Does Regeneration Precede Faith? The Depravity Debate Between Leighton Flowers and Joel Webbon

Hey guys, welcome to Remnant Radio and the Depravity Debate. You guys are in for a treat tonight. We are so excited. My name is Michael Rountree. I'm the co-host here at Remnant Radio. What is Remnant Radio? Remnant Radio is a theology broadcast. We interview pastors, teachers, scholars from all over the world, always within the scope of orthodoxy. But our goal is to suspend our theological presuppositions and to break out of our echo chambers as we hear both sides of the of the debate. And that is exactly what we are going to have tonight.

This is a very special broadcast. We actually have with us a live studio audience. Live studio audience, let them hear you! That's right. Okay, so, so excited to have you guys and so excited to have you guys. Now, let me introduce our guests. First of all, not our guests, our debaters. Uh, on my left and on your right, this is Pastor Joel Webben. He is the founder of The Response Church. He's also the founder of Right Response Ministries, and he is going to be representing the Calvinist position today. And over here on my right and on your left, this is Dr. Leighton Flowers. He's going to be representing the Provisionist perspective. He's the director of Evangelism and Apologetics for the Texas Baptists and he's also the founder of Soteriology101. And you can, uh, you can visit his website soteriology101.com, as well as, uh, Pastor Joel Webben, look up Right Response Ministries. Both of them have loads of material. Uh, so with these things said, we're gonna go ahead and get started. And we're gonna, we're gonna begin with an opening statement. The format for this evening, just so that you guys know, uh, we're gonna have an opening statement from the Calvinist position first, and second from the Provisionist, uh, the Provision, Provisionist perspective. After that, we're gonna move into a rebuttal from one side and then a rebuttal from the other. Each of those rebuttals and the opening statements, uh, will last for 15 minutes. After that, there will be a 10-minute cross-examination for each side. Then a closing. Josh and I are going to be monitoring your questions throughout. At the very end, we'll do a Q&A for you who are in the live studio audience. We'll try to take your questions. We have a camera or a microphone set up right here. Also for our live chat, we'll be taking your questions as well. So we're gonna get into it. And what I want to do, uh, now is I just want to set the tone for what this is about. There's really two different kind of debates. The first debate is, we're setting out to kill the other person. We want to seek, kill, and destroy. Okay. Did I just quote like John 10:10 there almost? Uh, okay. So we, we're not about that. Okay. We're not about trying to destroy the other person. Uh, these two men have, they, they've met each other, they've gotten to know each other a little bit, they have respect for each other. And so our real goal, the other kind of debate is, we want to get at truth. We want to understand God's word more deeply. And by representing these two different sides, that's going to, uh, gonna help us understand every aspect of truth, our own positions, and the other position better. So without further ado, we're going to begin with Pastor Joel Webben. And Joel, why don't you come on up and share the Calvinist position? The question that we are answering is, does regeneration, being born again, does regeneration precede faith, or is it the other way? Does faith precede regeneration? So Joel, take it away.

Thanks, Michael. Michael and Josh, thank you for having me for this debate. I don't feel as though I'm the most qualified Calvinist for this debate, but I'm going to do my best by the grace of God. And also, a special thank you to the live audience. Thank you guys for coming, hearing us out. And also, there we go. There we go. The power of 10,000 voices. I mean, a room this size is really unheard of. There's a lot of people here. I just, it's overwhelming. Um, and then Leighton, also a special thank you to you. Thank you for giving me the opportunity. And I'm sure I will learn a few things tonight. Um, and hopefully, I will not embarrass myself. Gonna do my best. All right, let me fix my phone real quick so I can time myself. Um, somehow. Okay, I got this weird stopwatch right now. Can you come? I'm not good with tech. Usually, this is when I say, Nathan Elam, please come and help me, but he's not here. I just want the seconds, you know, something to. Oh my gosh, thanks, Josh. All right. Okay. All right. Okay. Although Adam willfully chose to rebel against God in the garden, and the consequence for his sin was death, mankind was not plunged into a state of total spiritual helplessness or inability. But rather, each and every sinner has retained his ability to repent and believe the gospel. Each sinner therefore possesses not merely a free will, but an autonomously free will, which God has determined to be superior to his own. In other words, man's choices are preeminent. For God has resigned to move merely in the margins, working around man and his determinations. Therefore, the sinner is the one who possesses the power to respond to the gospel and to receive the Spirit's work of regeneration as the just reward for his righteous choice. In other words, the dead sinner does not require the Spirit's work of regeneration before he can believe, for faith is not a gift of God, but a work of man, and therefore, it must necessarily precede the new birth. In short, faith is the sinner's gift to God. It is man's glorious contribution to God's plan of salvation. And this, brothers and sisters, is precisely what I believe the Bible does not teach. To the contrary, the Calvinist position can be summed up in this: regeneration precedes faith. Due to the fall of man, we are unable in and of ourselves to truly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the spiritual things of God, for the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly or foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them or comprehend them because they are spiritually discerned. First Corinthians 2:14. Not only this, but the heart of the unregenerate sinner is deceitful above all else and desperately wicked. Jeremiah 17, verse 9. His will therefore is not autonomously free, but rather the will is in bondage to man's sinful nature, and therefore, man will not, indeed, he cannot choose that which is pleasing to God. This does not mean that the unbeliever is utterly depraved, but rather totally depraved. Therefore, the unbeliever is capable of performing several actions that may outwardly align with the moral law of God, for instance, fidelity in heterosexual marriage or integrity in business practices. But all these things remain ultimately unpleasing to God precisely because they have not been done in faith, as Romans chapter 14, verse 23 says, "Anything not done in faith is sin." And as Hebrews chapter 11, verse 6 says, "Without faith, it is impossible to please God." As John chapter 3, verse 3 through 7 says, Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." But Nicodemus responded, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water" (which the Calvinist takes to be the natural birth) "and of the Spirit" (that is the new birth), "he cannot enter the kingdom of God. For that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of Spirit is Spirit. Do not marvel that I say to you, you must be born again." Now, one key difference, which we will likely observe this evening, is this: the Provisionist will attempt to prove that the Calvinist has somehow failed to ascribe the proper weight to the power of the gospel. But I believe it is the Calvinist who rightly recognizes that the Provisionist is failing to ascribe the proper weight to the severity of the sinfulness of man. As it is written, "None is righteous, no not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive; the venom of asps is under their lips; their mouth is full of curses and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." Therefore, the question which must be posed is this: Based on this description of man, based on the Bible's description of man, based on what we might refer to as God's anthropology, what man would ever seek for God? And furthermore, if left in his sinful state, what man would choose to appropriately respond to God, even if God were seeking after him? What man possesses enough understanding of God to desire him? Notice Romans chapter 3. It finishes by saying that there is no fear of God before his eyes, but it begins in terms of speaking about a lack of understanding that no one understands God and no one seeks for God. Now, if a man has no understanding, why would he have desire? Based on this description of man, who would ever, even if God sought after him, would respond properly? What man possesses enough understanding to desire God, or we might say, trust God, or to make God the object of his affections? Who fears God, based on this scripture, enough to properly feel the weight of their sin and therefore to properly feel the weight of their need for a savior? Brothers and sisters, the sinner will never choose God on his own. Indeed, he cannot, because he is dead in sin. And this state of spiritual deadness is defined by scripture as a condition from birth. "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." That's Psalm 51:5. And not only that, but scripture further defines this state of spiritual deadness as, in fact, a state of spiritual inability. Romans chapter 8, verse 7 through 9 says, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, not indifferent, not neutral, not merely uninterested, but rather hostile, at enmity with God. For it does not submit to God's law; that is, it will not, it does not, indeed, it cannot. Unwilling and unable." Verse 8. Now, Romans 8:8, "For those who are in the flesh cannot please God." But you, verse 9, in contrast, Christians, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. The line of logic goes like this: A person cannot submit to the law of God, nor do anything that is ultimately pleasing to God if they don't desire God. They will not desire that which they cannot comprehend, that which they don't understand. And a person cannot understand God nor the spiritual things of God because these things are spiritually discerned. So you will not submit to God if you don't understand God. You don't desire him, so you don't understand him. And, and you can't understand God if you are in the flesh, because an understanding of the spiritual things comes by being in the Spirit. And lastly, the condition is this: you will never be in the Spirit if the Spirit's not in you. Again, Romans 8:9, "You Christians, however, you're not like the unregenerate. You're not, you're not like the unbeliever. You're not in the flesh, but rather by conscious, you're in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you." You can obey God, you can choose God, you can respond to God, follow God, trust God, love God, if you understand. And you understand if you're in the Spirit, and you are in the Spirit if the Spirit is in you. So within the Apostle Paul's argument here, the flesh versus the Spirit, we glean vital insight into our debate this evening concerning the inability of man. For here we find that natural man, that is those who are in the flesh, that is unbelievers, are hostile to God and cannot submit to God's law or please God. This is because man in his natural and unregenerate state is unable even to understand the things of God because these things are spiritually discerned. Here's another text to support that: First Corinthians chapter 2, verse 14. "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are falling foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them." Why? Because they are spiritually discerned. He is not in the Spirit. If we cross-reference over to Romans 8:7-9, he can't understand, he can't please God because he can't understand. He doesn't accept the things of God because he can't comprehend the things of God. Why can he not understand the things of God? Because they're spiritually discerned. And how come he doesn't have this spiritual discernment? Because he's not in the Spirit. And why is he not in the Spirit? Because the Spirit's not in him. So, so the question left in my mind is this: What unregenerate person has the Spirit? Because you got to have the Spirit to be in the Spirit. You got to be in the Spirit to spiritually discern. You've got to spiritually discern to understand. You've got to understand to accept the things of God and to accept God himself as Savior. So my question is this: If at all, it seems like there's a logical progression of ultimately the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit. So the question would be this: What unregenerate person has the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit? The answer is none. They don't. They simply don't. Now, both sides of this debate will appeal to scripture, and both sides have some legitimately difficult verses for the other side to reconcile. This is because the Bible does in fact contain what we might call apparent contradictions. Therefore, in order to resolve these apparent contradictions, each of us must determine which text we will use in order to interpret the others. For example, the Calvinist is always going to insist that the "whosoever's" of the Bible must be viewed in light of the spiritual condition of man. We must understand that God not merely views man as sick, but as dead. Therefore, as an example, to give you an example, the "whosoever believes" of John 3:16 necessarily follows the "you must be born again" in order to even see, much less enter, the kingdom of God of John 3:3-7. Or as another example, the "whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" of Romans 10:13, it necessarily follows the "so then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy" of Romans 9:16. In order to state this point more plainly, both sides of the debate possess the same Bible. It is not as though Dr. Flowers possesses certain scriptures which the Calvinist does not, neither does the Calvinist possess certain scriptures which the Provisionist does not. So why is it that we come to separate conclusions? It is because although we study the same scriptures, we both do so with different presuppositions. That is to say, we arrive at separate ends simply because we start at separate beginnings. All synergists, including the Provisionist, begin with the dignity, autonomy, rights, freedoms of man. After defining these terms, the synergist generously grants to God whatever might be left. But the Calvinist always begins with God. The Calvinist begins with the glory of God, the grace of God, the rights of God, the privileges of God, the freedom of God. And only after carefully outlining from the scripture that which properly belongs to God does the Calvinist describe whatever might be left to man, namely, nothing but his sin. For man contributes nothing to his salvation except the sin that made it necessary. Jonathan Edwards. Allow me to finish by quoting Romans chapter 9: "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy. You will say to me, then, 'Why does he still find fault?'" Moral failure on the part of man. "For who can resist his will?" Who is able to resist him? "But who are you, a man, to talk back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'" Has the potter no right over the clay? The Calvinist seeks first and foremost to defend and to herald the rights of the potter, not the clay. That's the difference. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Pastor Webben. Dr. Flowers, your opening statement.

I'd like to start by thanking Remnant Radio for hosting this and putting all this together. Thank you, studio audience, for showing up and for being here. Uh, theology geeks here on a Monday night, coming to theology geek out together on a debate. And Joel, I appreciate you coming all the way from California, California, to the promised land. And I got you a gift. I've got you a gift here. We go now. Let's Cowboys. It's just for you. Thank you. Football has become too woke for me to watch. And don't go bragging on it, you know, receiving that free gift that I just offered you. Okay, I had to throw that one in there. All right. I think we're ready. Okay. Instead of the Depravity Debate, I would have preferred they titled this the Responsibility Debate. Because we all agree man is depraved. Everyone is a sinner in need of a savior. Our point of contention with Calvinists is specifically over human responsibility, which I contend is in direct contrast with this Calvinistic idea of what they are calling total inability, which is the idea that because of the sin of Adam, God sovereignly and unchangeably decreed that all people would be born from that point forward in a fallen condition whereby they could only hate and reject even God's own genuine appeals to be reconciled from that fallen condition. Now, please understand this point of contention on Calvinism. Everyone is born by sovereign and unchangeable decree unable to desire to accept the appeal of the gospel. So people ultimately end up in hell for reasons that are beyond their control. As John Calvin put it, they are, quote, "doomed from the womb," they are "destined for destruction." In quote. So let me just say something to my Calvinist friends as we begin this. We, when we disagree with you about your doctrine of total inability, we are not saying that humanity is without sin. We are not saying that they can save themselves, nor are we teaching that everyone deserves salvation. We are arguing to preserve what we sincerely believe the Bible teaches about human responsibility, God's character, as well as his love and his provision for every person whom he created in his own image. We are not denying humanity's bondage to sin. Please hear that. We believe all sinners are in bondage to sin, but we're simply saying is this: those who are in bondage are still responsible. Those who are in bondage are still responsible to humbly confess their bondage and put their trust in the only one who can free them. And by responsibility, we, yes, mean what it connotes: the ability to respond in faith to the inspired truth that was sent to help set people free from their bondage. We understand no one seeks God on their own, but we simply do not believe that God has left anyone on their own. Nor do we believe that the inability to initiate our reconciliation with God entails an inability to respond willingly to God's gracious initiative. We agree that no one is righteous, not even one, as it pertains to the law. But we simply do not believe that entails an inability to confess that fact and put our trust in the righteousness of Christ so as to be saved by his unmerited grace that he offers indiscriminately to all people through the appeal of the gospel. I believe the Bible teaches that fallen sinners are able to respond to the gospel by either humbling themselves and accepting it as truth or suppressing the truth and unrighteousness and growing hardened to it. You weren't born, in other words, cut off from the truth. Only if you trade the truth in for lies, well, you would be eventually cut off from it. So this debate is less about depravity, it's more about whether depraved people maintain the ability to respond positively to God's own appeals to be reconciled from their depraved conditions. Now, some Calvinists will argue saying something like, "Well, the lost are dead in their sins, and that means they are dead like Lazarus was in the grave, and therefore the lost cannot believe unless God unconditionally chose them before they were ever born and irresistibly brings them to new life. Regeneration must precede faith on Calvinism." Now, I'd argue that's not in the Bible, and the Bible never makes this sociological link to Lazarus, and therefore we should reject it on that basis. But we should also reject it because of its negative practical and theological implications. Instead of me trying to explain these implications, I'd rather you hear the negative implications from this worldview from a very influential former Calvinist named Derek Webb. He's the former lead singer of Caedmon's Call, who ironically is known for singing and writing a song on the very doctrine that we're debating today, the doctrine of inability. And I pray that this works. So go ahead, let's play it.

