First blog post

This is the post excerpt.


This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.


Soteriology101: Dr. Leighton Flowers, Traditional Baptists Contradictory Doctrine of Faith Between Articles 8 and 9

Hello Mr. Flowers,

A little question for you and a few things for you to think about. I know it will be something that you will never bring up because that is why I am no longer allowed to post on Soteriology101 although I have not been actually banned. Just my comments have been censored and banned. I can still like and approve other comments. I have never attacked anyone personally or was disrespectful in any way. But that is OK. I know I was asking the hard questions that one could not give sufficient answers to as I will attempt to do today.
I am emailing you directly with this. Will attempt to post it on Soteriology101. Will post it on my own WordPress site and on other Social blogs around the internet so that it is dispersed and is seen in more abundance as you yourself are pretty much omnipresent on the web.
The true genuine Christian believer’s assurance of Salvation. Does he have it? That is assurance that Christ will save him to the uttermost, completely and forever. Eternal Security.  According to Article 9, The Security of the Believer, after the person (a sinner I am guessing) responds in faith he does have this assurance, this security. This security seems to be based upon the responsibility or power of God in keeping the person saved according to Article 9. “ We affirm that when a person responds in faith, to the Gospel, GOD PROMISES TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS OF SALVATION IN THE BELIEVER INTO ETERNITY” 
The Traditional Baptist takes away from man his “Libertarian Free Will” and places the Security of the believer’s Salvation as the Responsibility of God. God is the one who though his responsibility, according to his will, by His power keeps the believer saved. That is according to Article 9, The Security of the Believer, the very doctrinal statement of the Traditional Baptist, IT IS GOD WHO PROMISES TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS OF SALVATION IN THE BELIEVER INTO ETERNITY.
What happened to the individual’s Libertarian Free Will, Dr. Flowers? IS THE BELIEVER NOW BEING IRRESISTIBLY SAVED AGAINST HIS LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL? I know. Sounds silly, absurd and illogical, but I thought I would parrot back to you what you are constantly saying to the Calvinist all the time. But nonetheless, that is exactly what you are saying in Article 8 and Article 9. Both are not in the least compatible but most definitely and emphatically according to your own illogical logic a contradiction.
I find this a remarkable and an amazing statement of contradiction that is not compatible with your system of belief Dr. Flowers of “Libertarian Free Will” as I believe I defined for the most part correctly below and slightly above.
Once the “sinner person responds in faith, to the Gospel” by his or her “Libertarian Free Will” meaning he or she could have chosen or rejected the Gospel offer. Did he or she lose their “Libertarian Free Will” their very “power of choosing one option or the other?” Even the “power or ability of the will of actually choosing one option but then at a later date being able to reject it and choose the other option or options?
I am sure you see where I am going with this Dr. Flowers. Your Article 9, The Security of the Believer is not compatible with your philosophy of “Libertarian Free Will,” Article 8.
Before I state Article 9, The Security of the Believer, the doctrinal statement of the Traditional Baptists. I want to first under-gird and give evidence to the fact of what I have said concerning your understanding and the definition of Libertarian Free Will by stating the Article 8, THE FREE WILL OF MAN.


We affirm that God, as an expression of His sovereignty, endows each person with actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.

We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person. We deny that there is an “effectual call” for certain people that is different from a “general call” to any person who hears and understands the Gospel.

Genesis 1:26-28; Numbers 21:8-9; Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15; 1 Samuel 8:1-22; 2 Samuel 24:13-14; Esther 3:12-14; Matthew 7:13-14; 11:20-24; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 9:23-24; 13:34; 15:17-20; Romans 10:9-10; Titus 2:12; Revelation 22:17

I will not comment at this time on the Scripture proofs provided but may do so later but want to continue the fact that Article 8 and Article 9 are not compatible being illogical and absurd by your very own standards Dr. Flowers. Maybe your Scriptures evidence which is proof-texting (will shed some light but I highly doubt it) that you accuse the Calvinist of (everyone does it and there is a Biblical Case for it as long as one does not pull the verse out of context and misuse and abuse it)

Now for the statement of Article 9: THE SECURITY OF THE BELIEVER.


