and so you needn’t continue to beg the question. If there is any intellectual honesty in this discussion your options are: (1) you can salvage Flowers’ argument by analogy by demonstrating some aspect(s) that will show the conclusion [(L7)] to be true without succumbing to universalism; (2) reject Flowers’ core claim on which his whole ordo salutis hangs, namely, “human preaching is the sufficient means” because of its incompatibility with your “divine initiative” component; or (3) show that both truths can obtain which is tantamount to drawing a squared-circle; or (4) reject the Provisionist’s novel theory and concede that option (3) is impossible to show, and that the Provisionist’s motivated correction to Calvinism has been seriously misguided; or lastly, (5) reject the Provisionist’s project altogether and affirm what Protestants and early (not later) Augustinians have always affirmed, namely, divine prevenient (praevenit) initiating grace (i.e., “divine initiative”) is also a necessary means - with, through, (and can at times) be independent of, human preaching to prepare the soul for conversion. (BTW, in an earlier dialogue this year, Dan Chapa pressed Flowers’ on the notion if his view amounted to sinners having the “natural” ability to believe the gospel. I recall not once did Flowers’ pushed back on the charge and its implications.)
@@tony9382 Would man convict himself in his own sin? Again you’re missing the point. No one here believes that. You do realize that GOD convicts us in our sin do you not? No one seeks God… you do realize that GOD sought us do you not? No one can seek God on our own. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE’RE NOT ON OUR OWN ANYMORE! God has taken the DIVINE INITIATIVE! He sent HIS SON. He sent HIS HOLY SPIRIT. He gave us HIS WORD. He speaks to us through HIS CREATION. What more do you want? What more do you need? Was God’s plan not sufficient enough? Was it not perfect? Is Christ not sufficient enough? Is God’s word not sufficient enough? Is all of creation not sufficient enough? Is everything that God’s done in taking the DIVINE INITIATIVE and first step towards us not compelling or persuasive enough that He STILL has to effectually make us believe or else none would come to Him? Do you not believe the Holy Spirit is doing His job properly??? JOHN 16:7-9 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, HE WILL REPROVE THE WORLD OF SIN, AND OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND OF JUDGMENT: 9 OF SIN, BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE NOT ON ME;
@@tony9382 The issue of “nowhere in scripture does it say mankind is incapable of positively responding to God’s Divine Initiative” is not a straw man. That’s THE issue. It’s not a matter of “wanting” to . It’s a matter of ability. Calvinism doesn’t centre around a “want” but an “ability” (or lack thereof). If that were the case then Calvinism would have no problem believing Christ died for all of humanity without exception.
@@tony9382 1) Can I of the GOD-given volition that God in His Sovereignty has chosen to effectually and irresistibly give to me and create me with come to Christ 👉AFTER👈 He has taken the Divine Initiative in: 1. Sending HIS SON. 2. Sending HIS HOLY SPIRIT. 3. Sending HIS WORD. 4. Speaking to us through HIS CREATION. 2) Can I of the GOD-given volition that God in His Sovereignty has chosen to effectually and irresistibly give to me and create me with come to Christ 👉AFTER👈 He has taken the Divine Initiative in: 1. Drawing us (John 12:32) 2. Calling us (Matthew 11:28, Revelation 22:17) 3. Reproving/convicting us (John 16:7-9) 4. Giving us light (John 1:9) 5. First loved us (1 John 4:19) 6. Sought us (Luke 19:10) 7. Revealed Himself to us (Romans 1:17-20) A: Yes.
Leighton is really hung up on a naturalistic, physical, understanding of ability or inability. People have an "inability" to come to Christ apart from a work of the Holy Spirit because they don't want to come to Christ. They have the physical/mental ability to believe but they do not want to believe because "...the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light,..." Similarly to what Dr. Abasciano said, I heard a very intelligent atheist who admitted that even if he is convinced that God is real/true he probably would still not follow Him. It's not about a physical ability, it's that people are enslaved to their own sinful desires. Why? because they want to be.
Right. But that doesn’t explain why, in response to the drawing of the Holy Spirit, we cannot choose to want to do so as we constantly experience ourself doing in many areas of life. It assumes they don’t want to by some kind of uncontrollable force instead of willful volition which under some circumstances (like seeing Gods love for example) can be changed.
Molinist here, so no irons in the fire. These two views are almost identical in substance. Seemed to me Abasciano talked past Leighton’s clarifications in order to keep distinctions. If you don’t believe in partial regeneration, you in substance are in the same camp as Leighton in regards to the sinfulness of man.