And with my Christian friends who try to convince me this, I say, listen, like, I don't know why you're trying to persuade me because your own Bible says it's a gift. That it's a gift. It's the work of the Spirit, start to finish. It's a, it's a removing of a heart of stone and replacing with a heart of flesh. That is not something you can do for me. Yeah. So if it's true, we're both depending on the Spirit to show up. I'm literally in the grave next to Lazarus, yeah, waiting for them, waiting to hear my name, yeah. And I'm gonna lay in there dead till he shows up. Yeah. Somebody asked me, uh, near the beginning of this year of living Christianly, well, what would it take for you to believe? What would it take for you to believe in God? That's easy. God would have to give me faith because I'm, I can't reach out. What it would take is a miracle. It would take a miracle. Yeah. Like, what, what, what does it take for a dead man to come out of, hi, to come six feet out of the ground? It takes someone to dig him out, to open the box and revive him, breathe into his nose. And, and the Bible makes it very clear that there is nothing less spiritually than that going on, yeah, in salvation. Absolute new life. New life from death to life. Yeah. And that's what would be required. Yeah. And, and I, I, I'm open to it. I'm literally, I'm literally in the grave waiting to hear my name. Yeah. Anytime. If that's because if there is going to be a work of the Spirit going on, I want in. And I won't be able to resist it. And I can't call out for it. I cannot coax him over. Yeah. Either my name is written in the book of life or it's not. But there's a point where I said, you know what? Maybe, maybe God made me and fashioned me for destruction. Yeah. And so there's nothing I'm going to be able to change his mind about it. So maybe it's all real and I'm just not chosen.

Now, I believe it's tragic that anyone might come to believe they were not chosen by God, that they were hated and rejected from birth by the one who fashioned them in their mother's womb. Now, I can say to Derek, with all assurance, God did not create or fashion you for destruction. Calvinists cannot say that to him consistently. I can say to Derek or anyone like him, God loves you and genuinely desires for you to leave behind your sin and trust in him. But I don't believe a Calvinist can consistently say that to anyone. All of us here would love to see Derek Webb come to faith, wouldn't we? But on Calvinism, God doesn't want that. Not really. Why not? Are we more loving and merciful than God? Heavens, no. If Derek persists in his unbelief and he perishes, it will be because he refused to accept the truth so as to be saved. As Paul put it, Derek did not reject the gospel because God sovereignly decreed for him to be morally unable to receive the truth due to a condition that he was born in beyond his control, like the T in the TULIP suggests. Derek did not reject the gospel because God rejected him before he was born, as if he fashioned him for destruction, like the U in the TULIP suggests. Derek did not reject the gospel because Jesus didn't really die for him, like the L in the TULIP suggests. Derek did not reject the gospel because he was born in a grave like Lazarus and he's just can't come out unless God irresistibly causes him to come out, like the I in the TULIP suggested. Don't give Derek the excuse that TULIP gives him. Derek, like all unbelievers, are responsible. That means they are able to respond to the life-giving truth of the gospel calling them to faith and reconciliation. In John 11:25, Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me will live, even though he dies." And everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. So according to Jesus, faith is the means by which we are made alive. In John 20:31, it says it even more clearly: "The gospel, quote, is the, was written so that you may believe in Christ, and that by believing, listen to the order, by believing, you may have life in his name." What does the lost, dead man need? They need the gospel, because by believing the gospel, they may have life in his name. According to the scripture, in John 5:40, Jesus said to the Pharisees, "You refuse to come to me that you may have life." If Calvinism were true, Jesus should have said, "You have refused, I've refused to give you life, Pharisees. I've refused to give you life so that you would certainly come to me." So the gospel is the means by which the dead man is raised to new life. In Romans 5:1-2, Paul says, "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand." Now, if Calvinism were true, Paul should have said, "We have gained access by this irresistible grace into this faith." Paul teaches that faith is the means by which we gain access to saving grace, not the other way around. Calvinists have to reverse the order of scripture to fit their system. Listen, we agree with our Calvinistic friends that the lost are enslaved and in bondage to sin. But what is the solution to being enslaved? The truth that sets men free. The gospel. Does being a slave to sin mean you can't believe in Jesus? In Acts 13, John said, "Quote, everyone who believes is freed from all things from which you could not be freed through the law of Moses." So how are they freed? "Everyone who believes is freed from all things." We are freed by believing in him. We are not freed in order to believe in him. John 8:32 teaches that the gospel is a truth that sets the captives free, but only if they receive it. If they resist the words of Christ, they will go calloused to the truth and may eventually be cut off in their rebellion. They are not born already cut off by a sovereign decree, as Calvinism's doctrine suggests. Only if they, quote, as Paul says, "trade the truth of God in for lies" in Romans chapter 1, will they eventually be cut off from that truth. We also agree with our Calvinistic friends when they say that the lost are enemies, are enmity with God. But again, what is the solution to that problem? The gospel is the solution. The gospel is the appeal of God to be reconciled, according to 2 Corinthians 5:20. So to recap, sinners are dead in sin, enslaved to their sin, at enmity with God, and we agree with Calvinists on that. But nothing about any of these conditions that Joel argued for in his opener even remotely suggests the moral inability of the lost to humbly own up to that condition so as to be healed, especially in light of the cross and God's gracious appeal for reconciliation by means of the powerful Holy Spirit gospel appeal. The gospel is the solution to mankind's lost condition. Now, so hear this. We are not contending with Calvinists over the severity of mankind's lostness. We are contending over the sufficiency of the gospel to save the lost. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Paul said, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." So being dead or slaves or enemies does not change the fact that the gospel is sufficient for dead, enslaved enemies to be raised, set free, and reconciled. How? Through faith in Christ Jesus. Think about it for a second. Consider what the Calvinist is ultimately asking us to believe: fallen humanity, by divine sovereign decree, it's not by accident, God decreed this, are going to be born unable to respond positively to God's own appeals to be reconciled from their fallen condition. Yet God judges them guilty and punishes them in eternity in hell for ultimately something they have no meaningful control over. Calvinists will often say in response to this accusation, "Well, you know what? Should doesn't always mean could. Just because God demands that we do something doesn't mean that we can actually do it." And then they will appeal to the law by asking something like, "Well, could you live a perfect life without breaking any of God's laws?" And of course, you have to say, "Well, no, we're all sinners, we all fall short." And then the Calvinist will reply and they'll say, "We'll see, should doesn't mean could." But the Calvinist is making a fundamental error in this argument. Ultimately, no one is condemned for breaking commandments. They are condemned for their unbelief, as Paul said, "they perished because they refused the truth so as to be saved." Suppose you had a horrible gambling addiction and as a result, you accrued a debt so large that it was literally impossible for you to repay. Would your inability to pay off this debt excuse you from paying it? Of course not. You should pay off this debt regardless of whether you could pay off this debt. This is an example of where inability does not remove responsibility, and thus should does not necessarily mean that one could. Likewise, the scriptures teach us that we should obey the law of God perfectly, Matthew 5:48. But it also teaches us that no one could, Romans 3:23. Our moral inability to fulfill the law's demands does not remove the moral responsibility to the law. We have a sin debt that we cannot pay, yet scripture seems to teach that we are held accountable for that debt nonetheless. This is an instance where should does not necessarily imply could. But continue with the gambling analogy above. Suppose your wealthy and benevolent father offered to pay your gambling debt for you if you would confess your addiction and go to rehab. Clearly, this is something you should do. But could you? Of course you could. Your inability to pay off the debt in no way hinders you from accepting the benevolent offer of your father's provision. Likewise, with regard to the law, your benevolent and gracious father offers to pay your sin debt if you confess your sin addiction and put your trust in him. Clearly, this is something you should do. But could you? I say you could. Your inability to pay off your sin debt in no way hinders you from accepting the benevolent offer of your father's gracious provision. Suppose someone tried to convince you that one's inability to pay off their debt equaled their inability to accept help when it was offered. Would you believe them? I ask because that's what our Calvinistic friends are attempting to get the church to believe. If God is ultimately responsible for mankind's response to his own appeals, then it would be irrational to call them responsible. People are held responsible to God's word because they have the moral capacity to respond to it by either suppressing it or believing it. I agree with Joel, this is about God's glory. God is most glorified not in controlling all his enemies, but in laying down his life for them in the climactic event in all of human history. God's glory is displayed on the cross by selflessly loving all his enemies, not by meticulously controlling them. Glory, according to Jesus, isn't about power and control. It's about love and sacrifice. God is not seeking to display his glory by means of wrath on vessels he himself ultimately controls. He is already maximally glorious, which is best demonstrated by his self-sacrificial love and provision for each and every undeserved person who was created in his image. God bless.

Thanks. And I'd like to put this up here proudly. Afraid I'm not ashamed of my height. So, as our debaters are going to prep their rebuttals, as I do that, I would encourage you that we are going to be taking live questions from our audience online. So I would ask, if you have a question directed towards Dr. Flowers, if you would use the @ symbol and then spell Leighton or or Flowers, that would be acceptable. And the same thing for Joel. If you have a question that was directed towards Joel, how a Calvinist would answer a certain text or question, the @ symbol and then Joel or Webben, both of those would be acceptable. We'll be filtering through those. So I would ask right now, as you are coming through the chat, it's hard because you guys like to debate each other and have conversations with each other, to sift through, uh, what's actually a question versus what is a comment as you guys are engaging with one another. So I would encourage you to do that. As, uh, uh, they are preparing, go ahead and ask your questions now. Also, I would like to, uh, draw your attention to the description of this video. In the description of the video, you will find both The Potter's Promise, which is a book that Dr. Flowers has written. If you want to know more about Provisionism, The Potter's Promise would be the book that you would want to pick up. And Joel has also released a book, Am I Truly Saved? If you're interested in Joel's sociological perspective and having an assurance of salvation, we would encourage you to pick up both of those books. There are links. They're not affiliate links. They go straight to Amazon or their websites. You can go ahead and pick those up in the description as well. If you're new to Remnant Radio, you've never been here before, we are a theology broadcast. We interview pastors and teachers. We'd ask you to go and hit that subscribe button, as we are going to come out with more debates like this. And if you're a debater out there who wants to prove somebody wrong and you get some experience in debate and you like this format, this model, we would love to have you out and host a debate. So we would encourage such activity. Uh, if you go into our YouTube channel at theremnantradio.com, or not theremnantradio.com, if you go to youtube.com/theRemnantRadio, you can actually see a list of our upcoming episodes. Soon we're gonna be having Jeff Durbin on the program. We're gonna have Tim Mackie from The Bible Project. Tons of great pastors, teachers, theologians that you aren't going to want to miss out on. Uh, that is literally all I can ramble. And I was an associate pastor for a while, like, we did transition all the time. That's all I got. Uh, I'm going to step off of my high horse and, uh, turn it over to Joel.