We affirm that when a person responds in faith to the Gospel, God promises to complete the process of salvation in the believer into eternity. This process begins with justification, whereby the sinner is immediately acquitted of all sin and granted peace with God; continues in sanctification, whereby the saved are progressively conformed to the image of Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit; and concludes in glorification, whereby the saint enjoys life with Christ in heaven forever.

We deny that this Holy Spirit-sealed relationship can ever be broken. We deny even the possibility of apostasy.

John 10:28-29; 14:1-4; 16:12-14; Philippians 1:6; Romans 3:21-26; 8:29,30; 35-39; 12:1-3; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Ephesians 1:13-14; Philippians 3:12; Colossians 1:21-22; 1 John 2:19; 3:2; 5:13-15; 2 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 13:5; James 1:12; Jude 24-25

This statement of faith by the Traditional Baptist actually amazes me and somewhat shocks me considering what the Traditional Baptist as yourself believes concerning “libertarian free will.” You yourself being a “libertarian” when it comes to the “will of man.”

This definition may not be exact but I think it fits the mold close enough that there would be and is no reason for a silly nonsensical response. Not that you would respond anyway. I believe your strongest desire will determine you will not to choose to respond to this response and rebuttal. It is not “animal instinct” Chuckle. Animals have no consciousness, will or any sense of moral responsibility so that argument and allegory break down completely. Or robots or puppets for that matter. None of these also HAVE NOT BEEN CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD!! Much more to say on this but not the subject at this particular time. although if Dr. Flowers was to respond this is what he would focus on and not that which is difficult and problematic to his system of philosophy and faith. This we have seen and learned from his frequent and abundant articles and videos scattered all over the internet that the only “really focuses upon 3-4 hours a week.” Not sure if that is compatible either. It is Dr. Flowers life crusade and he cannot use Chris Date as an example. Chris, yes is focusing on what I believe is a real theological theory that should at least be considered and taken seriously, but if you listen to Chris overall and go to his individual website he is very familiar with the “whole Counsel of God” and has espoused it frequently. Even with you Dr. Flowers concerning your life’s crusade in destroying Calvinism in your two-part conversation with Chris on Compatibilism.
” Libertarians believe that free will is incompatible with causal determinism, and agents have free will. They, therefore, deny that causal determinism is true. … Non-causal libertarians typically believe that free actions are constituted by basic mental actions, such as a decision or choice.
I would add that “Libertarian Free Will” consist of individuals making “free choices” that are not “coerced” ( I also do not believe in coercion in the sense of man’s will choosing) to make any indecision or choice in violation of their “free will” being able to choose between at least two options.
Let me continue what I believe and pretty much know what you believe about “Libertarian Free Will” For the “will of man” to truly and genuinely be free it must be “self-determined.”  It must not be “determined” by anything “subjectively or “objectively.” If it is then the “will” is truly not “free” in the “libertarian sense” In my own practical judgment, it is as if you are saying the “will of man” must be in a “neutral position.” For example. An individual person making a “choice” between two options chooses one with his or her “libertarian free will” (but could have chosen otherwise or in a different manner, the other option or options as stated by Article 8, The Free Will but rebutted by Article 9 as it is God’s responsibility through His effectual irresistible power to keep the believer saved until he or she is glorified and enters into the eternal state of heaven).
The “eternal state” poses another problem and difficulty for the Traditional Baptist also. Does the now “Glorified Saint” still have in his or her possession true genuine “Libertarian Free Will so that he genuinely and freely chooses to love, worship and adore the Lord Jesus without being determined to do so. It has to be this way to be genuine and true. That means even in heaven in a glorified state one could apostatize and rebel against God. Love has to free in the Libertarian sense.
