The Narrow Path Ministries

Just wanted to pass this information along for those that may be interested...

I ran across a podcast called Soteriology 101 (http://www.soteriology101.com) by Professor Leighton Flowers a short time back. He used to be a Calvinist and while teaching on the subject started the podcast. He has quoted a number of well known Calvinists at various times in his podcasts and began interacting with Dr. James White. They have gone back-and-forth on their respective podcasts and are going to debate Romans 9 in person (I can't remember the exact date). His views are similar to Steve Gregg's and Michael Brown's. He does hold to "once saved always saved".

The Soteriology 101 podcasts are pretty good, pointing out inconsistencies in Calvinism by quoting other Calvinists. The interaction between Leighton Flowers & James White has been pretty educational, if anyone is interested.

In one of Leighton Flowers blogpost, he copied and pasted from an article by John Hendryx (found here: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... nfree.html) and changed his references of “human desire/choice” to “homosexual desire/choice” in order to avoid the accusation of misrepresentation. Yet in a podcast James White went through the blogpost and pointed out the problems with it, apparently not realizing he was actually critiquing John Hendryx's representation of Calvinism. I've found many times that when you press a Calvinist on what he actually means, he will give you an answer, only to (in the next breath) change that meaning to suit his position. It's like striving after the wind.

Here's an announcement of the debate. I'm not sure if the debate is going to be streamed live, but Leighton Flowers has said it will be posted to his blog.

Thanks for posting this -- I'd never heard of him and I'm now enjoying his podcasts, and looking forward to the debate. I think I'd really enjoy hearing Flowers and Steve engage in a discussion -- I think iron sharpens iron best when there is considerable agreement already. I think we could really glean insights from them from the nuances or interpretive issues that might differ. If one area of disagreement is eternal security, then having agreement on their basic approaches and systematic views could also lower the firewalls enough to really engage that point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, the debate was alright, not great, but alright -- I thought Flowers did a good job, but White didn't really show up except for his petulance/impertinence, especially in his post-debate podcasts. I think it was a missed opportunity if White had actually engaged with the substance.

Debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1711&v=zbEnNiIlujw

The RedGrace folks who hosted it engaged with it on their own podcast -- I enjoyed Flowers' 5/15 podcast episode where he interacted with their comments, here: http://directory.libsyn.com/shows/view/ ... iology101/

Don't even bother listening to White's post-debate podcasts -- it's what you would expect.

I only wish Flowers focused more on how LFW could fit in the problem passages in Rom. 9. I think he allowed James to constantly sidetrack from that issue.

Lfw?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Libertarian free will, sorry lol flowers uses this acronym constantly.