Last comment here for Brian: if the “baseline” is total inability, how can someone be farther down the spectrum, ie more hardened than totally unable? How can you be “more unable”?
Leighton Flower’s argument by analogy strongly suggest that man can come to Christ by his natural prowess. I’ll try to frame Flowers’ argument with some of his thoughts paraphrased, and see where it lands. (L1) All truths are believable (L2) Sinners (global humanity) are capable and trust all truths that are believable despite the corruption of sin. (L3) 2 + 2 = 4 [m*] is a necessary propositional truth which the sinner is capable of believing. (L4) Sinners incorrigibly and indubitably assent to the propositional truth m*. (L5) The proposition ‘Christ is Lord’ is just as believable as m*. (L6) Since any sinner believes and assents to m*, any sinner incorrigibly and indubitably assents to the proposition ‘Christ is Lord’. (L7) Therefore, all sinners believe and assent to the truth of the gospel. The above argument is motivated by Flowers’ argument by analogy, namely, m*s (2 + 2 = 4) shares the same epistemic access and proper basicality as ‘Christ is Lord’. But we can see that the conclusion (L7) is false. While the conclusion follows logically from the premises, one of the premises must be false. One counterexample can easily falsify the symmetry in (L5). It’s not hard to convince anyone that at least one sinner can affirm m* but reject the gospel. Therefore, the conclusion is rendered false because (L5) is false. So where does this leave Flowers’ view on sin and man? As I see it, it is also false, as he asserts that, his view of communicating the gospel doesn’t ride so much on his view of sin than it is the “sufficient means” by which one assents to its truth claims. But his supporting argument above has been neutralized. And when asked, what makes biblical and the Q’uran different(?), he simply pontificated his bias, “The Q’uran is full of lies”, which, on the converse, the Muslim can also stipulate, which begs the question. As we can see, since there is an asymmetry between m* and assenting to the gospel, there must be a property over and against (ab extra) the mere verbal propositional content of the gospel that overcomes the epistemic blockage in the sinner. Clearly such epistemic obstacle is not intellectual, as Flowers’ would have us believe, but ethical. Neither is Flowers’ view of the Holy Spirit’s operation in communicating the gospel seem to serve any effectual cause. To be sure, his views seems to render the divine activity superfluous. For the propositional content of the gospel would not have any less efficacy absent the spirit’s involvement. Almost all Protestants take on this, however, see sin’s corruption to account for the suppressing the truth, and therefore more than human verbiage seems warranted for a sinner to assent to the gospel. (The differences between groups lie in the *degree* of the Spirit’s activity.) I think that Reformed Arminians are on good grounds in affirming the spirit’s global convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit as a necessary means of the evangelistic enterprise. While human preaching is a necessary means, we can see that it is insufficient. “And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness an judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;” (Jn 16:8-9). This passage was not brought up in the discussion. But it seems to me that Flowers’ would be at pain to locate this ab extra activity of the spirit in the ordo salutis. But once he affirms at any soteriological point, it cancels his one point on which he whole view hangs; namely, human preaching of the gospel is the sufficient means for sinners to assent to the truth claims of the gospel.
Lol, you don't even know what Pelagianism is or what Pelagius believed. Flowers believes man can save himself without God? Man can live a perfect life? Even Pelagius never believed that! Rofl
Why don't Arminians actually read what Scripture says of itself? John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The WORDS THAT I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Please tell me why Arminians don't believe God-breathed words have no Spirit in them.
![เจ็บที่ยังฮัก - ม่อน วรวิทย์ [ Official Mv ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KALIGSRSjFs/mqdefault.jpg)
Don't forget subscribe and support Aisha, our missionary to Chile!
Great stuff! This conversation is long overdue!
Yep but again flowers view is just the spirit giving information. Historical Arminianism says Yes the the Gospel message is not just information but the holy spirit works with the Preaching the Good news is illuminating that brings about we call FREED WILL so that we can be saved. So Doctor flower's down plays the Work of the spirit
Leighton Flower’s argument by analogy strongly suggest that man can come to Christ by his natural prowess. I’ll try to frame Flowers’ argument with some of his thoughts paraphrased, and see where it lands.
(L1) All truths are believable
(L2) Sinners (global humanity) are capable and trust all truths that are believable despite the corruption of sin.
(L3) 2 + 2 = 4 [m*] is a necessary propositional truth which the sinner is capable of believing.
(L4) Sinners incorrigibly and indubitably assent to the propositional truth m*.
(L5) The proposition ‘Christ is Lord’ is just as believable as m*.