Okay. So Dr. Flowers consistently gives priority to the parable of the prodigal son, as we've just heard, over the resurrection of Lazarus when it comes to determining which serves as the better illustration for a proper understanding of soteriology. Personally, I think you might be happy to hear this, Dr. Flowers, but I have no problem with this. This is because Jesus does, you're right on this point, clearly tell the parable of the prodigal son in order to illustrate repentance while making no mention of a correlation between salvation and the resurrection of Lazarus. However, I do find it odd that the parable of the prodigal son is given priority over the parable of the lost sheep or the parable of the lost coin, which are both found in the very same chapter, Luke 15. In the parable of the lost sheep, for instance, the sheep clearly does not return home on his own, but rather the shepherd brings him back. And the parable, the lost coin, surely the lost coin does not somehow find itself. Instead, it merely lies hidden until it's eventually found. And these are not the only illustrations of salvation that we have. What about Romans chapter 9, verses 14 through 23, where clay is used as the example? In this context, the apostle explicitly says, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy." Romans 9:16. My point is this: the scripture provides many illustrations for salvation, and no less than three illustrations are found in Luke 15. So why is the prodigal son constantly given priority? Well, in part, it is because the father in the parable does in fact say that his son was dead and is now alive. And the crux of our debate this evening has to do with a proper understanding of spiritual deadness. However, I believe that the parable of the prodigal son is also given priority because it is the only illustration out of the three provided by Jesus in Luke 15 which involves the subject that is lost seemingly returning home on their own. It's convenient. The Calvinist does the very same thing. It's not to be unfair towards Dr. Flowers. Lazarus's death, Jesus saying, "Lazarus, come forth." It's convenient, it works for our argument. However, in the case of the parable of the prodigal son, let's just use this illustration. We must take notice that something clearly happens which causes the son to return home to his father, namely, the prodigal comes to his senses. It may be permissible to assume that this refers to the prodigal son's own volitional choice to begin thinking more clearly. But I believe it's perfectly permissible to assume from a Calvinistic perspective that the prodigal son's coming to his senses is the equivalent of him being put into his right mind. In other words, the Calvinist would simply recognize that the prodigal son first comes to his senses, and only after this does he rise and come to his father. Now, this concept of coming to our senses or being put into a right mind, it is indicative. It is strikingly similar to what's said in Luke chapter 8, verses 27 through 39, of the demoniac. Now, for the sake of time, I'm not going to read the entire text, but starting with verse 35, after Jesus has cast out the many demons, this is the man who is possessed. And asking Jesus, asking the name, the demon responds saying, "Legion, for we are many." And, and the demons plead and begged Jesus not to torment them before the appointed time. They plead, "Please do not cast us into the abyss, but rather send us into this herd of pigs," which Jesus obliges, and the pigs run into the sea and immediately drown. The whole town is kind of in an uproar. They're concerned and curious about what's going on and afraid. Verse 35. Now, we're set for the scene. The people went out to see what had happened, and they came to Jesus and found the man from whom the demons had gone, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind. He had come to his senses. But how? That's the question. Yes, he came to his senses. But notice the progression. The demoniac does not desire to be healed or saved first, but rather he simply desires to be left alone and not tormented by Christ. Therefore, it is only after the demons are removed and the man is put into his right mind that he is then found sitting at the feet of Jesus and later even begging to accompany Jesus. And in summary, it is undeniably true that those who choose to return to the Father's house or those who choose to sit at the feet of Jesus, they make this choice freely. However, neither of these examples prove that this choice on the part of man actually precedes God's choice to change the person's heart. Now, God's anthropology. Shifting gears now. Responding to something else that Leighton said in terms of Romans 1, in terms of responsibility being defined as "respons-able." That's another one of the things that Leighton often teaches to be responsible. Now, what he's saying, the responsibility he's talking about, moral responsibility, moral culpability. So in order to be morally responsible, you must be responsible, that is, able to respond, particularly to the gospel. To be fair to his position, so he's not saying you got to be able to respond to obeying all the tenets of the law, but, but the unregenerate person, apart from regeneration, should be able, he must, in fact, be able to respond to the pleas of God in the gospel in order to be morally culpable. If not, then God's not just. And to be fair to Leighton's position, he is trying his best. He knows how to defend the justice of God. The logic goes like this: Leighton wants God to be just when he judges. Therefore, Leighton and I both want man to be morally culpable, responsible. Right? God's not just in his judgments if man's not responsible for his sin. And because man has to be responsible so that God's not just an arbitrary, mean, unfair judge, if man's morally responsible, Leighton and I both see that man's rebellion, or his choice to respond to the gospel, must be something that's free. Now, where he disagrees, all the way over here, what constitutes freedom? Well, what's necessary for a choice to be free? Well, Leighton has a libertarian view of freedom. Leighton believes that in order for this person to be morally responsible for their sin, they have to be sinning freely. In order for them to be sinning freely, they have to have an alternative choice. They have to be able to do otherwise. Whereas the Calvinist says, "No, no, they don't have to have an alternative choice in order to be sinning freely and therefore morally responsible for their sin, and therefore God being just when he judges." But rather, they have to simply be doing precisely what they desire. See, God's anthropology. We find another text in Genesis 6:5, which is not limited to the human race merely prior to the flood, but it is true of all those who are outside of Christ. It says this: "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart were only evil continually." I like when Paul Washer, in one of his sermons, he read that. Someone in the crowd said, "I don't like the way you interpreted that text." He said, "I didn't interpret it. I simply read it. That's just what the Bible says about man." It's not great. So please note, this does not mean that the unbeliever is utterly depraved. We'll get into this, I'm sure, Dr. Flowers, but rather totally depraved. Therefore, the unbeliever, who is totally depraved, is capable of performing several actions that may outwardly align with God's moral law, as I said in my opening statement, such as fidelity in heterosexual marriage or integrity in their business practices. But these things remain unpleasing to God because they have not been done in faith. And again, Romans 14:23 says, "Anything not done in faith is sin." Hebrews 11:6 says, "Without faith, it is impossible to please God." Now, let me further define what it means to do something in faith. See, to do something in faith is to do it with a reliance on God's grace, that is an acknowledgment of God's power and goodness, and a desire for God's glory. That is our ultimate reason or motive for doing moral deeds should be that men may see our good deeds and glorify our Father who is in heaven. That we're not simply faithful in marriage for the sake of a life. There's a greater end, right? That we're doing horizontal good as we seek to love our neighbor, but, but ultimately, it's all first and foremost to glorify God. I'm loving my neighbor, yes, I'm loving my wife, I'm loving my children, I'm working hard as unto the Lord, but it's all for his glory. So, so to do something in faith, without faith, it's impossible to please God. And to do something in faith, I think it's both ends. I think it's two sides of a singular coin. It's a reliance on God's grace and a desire for God's glory. What unregenerate person, what non-Christian, could ever do something in faith? They don't do anything with a reliance.

on god's grace and they don't do anything with a desire for god's glory. The atheist is not utterly depraved; they're totally depraved. Meaning they could do wonderful things. They could seek to cure cancer, but for the glory of themselves and relying on their own strength. Or let's make it even better, they can do it with a reliance on the strength of their team. "I couldn't have done it with my colleague over over here. I couldn't have done it without the the help of of these researchers. I did it with the strength of humanity for the glory of humanity." But what they'll never say is that "I did it with a reliance on God's grace and a desire for God's glory." It's not in faith. And so they can cure cancer by the power of humanity for the good of humanity, but not by the power of God for the good of God, the glory of God. And therefore, it is unpleasing to God. It is something that is outwardly moral, but it does not come from faith. And that which proceeds not from faith is sin.

Calvinists firmly believe that God reveals himself generally to all people in such a way that all people do, in fact, see God as it were. However, while unbelievers are not utterly blind, they are totally blind. So, in the same way, unbelievers are not utterly depraved in their hands and feet and actions, but totally depraved. They're also not utterly blind, but they're totally blind. Now, let me draw the distinction. In other words, the unbeliever can clearly see that God exists from his birth. But he cannot see God as good. See, that's what Romans 1 says. From from birth, because the imago Dei, because we're made in the image of God, and because of natural, it's the doctrine of natural revelation, general revelation. God has, Romans 1, he has made himself known. He has manifested himself by what he has made. Creation itself testifies that God exists, and it testifies to his nature. But but what precisely about God? It says his divine nature and eternal power. See, there is such a doctrine as natural law. That that's that's the law of God written on the heart of every man because they've been made in the image of God. You don't need to be regenerate to have a conscience to know that something's right and wrong. And the unregenerate unbeliever can, in fact, follow the conscience. Jiminy Cricket, right? The conscience. I don't think Pinocchio is regenerate. If I'm going to make that argument, he was regenerating when he became a real boy, but he was trying, he was trying to follow Jiminy Cricket while he was still a puppet, right? The conscious, the unbeliever.

So the person is like, "Well, I don't like Calvinism because my my neighbor is an unbeliever and she's sweet as pie. She made brownies for my kids the other day." And I just don't like you guys. Well, we're not saying she's utterly depraved. She's totally depraved. So in her hands and feet, she's not utterly depraved. She's not a serial killer, right? She could be doing outwardly good things that align with the moral will of God. But but she's totally depraved means she's not doing it in faith, not with a reliance on God's grace, not with a desire for God's glory. Same thing with sight. Same thing with with eyes and ears. So hands and feet, same thing with eyes and ears. She can see God. What about him? His eternal power, right? His divine nature. But but she cannot see the gospel. Natural law, that's a doctrine. Natural gospel, that's not a doctrine. There's no such thing biblically as natural gospel.

So this judicial hardening, this idea of heartache hurting from what Leighton wants you to think that the hardening is from able to respond to the gospel from birth to eventually not able because you've lied and suppressed the truth. But the reality of Romans 1, what it teaches is able to see God's mere existence, not his goodness in the gospel. But what people are born with in in total depravity, because the fall of man, is not an innate ability to respond to the gospel. What they're born with is an ability to see God, as it were, speaking of his existence, not his redemption. They're able to see his eternal power, his divine nature. And by lying and suppressing the truth, what happens is natural revelation and natural law. That is the conscience written on their hearts. That is what's suppressed. So Romans 1, for the Calvinist, it gives us an account for an atheist. Right? Romans 1, for the Calvinist, it doesn't give us an account for how people are born able to respond to the gospel and then by bad deeds and suppressing the truth eventually are so judicially hardened they can't respond to the gospel. No, rather, Romans 1 to the Calvinist gives us an account for how people can know that God exists, know that he's eternal in his power, and have a conscience, his law written on their hearts, and eventually become a psychopath atheist. That's what Romans 1 gives an account for. That's it. Thank you, Pastor Joel. Dr. Flowers, your rebuttal. Basically, to summarize what I just heard Joel explaining is that you're born unable to please God unless God effectually causes you to please him. What's the purpose in this? What's the purpose in creation if God's, you're just born by God's decree unable to please him unless he picks you unilaterally before you're ever born and effectuates causes you to do something that pleases him? What's the purpose in that? This is one of the reasons that Calvinism is oftentimes accused of being robotic and puppetry. And I understand Joel and many Calvinists would reject that kind of a vernacular. But if you interpret Paul's potter clay analogy to ultimately mean that we have no more control over our choices and decisions as a clay pot has a shape within the hand of the potter, then if the analogy fits, then wear it. When I was a Calvinist, I just owned that analogy. I just said, "Hey, you know, if you you have a problem with puppets and robots, at least puppets and robots can be made to look pretty. Mud's just mud." But this is a misunderstanding of Paul's use of the the potter analogy with what God's purpose is and what his purpose is in shaping Israel, the hardened lump that's being described there. And he's using Israel, a hardened lump of already rebellious people, and he's reshaping an already marred lump of clay, not marred by his design or his doing. He's perfect, he's holy, he doesn't make bad things. He's reshaping a marred lump into his purposes so that he can use Israel to bring about the crucifixion and the end grafting of the Gentiles. That's what Romans 9 through 11 is all about. The same people who are hardened in Romans 9 are the same ones that Paul holds out hope for. It says they have not stumbled beyond recovery, that they may be grafted in back in. If they're if they're provoked to envy, in in Romans chapter 11, verse 14, he even hopes that they leave their unbelief so as to be grafted back in. According to verse 23, clearly those who were hardened in chapter 9 aren't reprobates on the Calvinistic system. They are the Israelites who have been given over to their depraved ways, molded by the potter to be used as people who cry out, "Crucify him," and also allowing in for the engrafting of the Gentiles. When we understand that, there's no real grounds for Calvinism to stand.

When Joel first began, he started about faith, describing our view as on our view that faith must be a work of man. Um, and we just have to always continue to point back to the fact that, um, faith versus works is what Paul continually sets up the dichotomy within scripture. Choosing to save people without regard to the good or the bad they do isn't the same as choosing to save people without regard to their faith in God. When someone mistakenly equates faith with a notoriously good work, they have misunderstood the scripture. Faith in God, even if man's responsibility, does not earn or merit righteousness. If it did, then Christ needed us, died needlessly. He didn't need to die. We could have just earned our righteousness by believing in him. God, by his grace alone, chooses to bestow the righteousness of Christ to those who place their trust in him. And yes, I do use the prodigal son story, just in the same way a lot of times that the Calvinists use it as a story that we're all familiar with to illustrate the fact that when the prodigal son's returning home, he's not meriting or earning anything that he's about to get. If he if he got what he deserved, he would be stoned to death for his his misdeeds. What's he get? He gets mercy. That means the the father does not punish him, even though he deserves to be punished. That's mercy. He gives him the the fatted calf, the golden ring, gives him a robe, all that's grace, unmerited. The the son doesn't earn it by his choice to come home, even if it's free. So whether it's a free choice of him to come home or it's an effectual choice that he comes home, either way, he's not meriting anything. So this is just a canard on the Calvinist part to say that faith is somehow a work that earns or merits salvation because on neither one of our views is that the case.