But this is contrary and contradictory to what Article 9: The Security of the Believer says:……”We (the Traditional Baptists) deny that this Holy Spirit-Sealed relationship can ever be broken. We deny the possibility of apostasy.”
This denial is the individual in a state of Grace saved by Christ through his “Libertarian Free Will” (although the response is said to be effected through “Spirit Gospel Preaching) and the denial of apostasy in the eternal state with a glorified body while still possessing a “Libertarian Free Will” that can choose or reject between two options or even after choosing one option reject the former accepted option and choose the other option. Now, this is what I call an illogical, absurd,  and absolute nonsense. Even circular. Articles 8 and 9 contradict each other and are not compatible. This is truly “begging the question.” Chicken and the egg.
Houston/Flowers, we have a problem?!?!?!?
The Traditional Baptist such as yourself Dr. Flowers must believe this way. For this very reason. For love, adoration, and worship of God to real and genuine it must not be “determined.” It must have that “option” or “alternative choice” to be able to actually rebel and reject God and thus do so completely or your definition of “Libertarian free will” fall to the ground powerless and is found to be lifeless and devoid of its alleged meaning or definition.
Let me say briefly that there are elements of what I wrote above that the Reformed Calvinists believes in. I know you would say that “man acting freely and “God ultimately determining his will, choices and actions” is a contradiction. Completely absurd and illogical and arguing in a circle. To defend that issue is not my assignment here today. I have started doing that directly to you on my WordPress Site. Speakingthetruthinloveblog. I have addressed the arguments of ‘robots, puppets, and animal instincts being used as arguments against the will of man and determinism being compatible. You just do not understand the Decree of God in connection with moral responsibility. One gives rise to the other. One thing is for sure and you need to quit alluding to is this. That God is actively working evil or sin in the hearts of believers. I will be addressing the choices of men, the decisions of their will and how they are compatible with the Decree of God in the future in response to your misrepresentations and misunderstandings. The next subject I mean to address is “the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart” That is was God who did the “hardening” throughout even where it says “Pharaoh hardened his own heart” The Decree of God. His determining the will of man is thus compatible. One gives rise to the other. I will address the “murder of Christ” on the cross. The very article you wrote with so many misrepresentations and fallacies. I also will show how your own “system of belief” cannot account for “evil and sin” Something that you seem to not want to address on your own. Your own system of belief also has “great difficulty and a huge problem with the very existence of evil and sin.” This is due to the very “Infinite knowledge” of God that I know you believe in.
You mention “the Calvinist arguing in a circle is absurd and illogical. Everyone argues in a circle to some extent or degree. Anyone who understands the elementary substance of philosophy knows this. Even you Dr. Flowers ARGUES IN A CIRCLE WHEN IT COMES TO THE TRADITIONAL BAPTIST ARTICLE 9, THE SECURITY OF THE BELIEVER AND LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL. That is in the sense you call it illogical and absurd you are an offender yourself of this very same “flaw” as you would see it. This I will set out to prove.
Let me briefly mention this. The Bible, the very Word of God is authoritative and inspired. That is a “circular argument” but it is true nonetheless. The Bible claims for itself to be the very Word of God, authoritative and inspired. Prophets and Apostles wrote as they were moved along “by the Holy Spirit.” To the Non-Christian, this is absurd and illogical. Because it is just a book with words that claims for itself all that I have written above. Thus a “circular argument.” But you as a Christian believe this “circular” argument, Dr. Flowers.