(L6) Since any sinner believes and assents to m*, any sinner incorrigibly and indubitably assents to the proposition ‘Christ is Lord’.
(L7) Therefore, all sinners believe and assent to the truth of the gospel.
The above argument is motivated by Flowers’ argument by analogy, namely, m*s (2 + 2 = 4) shares the same epistemic access and proper basicality as ‘Christ is Lord’. But we can see that the conclusion (L7) is false. While the conclusion follows logically from the premises, one of the premises must be false. One counterexample can easily falsify the symmetry in (L5). It’s not hard to convince anyone that at least one sinner can affirm m* but reject the gospel. Therefore, the conclusion is rendered false because (L5) is false. So where does this leave Flowers’ view on sin and man?
As I see it, it is also false, as he asserts that, his view of communicating the gospel doesn’t ride so much on his view of sin than it is the “sufficient means” by which one assents to its truth claims. But his supporting argument above has been neutralized. And when asked, what makes biblical and the Q’uran different(?), he simply pontificated his bias, “The Q’uran is full of lies”, which, on the converse, the Muslim can also stipulate, which begs the question.
As we can see, since there is an asymmetry between m* and assenting to the gospel, there must be a property over and against (ab extra) the mere verbal propositional content of the gospel that overcomes the epistemic blockage in the sinner. Clearly such epistemic obstacle is not intellectual, as Flowers’ would have us believe, but ethical. Neither is Flowers’ view of the Holy Spirit’s operation in communicating the gospel seem to serve any effectual cause. To be sure, his views seems to render the divine activity superfluous. For the propositional content of the gospel would not have any less efficacy absent the spirit’s involvement. Almost all Protestants take on this, however, see sin’s corruption to account for the suppressing the truth, and therefore more than human verbiage seems warranted for a sinner to assent to the gospel. (The differences between groups lie in the *degree* of the Spirit’s activity.)
I think that Reformed Arminians are on good grounds in affirming the spirit’s global convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit as a necessary means of the evangelistic enterprise. While human preaching is a necessary means, we can see that it is insufficient.
“And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness an judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;” (Jn 16:8-9).
This passage was not brought up in the discussion. But it seems to me that Flowers’ would be at pain to locate this ab extra activity of the spirit in the ordo salutis. But once he affirms at any soteriological point, it cancels his one point on which he whole view hangs; namely, human preaching of the gospel is the sufficient means for sinners to assent to the truth claims of the gospel.
@@brothermartin1984 When the spirit brings information the Bible calls it “Revelation”. Why would anyone downplay that by suggesting it’s not believable revelation?
@@Soteriology101 yes it Revelation but it the work of the Holy Spirit illuminating a person will to be able to desire God. Not just mere information
@@Soteriology101 because the down play it would seem to be on your side there no Inward work of the spirit with Enabling Power 1 cor 2:4, 1thess 1:5 There No Power at work from the Holy Spirit illuminating a dead will.
So glad you guys did this. This helps clarify the forest thru the trees of non-calvinism, whether it be Arminianism or Provisionism. This discussion helped clarify alot of issues that rarely get discussed.
This was a great conversation. I really believe that Dr. Flowers and Dr. Abasciano are closer than it seems. Both of them attribute the hearing and believing of the Gospel to the Holy Spirit. They differ on the method the Spirit uses to reach the sinner. Flowers I believe rightfully seed the MEANS by which God has already established such as preaching the gospel, Scripture, etc. Dr. Abasciano’s view also credits the Holy Spirit. Yet he believes there must be an additional work of the Holy Spirit because of the sinfulness of man. I actually strangely agree with both to some extent. I lean more to Dr. Flowers belief that we are not absolutely totally incapable of hearing and receiving the truth. Yet, I agree with Dr. Abasciano that the Spirit MUST be working to assist us with pressing past the fallen condition of man to embrace the gospel truth.
hence the work of the spirit to convict the world of sin righteousness and judgemtny
Flowers is a baptist, which means that the Holy Spirit is largely a theological concept and assumed to operate automatically when truth is proclaimed, the problem is the assumption of the strength of our intellect, independent of His Spirit, is sufficient to convince people of sin and the need for repentance. The body of Christ, as a whole, needs to be reconnected to His Spirit in a real relationship, the doctrine of cessanation of the Gifts of the Spirit are a serious offense to Gods Spirit in order to enjoy the full presence of His Spirit. WOW the greatest need within the Church is not truth but the actual guidance of God’s Spirit Himself.