He often refers to "in and of yourself," speaking of inability. Now, listen, I do believe that the Bible talks about inability of man. For example, the biblical form of inability is the inability to save yourself. We are unable to save ourselves. But Calvinists have turned that into the inability to confess your need to be saved. The Bible never teaches that. The inability to merit salvation by works of the law, the Bible does teach that inability. But the Calvinist has turned that into the inability to believe in Christ's merits so as to be saved by grace. The the the biblical inability is the inability to attain righteousness by works, uh, by law through works. That's biblical inability. The Calvinists have turned that into the ability, inability to obtain righteousness by grace through faith. In other words, the analogy that I've used before is like climbing a rope. If you, you think of climbing a rope as earning your way to heaven, like you're climbing this eternally high rope to heaven, that's the works. And you're trying to climb it. And somebody comes along and preaches the gospel to you and says, "You will never be able to climb the rope all the way to heaven. Your only hope is to let go, cling to Christ, and he will carry you." And the Calvinist steps in and goes, "No, no, wait, wait. Climbing the rope, that's the same thing as letting go of the rope and trusting in Christ, because both of those are good works that would please God, and you can't do either one of them. The only way that's going to happen is if God picked you unilaterally before you were ever born and causes you to do that." Where is this in the Bible? It's nowhere in the Bible. Paul is always faith versus works. This is why he concludes Romans chapter 9, the seedbed of this entire discussion, by showing the dichotomy between faith and works. By saying the Jews, generally speaking, are trying, pursuing through the law of righteousness, and they're not attaining righteousness, but they're pursuing it. But the Gentiles, he says, are attaining it because they have pursued it not through works, but through law. Notice that in both situations, there's a pursuit. One of them is pursuing it by works of the law, and they're not attaining it. They're trying to climb the rope. The other are letting go of the rope and trusting in Christ, and they are obtaining it by grace through faith. When the Calvinist comes along and says, "Oh, just the same way you can't climb the rope, you also can't let go of the rope and trust in Christ. Both of those are, you're just completely unable to do either one of them." Ultimately removing the responsibility of humanity to hear the gospel and to respond to that gospel.

There's the inability to please God apart from faith. Joel talked a lot about that. We agree with that inability. There is the inability to please God apart from faith. The Calvinists have turned that into the inability to act in faith apart from faith being irresistibly given by an unconditional pleasure of God before creation. There's the biblical inability to live a sinless life. Calvinists have turned that into the inability to confess your lack of ability to live live a sinless life. There's the biblical inability to free yourself from your own bondage. The Calvinists have turned that into an inability to confess your inability to free yourself from the bondage and trust in the the one who graciously is offering to free you. There's the biblical inability to to give yourself new life. In other words, we don't give ourselves a new heart. We don't give ourselves new life. And the Calvinists have turned that into the inability to trust in the life-giving one, to trust in the physician who does give us a new heart. We're not trying to argue that we give ourselves a new heart. We're trying to say that the law is the diagnosis. It's saying, "Here's your illness, here's your curse." And what do we, what are we responsible for? We're responsible to confess that fact. We confess we have a bad heart. We need heart surgery, and only he can do it. That is your responsibility. Your responsibility is the sin and confessing the sin. God is the one who's responsible for giving a new heart. But what the Calvinists have done, they flop the order. That ultimately you've got to get a new heart before you can realize you had a bad one and confess your corruption. So when you confess your corrupt heart, you really don't have a corrupt heart anymore on Calvinism because you've already been given a new heart, according to the Calvinist, because you've already been regenerated prior to even confessing that you have a corrupt heart. Again, they reverse the order again and again.

Um, he talks about sick versus dead. This is oftentimes a debate that comes up in in these discussion these discussions. The fact is that the scriptures metaphorically address our fallen condition as sickness more than it does deadness. Look at Jeremiah 17:9, which he mentions, verse 23, Mark 2:17, Luke 5:31, Matthew 9:12, Psalm 38:3, Isaiah 64:6. It talks about sickness more often than it does deadness. And when speaking metaphorically of deadness, it never describes us as morally incapacitated in a morally incapacitated condition from birth due to the fall. But instead, as a condition of being separated from God by our own rebellion, like the prodigal son that he mentioned. For instance, the prodigal was dead, he was lost, and then he was alive. Deadness is idiomatic for separated due to rebellion, just like he said to the church in Sardis, "You're dead, wake up." Well, the church in Sardis was obviously believing people. They weren't dead in the sense that they were morally incapacitated to hear the warning from Jesus and correct their ways. Paul also said as Christians, we're to be dead to sin. Does that mean you're incapable of sinning? I wish I wish I was incapable of sinning. But deadness doesn't mean incapacitated to do something in scripture. The fact is that a dead man can be brought to new life. How? By believing the gospel. As we went through through my opener, through five or six different verses showing that it's through believing that you're given new life. It is by confessing your sin that you are healed. It's through faith that we are raised to new life. Over and over and over again, the scriptures talk about faith preceding being raised, that faith is instrumental means by which we are raised to new life. And we can't forget that.

He also mentioned God's justice. And he talked about how sometimes we like to, you know, reject Calvinism because we we feel that it does make God unjust. And there's some, there's some truth in that. But I want to bring some clarity to that point. We're not saying that it would be unjust of God to pass by most of humanity and leave them without hope of salvation. Let me say that again. Let it sink in. We're not saying that it would be unjust to God to pass by most sinners, all most of all sinners of humanity, and leave them without hope of salvation. We are saying it would be un-Christ-like. Jesus, the perfect representation of God, died for his enemies. He didn't pass by on the other side of the road like the Levite or the priest in the story of the Good Samaritan. He is kind and merciful, recognizably good. And what do recognizably good people do? They provide for those in need. They don't pass by the other side of the road like God does for the mass of humanity on Calvinism.

He also spoke about the sufficiency of the gospel. And I agreed. It is, this is a debate about the sufficiency of the gospel to save the lost. I really do believe it is. Because some argue that the gospel is not sufficient without an effectual work of the Holy Spirit. I argue that the gospel is always sufficient because it is a work of the Holy Spirit. I'd just like to add the caveat to remind you that the gospel is brought by the work of the Holy Spirit. It's inspired by the Holy Spirit. It's carried by the bride of Christ, filled by the Holy Spirit. The circumstances that bring about the gospel, everything that happens is part of the Holy Spirit working to make his word known. So it's the word of God, it's the power of God unto salvation, it's the double-edged sword which cuts through not only bone and marrow, but through soul and spirit, according to Hebrews chapter 4. So, in other words, the Bible doesn't point to some extra working of grace, some irresistible working of grace, as its power. It always points to the word, the truth, the very words that I've spoken to you. Jesus says in John chapter 12, verse 48, "will be your judge on the final day." In other words, this is all about judgment day. This is a sociological debate. We're talking about salvation, judgment day, and what are we going to be judged by? Are we going to be judged by how many came in? Let's count how many commandments you broke and commits you broke? Is that what we're judged by? Oh, no, no, no. You're judged by your relationship to Adam. Did you inherit his guilt? Inherit this inability from him that you were born just incapable of pleasing God from birth? Is that how you're judged? No. What Jesus says, you will be judged by the very words that I spoke to you, speaking of the gospel itself. What do you do with the words of Christ? This is why I think Paul said, "Those who perish perish because they refuse to love the truth so as to be saved." Now, that seems to imply they could have accepted the truth so as to be saved. And therefore, when someone perishes, I'm not going to say, "Well, it's because God just didn't send them a sufficient amount of grace. God just didn't love them before they were ever born. God just doomed them from the womb to exemplify his glory and his honor." No, don't give them that excuse. People who end up perishing perish because they are blameworthy. Why are they blameworthy? Because they are rejecting a God who provided for them. On Calvinism, what are the lost people rejecting? Think about that for a second. What are they rejecting? They're rejecting a God who hates them. They're rejecting a Jesus that didn't die for them. They're not rejecting anything because they don't have anything provided for them. Only on provisionism are the guilty sinners actually rejecting the provision of a loving God. This is why they're so blameworthy for their sin. This is why hell is so horrible and horrific, is because it could have been otherwise. They had provision made for them, and they turned their backs on the provision of a loving, gracious, good God who wants them to be saved. The gospel is sufficient because the Holy Spirit brings us the truth.

He also briefly brought up hardening. And many of you know I spend a lot of time talking about judicial hardening because it was the doctrine that led me to leave behind Calvinism because it doesn't make a lot of sense to put a blindfold on a corpse. It doesn't make a lot of sense to cut somebody off in their unbelief and to remove the truth from them if they were born unable to believe truth. The reason Jesus spoke in parables was to keep the Pharisees and the Jews of that day in the dark so that he could bring about the crucifixion in his plan. That was the the strategic plan. As 1 Corinthians 2:7-8 says, and God's strategic plan to bring about redemption was to hide the truth from them, using parabolic language, sending them a spirit of delusion, hiding them in the in their own rebellion, cutting them off in the rebellion, not because he didn't love them. He actually does this mercifully because he hopes it will provoke them to envy so that they can be brought back in. I would encourage Joel and others to look at Acts chapter 28 when it talks about how Paul preached to them all day long, trying to persuade them. He says, "Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe, and they disagreed among themselves." And he says, "Go to this people and say, 'You will be ever hearing, but never understanding. You will be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'" That's talking to Israelites, not all people in general. "For this people, Israel, hearts, there have they have become calloused. They hardly hear with their ears. They have closed their eyes." Notice they didn't say their eyes were already born sealed shut. They closed their eyes, otherwise they might see, they might hear, they might turn, and I would heal them. That's the desire of God to heal them. In other words, it tells us an explicit didactic text from the Apostle Paul in an evangelistic message where some are believing and some aren't. He's saying, "If you had not closed your eyes, you might have seen and heard." And then he says, concluding, "Therefore, I want you to know that God's salvation has been taken to the Gentiles, and they will listen." Proving that this is not an analytic ontological condition of everyone from birth, but it is a condition unique to Israel who's grown hardened and cut off in their rebellion. Thank you. Thank you so much, Dr. Flowers. So now begins the cross-examination portion of our debate. Uh, the two men will be will remain seated throughout the cross-examination. They'll take turns, 10 minutes each. They will not make any statements. They will only ask questions. So Joel will go. Pastor Joel Webb will go first, and he will ask questions of Dr. Flowers, who will respond to the question, and then another question, and so on. After 10 minutes, Dr. Flowers will have his turn to do the same thing for Joel Webb. So I'm going to give them just a moment to think of what their questions are. And as we're giving them that moment, I want you to know just a few things that Remnant Radio has going on. I hope that if you haven't subscribed already, that you get a chance to subscribe. We are a theology broadcast, as we've said. We have pastors and theologians and scholars from all over the world. And, uh, and one thing that we do is we we host people, as you can see, from very different perspectives. We had, uh, last week, we had Dr. Sam Storms, and he came and he talked about the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and he just recently wrote a book about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We had a soteriological perspective last week with Dr. Ben Witherington III, one wrote one of the religion books of the best religion books of the year or got an award for it, and, uh, teaches at Asbury Seminary has for many years. He spoke about Arminianism. And, uh, we had Dr. Robert Letham, some consider him to be the foremost theologian expert on the Trinity, if there is such a thing as an expert on the Trinity. But we had a fantastic discussions talking about the ontological nature, the the economic, the ontological versus economic, sort of perspective of the Trinity, and the interworking between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We had Dr. Dr. Peter Lightfoot, that was also last week, talking about the Ten Commandments. Why are there ten? How do they interrelate one with another? Why are they five and five in the and the two tablets, and so on? And a deep exploring of the Ten Commandments. Just so you know, uh, we have another episode of Remnant Radio, uh, coming tomorrow. Normally, we are live on Monday nights, 8:30 PM to 9:30 PM Central Standard Time. This is prolonged because it's a debate. But normally, it's 8:30 to 9:30 on Monday nights. We also have a Tuesday, all of our shows are live. We have a Tuesday live show at 4 PM. And tomorrow, we're going to have David Wilcoxson talking about Daniel chapter 9, a very highly debated text in the Bible, chapter verses 24 through 27. And this touches on eschatology and, uh, rapture and Israel versus church and, uh, and so on. And he's going to be sharing a perspective where, uh, where he views Daniel chapter 9 as already having been fulfilled in the first century, and he's going to explain all that. First of all, he's going to, uh, break down the dispensationalist perspective. No offense to dispensationalists out there. That's he's going to share his perspective. We've had dispensationalists on the show. We had Pastor Jimmy Evans share about a pre-tribulational rapture. We had Dr. Craig Keener share about a post-tribulational rapture. Our goal is to give you an opportunity to hear all sides. And so, uh, David Wilcoxson is going to be sharing about Daniel chapter 9 at 4:00 PM live tomorrow for an hour, Central Standard Time. So I think I've probably given you guys a will look at you, Pastor Joel Webb, and you are so primed and ready. I can do you're up next. You've got the list of questions. All right, um, Dr. Flowers, so you were talking about faith, the distinction between faith and works, and you see something, you see faith as something other than works. Um, I, I just struggled to see how a person's choice is not something you're saying the responsible, the response-able to make a choice. Are they? Is there any scripture you could think of where somebody's commanded to make that choice? Are all people commanded by God to choose to accept Christ as Savior? There are places where it speaks of a command. But I, I think of for 2 Corinthians 5:20, when it says that Christ in us making his appeal, be teaching you, be reconciled to God. So there is an offer, there is an appeal, which is different than just follow these commandments because following the commandments, as we well know, no one can fulfill, no one can fully do. But that doesn't mean you can't trust in the one who did. And so, like I said before, the fact that you can't climb the rope to heaven doesn't prove that you can't let go of the rope and trust in the one who does. And that, and this is the, the point that I try to emphasize quite regularly, is that, um, confessing that you can't merit your own salvation is not itself a merit of your salvation. Um, it is, it is, it is putting your trust in the merit of another. So I think the word meritorious is really important there because it's really showing the difference between somebody who's responsible to to respond to God in faith, but that's not a meritorious act. It's not worth anything. God graciously chooses to bestow mercy upon those who humble themselves and trust in him. He doesn't have to. So even humbling yourself, is there a command to be humble? Is there a command for for people, all people, not just the Christian, but for all people everywhere to exercise humility? Or commands in scripture to be obedient to the gospel, to obey the gospel, and to repent and believe? I, I just see biblical commands to do that. But you, you don't see that as something that needs to be obeyed or something that needs to be done? You just, you just don't see it as work? Well, like James 4:10 says, "Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up." So he's the lifting, he's doing the meriting, right? What we're doing is confessing that we can't do it ourselves. Like even Peter says this in Acts 2 in his sermon, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." Does he literally mean that these people are going to save themselves? No, I think you and I would both agree. What he means is turn to God for your salvation. He's the one who can save you. So what's your responsibility? Your responsibility is to turn to the Savior. That's not a meritorious work because a meritorious work would be relying upon or pursuing the law of righteousness, trying to earn salvation through works, where Paul contradicts that with pursuing it through faith. Yep. So I see Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." I see both the grace and faith being a gift. You would see the grace as a gift. The faith? None. Faith is not. I have no problem even referring to faith as a gift. How is faith a gift? A gift from God? Yeah, I mean, my next breath is a gift from God. I mean, everything that we have, any ability I have is a gift from God. But it's not an effectual gift given to some people and withheld from all others. And so that's the difference between our worldview. If you just remove almost everything you said in your opener, if you removed effectuality off the top of it, I could go, "Amen." It's when you add effectuality to God's love and provision for the elect, and you make it to where he's only providing it for these people who end up accepting him, and it's effectual, and everybody else he really just doesn't want and doesn't send them sufficient grace. That's where I have a problem with it. Yes, God gives us faith. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. So by bringing the gospel, he's bringing the means by which we can believe. This is one of the reasons in Acts, I believe it says we rejoice because yes, even the Gentiles have been granted repentance unto salvation. It doesn't mean every single Gentile repented unto salvation, but what it means is that the gospel now has come to the Gentiles so that they may believe and and be saved.