I believe I have already shown extensively how the Traditional Baptist Article 9 of Faith, “The Security of the Believer” is a contradiction and is not compatible with Article 8: Free Will. I think you now see how this lines up with Libertarian Free Will” I have shown you from “your very own logic and reasoning” that this is nonsense, illogical, absurd and in no way can be compatible I want to make a few statements and ask a few strong illustrating questions. Then look at a few of your proof-texting that you have condemned and accused the Calvinists of doing. Following are some statements and questions I asked Brian Wagner who also believes a true Christian cannot lose his or her Salvation. He declined to reply. I can understand why. This position that you both take (although Brian takes on the “will of man” is different I think) makes you both at least an ONE POINT CALVINIST!!  Now for the statements and questions below:
You believe in libertarian free will. You believe the “will” when presented with a “choice” is “free” (in the libertarian sense) to make an option especially in relation to the “Gospel Offer”? Meaning the “will” is not “determined” in the sense of “Compatibilism” It can accept or reject the “offer of the Gospel” The Libertarian Will can also reject the choice or option it previously made and accept the other “alternative option.” It has to have that power and ability Dr. Flowers or your argument is absurd and illogical. That is why all by itself Articles 9 and Articles 8 of the Traditional Baptists Doctrinal Statement are not compatible and contradictory. But let’s continue.
But if the “will” must be “free” according to the Traditional Baptist for “faith, love, and worship of God to be genuinely true, free and not determined but self-determined, I ask what changed after one is saved that he cannot become unsaved?” Has the believer in Christ lost his power of choice? Even in heaven in what is the condition of the will? Of what quality? Will it be “free” in the sense that it is still making “real genuine choices” to love, adore and worship Christ” (Libertarian) but still “free” to do the opposite as Lucifer and a 3rd part of the angels did?  It has to be in your system of belief, philosophy, and faith or it is now being effectually in an irresistible way determined way by God’s Sovereign Power. IF THE TRADITIONAL BAPTIST IS DENYING THAT THE BELIEVER IN A STATE OF GRACE, SALVATION IN CHRIST, AND IN THE ETERNAL STATE IN HEAVEN IN A GLORIFIED BODY DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO APOSTATIZE AND REBEL AGAINST GOD (and they do according to Article 9 The Security of the Believer). HE NO LONGER HAS “LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL” YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO DR. FLOWERS.
I am just trying to understand how you understand the will of man, in his fallen sinful alienated from Christ state, his saved United to Christ state by grace through faith, and in the eternal state where man will be delivered from the very presence of sin forever, and puts on a new glorified body as Christ. But even Lucifer and the angels did not have sinful desires and tendencies until they did?  Where did sin and evil ultimately come from? Could the saints in heaven with their “will” that has to be “genuinely free” for “love, adoration and worship to God to be actual and real, choose to the opposite as Lucifer and the angels did and could the remaining angels do what Lucifer and a 3rd part of the angels did in rebellion to God. I guess I am asking if “Glorified Saints” with “wills” that are “genuinely free” and “self-determining” for “love. worship and adoration of Jesus Christ to be real and genuine, could that will choose to rebel also at any time (if I can even speak of time) in eternity.
According to “Article 8: Free Will, they can, it is a real possibility, but according to “Article 9: The Security of the Believer, it is an impossibility as God secures their salvation throughout all eternity despite Article 8, the Libertarian Free Will that can choose to reject what it has chosen at any given moment on earth or in heaven.
I do believe these are tough, difficult and problematic but reasonable questions to ask the Traditional Baptists who to me is just another form of Arminianism. Don’t want to offend but I do not see much difference when it comes to Soteriology other than the “Prevenient Grace Issue”
Now I will look at a few of your “proof text” from Articles 8 and 9 and give my evaluation and how they correspond with the actual statement of the articles and the philosophy you espouse Dr. Flowers.
Article 9: The Security of the Believer Proof Text