Total inability is not true but total dependency on His Spirit certainly is true in order to for the truth to be actual effective.
@@glennishammont7414 I don’t believe Glowers denies the need for the Spirit. He believes God’s Spirit can work through things God has already established to “declare the glory of God”.
Great discussion. LF nailed it! Context determines meaning; context is the enemy of all error. Text - Context - CoText!
58:00 one thing that is missing here are the Word of God’s statements about itself in passages like Hebrews 4:12 and John 6:63 being inherently spiritual and powerful 💫
Actually John 6:63 proves his position wrong.
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
John 6:63
Notice the Spirit gives life, it's not merely the word that gives life.
Because God is active within when his word is proclaimed. Hebrews 4:12 is describing God actively searching out the secrets of a person as his word. This is much different than Leighton’s misuse of the verse to say God isn’t active within a person when the word is presented.
Who is it that gains knowledge from searching within you, according to Hebrews 4:12? God gains knowledge, not you. So the verse isn’t about God influencing you from a distance by inspired words. It’s actually about God within you when the word is proclaimed!
Read the verse in the context of the passage.
I know when I read the Word I feel like God is reading me through conviction of the Holy Spirit. It's definitely a living book. Everytime I read it I ask God to show me something new that I need at that time in my life and He always does.
@@lukegowdy1371 WOW the Word is the means of Gods Spirit, it is Gods Spirit Himself who actually convinces of truth which does not automatically imply regeneration.
Great discussion with each bringing out the best in each argument.
One point that i think wasnt addressed thats crucial to the discussion is the nature of the inspiration of Scripture.
All three of these men hold to the divine inspiration of the entirety of the biblical canon. Since they already had that in common - and were only interested in contesting their theological differences - there was no reason to discuss that topic.
I agree with Leighton. Not so sure the verses provided by the arminians prove total inability
If we’re naturally inclined to sin why do we have a conscience which tells us not to sin which is a part of our nature? That seems like the exact opposite conclusion would be warranted.
Read John 1 through the lens of the light all men have being their conscience (I know it's probably more than that, but our conscience is from the Lord
"28:02 What if we changed the characterization of "magical infusion" or "mystical quality" to "inspired"? For instance, regarding 40:02, the Koran wouldn't be "inspired" by the Holy Spirit, thus distinguishing the Koran from God's real Word.
I infer the following contrasts:
*Leighton's view of Prevenient Grace* - The inspired truth of God's Word registers with our conscience, so that if we willingly submit, we can discern that it is the Holy Spirit speaking to us. In other words, God opened Lydia's heart through the message preached, because she was not resisting it but welcoming it.
*Brian's view of Prevenient Grace* - God engages to "pierce through" (32:47), "take action" (33:15), "counter-act" (33:33), "gives a thought" (34:10), "fixes their attention" (34:48) and "knocks down walls" (36:10) through a direct *empowerment* of the Holy Spirit. In other words, God is giving people power, but not metaphysically changing their nature, but closer to awakening.
Are you saying that Prevenient Grace must be effectual and internal?
Are you saying Prevenient Acts of Grace are not allowed to be OUTWARD acts that have an INTERNAL effect that draws, influences, persuades, compels, convicts and convinces the heart of fallen man to believe?
@@apilkey I was only trying to give a positive description for both camps.
@@richardcoords1610 Gotcha, so aside from stating both sides, are you trying to say it must be internal and effectual?
@@apilkey I accept Leighton's view, though there could be special circumstances where Brian's view is correct. I don't rule either out.
What a helpful discussion. Thank you for the excellent content.
Good conversation
Question for the Provisionist perspective. Do they consider creation itself as a means of salvation?
Sufficient means
This sounds interesting!
Flowers view is Dangerous at the end of the day. What I mean is that If person is Given both the Koran an the Bible to read an the non believer finds truth in both sides an the non believer choose the Koran there must have been a lack of the power of the Holy Spirit That did not bring about a Enabling opening that sinners heart giving him FREED WILL to believe. A Non believer will choose the Koran because there is no illuminating work of the spirit Granting repentance that work of God Does alone.
@@brothermartin1984 The Holy Spirit did not keep peter from denying messiah, or Ananias and Saphira from lying, the Holy Spirit didn’t keep Peter from fearing the circumcision party when fellowshipping with gentiles, The Holy Spirit did not keep the Apostles from quarreling and disagreeing ….. So to say the HS lacks power because someone may choose to believe the Koran is misguided… Perhaps our perception of what the framework of Gods work is mis-understood. Meaning the Holy Spirit can do a lot more it seems but does not…..