Okay, so Romans 1, verse 18: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, specifically his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things by by the things that he has made, so they are without excuse." Apology to me, my understanding of Romans 1, I think it's a great place in scripture that tells us precisely why it goes on, verse 21: "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, their foolish hearts were darkened." Now, I, I know a lot of the things that you say about Romans 1, but but I see this as they're without an excuse. Why? Because of knowledge. So I think for you, for man, I've heard you say that, you know, Calvinism provides man with the best excuse ever, namely, they're okay, they're unable to respond to the gospel. But but I see the "without an excuse" of Romans 1 being linked to knowledge rather than ability. I don't see Romans 1 saying that all people from birth are able to respond to God in faith to the gospel and therefore are without an excuse, but rather what I see is that all people have seen. Yep. So all people have seen the existence of God. So how, how would you, how is the excuse language of Romans 1 not linked to knowledge, but rather ability? Right. Well, I, I disagree with the premise that I think you began the reading of Romans chapter 1, because usually what Calvinists will teach is this is about general revelation, and this is enough to condemn everyone in their sin, but it's not enough revelation to lead somebody to actually believe in the God that they can clearly see and know. And we reject that. Um, we, we back up to verse 16, where it talks about the, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and then to the Greek. For it is in the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, 'But the righteous man shall live by faith.'" For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness. So I think there's a contrast between the the righteous who live by faith. Now, the righteous who live by faith, like Job and Enoch and others, Abraham, who was credited as righteous. How can that be if the, if Paul says, "No one's righteous, no not one"? Well, there's two forms of righteousness: righteousness by the law and righteousness by faith. He's saying that the contrast is, "The righteous man shall live by faith." But in contrast, those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, this is their plight, whether Jew or Gentile, they're all guilty because of natural conscience, because of what God's made known. But he's contrasting therefore, those who believe versus those who don't believe. He's not making an ontological condition saying that everyone from birth is just automatically going to reject God, no matter what, in my opinion.

Okay, you spoke of the gospel. You said it's not the Spirit working with the gospel, but the gospel itself is a work of the Spirit. Is that fair to your position? It's not, it's just not clear to regenerate some with the gospel, but the gospel itself is a work of the Spirit. Right. Right. Now, to be fair, I, I don't, I'm not trying to say that the gospel is the only work of the Holy Spirit. The gospel, the Holy Spirit, yes, does other works. Great. I'm just saying that all the works of the Holy Spirit are sufficient to do what they're meant to do. So if they're meant to lead somebody to faith, then they're sufficient to lead somebody to faith. Okay. So you, you linked Romans 1:16, since we're already kind of there, the power of the gospel, right? This, the gospel is powerful because it is a word, not because the Spirit's working with some people in conjunction with the gospel, but it is itself, the gospel is itself a work of the Spirit. So could those other works that you've just referenced, it's not the only singular work that the Spirit does, are there other works that the Spirit does that can be saved, like the gifts of the Spirit, or exercising hospitality, or displaying the fruit of the Spirit? Are there other things that, because it's not the only work that the Spirit does, if the gospel is merely a work of the Spirit, are you just saying that this is the singular work of the Spirit that is saving, and well, other works of Spirit are good for something? I think the, the Spirit can use dreams. I think the Holy Spirit can use circumstances, can help to maneuver situations and circumstances to where somebody hears the gospel. I think God is working around us providentially. It probably is as much or high of a providential view as you do. I just don't read effectuality onto that. In other words, I still maintain the human responsibility to, uh, to respond to what the Holy Spirit does to ensure that people hear the light of the revelation.

So if the gospel itself contains the power for salvation, right? Because I see it as the gospel is the power of God for salvation. But if the gospel itself is this power unto salvation, I guess one of my questions is just practically speaking, how accurate does someone's proclamation of the gospel have to be to be saved? And, you know, doesn't it just have to be orthodox? And then within orthodox, if we have two proclamations of the gospel, you and I, for instance, they're both orthodox, but let's just say that you're just more seasoned and a better gospel preacher than me. Are there so, are there some gospel presentations that are more saving than others? Because because you're putting all this power on the gospel to to do something, you're, you're putting whereas I, the gospel doesn't have a power to ontologically change anybody. The gospel is the instrument that the power of God uses. So, so is there a better way to present the gospel that, like, would you say that because of these two presentations, one being better than the other, that one is going to save and the other won't? Well, I do believe that as Paul says there, I mean, as it says there in Acts 28, that he persuaded them all day long. And I think that his, his persistence and his prayer for them has an effect. I think the prayer of a righteous man is effective. I think the, that striving to persuade people and helping them understand can have an effect on people. And so, yes, I, I instead of just saying, you know, just read John 3:16 and sit down and say, "Hey, if they're elect, they're elect. They're going to receive it. If they're going to receive it, move on." I know you wouldn't even do that. You would try to persuade them because God uses means. I just think that the means are sufficient to, uh, permit for anyone who hears them to respond to them. Therefore, we should do our very best to bring the best means, uh, to the, the talent and abilities that God has given us. Excellent. That closes Joel's questions. Now it is time for Leighton to cross-examine Joel, and he will proceed by asking questions and statements.

All right, do you believe that one, you know, we're talking about regeneration preceding faith, so do you believe one is raised to new life so as to have faith? Yes. Okay. But in Colossians 2:12, it says, "You were raised with him through your faith." So it sounds like through faith means that's the instrumental means by which we're raised with Christ. How do you explain something like that? I'll give you a second to open it up if you need to. Caution, Colossians 2:12, and I'm quoting, "You were raised with him through your faith." So it seems to me, even if you believe that faith is irresistibly or effectually given to the elect, it still is the instrumental means by which one is raised. So it must logically precede the being raised, at least in Colossians 2:12. "Having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses." Your question is saying, do you believe that Colossians 2:12 is saying that through faith, that faith is ultimately what gains us that raising? It's the instrumental means by which we're raised because it says "through faith." It doesn't say "you're raised unto faith" or "you're raised in order to have faith." It says "you're raised through faith." So faith seems to be the instrumental means by which raised, which is one of the reasons I think maybe George Whitefield and others don't believe in pre-faith or generation, but they're Calvinist and they hold to a different view that says ultimately that where something else like an effectual calling are are being, uh, becoming believers, but that regeneration itself doesn't come until after we actually, uh, have faith in God. Yeah. Yeah, I think there's just multiple other texts that would say precisely the opposite. I think there are other texts that speak of what is, what do you think is the best text that clearly teaches that faith precedes, I mean, that regeneration, being made alive? I think there are multiple, but I think John 3 is a great one. John 3:3-7. Nicodemus, "You must be born again to even see the kingdom of God, much less enter it." That you must be born of the flesh, but also you must be born of the Spirit. This new birth. So you said you think seeing the kingdom of God is equal to receiving Christ so as to enter the kingdom of God? Yes, both are mentioned, seeing and entering. So, so it's not just seen, but what Jesus says to Nicodemus is, "You must be born again to see." And then later on, he also says, "and enter." And so, yeah, I think entering the kingdom of God, to see it and and to enter it, I think I think that is indicative of faith. Why, why was God express anger and, um, being upset and frustrated with people for their unbelief if he ultimately is in control of whether they can believe or not? Why does Jesus, for example, in Mark 6:6, when he's got, he says he went from village to village teaching the people, and he marveled because of their unbelief? Wouldn't that be kind of like marveling at people not being able to breathe underwater? I mean, if he's ultimately decreeing for them not to be able to believe these truths unless he picks them and gives them this effectual work of grace, why marvel at their unbelief? Why show such anger at them doing ultimately what God decreed for them not to be able to do from birth? Right. Um, well, I don't think Jesus is, you know, this is one of those statements that you don't want to come out of your mouth as a pastor very often, but I don't think Jesus is particularly helpful here. Um, and I think part of the reason why is, like for instance, Matthew, Matthew chapter 23. I know that you've taught on this, Leighton, and so you'll be familiar, probably already know where I'm going, but Matthew 23:37, where Jesus is saying, "I long to gather you like a mother hen." So let me read it. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing." So I would as much to you should rent. I would take the position of James White, what you might refer to as a high Calvinist. I would emphasize children. "How often would I have gathered your children," not not them, but the children. And, and what I'm really getting at is, so it's not the children aren't willing, but those rulers who were deceiving them were unwilling. But what I'm really getting at, Jesus is the God-man. Jesus, he's God and and man. And so when we speak of, so like John 17, "Let this cup pass from me." But ultimately, God, not as Jesus is praying, right before his arrest, to the Father, "But not my will, but yours be done." So are we, are we glimpsing a moment where there's like this schizophrenic kind of personality in in the will of God? Because I've, I believe I'm a classic theologian, so I believe that the will of God, it belongs, uh, to his essence, not persons. But Jesus has two wills because he has two natures. Oh, we're not just talking about Jesus. God also expresses frustration and being upset. "All day long I have held out my arms." Right? So it's not just Jesus in his right. There are texts, but a lot of the texts are in fact, I think some of the texts I've heard you quote are Jesus and how he feels about something or what he's longing for. So him longing to gather people, or or him hoping that people would repent, or or pronouncing woes. I think there is something to be said for the humanity of Jesus. And, and saying, "I will something." Because Jesus, part of what he's doing is he's setting for us the perfect example of not just what God is like, but what man should be like. And as man, I think Jesus is a good Calvinist Jesus. As in his humanity, he's so showing an example of counter-should desire. In his humanity, he doesn't know who God has elected, who God is saving, and he wants all to be saved. Right? Those other texts that speak of God, well, there's all, there's there's ways of dealing with all the elect or the world. For God so loved the world. Well, every tongue and nation, not necessarily each and every individual person. Well, a good example of it would be, I want to ask about what you think about this verse, Isaiah 30:12 and 15, where it says, "Therefore, this is what the Holy One of Israel says, so this is God speaking, because you have rejected this message, relied on oppression, and depended on deceit, this sin will become for you like a high wall."

Cracked and bulging that collapses suddenly. This is what the Sovereign Lord, the Holy One of Israel, says: "In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength." But you would have none of it.

Which seems to parallel very well Matthew 23:37. But this is God speaking through the prophet Isaiah. How would you deal with a verse like that where it seems to say that this is where you would have salvation, repentance, and rest, but you would have none of it, as if it's there?

23:37 is, I, I think, completely different. Because if we just back up and look at Matthew 23, verse, for instance, 13, you know, then it's just, it's just different. So, "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You neither enter yourselves nor do you allow others to enter." Then 37, cross-referencing over to Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together..." So, because you, the Pharisees, won't let them, are the Pharisees thwarting the will of God? Then, are the Pharisees able to keep God from doing sovereignty, affording God's decreed will, His decree of will? They're not affording His sovereign, hidden way. They're playing right into it. That's all people do. But they, they absolutely are keeping people. They're, they are helping to ensure that people don't hear the message. The elect people. What are they ensuring? Elect people don't hear the message? No, they're not successful in keeping any of the elect. So why even bother? So why wouldn't it be redundant for them to try to keep people from hearing the messages? Well, I know, but this is like just like saying that in their mind. No, it seems like the redundancy of Satan is the same kind of situation, right? I mean, because if Satan's stealing the seed so that they can't believe, then what is Satan doing? If they're born unable to believe unless God effectually causes them to anyway, isn't Satan just redundant then?

And still, are you speaking of like the parable of the sower, the four different soils? Well, any time it talks about the, the god of this world blinding the people from the truth or plucking the word so that they won't believe it, that seems redundant if they're unable to believe it by natural condition. Well, God has means. So God predestines ends, but they're not arbitrary, and they're not just, they don't just appear out of nowhere. God has, in the same way, God who predestines the ends, namely people's salvation or damnation, God also predestines in. So like, what you're saying as far as, isn't redundant, I mean, we can just work that argument the other way. So, isn't it redundant on Satan's part, you know, the bird of the air that takes the seed? Uh, why try so hard if the ground's never going to accept the seed in the first place? Well, on the other side, like, and I know you would say this, like, isn't evangelism redundant? Right? So like, so Satan's tactics to steal the seed, you can make the same logical argument on the flip side of the coin for the evangelist's tactics and planting the seed. Isn't that redundant? God's going to save whoever He's going to save. But God saves, whatever He does, He does so through His means. He not only predestines the ends of what He means to accomplish, but He predestines the means by which it comes about, such as evangelism, or false teaching.