John 10:28-29 – 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.

This is an excellent passage of Scripture for the Calvinist. But for the Traditional Baptist, it is “begging the question” Yes the Father is keeping them and protecting them in his Sovereign Almighty Hand that no one can pry open and whose power no one can defeat. BUT THE BELIEVER ACCORDING TO THE TRADITIONAL BAPTIST AND ARTICLE 8 HAS LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL THAT GOD WILL NOT VIOLATE. IF THE BELIEVER WHO DECIDED TO ACCEPT THE FREE OFFER OF THE GOSPEL NOW DECIDES HE OR SHE WANTS OUT OF THE FATHER’S HAND THE TRADITIONAL BAPTIST HAS TO ADMIT THAT GOD WILL NOT FORCE THE BELIEVER AGAINST HIS OR HER LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL TO REMAIN IN A STATE OF GRACE IRRESISTIBLY AS DR. FLOWERS WOULD STATE IT.  So the “circular debate tactic, begging the question and the downright contradiction continues.
John 14: Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many [a]mansions; if it were not so, [b]I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
How does Dr. Flowers and the Traditional Baptists know that “where Christ is, all believers will be there also?” This is once again absurd, illogical and contradictory to Article 8: The Free Will.  The Believer may choose before Christ returns to reject and apostatize from the true faith of believing in Christ as his or her Lord and Savior. But Flowers and the Traditional Baptists says that Article 9 rejects this possibility. But Article 8 affirms this possibility emphatically. Remember Dr. Flowers? Are you saying that I ask once again that this has changed? I say that the Traditional Baptist Doctrinal Statement of Faith is Schizophrenia in nature. Let’s remind ourselves of Article 8 and that will be our conclusion to this rebuttal. I see no reason to go into the proof texts of Article 8. They are just as confusing in nature, absurd, illogical and just sheer nonsense in there understanding by the Traditional Baptist as the proof texts of Article 9. Conclusion. Articles 8 and 9 of the Traditional Baptists Doctrinal Statement of Faith is contradictory and most definitely and emphatically not compatible.


We affirm that God, as an expression of His sovereignty, endows each person with actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.

We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person. We deny that there is an “effectual call” for certain people that is different from a “general call” to any person who hears and understands the Gospel.


We affirm that when a person responds in faith to the Gospel, God promises to complete the process of salvation in the believer into eternity. This process begins with justification, whereby the sinner is immediately acquitted of all sin and granted peace with God; continues in sanctification, whereby the saved are progressively conformed to the image of Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit; and concludes in glorification, whereby the saint enjoys life with Christ in heaven forever.

We deny that this Holy Spirit-sealed relationship can ever be broken. We deny even the possibility of apostasy.

Soteriology101: Leighton Flowers and His Complete Absurd Illogical Misunderstanding of Reformed Calvinistic Compatibilism Part 2

Just finished listening to a podcast of Leighton Flowers refuting Jeff Durbin and John Samson. In the podcast Flowers makes a comment that if (I am paraphrasing) Calvinists are saying that people do according to their greatest desire at any given moment this does not solve the problem of a Deterministic God. Still implying that determinism and moral responsibility are not compatible. Flowers did say in the podcast that GOD HAS DECREED SOME THINGS FROM ETERNITY. HMMMM….

Flowers goes on to say that if people choose according to their greatest desire at any given moment. That is no different than a dog or an animal doing what its instinct dictates it to do.  It is as if he is conflating animals and human beings. Animals who have no moral responsibility and people endowed with self-conscience do have a moral responsibility before God and man. Animals are not humans with a moral self-conscience created in the image of God. Humans are not animals with innate instinct that dictate their behavior. If Flowers is saying people created in the image of God and endowed with a moral self-conscience are animals who have no moral responsibility then neither do people. He is conflating the two. It is a bad analogy even if he feels it still does not explain the compatibility between determinism and moral responsibility. But conflating people with animals still does not prove that determined humans are not morally responsible.

Flowers says he believes in the “Infinite Exhaustive Foreknowledge of God” Meaning there was and is never a time that God does not know or is ignorant of something. That God knows past, present and future all at the same time. And that if God had to look into the future to retrieve some information that would mean there was a time that God did not know something. Which is not biblical. As all knowledge and wisdom can be found in Christ Jesus and his understanding is infinite.