@@scottheath8302 so No it is not, Arminianism says Man will not an can Not Desire God without a powerful work of the spirit Enabling a dead will which leads to FREED WILL Dr flowers view say information/ Revelation is Sufficient. The Arminian say The Gospel is Sufficient because of the work of the spirit Enabling a dead will. Dr Flowes does not have that man can naturally respond in the same way as in reading a Koran.
@@brothermartin1984 Who is the ultimate authority that has made law that Prevenient Grace must be effectual and internal in order for it be called Prevenient Grace?
Where does that idea come from?
And I think we both can agree “the inspire word of God” is a Powerful work period.
A good and much needed conversation. Thought provoking.
22:06 Leighton says "we have to be made alive in order to get our free will back." Interestingly enough, there's no getting back something you've never had, a "free" will.
If the gospel message is sufficient to save hearers but not all who hear it believe (Provisionism), then it seems to point that it's because of their sin and hardening that they would reject it, though it could also be that they are incapable. On the other hand, if we need prevenient grace and a group of people hear the same message but not all believe, wouldn't it seem like the Holy Spirit could give more grace to those who have hardened their hearts so they could believe? Are there varied amounts of prevenient grace, many of which don't enable hardened sinners to believe?
56:35 💯% agreed! this is probably what they should have led the broadcast with. 😅
Leighton definitely makes the more scriptural argument.
Does God’s son being raised from the dead count as a miracle that is used to help sinful man believe? Why do men always ask for another sign when they have all the proof they need to believe?
The Gospel is given just preach it!
it’s not anyone’s concern who will or who will not accept it. What’s the logic of this discussion let say if one is proven right or wrong? so what? Proving who is right or wrong is just another devil’s ploy to distract and keep believers bickering and busied with each other business instead of preaching Gospel.
Let’s all take Paul’s encouragement if Christ is preach let’s rejoice.
Philippians 1: 15-18
I am an Arminianist but agree w Leighton
But if you agree with Leighton, doesn't that mean you'd be a Provisionist ?
@@stevenaguilera9202 arminoprovisionist
@@stevenaguilera9202 just read Paul in Romans 11:19-24 Paul is no osas
Leighton Flower’s argument by analogy strongly suggest that man can come to Christ by his natural prowess. I’ll try to frame Flowers’ argument with some of his thoughts paraphrased, and see where it lands.
(L1) All truths are believable
(L2) Sinners (global humanity) are capable and trust all truths that are believable despite the corruption of sin.
(L3) 2 + 2 = 4 [m*] is a necessary propositional truth which the sinner is capable of believing.
(L4) Sinners incorrigibly and indubitably assent to the propositional truth m*.
(L5) The proposition ‘Christ is Lord’ is just as believable as m*.
(L6) Since any sinner believes and assents to m*, any sinner incorrigibly and indubitably assents to the proposition ‘Christ is Lord’.
(L7) Therefore, all sinners believe and assent to the truth of the gospel.
The above argument is motivated by Flowers’ argument by analogy, namely, m*s (2 + 2 = 4) shares the same epistemic access and proper basicality as ‘Christ is Lord’. But we can see that the conclusion (L7) is false. While the conclusion follows logically from the premises, one of the premises must be false. One counterexample can easily falsify the symmetry in (L5). It’s not hard to convince anyone that at least one sinner can affirm m* but reject the gospel. Therefore, the conclusion is rendered false because (L5) is false. So where does this leave Flowers’ view on sin and man?
As I see it, it is also false, as he asserts that, his view of communicating the gospel doesn’t ride so much on his view of sin than it is the “sufficient means” by which one assents to its truth claims. But his supporting argument above has been neutralized. And when asked, what makes biblical and the Q’uran different(?), he simply pontificated his bias, “The Q’uran is full of lies”, which, on the converse, the Muslim can also stipulate, which begs the question.
As we can see, since there is an asymmetry between m* and assenting to the gospel, there must be a property over and against (ab extra) the mere verbal propositional content of the gospel that overcomes the epistemic blockage in the sinner. Clearly such epistemic obstacle is not intellectual, as Flowers’ would have us believe, but ethical. Neither is Flowers’ view of the Holy Spirit’s operation in communicating the gospel seem to serve any effectual cause. To be sure, his views seems to render the divine activity superfluous. For the propositional content of the gospel would not have any less efficacy absent the spirit’s involvement. Almost all Protestants take on this, however, see sin’s corruption to account for the suppressing the truth, and therefore more than human verbiage seems warranted for a sinner to assent to the gospel. (The differences between groups lie in the *degree* of the Spirit’s activity.)