Well, if somebody was in a cemetery putting blindfolds on the corpses to make sure that they didn't wake up, and you said, "Why are you doing that?" And they said, "Well, it's the means to the end." Couldn't you just say, in their corpse-like condition, going to keep them from responding? Why do you have to put blindfolds on? Part of it also is, it's not just, it's not just the corpses, right? I know what you're getting at. Spiritually dead, spiritual in my position, spiritual depravity or spiritual deadness means spiritual inability. So they're not able to respond anyway. You just don't need to do that much work, Joel. That's what you're saying. And I get that. But it's not all about them. It's not all about the people that are being deceived. It's also about the deceivers. It's about the false teachers. It's about, it's about God gaining glory for Himself in His ultimate ends, not only about those people who are being deceived, but the deceivers keeping up more judgment upon their heads, so that God might be further justified in His judgment of them. Does that make sense?

All right, so fun. Every time I do that, uh, I want to thank, uh, everyone who is watching online right now. I would encourage you, if you've enjoyed this debate, whether you're rooting for Leighton or Joel, make sure to hit that share link, uh, in the video. You can, uh, send this to, uh, those who you think may be interested, those at church, family, friends, etc. So we encourage you to do that. Our, uh, our two debaters are now prepping for their closing statements. So I would just encourage you, if you're out there, make sure to subscribe to the channel, uh, hit the share button so that you can, uh, notify people about the content that we're producing here on Remnant. This is again, just me trying to speak so that they're, they get ready. Okay, so that's it. Uh, thank you so much, guys. And, uh, I'll turn it over to Leighton.

Yeah, I was like, I was trying to think of who was next in line there, Leighton, for closing statements. Let me first reiterate, we all agree no one can seek God on our own. Romans chapter 3 teaches this, and we agree with that. No one can seek God on their own. No one can fulfill the law's demands. Romans 8. All are spiritually dead in sin. Ephesians 2. All of us can and should affirm these biblical truths. It is true that no one can seek God on our own. But hear me, brothers and sisters, we are not on our own. How does the fact that we can't seek God prove that we cannot respond willingly to a God who is actively seeking us by the powerful, Holy Spirit-wrought gospel appeal? Tell me, is this proof that I can't call the President on the phone right now and get him on the phone? Proof that I can't answer the phone if he were to call me? Of course not. We all agree that God takes the initiative. We are responders. The real question is whether or not you believe the gracious, Holy Spirit-right truth of the gospel is a sufficient initiative from God. I believe that it is. Second point, we all agree that no one can fulfill the demands of the law. But how does that prove no one can admit that fact and place their faith in the one who fulfilled that law in our place? Listen, the inability to be perfect does not equal the inability to trust in the perfect one. Third, we can all agree that we were all once dead in our sins and trespasses. But were we dead like Lazarus, or more like the prodigal? Were we dead more like the church in Sardis? Are we dead like Lazarus that can't have any response at all unless God picked us unilaterally before we're even born and effectually causes us to come to life? Five pointers insist this means that we are corpse-like dead in the way Lazarus was in the tomb. But scripture, as we pointed out, never draws this parallel. Scripture does, however, draw a parallel between being spiritually dead and the prodigal son. While living in rebellion, he was lost, but now he's found. He was dead, but now he's alive. It's almost like when the father says to the wayward son, "You're dead to me." It's an analogy of separation, separateness. He's separated due to rebellion. He needs reconciliation. Deadness is lostness, not a lack of moral ability to respond to God's life-giving truth. Nowhere does scripture teach that spiritual deadness equals a corpse-like inability to respond to God's own gracious appeals. If you want to take the biblical analogy that far, then why do lost people, why do lost people have very different reactions to the gospel? Remember, corpses can't respond positively or negatively or in any way in between. So that biblical analogy simply cannot be taken too far. The biblical analogy of being dead to someone is an enemy, or to being separated, and therefore, even people who are an enemy are able to be reconciled. We can all name people that we know who are enemies with somebody else, right? Did they eventually humble themselves, confess that they were wrong? Any of you are married and still married for any length of time, you know what I'm talking about. You were at enmity, you were hostile, but you, what do you do? You humble yourself and you own up your mistake in order to reconcile with that person. If an unbeliever can do that with a spouse, why can't a lost person do that in light of the gospel revelation calling to reconciliation, sending His own Son? God did not leave us on our own. He sent Christ incarnate to come to this earth to speak truth, to be the Word, the living Word, living among us. Nothing in scripture suggests that we cannot respond to the life-giving truth of the gospel. Yes, we're born slaves to sin, but we believe that the truth may set you free. We are by nature enemies of God, but we believe that Christ makes an appeal to His enemies, "Be reconciled to God." We agree with our Calvinistic friends, mankind is spiritually dead and needs new life. But how do you get new life? John 20:31, which we've emphasized, "You may believe the gospel." These words were written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, listen to the order, by believing, you may have life in His name. Has Joel presented one argument, one scripture that clearly shows, "No, no, no, Leighton, it's your given new life so that you may believe"? We just looked at Colossians 2:12, "that you're raised with Christ." How? Through faith. I remember my Greek teacher teaching me that the word "through" is like a tunnel. It's the instrumental means that you must pass through. It has to exist there first before you can get to the destination. So when it says "through faith," that means faith precedes the raising. So if we're raised to new life, that's what regeneration is. This is why some Calvinists, like Whitfield and others, don't believe in pre-faith regeneration. They would say there's some kind of an effectual calling that happens beforehand, but not regeneration. Why? Because of passages like this. Faith is the instrumental means by which we are raised. Ezekiel 18:30 and 32: "Cast away from all your transgressions which you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why will you die, O house of Israel? I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies, declares the Sovereign Lord. Therefore, repent and live." What's the order there? Repent so as to live. It doesn't say, "I'm going to make some of you alive so that you'll certainly repent." It calls them to repentance. It calls them to confess their sins so as to get a new heart. The order is very, very clear throughout scripture. Life comes through repentance and faith, not the other way around. You're not healed until you confess your sin. It's your confessing your sin, then you're forgiven. It's not that you're forgiven so as to confess. You're not made clean and washed by the washing of regeneration so that then you'll confess that your, your need of being cleansed. That's just getting the cart before the horse. It's putting it backwards. Acts 15:9 says this: "He made no distinction between us and them, for He purifies their hearts by faith." So how does He purify their hearts? Remember, by or through, that's the instrumental means. It's by faith that He purifies their hearts. Second Corinthians 3:16: "Whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away." So how's the veil taken away? By turning to the Lord. Calvinists are well-intending, I think, in the, in the T of their TULIP systematic, but it undermines human responsibility. They're trying to give God all the credit for salvation, but in doing so, they've overstepped their case and they're ultimately making God ultimately responsible for all unbelief by, by ultimately saying everyone's born by divine decree unable to believe the gospel, yet they're somehow held blameworthy for not believing the gospel. And this is something that simply intuitively, I think, deep down, we know is not just, it's not right. The gospel was not sent to just inform a special elite group of elect people about how special they are. The gospel is not an offer you can't refuse. The gospel is Christ in you making an appeal and pleading with every man, woman, boy, and girl, "Be reconciled to God through faith, faith in Christ Jesus." Back when I was a five-point Calvinist, I don't believe I rightly understood the potter and the clay analogy in Romans chapter 9. I used to think that Paul was teaching that that the potter molded and used his vessel however it suited him in the pursuit of his ultimate goal of self-glorification. It was all about God's effort to glorify Himself, even at the expense of humanity. Later in life, however, I came to understand this analogy in a much different light. I now believe the scriptures reveal a potter who manifests His glory by sacrificing Himself for the undeserving vessels, not by decreeing for all vessels to be born morally disabled so as to condemn, condemn them in order to display His glory. In other words, I have come to believe that God is most glorified not at the expense of His creation, but at the expense of Himself for the sake of His creation. I like the way Dr. Jerry Walls put it in his book. He wrote this: "God cannot fail to be perfectly loving any more so than He can lie. You don't have to have children, but if you do, you take on an obligation to love them. God's freedom was the freedom to create or not create. He did not have to create, but once having created, as a necessarily good and loving being, He cannot but love. He cannot but love what He has created. Love is not an option with God. It's not a question of whether or not God chooses to love. It is who He is. God is love." This is not a weakness of God, but it is His greatest and most self-glorifying strength. Is it a weakness that I'm unable or unwilling to strangle one of my own children to death? No, that would be a moral strength. God's inability to be unloving is not a shortcoming of God's strength and power, but His greatest, most glorifying characteristic of His eternal nature. To declare God's universal, self-sacrificial love to the entire world reveals God for what makes Him so abundantly glorious: His love. We are to love our enemies, why? Because God loves all of His enemies. I would again just like to say thank you again for Remnant Radio and for Joel for this debate and very cordial discussion. We're firm with what we believe, but we can still walk out of here knowing that we're brothers in Christ, and I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Flowers. Pastor. Okay, quickly, just to provide a few scriptures. John chapter 6, verses 37 through 39: "All that the Father grants to me," this is Jesus speaking, "will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out, for I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that that he has given to me, but raise it up on the last day." Here's another verse, same chapter, John chapter 6, verse 44: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day." Here's another text, same chapter, same discussion, John 6:63-65: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him. And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." Coming to Christ is granted by the Father. If you're not granted by the Father, there is no coming to Christ. It is the Spirit who gives life that allows us to come to the Father. The Spirit must first grant life. The flesh is of no help at all. In order for someone to come to the Father, the Spirit draws, the Father draws, and the person comes. A person's coming to Christ is the ultimately the result of the cause of being drawn by the Spirit, drawn by the Father. So, in closing, Heidelberg Catechism, Question 65: "Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all His benefits by faith only, from whence does this faith come?" Tragically, many modern evangelicals today believe that human beings have an innate capacity for God-glorifying faith. They believe that even unregenerate sinners, in and of themselves, are able to manufacture trust in the gospel, and that faith comes before a changed heart. Despite this popular view, it remains completely inconsistent with biblical revelation. As we have already seen, Romans 8:7-8 clearly explains that it is impossible for minds that are set on the flesh to please God and obey Him. People who are not in Christ are not in the Spirit, and those who are not in the Spirit, by default, are in the flesh. Furthermore, we have seen in John chapter 3, verse 3, that a man cannot even see the kingdom of God unless he should first be born again by the Spirit. If those of the flesh cannot even see the kingdom of God, then they might can by no means enter it. In short, faith can arise only from a new heart. To put it in theological categories, regeneration must precede faith. Therefore, faith is a gift of the Lord to undeserving people. It is the outworking of God's electing grace and the atonement of Jesus Christ, His bride. Scripture confirms this truth that faith is ultimately a gift of God by saying, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). The "gift of God" here, it appears in a neuter grammatical form, which means it is rightly understood to refer back to both grace and faith, not merely grace, which are found earlier in this verse. In other words, just as grace is a divine gift, so too is our faith. If we believe that we are capable of working up faith in our own souls, then we cannot boast in Christ alone. But if we understand that we have faith only because of the work of the Holy Spirit, then we can truly give God all the glory for our salvation. Exodus chapter 20, verse 5, the latter half says, "for I the Lord your God am a jealous God." There could be no doubt from scripture that our God is a jealous God. But what exactly is our God jealous for? The answer is His own glory. Isaiah chapter 42, verse 8 says, "I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I will not give to another, nor my praise to graven images." See, this debate, I believe, can be summed up by simply answering this question: What is God's main motivation? What is God's ultimate goal? The Westminster Shorter Catechism clearly states that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. But see, what is the chief end of God? I believe this issue is settled by God Himself in the very first of the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20, verse 3: "You shall have no other gods before me." See, brothers and sisters, if the chief end of God is not solely Deo Gloria, that is, glory to God alone, then God Himself is an idolater. Romans 8:28 says this: "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." See, we know that God is working all things, and for the record, that's not merely salvaging all things, but working and planning, orchestrating, ordaining all things for the good of His people, God's people, not all people, but His people. But why is the good of the elect, God's people, is that God's ultimate end? We know God obviously, He cares an awful lot about this. He's working all things for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. This is a high purpose of God, a high motivation of God, a high end of God. But is it the chief end of God? Just as the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, the chief end of God is not to work all things for the good of His creatures. The achievement of God is by working all things for the good of His creatures. He might garnish for Himself greater glory and praise. So correspond Romans 8:28, working all things for our good, with Ephesians 1:3-6: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as He, that is God, chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love. He predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will." Verse 6: "to the praise of His glorious grace." God does all of this. He chooses and elects and predestines. He justifies. He calls. All these things, but for the good of His people. But higher than that, for the praise of His glorious grace. God damns people to the praise of His glorious justice. And God saves people to the praise of His glorious grace. Hell speaks volumes of the glory of God. Heaven speaks volumes of the glory of God. But all of it is for the glory of God. Please pay very close attention. If regeneration does not precede faith, if instead regeneration is merely God's just reward for our faith, and if this faith is not a gift of God but a mere work of man, then the one condition, or if it is the one condition set forth by God for receiving His salvation which man is able to attain to, then God cannot receive all the glory. God may still rightly receive most of the glory. In fact, it may be fair to say that God rightly receives 99.9% of the glory. But God cannot receive all the glory for our salvation. See, it's only the Calvinists who can with actual integrity utter the phrase "solely Deo Gloria," glory to God alone. Brothers and sisters, God is for God. Any doctrine therefore that seeks to take even the slightest fraction of that glory which rightly belongs to the Creator alone and share it with a creature is a doctrine that all those who love and cherish the glory of God must wholeheartedly reject. Did Christ not say, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26)? Jesus clearly taught that the way in which we are to love God should cause even our most precious relationships here on earth to look like hatred by comparison. Do we really believe that God's love for His self and for His own glory could be any less than the love which He commands from us? God is for God. God cares about His glory, and He will not share it with any other. Thank you. Thank you very much, Pastor. Thank you, Dr. Flowers. So you've heard the concluding statements. Those of you who are in the live chat, I encourage you, let us know, did you change your perspective? Are you considering a change of perspective? Or did you have your perspective confirmed? Let us know in the comments. We love, uh, to interact with you. And, uh, what we're going to do now is we're just going to close everything up. Is we're going to do a live Q and A with both our in-studio audience and our live chat. We've seen that you guys have been sending in questions. And so, if you are in the live audience, I just want to ask you to walk around to the microphone and begin to form a line, and my co-host Josh will help organize you so that you can ask questions in an orderly manner. And Josh also will administer the entirety of the question and answer time, including your questions that you sent in. And so, with that, I'm going to turn it over to my co-host, Josh Lewis.

