meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

Answering the Calvinist's most Popular Argument

Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers

Leighton Flowers

Baptist, Atonement, Reformed, Bible, Religion & Spirituality, Calvinism, Biblical, Arminianism, Calvin, Christianity, Christian

4.8826 Ratings

🗓️ 2 October 2019

⏱️ 8 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

“WHY DID YOU BELIEVE THE GOSPEL, BUT YOUR FRIEND DID NOT? ARE YOU WISER OR SMARTER OR MORE SPIRITUAL OR BETTER TRAINED OR MORE HUMBLE?”

This is typically one of the first questions a Calvinist will ask a non-Calvinist when attempting to convince them of their doctrine.[1] In fact, when I was a Calvinist, I used this argument more often than any other, and it was quite effective. However, I have come to believe there are at least five significant problems with this line of argumentation:

1) CALVINISM IS ACTUALLY THE ONLY SYSTEM THAT TEACHES THE BELIEVER IS “BETTER” OR “MORE CAPABLE” THAN THE ONE WHO REFUSED TO BELIEVE:

On Calvinism God makes some people (the elect) “smarter” (or insightful, or able to understand truth), more humble and privileged by a work of irresistible regenerative grace. So, on Calvinism those who believe really are “better” or “more capable,” which is why they can believe the gospel and the rest cannot believe it (for reasons beyond their control). Granted, on Calvinism, this regenerative grace is given unconditionally and it is not in anyway merited by the elect, but that does not change the fact that upon being regenerated the elect are made “better” (more capable, with a new and better nature/heart) than their unbelieving counterpart.

On Provisionism (Traditionalism), all people have the necessary insight and moral capacity to respond willingly to God’s appeal. Thus, all are truly “without excuse” because everyone has everything they need to believe in God. This is due to the fact that everyone is created as His image bearers in a world where His truth is made abundantly clear and believable (Rom 1). On Provisionism, no one can fall back on the excuse that God did not make them morally capable to respond positively to His own appeals or insightful enough to understand and accept plainly spoken truth, like they can on Calvinism. On Provisionism, the Fall doesn’t cause humanity to become morally incapable of accepting God’s appeals to be reconciled from that Fall. We do not believe that has ever been established biblically.

This Calvinistic argument may sound pious because it’s attempting to give all credit to God for all the good things, but in so doing it also inadvertently gives God all the blame for the bad and removes any real semblance of human responsibility for unbelief.

Unbelievers cannot rightly say, “I could not believe because God withheld His provision, love and grace from me. It was beyond my control because I was born rejected by my maker and in a condition whereby I could only hate and reject God’s own appeals.” No! Unbelievers stand without excuse as blameworthy sinners because they are freely rejecting the loving and gracious appeal of God for reconciliation. They perish because they refused to love the truth so as to be saved (2 Thess. 2:10) and they could have done otherwise.

Provisionism gives God all the credit for His provision while maintaining the human responsibility to accept or reject that provision. After all, since when must a gift be effectually given for the giver to get full credit for giving it?

To read more go here: https://soteriology101.com/2019/01/13/are-you-better-than-your-friend-who-refused-to-believe/

Please remember to like this video and SUBSCRIBE!

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

Have you ever been asked the question, why did you believe the gospel but your friend did not?

0:05.0

Are you wiser, smarter, or more spiritual, or better trained, or more humble?

0:12.0

This is one of the most popular questions used by Calvinist to convince others of their theological worldview.

0:19.0

However, there are several theological and logical problems with

0:23.4

this question. The Calvinist argument relies upon the logical fallacy of question begging because it

0:30.5

presumes a deterministic answer is required. It's tantamount to asking, what determined the response of you and your friend, as if something

0:40.1

or someone other than the responsible agent themselves made the determination.

0:45.8

The question presumes determinism is true, and that libertarian free will is not, which

0:52.3

is question begging. The cause of the choice is the chooser. Now a friend may

0:58.8

list influential factors in their decision-making process, but it doesn't mean that those

1:04.3

influential factors somehow determined the agent to make a particular choice. Influential factors do not determine choices. People do.

1:14.6

For example, your friend may say, I ate a piece of cake because it tastes so good. That, of course,

1:20.8

does not mean that the taste determined the agent to choose to eat the cake, but only that that was a

1:27.3

factor that the agent used in making

1:30.6

their own determination. So when a Calvinist asked the question, why did you accept the

1:35.9

gospel, but your friend did not, you can list influential factors in your decision, but

1:41.9

it is a logical fallacy for them to assume that someone other than yourself

1:46.0

determined your choice.

1:48.3

This mystery of free will is not one that the Calvinists can really escape.

1:53.6

Even R. C. Spruill, a well-known Calvinist, has said, but Adam and Eve were not created

1:57.9

fallen.

1:58.9

They had no sin nature.

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Leighton Flowers, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Leighton Flowers and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.