I think that Reformed Arminians are on good grounds in affirming the spirit’s global convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit as a necessary means of the evangelistic enterprise. While human preaching is a necessary means, we can see that it is insufficient.
“And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness an judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;” (Jn 16:8-9).
This passage was not brought up in the discussion. But it seems to me that Flowers’ would be at pain to locate this ab extra activity of the spirit in the ordo salutis. But once he affirms at any soteriological point, it cancels his one point on which he whole view hangs; namely, human preaching of the gospel is the sufficient means for sinners to assent to the truth claims of the gospel.
Not quite sure why you’re framing it in the worst possible way by your statement that man can come to Christ by his natural prowess.
How about his GOD-given “prowess.”
“If” God has created mankind with the ability to believe then would you take issue with that?
“IF” He did.
So that’s the issue.
“IF” God did, then silly arguments or painting it in the worst possible light doesn’t really matter.
Now “IF” He didn’t then great.
The issue is what does God’s Word say?
So if God’s Word says mankind is incapable of believing then great.
If not then great.
Leighton believes that nowhere in scripture does it say mankind is incapable of positively responding to God’s Divine Initiative.
So his view is based on what he believes is the Truth of God’s Word.
His view is NOT based on him thinking that man has some sort of magical prowess apart from
God.
@@apilkey The syllogism presupposes Flowers’ own argumentative points. Some verbatim, some paraphrased. If anything can be gleaned “in the worse possible way” it’s because Flowers’ strategy, as the syllogism successfully shows, fails to demonstrate what he set out to affirm. You can salvage his reasoning by either recasting, or demonstrate some aspect(s), of his own points to sidestep the worries I laid out.
The claim that “nowhere in scripture does it say mankind is incapable of positively responding to God’s divine initiative,” is a strawman in its counter, and referentially incoherent. The issue is not is man naturally “capable” (potentia) to believe “all truths that are believable”, as Flowers’ fallaciously points out. The issue is not rational capability, nor fiduciary.
Rather, the issue is does the sinner *want* (not can) to repent from his sins? And would he do so by his own natural reasoning and causal powers, even if such powers have their creative origin in God? Would man naturally convict himself of his own sin?
Where would you place the spirit’s ab extra sin-convicting activity (Jn 16:8-9) in the ordo salutis? Why do you think the spirit’s convicting activity is a necessary means for the sinner’s conversion?
Why is a “divine initiative” necessary on your view? Even if you collapse this feature with human preaching, it still identifies the activity as “divine” and not human. Therefore, we see divine speech acts either with, through, or (at times) apart from the human initiative. Which ever way you answer, you can’t answer without affirming some sort of human inability.
Moreover, any sort of affirmation will, in addition, render your position incoherent. For, on the hand, Flowers’ claims human preaching *alone* is the “sufficient means” by which one hears and believes the gospel. (He does this by cherry-picking some passages, while muting others.) On the other, you affirm a “divine initiative” which either precedes, or is concurrent with-but not identical to-human preaching. Even if you claim that such “divine initiative” is not independent of human preaching, it falsifies on its face Flowers’ claim that “human preaching is the *sufficient* means.” It’s either sufficient or not.
To further complicate matters, you also throw in “What about this GOD-given prowess?” Two issues: (1) what use is this, or how does it clinch your position, if a “divine initiative” is necessary?; (2) this is backwards - the point only makes sense, and is consistent with the claim if, humans are in the same state Adam was prior to the fall. After the fall it’s not possible we not sin. We are no longer ‘non posse non peccare’. “No one seeks for God” (Rom 3:11).
Further more, as I pointed out, even if your view still accommodate the spirit’s role in human preaching, it’s unclear what exactly that activity is. The dialogue demonstrates Flowers’ does not attribute any sort of efficacy to the spirit’s activity, which logically would render the spirit’s activity otiose. Most Protestants disambiguate the claim by either stating the spirit’s global sin-convicting activity is that specific “divine initiative” (as you affirm one way or another) with or through human preaching; or regenerating the sinner prior to conversion (which I reject).
The ‘capability’ objection is wildy driven, I think, by an over-reaction, and correction, to Flowers’ repeated (ad naseum) objection to a necessary reorientation in man’s ontology. He brings it up even when dialoguing with opponents he knows don’t hold to such view (e.g., Reformed classical Arminians). He can’t help himself.