From our in-person audience, but we're just going to get this one out there to, uh, get it going. Uh, Dr. Flowers, first question is, uh, typically our traditional Southern Baptists don't believe that we inherit the guilt from our, the sin of Adam. Um, we do believe that there, that the world is under the curse of sin, and therefore we all need a savior. We need God to, to rescue us from the curse of sin. But that guilt is actually, uh, comes through our own rebellion against the things of God when we reach an age of accountability. And I know, I know this sounds like a cop-out, but on my website, I do, if you type in the age of accountability and original sin, there are a lot of articles that go more in-depth to get more, uh, citations with scripture passages to support our perspective on that that I wouldn't be able to have time to go through in a context like this. So, Dr. Flowers, I have a question for you, um, regarding the illustrations of the sheep, for example, on judgment day, there's a goat and the sheep separated. Jesus says the sheep will hear my voice, um, and, uh, he says, uh, uh, the other illustration. But when you look at the sheep, um, how would you, uh, define the sheep from your perspective?

It's a good question. Um, typically the Calvinist will define the sheep as the elect, the ones who are chosen. And so whenever Jesus says in John 10, for example, "You do not believe because you are not my sheep," the Calvinist typically will read that to mean, "You don't believe because you're not one of my elect ones." In other words, "You don't believe because I really didn't choose you. I don't really want you to believe," is ultimately the way they're interpreting that. And I don't believe that's what Jesus is saying. I think Jesus is using "sheep" idiomatically for follower. And the reason that throughout the book of John, he continually relates himself to the Father, that "everything I speak is of the Father, everything I say is what the Father says." And if you listen to the Father, then you would believe me. If you listen to Abraham, you'd believe me. If you knew the scriptures, you'd believe me because the scriptures speak of me. And so his point is saying, "You don't believe in me, the Son, because you're not a follower, a sheep of the Father." Those who listen and learn from the Father, John 6:45, "they come to the Son." Why? Because they speak the same voice. They say the same things. And if you listen to the Father, if you knew the Father's voice, you would recognize the voice of His Son. But because you're hardened and rebellious and ever seeing and never perceiving, and you cannot hear the voice of the Father anymore, you're not a follower of the Father. Therefore, you cannot hear the voice of the Son. And therefore, he's saying, "You do not believe in me because you're not a follower of the Father," not because I don't really want you, and I didn't really hold up my hands to you and long to gather you, and I'm not really weeping over you like he says in Luke 19:41 to 42, as if that's just crocodile tears and he's just pretending or something like that. He genuinely loves these people and wants them to believe, but they've grown hardened and calloused, and now they're being cut off in their rebellion.

Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. My question is for Joel. Um, although I wouldn't mind if Leighton wants to touch on it. Um, so as a preliminary question first, you would agree that Leighton's regenerate? He's a brother in Christ? Yeah? Yeah. Okay. And I safely assume so. Okay. So that being said, given that you work that the natural man can't understand things of the Spirit and you need to be regenerated in order to have faith, so there's a work of God that's needed for these things. But my question is, is that if Leighton is regenerate and yet still does not understand the things of the Spirit as you do, assuming if your position is true and that he does not have the faith, the trust, the confidence, *pistis*, in the attributes of God as you do, then how would you explain this? Was he like spiritually dropped on his head as a baby? Or is there a spiritual defect in his regeneration? And whatever the answer is, who are we to say why God has regenerated Leighton in this spiritually defective way?

So, first question, there's a couple of questions. First, was he spiritually defective or dropped on his head? The answer is, yes, as far as I can tell. I don't know. I gave you that cowboy shirt and everything. Come on, people in my church are probably laughing because I actually, I said, I don't watch football anymore because it's too woke. I've never watched football. Yeah, I'm just not a sports guy. But God bless you. I'll give it to somebody. Um, no, I, no, I think that, you know, spiritually discerned, First Corinthians 2:14. I don't think that means that upon regeneration, that everybody has perfect theology. I don't think that means every spiritual thing can be discerned or will be discerned upon, you know, the moment of regeneration. I, I think it's, it's some key pieces like salvific things. These things are going to be discerned at the point of, well, you need to be regenerated, you need to be alive. So I've got it somewhere, but First Corinthians 2:14, if somebody wants to find it or quote it, feel free to read it. And while you're looking, if I can maybe just rephrase my question to, what work of God does Leighton need to believe as you do, assuming that if he's wrong and you're right?

Well, it's not a specific work. That's a great question. So the natural man, here it is, First Corinthians 2:14: "The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him." So I take that to mean like the natural man, in the flesh, doesn't accept anything. So like, as Leighton said, and I would agree with this, there's a lot of places where we overlapped tonight. Um, so there's no way I could listen to what Leighton said tonight. I don't know him very well on a personal level, but I've watched 40 hours of his videos preparing for this. I'm sorry, which I don't have a lot of people to choose from because, you know, you're the, you're the provisionist guy. So he's like, you read one Calvinist, I feel like I know there are nuances, but he doesn't necessarily have to study up on the Joel Webbin position. I don't have one, but I had to study up. So, so here's the deal. So I listen to a lot of Leighton, and as far as I can tell, he, the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God. He accepts a lot of things of the Spirit of God. Um, I also have been really careful with semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism because I know that there are Calvinists on my side who have accused Leighton. So I'd like to go publicly on record saying this: If we take things out of context, and not only taken out of context, sometimes we just make a mistake, and then we go back and we realize, "Oh man, that thing I said wasn't Trinitarian." I need to. And it doesn't mean, "Oh, and now from here on out, I'm regenerate." Now what it means is, like, number one, sometimes we can be taken out of context, our opponents aren't fair. Number two, we're fallible and finite. Our words are many. Sin is not absent. And so I think that there are times where Leighton has said something in the videos that I've watched that have sounded semi-Pelagian or perhaps even Pelagian. There are things that I've said that probably sound hyper-Calvinist. And every Calvinist that I know, um, that's because it's either being taken out of context, is unfair from the opponent's standpoint, or it's because it was just a mishap. We just said something wrong because we're finite, infallible. But as far as I can tell, anytime Leighton's pressed, he's not semi-Pelagian because he believes the initiator is God. It's the gospel coming to man first. And he's certainly not Pelagian because he affirms total depravity, deadness in sin, and all those kinds of things. Um, Leighton is orthodox. So he is regenerate. So he's accepted that things are the Spirit of God. I just don't think those things are exhausting. I don't think it's all the things of God. Does that make sense? And as far as what work of God you're saying, right, is necessary, um, I think it's just the continued work of sanctification by the Spirit working in conjunction with the Word. That's how we all grow. It's a progressive work of growing in knowledge and understanding of the Word of God. Um, you mentioned that, I mean, I could touch on that one. I don't know if I can just real quick, but I would just say, um, that it seems like the problem is that on Calvinism, at least Calvinism, call, Calvinism is that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. So C.S. Lewis's rejection of Calvinism, and A.W. Tozer's rejection of Calvinism, and Billy Graham's rejection of Calvinism, and a host of other theologians and pastors that we all know and love, and their rejection of Calvinism was ordained sovereignly by God. And that seems just intuitively very difficult to grasp that God would somehow sovereignly ordain for some of His children not to just, just to not get it and not to accept what's true. And so that, that's where I would push back on something like that.

Cool. We've got another question. But before we do, I just remind our speakers, because we have so many people online watching and people in studio, they have questions. Let's keep our, our answers to minute to minute, if we can, to make sure that we can, we can get through as many questions as possible. No, that was directed. I just want to be on record that was directed more to him than the videos for sure. Joel, this one's for you. Okay. Um, so I kind of lean more towards the Calvinist position, but after this debate, like, I'm probably more in the middle. But, uh, I constantly question whether I am elect, yeah, or not. And so my question to you is, just how, in the Calvinist position, do you find peace in Christ and have confidence of salvation?

Yeah, that's a great question. So, for one, I, I would, as Leighton kind of said earlier, not to, you know, same as he said, not to be a cop-out, but that is precisely what my book is over, is, uh, assurance of salvation. You know, "Am I truly saved?" I think First John is a wonderful book of the Bible for assurance of salvation. Um, but that said, I, I think just for tonight, I'll answer with Romans chapter 3. I've used it multiple times. I've got a lot of papers here, but, but just to reiterate, there's a lot of text that we could go to. But I think Romans chapter 3 is helpful, just in the way that it sums up. It's like, "None is righteous, no, not one. No one understands. No one seeks for God. All have turned aside." So, you know, and it really all sums up to me, the climactic, you know, moment is, "There is no fear of God before their eyes." And so my point is, um, I mean, just even that question to me insinuates fear of God. Jesus says, you know, "Do not fear man, who, you know, all those guys can do is burn down your business and, you know, and kill the body, but after that, there's nothing more they can do. But rather fear God, who after destroying the body can destroy the soul in hell." And, uh, and to have that concern, I think that concern of, there's a holy God, His commands are great, I, He, His greatness, holiness, I'm great in my sinfulness, and I'm afraid, I'm afraid for the state of my soul. That sounds like fear of God before your eyes. Now, I'm not saying that that's this 100% guarantee, but I think it's a really good start. So I just take the whole text like Romans 3, there's plenty of other ones we could do, but just turn it on its head. So, "no one understands," right? Like, kind of what I said earlier with the other question. Do you understand some things about the scripture, about, about, about the Lord? Now, obviously, the pagan can have an intellectual understanding, but, but is there some spiritual depth there? "No one seeks for God." Can you think of any times in your life where you've sought after God? Yeah, not just He's come to you and you said, "I'll respond," but, but you were just like, "Man, are you going through a dry season spiritually? Like, I'm going to just fast, I'm going to pray, I'm going to read the scripture, I'm going to study and surround myself with brothers." That's that seeking after God. So I say, just turn texts like this and speak of the depravity of man, turn them upside down, and, and look for some of those signs. And First John, used to, I mean, I wrote a book on it because First John was my least favorite book in the Bible. It scared the heck out of him. And God used it. That was literally scared the hell out of me. I believe I'm safe. And First John scaring me has something to do with it. And, but my point is, I mean, it's scary. It's like, if you ever hate your brother, then you don't really love God. And like, I mean, big claims that this spirit, God's not in you, you, you know. But, but then you turn it on its head and you see all these standards for, if you're not like this, then it feels like, if you're not like this, you're, you're not tall enough to ride the ride. But the way I look at it now is with assurance, it's like, shotgun assurance. It's not saying you've got to meet all the Bible isn't saying you've got to meet all of these different tests of assurance of salvation to be saved. I think the reason why First John, for instance, gives so many tests is to say, if you're failing in these three tests over here, well, luckily First John provided four tests, and maybe you're succeeding in that one. So you don't walk away with no assurance, you walk away with some assurance. And that some assurance of salvation becomes a fuel towards some more sanctification. And as you get some more sanctification, it's like pedals on the bike, you get some more assurance. Does that, is that helpful? Yeah. Awesome. Thank you.

Get questions from our online audience. Uh, Ariel Phoenix has a question for, uh, Dr. Flowers, but I'd like to toss it to both of you. The question is about infants who die in, uh, infants who die before they can have faith in Christ, and how you two would both address their eternal state.

That's great. Well, I don't believe they've reached the age of accountability. And so, because I don't believe, and this is what, this was the debate between Pelagius and, uh, Augustine, as, uh, the baptismal regeneration of infants. And Augustine was talking about how you've got to get them to the, to the fountain of baptism as quick as possible, as soon as to regenerate them, lest they die and perish. Um, and of course, with Southern Baptists holding to the age of accountability, believe that God shows mercy and grace to those who have not reached an age where they can understand natural revelation, uh, and a special revelation of God. Um, and ironically, I think John Piper teaches basically the same thing, even as a Calvinist. So, yeah, we would be pretty similar there. We, I would just, you know, we would look to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession. I'm a Reformed Baptist, but also like all, most of my friends, you know, are Presbyterian, and so, uh, Westminster Confession would say the same thing. Um, and it would both say that infants are with the Lord. Um, and as a Calvinist, I would just see that as elect infants. Excellent.

This question is for Dr. Flowers. Does the gospel equal grace?

The gospel is grace. It's gracious. Um, there's a lot of graces of God. We even talk about rain and sunshine can be, in a sense, a grace of God. Ability to breathe my next breath is the grace of God. In that sense, a common, which might refer to as a common grace, but I would refer to the gospel as a sociological grace, and that it's a sufficient way in which God makes His light known to all men, to make the truth known to all people, and thus they're held responsible for that truth that's made known to them. And the reason they're held responsible, like I said, is because they're actually able to respond to that truth, either positively or negatively. And the shortcoming, in my estimation, of the Calvinistic system is that they're not able to respond positively due to factors beyond their control. And I don't believe that intuitively gives any basis for the blameworthiness of the sinner.