Colossians 2: 2-3 – that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, which is Christ,

3. in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Psalms 147: 5 – Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is infinite and beyond measure. (which speaks of his knowledge and wisdom also)

So I ask Flowers this question. The God of the Christian Bible. Who knows all. Nothing escapes Gods knowledge or understanding and he can see into and know the heart of man.  Guillaume Bignon, in his book “Excusing Sinners and Blaming God” ask, “should we hold a killer morally responsible for the death of his victim on the ground that he had willed otherwise that death would not have occured, when all along there was no hope whatever that he would so will?” Flowers “Libertarian Free Will says the killer could have done otherwise. But Flowers believes in the “Infinite Exhaustive beyond measure of the knowledge of God who knew the killer would only do the one evil action he did, kill. This was the dominating desire that prevailed within the wicked heart of the murder. He could not have done otherwise. How does Flowers reconcile his understanding of “Libertarian Free Will with the Infinite Exhaustive Knowledge of God” Was God waiting to see if the killer would choose to not kill as if God did not know? Which is it Dr. Flowers? Will you say the murder could have done otherwise but God just knew what choice he would make? That is begging the question. If the murder could have done otherwise then how could God have known for sure. Is Flowers slowly slipping into Open Theism?

How is this murder’s behavior any different from my German Shepherd that was being harassed by a drunk one time and my pet dog named Duke the Killer (Really) Broke the chain and bit him deeply and painfully in the behind. He ended up trying to sue my family over it. My dog would not have bit the drunk if he had not been motivated or instigated to do so.

If there is a difference here I do not see it found within Compatibilism. And if there is no difference then the man who is a murder is no more responsible than my dog who bit the drunk in his behind for harassing him. Is this what Flowers is asserting?

What Flowers is strongly affirming is that the behavioral instincts of my dog do not make it morally responsible so moral responsibility is not to be found in determined human choices either. The reason for both suggested or I should say strongly asserted by Flowers is determinism, the reason the murder acting on his strongest wicked desire to kill and the dog acting on his innate instinct to attack cannot be held morally responsible. It seems as if I am making Flowers case for him. 🙂

Flowers would probably agree with what is written in (Excusing Sinners and Blaming God.) “If the indeterminist libertarian free will is not what marks humans out, then there remains no (relevant difference)  explaining why humans are morally responsible and pets and puppets are not; no such difference can be found.

A difference can emphatically be found and the charge can be refuted. It now becomes actions performed by animals or pets have a certain aspect that excludes moral responsibility. That being instinct. So if actions performed by animals do not permit moral responsibility. The argument goes the same for determined actions by humans and they cannot be held morally responsible.

Therefore, actions by humans on determinism have a property that excludes moral responsibility.

Which is what Flowers is saying in comparing animals with humans that “determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility.

The fact that Flowers says “determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility is to be rejected most definitely and emphatically. It must be pointed out first of all that Flowers is question-begging.  Why think that if the actions of animals are not morally responsible this makes determined actions of humans the same? Why would one think the actions of an animal is related to the determined choices and actions of a human in the same way? They are categorically different. Apples and Oranges. Flowers does not tell us why.

But what Leighton Flowers does not see is that animals have a quality or property within them, that prevents them from possessing moral responsibility, but is not an attribute by humans inferred on compatibilism to make determinist free choices.

That quality of lacking “self-consciousness” fits the description exactly for animals. Self-consciousness is absolutely necessary for moral responsibility owned by human beings (determined or not) but lacking utterly and completely in animals. That is the reason animals are not morally responsible and instinct cannot be compared with “a strongest desire or motive” when humans are possessed by “self-consciousness.” Animals lack this necessary condition of “self-conscience awareness being able to distinguish between evil and what is good. Animals act on instinct unaware of what they are doing. Humans determined or not are in full possession of a moral God-given compass called self-consciousness so they are morally responsible.