At this point in such dialogues, it seems silly to claim “his [Flowers] view is based on what he believes is the truth of God’s word”. But that’s exactly what is being debated and so you needn’t continue to beg the question.
If there is any intellectual honesty in this discussion your options are: (1) you can salvage Flowers’ argument by analogy by demonstrating some aspect(s) that will show the conclusion [(L7)] to be true without succumbing to universalism; (2) reject Flowers’ core claim on which his whole ordo salutis hangs, namely, “human preaching is the sufficient means” because of its incompatibility with your “divine initiative” component; or (3) show that both truths can obtain which is tantamount to drawing a squared-circle; or (4) reject the Provisionist’s novel theory and concede that option (3) is impossible to show, and that the Provisionist’s motivated correction to Calvinism has been seriously misguided; or lastly, (5) reject the Provisionist’s project altogether and affirm what Protestants and early (not later) Augustinians have always affirmed, namely, divine prevenient (praevenit) initiating grace (i.e., “divine initiative”) is also a necessary means - with, through, (and can at times) be independent of, human preaching to prepare the soul for conversion.
(BTW, in an earlier dialogue this year, Dan Chapa pressed Flowers’ on the notion if his view amounted to sinners having the “natural” ability to believe the gospel. I recall not once did Flowers’ pushed back on the charge and its implications.)
@@tony9382 Would man convict himself in his own sin?
Again you’re missing the point.
No one here believes that.
You do realize that GOD convicts us in our sin do you not?
No one seeks God… you do realize that GOD sought us do you not?
No one can seek God on our own.
THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE’RE NOT ON OUR OWN ANYMORE!
God has taken the DIVINE INITIATIVE!
He sent HIS SON.
He sent HIS HOLY SPIRIT.
He gave us HIS WORD.
He speaks to us through HIS CREATION.
What more do you want?
What more do you need?
Was God’s plan not sufficient enough?
Was it not perfect?
Is Christ not sufficient enough?
Is God’s word not sufficient enough?
Is all of creation not sufficient enough?
Is everything that God’s done in taking the DIVINE INITIATIVE and first step towards us not compelling or persuasive enough that He STILL has to effectually make us believe or else none would come to Him?
Do you not believe the Holy Spirit is doing His job properly???
JOHN 16:7-9
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, HE WILL REPROVE THE WORLD OF SIN, AND OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND OF JUDGMENT:
9 OF SIN, BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE NOT ON ME;
@@tony9382 The issue of “nowhere in scripture does it say mankind is incapable of positively responding to God’s Divine Initiative” is not a straw man.
That’s THE issue.
It’s not a matter of “wanting” to .
It’s a matter of ability.
Calvinism doesn’t centre around a “want” but an “ability” (or lack thereof).
If that were the case then Calvinism would have no problem believing Christ died for all of humanity without exception.
@@tony9382 1) Can I of the GOD-given volition that God in His Sovereignty has chosen to effectually and irresistibly give to me and create me with come to Christ 👉AFTER👈 He has taken the Divine Initiative in:
1. Sending HIS SON.
2. Sending HIS HOLY SPIRIT.
3. Sending HIS WORD.
4. Speaking to us through HIS CREATION.
2) Can I of the GOD-given volition that God in His Sovereignty has chosen to effectually and irresistibly give to me and create me with come to Christ
👉AFTER👈 He has taken the Divine Initiative in:
1. Drawing us (John 12:32)
2. Calling us (Matthew 11:28, Revelation 22:17)
3. Reproving/convicting us (John 16:7-9)
4. Giving us light (John 1:9)
5. First loved us (1 John 4:19)
6. Sought us (Luke 19:10)
7. Revealed Himself to us (Romans 1:17-20)
A: Yes.
So hard to listen to the arminian guy. I'm loosing him after each sentence he tries to say
Nice view of Abasciano's tonsils.
Brian is hard to listen to
Leighton is really hung up on a naturalistic, physical, understanding of ability or inability. People have an "inability" to come to Christ apart from a work of the Holy Spirit because they don't want to come to Christ. They have the physical/mental ability to believe but they do not want to believe because "...the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light,..." Similarly to what Dr. Abasciano said, I heard a very intelligent atheist who admitted that even if he is convinced that God is real/true he probably would still not follow Him. It's not about a physical ability, it's that people are enslaved to their own sinful desires. Why? because they want to be.
No, not really.
Right. But that doesn’t explain why, in response to the drawing of the Holy Spirit, we cannot choose to want to do so as we constantly experience ourself doing in many areas of life. It assumes they don’t want to by some kind of uncontrollable force instead of willful volition which under some circumstances (like seeing Gods love for example) can be changed.