Next question comes from Julia Hernandez for Joel. Can you explain for us Romans 1:21, "For although they knew God, they refused to acknowledge him as God, their minds were darkened," and she's abridging it because of how many characters are allowed in YouTube. And then she says, and in Romans 2:11, "There is no, uh, respect, uh, of of the person with God."

Yeah, that's no respect of the people. Let me find that real quick. Sure. Uh, chapter 2, verse 11 is the second sort of question, and then 1:21, "because they knew God, did not, they, uh, refused to acknowledge him." Oh, "For God shows no partiality." Yeah, yeah, gotcha. No favoritism with God. Um, well, favoritism of God, I would just see that more corporately, which I feel like that's what Leighton does a lot. So, like, you'd appreciate that. But I was, Jews and Greeks, Jews and Gentiles. So, as far as there's no partiality with God, I think this is, you know, talking about the Gentiles who are being grafted in, that God is not merely the God of Israel, but God is the God of nations. He's, He's a global God. Every tribe, tongue, and nation. He doesn't just show partiality. Um, in terms of Romans 1:21, is that what she said? Romans 1:21. Romans, I believe it is, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, 1:21. Let me go there real quick. Um, "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools." Right. So, probably like, even the proverb says, you know, that the fool says in his heart, "There is no God." We celebrate Atheist Day one day a year. Yeah, April 1st. April Fool's Day, because it's the one who says there is no God, who is a fool in biblical language. So, um, that means that I got that from Marcy Sproul. I'm not that smart. That's cool. He was, um, but anyway, so, uh, what I would say is, uh, you know, for, "they knew God." They, they knew God in part. It's not that they knew everything that there is to know about God. And, and I would, you know, but I would be much more limited here. I would say, well, what do they know about God? So I want to back up and I would want to look where it says, "For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world, in what way? By the things that have been made." So, and, and it finishes by saying, "so they are without excuse." So I see this as what renders man excuseless is not ability, but knowledge that man has the knowledge by what God has made to see His existence, not His gospel, not His mercy or grace, but His eternal power, His divine nature, by natural.

Revelation, what God has made, and man, because he's an image-bearing creature. Although that image has been tarnished in the fall, um, the vestige of the image still remains. And so there's, it's natural revelation, uh, God showing His existence and natural law, the conscience, the things that God has written innately on every human being's heart. And those things are enough. That's enough knowledge that God exists, He's divine and eternal, and, um, and He's moral and holy. And these are the things He demands, written on on tablets of human hearts, not just tablets of stone. I see all of that as knowledge, and it's enough knowledge to condemn. It's enough knowledge for Him to be, for man to be without an excuse.

And but that's not, that's not a novel. So, so then verse 21, as it continues, "For although they knew God." And, and so I'll just stop right there to finish answering the question. They knew God in that way. They knew His existence, His eternal power, His divine nature, His natural law written on on tablets of human hearts, not just stone, but they have the conscience. In all those ways, they knew God. But what those ways don't include is the gospel. So, what they're lying and suppressing by deeds of unrighteousness, all these kinds of things, and becoming foolish and darkened, what they're suppressing is the things that have been listed in the text, um, not other things being added to it.

Excellent. Next question is for Dr. Flowers. Could you define for me the grace that precedes salvation? Is this view that it's, uh, it's kind of a sacramentalism in the way that, uh, like a Lutheran would say, as you're immersed in water, that this, this immersion is where the grace of God is? Would you view the scriptures in kind of a sacramental grace or an immediate prevenient grace, more like a, a traditional Arminian? How, how would you understand the work of grace in salvation?

Probably the latter. The prevenient, prevenient grace is a fine, it's fine language for me. It's the common vernacular of of an Arminian to talk about prevenient grace. But all that means is grace that's necessary before someone comes to faith. And so we do believe in a prevenient grace. It's the gospel of grace. It's revelation. It's light. It's the enlightenment of truth. And God uses means to enlighten the the lives and hearts of men. And so He brings light through the gospel proclamation, through the apostles, like Paul, who were writing to the church in Corinth. They could not, um, and Joel mentioned this earlier about how they deem the cross as foolish. Well, I don't believe they deem the cross as foolish by decree that God just decreed them to deem the cross as foolish because naturally they just have to because of the nature they were born with and they just can't control. But oh, they're just going to automatically. You talk about April Fool's Day, um, you know, it's they're full by decree or by choice. And the Calvinist would say, well, both, because God decreed their choice. And I'm just saying, no, I think they could have not deemed the cross as foolish because I think Corinthian, the letter to the Corinthians is talking about a difference between trusting in the wisdom of the world, because they were very much relying upon the wisdom literature in Corinth. He's saying, those who trust in the wisdom of the world will deem the cross as foolish versus those who trust in the wisdom being brought by revelation through the apostles, the wisdom of God, those won't deem the cross as foolish. He's not talking about the reprobate versus the elect or those chosen versus those unchosen in first Corinthians. He's talking about those who rely upon the wisdom of the world versus those who rely upon the wisdom of God. And so you deem the cross as foolish because you rely upon the wisdom of the world, not because you weren't chosen by God and God doesn't really want you. And that's the way we would push back on things like that. So we do need the light. We need the truth. How will they go to a party they haven't been invited to? How, how will you believe in one you've not heard? That's the inability of the scripture. You have to know the truth to be set free. And once God makes that truth abundantly known, that if you trade the truth in for lies, you can't trade a truth you don't have. You have to have the truth in order to trade it. We believe they had the truth and they traded it, and that is their responsibility, meaning they did that freely. They didn't have to do that. That's why they're culpable. Calvinists can't say that because ultimately they're trading the truth by nature, which is in accordance with what God decreed for them to do, and they had no control but to trade it in for lies because of the way they were born.

So, just for clarification, that does sound sacramental in that, in the gospel itself, within this, um, this, uh, uh, say, exerciser of the church of God's people to proclaim God's gospel, that the grace of God is found in that sacrament.

Well, I mean, if one wanted to define it that way, that could be their prerogative. I don't typically explain it that way. Um, I, I believe that the gospel is the power of God and salvation, the means by which. And if that's sacramental sounding because it's the means by which He brings light and truth, but both Calvinist and non-Calvinist believe God uses means. The only difference is we believe means actually affect people. Um, whereas the Calvinist just seems to, at least to me, to say, okay, these means over here are superfluous because if you're not elected, means mean nothing. If you are elect, and the means, I guess, accomplish what exactly? They're not accomplishing anything more than what the work of regeneration would accomplish. It's like the, the envy that he speaks of. I pray that it provoke their will to envy, that they may turn and believe. What is envy accomplishing that the work of regeneration wouldn't accomplish? In other words, we believe that means actually mean something. We, we believe they actually affect the heart and the will, the miracle, uh, the, the, the persuasion, the apologetics, they affect the will of man because those means actually impact other people by God's grace. But you're responsible whether you suppress that truth, whether you run from that truth, whether you ignore that truth. That's your responsibility for doing that.

So, I guess my question would be for you, I'm kind of new to theology and like this, but what would make me different than you? What would, I guess, the elect, what would make you elect and me not elect? Because I feel like if I was elected, what would be the point in living in Christ and doing good things and working unto the Lord and trying to save people? What would be the point? And that if I was elected, I was just going to be in heaven at the end of it. Does that make sense?

Yeah, that's what, yeah, that's a great question. At some level, what you're really asking is, what's the point of obedience? Um, if God is sovereign in the way that Layton believes, that God is sovereign, but in the way that the Calvinist speaks of sovereignty, what's the point of man's obedience? Like, people, you can ask the question different ways. Some people say, why evangelize if God's all-knowing? Some people ask, why pray? You know, some people ask, but really, it's just, I think the best way to ask is just, why are they? I like what John Piper says in terms of prayer. He says, if God's not sovereign, why would you pray? Um, if God has some kind of deal that He's worked within Himself to not override people's choices and to be really careful about free will, because God wants to be authentically loved, we all know you can't have true love unless there's free will, and free will has to be a libertarian autonomous free will. And for those, you know, for God to be loved because He's just loving Himself, it's just not enough. This triune thing, He really wants to be beloved, and it needs to be a free love, a true love. And, and so we need these components. And so for God to do all those things, you know, He's just kind of made a deal within Himself not to override people's choices, not to take too much of their freedom. Um, but you can make an argument. My point is, you can make an argument. Piper says, from the other way around, you could say, well, then why pray? Like, for instance, so if there's somebody who's not a Christian, what, like, what's the purpose of praying that God might save them? Because God's not going to answer that prayer because the whole thing is that God doesn't mess with that. He's really, really, really determined not to mess with that because one thing God doesn't mess with is a person's choice of faith because God wants us to be free, right? Or you could, you know, turn around saying, well, that's not true. God's like a master chess player, and He does influencing. Desperate, why doesn't He do it with everyone? Isn't that not a pseudo election, right? At that point, I feel like the Calvinist has the Arminian or has the Provisionist and saying, so if you're saying He's the master chess player, God's the architect, so He's not determining everything, but He's the best at winning the game because it's His game, His world, His rules, and He knows how to do it. He knows the hearts of men, and all those kinds of things. Well, if God's that good, and God really does want everyone, then why doesn't He win over everyone? But He doesn't. He doesn't. And so in all these things, my point is just to say that, um, God chooses to glorify Himself both in the, in the redemption of sinners, but He also chooses to bring glory to Himself in the condemnation of sinners. And so when Layton was saying the means, they don't mean anything for the Calvinist, I would say, no, the means work both ways. The Calvinist is not saying means don't mean anything. God accomplishes His ends through means. But, but He uses these same means to do one of two things. And I think that's where maybe we're missing each other. He doesn't just use these means to save. He also uses these means, whether it be prayer, whether it be the gospel being preached or sacraments or whatever, God uses these means of grace. They're means of grace to His people. He uses them to save, to, to sanctify, to strengthen. But He also uses them to condemn. So like texts say, you know, the word, my word will not return void. Well, what does that mean? Like, if His word doesn't return void, void means, you know, empty. Won't it, will accomplish that which I sent it forth to do? Well, is God not sending His forth His word forth to, because there's a lot of people God is sending His word forth in, got faithful gospel preachers preaching the gospel, but, but they don't get saved. So was that an example of His word returning void, empty? I would say no, because that word has two purposes: to save, but also to further justify God in people's condemnation. For those that God chooses not to save, God can say on that final day, I gave you, I did this, I did that, and I did this, and you refused. And so you're, you're, I'm extra just, yeah, He's plenty just enough, but I'm extra just in my judgments. You're extra responsible, morally culpable for your sin. God, God does both of these things. He does the same kind of means of grace, but He uses them in both ways. He uses them to save. He also uses them to further justify Himself through condemnation. I think one of the things that's difficult that a lot of people just don't like about Calvinism is that God actually does gain glory for Himself by people being damned. Like, why does God choose you? You know, He started the question, why does God choose one person not the other for His good pleasure? That's why.

What's it, oh, yeah, we got one more here. Um, but one question. Um, if prevenient grace is, uh, like you said, the message, then is our condition from birth ignorance and so inability? Is just ignorance? Obviously, there's a part of it. "How will they believe in one who may not heard?" implies that by hearing they may believe. Now, if they suppress the truth in unrighteousness and grow hardened and calloused and cut off, as we talked about earlier in the debate, then they can grow into a condition where they are ever seeing and never perceiving. But I don't believe that's a condition from birth because I don't believe the Bible ever teaches that. That's something that He warns against. "When you hear the voice of God, do not harden your hearts." And so I don't believe your heart is already born completely hardened, like the TULIP would suggest. I believe you're responsible for your heart being hardened. And therefore, when you hear the light or the truth being proclaimed, which could set you free if you accept it, if you suppress the truth in unrighteousness, you can grow hardened and calloused to that truth. Does that help?

Yeah, I have one follow-up to you then. How does, how would you relate the relationship between grace and nature? Nature being the nature of how God created man. And does grace enable nature, or is nature opposed to grace in regards to salvation?

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. But, um, is the natural Protestant divide between Catholics and, uh, right, and Protestants? Actually, you know, it's interesting that I actually quote from the Westminster and from the London Baptist Confession with regard to the liberty of the will as it was created. In other words, Adam and Eve were created good. They were created with the ability to accept or reject God's commandment. In other words, they had libertarian freedom, as far as I've defined it. And so when they chose to reject, they were acting freely. And that is an example of what libertarian freedom looks like, at least from my perspective. I, I differ from Joel in that I don't believe they lost the liberty of the will to, to hear their conscience and to respond willingly to the light and the truth that God brings. The Calvinist believes that the, the liberty is lost due to the fall. And I believe that they maintain the liberty. It does talk about the toiling of the soils, it talks about labor pains, but it never says that you're going to, all your children are going to be born God-haters and can't do anything but hate God unless I arbitrarily picked them or unilaterally picked them before they were ever born. Um, it just never says this as a curse. And that seems to be something he would have mentioned if that was really what was taking place. It seems like Cain and Abel still have the ability to bring the right sacrifice and faith. He even warns Cain because the sin is crouching at his door. And so I, I just don't, I'm not convinced that there is a loss of the ability of man to freely respond to God's grace and His provision since the fall of man. I don't believe that's been lost.

Thanks for the questions. Excellent. Well, thank you so much for those of you who've stuck with us through the entire debate. How we appreciate you coming out and watching. Additionally, and those who have come here in studio, we appreciate, uh, your questions and your time. Uh, we're gonna wrap this up. If you're out there having it subscribed yet, make sure to do that. Check us out Monday nights, 8:30 PM Central Standard Time, and Tuesdays from four to five. We're constantly coming out with live content, live interviews. You can take stuff, I'll get some really exciting stuff on the YouTube channel. Check out the playlists that are coming up, and maybe the playlists we've already done. And we will see you next time.