Soteriology101: Leighton Flowers and His Complete Absurd Illogical Misunderstanding of Reformed Calvinistic Compatibilism Part 1

I am only going to begin to write a few thoughts down about Compatibilism which we know the Calvinist believes that “determinism and moral responsibility are compatible.” Also eventually that Soft Compatibilism does not make “God the author of evil.”  I want to begin briefly by debunking the “puppet and robot” analogy commonly used. That if God decreed all that comes to pass, even are decisions, choices, good or evil, this makes us nothing more than puppets or robots doing only what God has decreed so we cannot be free (in the Libertarian sense, able to choose or reject between to options or could have chosen the other option, without being coerced by any outside influence) or morally responsible.

The logical fallacy of the Non-Calvinists comparing the Calvinists understanding of Compatibilism (that determinism and moral responsibility are compatible) makes man a puppet or a robot. This is nothing more than absurd and nonsense. Yes a puppet and a robot is determined, but are they morally responsible??? You see it begins to break down already. This analogy Arminians need to forsake. Yes you are all Arminians, to me it does not matter if you are an Open Theists or a Traditionalists. But I know you see the fallacy above. The puppet and the robot cannot be held morally responsible. So you cannot equate or make equivalent Calvinistic Compatibilism with robots and puppets. This is silly, nonsense, illogical and completely absurd. I know you will have objections to this but I also know that Leighton Flowers has never considers this before.

So what am I saying is this, that this objection that determinism makes people puppets or robots who are free from moral responsibility is a fallacy. So the Arminian or Non-Calvinist needs to come up with a better analogy. I know the objections to determinism quite well. But the robot and puppet analogy does not prove or give evidence that determined humans are not morally responsible.

The Arminian must always remember even if they think it is a misnomer that the Reformed Calvinists believes in free will (in a creaturely sense, not in libertarian sense) and the Reformed Calvinist believes that people make “choices” freely that are not coerced or influenced by anything outside of themselves. Even if the Arminian/Non-Calvinist does not understand or objects to the fact that “determinism and free will choices of human beings are compatible” This I hope to explain but first to refute Dr. Flowers many floundering fallacies of this subject and his utter complete misunderstanding of it.

Dr Flowers is putting forth the same arguments that the Apostle Paul predicted in advance but only smacked the hand of the interrogator. (I know Flowers has written a book of Romans 9 that is new, recent, ambiguous and in the opinion of many faulty) But this is exactly what Dr. Flowers is saying below.

Romans 9: 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

These are still the modern day objections made by the Indeterminists Arminian Non-Calvinist who holds to libertarian free will and rejects the Sovereignty of God. That God can decree all things that come to pass and still hold the sinner morally responsible for all the wicked evil he has committed. Thus the Libertarian free will indeterminist like Leighton Flowers rejects determinism and moral responsibility as being compatible.

Leighton Flowers is still saying today, “God, if you have decreed all that comes to pass by your meticulous sovereign will “then why do you still find fault.” In addition, Flowers is saying if God decrees all that comes to pass why did he make certain people like Jeffrey Damher or Hitler and who can resist God’s will?

Who are you, O man (Leighton Flowers) to answer back to God. But let’s look at the whole of the Apostle argument. I will not attempt to perform any Biblical exegesis only to put it before your eyes to see what Paul’s imaginary objects are objecting to. To hear a good Biblical Exegesis of Romans 9 I suggest strongly you watch the debate between Dr. James White and Dr. Leighton Flowers which can be found on Youtube and many other places on the internet.


Romans 9:

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”


Ultimately Flowers is laying the charge of evil and sin at the feet of God according to the Reformed Calvinist understanding of Compatibilism. He sees there is no way around it. Although he does give allowances when it comes to the death of Christ and in other cases where “God may have to take charge to bring about his purposes, will and counsel,” This seems somewhat contradictory in my opinion. To be fair Flowers has written an article recently about the Compatibilism and the Death of Christ that I will rebut in the coming days.