Prob always goes back to no scripture says we are incapable of responding to God when He calls us.
Molinist here, so no irons in the fire. These two views are almost identical in substance. Seemed to me Abasciano talked past Leighton’s clarifications in order to keep distinctions. If you don’t believe in partial regeneration, you in substance are in the same camp as Leighton in regards to the sinfulness of man.
If total inability is true, you need an internal heart change (re Olson) in order for someone to respond to the Gospel.
Why is Brian trying so hard to make it sound like Leighton doesn’t believe in the ministry of the HS? Seems weird to me
Last comment here for Brian: if the “baseline” is total inability, how can someone be farther down the spectrum, ie more hardened than totally unable? How can you be “more unable”?
All very good points!
Leighton Flower’s argument by analogy strongly suggest that man can come to Christ by his natural prowess. I’ll try to frame Flowers’ argument with some of his thoughts paraphrased, and see where it lands.
(L1) All truths are believable
(L2) Sinners (global humanity) are capable and trust all truths that are believable despite the corruption of sin.
(L3) 2 + 2 = 4 [m*] is a necessary propositional truth which the sinner is capable of believing.
(L4) Sinners incorrigibly and indubitably assent to the propositional truth m*.
(L5) The proposition ‘Christ is Lord’ is just as believable as m*.
(L6) Since any sinner believes and assents to m*, any sinner incorrigibly and indubitably assents to the proposition ‘Christ is Lord’.
(L7) Therefore, all sinners believe and assent to the truth of the gospel.
The above argument is motivated by Flowers’ argument by analogy, namely, m*s (2 + 2 = 4) shares the same epistemic access and proper basicality as ‘Christ is Lord’. But we can see that the conclusion (L7) is false. While the conclusion follows logically from the premises, one of the premises must be false. One counterexample can easily falsify the symmetry in (L5). It’s not hard to convince anyone that at least one sinner can affirm m* but reject the gospel. Therefore, the conclusion is rendered false because (L5) is false. So where does this leave Flowers’ view on sin and man?
As I see it, it is also false, as he asserts that, his view of communicating the gospel doesn’t ride so much on his view of sin than it is the “sufficient means” by which one assents to its truth claims. But his supporting argument above has been neutralized. And when asked, what makes biblical and the Q’uran different(?), he simply pontificated his bias, “The Q’uran is full of lies”, which, on the converse, the Muslim can also stipulate, which begs the question.
As we can see, since there is an asymmetry between m* and assenting to the gospel, there must be a property over and against (ab extra) the mere verbal propositional content of the gospel that overcomes the epistemic blockage in the sinner. Clearly such epistemic obstacle is not intellectual, as Flowers’ would have us believe, but ethical. Neither is Flowers’ view of the Holy Spirit’s operation in communicating the gospel seem to serve any effectual cause. To be sure, his views seems to render the divine activity superfluous. For the propositional content of the gospel would not have any less efficacy absent the spirit’s involvement. Almost all Protestants take on this, however, see sin’s corruption to account for the suppressing the truth, and therefore more than human verbiage seems warranted for a sinner to assent to the gospel. (The differences between groups lie in the *degree* of the Spirit’s activity.)
I think that Reformed Arminians are on good grounds in affirming the spirit’s global convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit as a necessary means of the evangelistic enterprise. While human preaching is a necessary means, we can see that it is insufficient.
“And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness an judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;” (Jn 16:8-9).
This passage was not brought up in the discussion. But it seems to me that Flowers’ would be at pain to locate this ab extra activity of the spirit in the ordo salutis. But once he affirms at any soteriological point, it cancels his one point on which he whole view hangs; namely, human preaching of the gospel is the sufficient means for sinners to assent to the truth claims of the gospel.
The conversation was in lighting to what Flower actually believes. Straight Pelagian
Lol, you don't even know what Pelagianism is or what Pelagius believed. Flowers believes man can save himself without God? Man can live a perfect life? Even Pelagius never believed that! Rofl
Flowers is a con man
100% agree
Why don't Arminians actually read what Scripture says of itself?
John 6:63
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The WORDS THAT I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Please tell me why Arminians don't believe God-breathed words have no Spirit in them.
Dude, why you gotta be hatin’ daily?
@@pinknoise365 Asking questions is "hating"? LOL.
@@ACTSVERSE Nah, I am referring to alllllll the others times. 😂🤣😂
Why would you lie about the positions of Arminians? I don't know anyone who aligns with Arminianism that would disagree with those verses