Acts 4:

24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are the Sovereign God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said:

‘Why did the nations rage,
And the people plot vain things?
26 The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His Christ.’

27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 

It is easy to see in the above passage of Holy Scripture the ones mentioned did exactly God’s hand and purpose determined before to be done. Other translations say what God had predestined to be done. Were they determined and will not be held morally responsible for committing the greatest crime ever in human history. The murder of the Lord Jesus Christ. They did so freely according to their strongest desire although being determined by God. Thus Compatibilism. One gave rise to the other. How you may ask. Well, we will see. That was a short detour. Now back to refuting the Indeterminsit Libertarian Arminian Non-Calvinist misunderstanding of Compatibilism.

Pets and puppets? Another analogy that is a fallacy and that begs the question. How can pets and puppets be compared to human beings who are in possession of a moral self-consciousness? “Determined or not” as stated by Guillaume Bignon in his Book “Excusing Sinners and Blaming God” To whom I owe my greater understanding and knowledge of this whole argument.  I highly recommend Guillaume Bignon book to Dr. Flowers as he lays down the arguments much better than I do.  “Pets and puppets lack self-consciousness,” says Guillaume Bignon and thus cannot be held morally responsible. The analogy crumbles once again. So another fallacy is exposed and the Arminian Non-Calvinist such as Leighton Flowers will have to find another way of proving why determinism and moral responsibility are not compatible. I know Dr. Flowers, you must be thinking there is so much more to it. This I am aware of through and through. We will address it all and more. No stone will be left unturned and the Arminian Non-Calvinist will be left bankrupt ultimately as God’s Word and logical common sense dismantles absurd illogical fallacies of floundering Flowers.




The Fallacies of Floundering Flowers (Leighton on Soteriology101) Angry Flowers | BTWN Episode 317


Leighton Flowers has much in common with Open Theists Chris Fisher which holds to this Heresy. Which is a Gospel Issue that the majority of Orthodox Christianity rejects? That being Open Theism. Leighton Flowers and Chris Fisher discussed specific things that they do agree with. Flowers does not think that Open Theism is a Heresy. This man is dangerous and needs to be warned about.


You can see that engagement here:

The Fallacies of Floundering Flowers (Leighton of Soteriology101) Leighton Flowers Agrees With Mormon Apologist


Bible Thumping Wingnut

Listen to BTWN’s Podcast discussion of this article – HERE

Earlier this year Leighton Flowers found time to embrace Open Theist Chris Fisher of “God is Open” over their shared disdain for the Reformed understanding of God.

Open Theism is the heretical teaching that denies the sovereignty, majesty, infinitude, knowledge, existence, and glory of God and exalts man’s free will. The fact that Open Theism is heretical is well established. Even Chris Fisher acknowledges that his Open Theist position has been deemed heretical by all of orthodox Christianity.

Leighton embraced  Chris Fisher (the open theist) and conversed about their common ground concerning the character of God.  Both hold to the false teachings that the will of man trumps God’s and that salvation is obtained by an act of man.

Flowers does not hold to open theism however much of his theology alines with it thus the engagement with Chris Fisher was one of agreement rather than debate.

Most concerning and perhaps telling was the failure of Flowers to share the Gospel with Chris Fisher who is without question lost.

You can see that engagement here:

So it is with little surprise that Flowers has found common ground with a Mormon apologist.  On his Soteriology, 101 podcast Flowers agreed with Kwaku El a Mormon apologist. Flowers reviewed a discussion that included Dr. James WhiteJeff Durbin & Kwaku El.

Leighton and Kwaku reject the truths of scripture that speak of God’s eternal decree. They despise the concept of God being in control of all things. They are repulsed at the biblical teaching that God has decreed, purposed and caused all things to pass. Kwaku & Flowers are united in their understanding of God’s character. Yes, Leighton agreed with a Mormons understanding of God.