revjohn said:
I'll give the Shapiro video a look tomorrow. Too much on my plate today.
The Shapiro video is quite scant on Shapiro. Unless you count using him as a background. The video is primarily Leighton Flowers disagreeing with Calvinism.
For those who have never heard of Leighton Flowers before you can read his bio here:
More ABOUT OUR BELIEFS Dr. Leighton Flowers was named the Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists in 2018. In addition to preaching on a wide range of biblical subjects, Leighton …
soteriology101.com
Back to the video.
Flowers opens up commenting on how "Calvinism" is getting more attention nowadays in the media. Apart from the Allie Stuckey (aka the Conservative Millenial interview of Ben Shapiro which is really just window dressing to the rest of the video Flowers notes that Tucker Carlson also mentions Calvinism and plays clips of that.
Tucker Carlson said:
Your moral code determines how you behave and how you live and so the robber barrons were deeply fraught and guilty in some ways about their success because they were guilty WASPs, they were Protestants like I get it do you know what I mean? They are my people so I know exactly what they used to think which was you know not everything I have achieved is the result of choices that I have made they were Calvinists on some level they understood that on some level there are other things providence, grace, luck whatever you want to call it that determined the outcome so like the people now in charge like the private equity people and I know a million of them and like them okay they believe they're rich because they are better
You know you are in for a serious discussion about Calvinism when you trot out Tucker Carlson. Is Carlson any kind of authority on Calvinism? Is he going to present the best argument for it or against it? Or is he, as he appears in this clip, low hanging fruit easily picked?
No commentary from Flowers in response save for to move on to a second clip of Carlson.
Tucker Carlson said:
So they have transferred that religious influence to the political sphere they're making the same arguments that 19th century Protestants made, especially the Calvinists, like I am saved I know this, that's my baseline assumption I am one of God's elect you are not. If you go into any conversation like that nothing will be resolved.
What I take away from the two quotes from Carlson is that he doesn't know Calvinism. He knows tired stereotypes of Calvinism. Which is not the same thing.
No commentary from Flowers about the content of Carlson in either clip he mentions that he brings it up because as a religious and political person he gets excited when religion makes an appearance in a political conversation. His point is less to say that Carlson has a firm grasp on Calvinism and more to say look, somebody is talking about religion.
Leighton Flowers said:
One of the things I have been trying to say over and over and over again is that Calvinism is impacting this generation, the millennials much more so than some people think.
Trying to have your cake and eat it too. Thrilled that religion is being mentioned more frequently in political discussions, concerned that it is entirely the wrong kind of religion, namely Calvinism. Flowers then goes on to reference a 2014 Wall Street Journal article "The Rise of Calvinism." The article interviews Paul Schrader who grew up in a Christian Reformed Church environment. Schrader's 1979 movie 'Hardcore" features a protagonist that is based on Schraders' own father. Coincidentally, Richard Mouw's excellent book "Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport" uses a particular scene from "Hardcore" to launch his own Calvinist apologetic. It isn't a long read, it is a very fair treatment of Calvinism.
Leighton Flowers said:
We need to address the different world views in a cordial and loving way.
No argument. This can not be said enough. Is it heard often? Mileage varies I suspect.
Leighton Flowers said:
I think Calvinism, of course, I don't agree with Calvinism so I'm biased on this point. I think Calvinists makes Christianity, and the Bible looks like its self contradictory because I think Calvinism's system has interpreted certain passages to make the Bible self-contradictory.
Here is the crux of the video right here.
Not really a new position given all of the discussion/debate framed here. I do want to thank Flowers for phrasing the argument as he has. His repeated use of the phrase "I think." is very different from critical comment that claims it knows. Flowers also is very upfront about acknowledging his bias. Most criticism refuses to be quite so candid and attempts to hide behind a greater authority. The biggest complaint is that Flowers thinks that Calvinism makes scripture fail to appear logically coherent. Fair argument. It should come as no surprise that Calvinism views Arminianism suffers from the same problem.
Leighton Flowers said:
I don't think that we have to interpret Romans 9, Ephesians 1 and several other key texts this way because these texts don't need to be interpreted in a Calvinistic way.
Elsewhere Flowers has lifted up past experience in debate. He has made several critical errors here so far. I have already quoted him as saying, "We need to address different worldviews . . ." here now he argues that Calvinists should not interpret scripture according to their world view. I wonder if he is so quick to point out that non-Calvinists should not interpret scripture from a non-Calvinist worldview. I expect he wouldn't because he should know what worldview is.
Here is the squared circle problem that Flowers has with Calvinism:
Scripture says we have to choose God. Calvinism says God chooses us. This is a contradiction.
Here is the squared circle problem that Calvinism has with Arminianism:
Scripture says God chooses us while we were dead in our sins. Arminianism says people dead in their sin still have the capacity to choose Christ. This is a contradiction.
And the real challenge, at least at this point, is who of the two, God and humanity dead in its sin, has the capacity to do good?
The Calvinist position claims that God and God alone is mighty to save and nothing can prevent God from saving whomever God wills to save.
The Arminian position claims that God's will can be thwarted by human will. God is only omnipotent until he meets a human will that resists, then his arm is too weak to do anything.
The Bible is about what Christ has done and what Christ accomplishes with respect to Salvation/Redemption. It acknowledges that God alone is the judge of all the Earth and God alone has the power to save.
Does Abram call himself out of Ur of the Chaldees?
Does Isaac call himself over Ishmael?
Does Jacob raise himself up over Esau?
Who chooses Joseph?
Who chooses Moses? And when Moses resists who is defeated?
Who chooses Joshua?
Who chooses Deborah?
Who chooses David?
Who calls Isaiah? And when Isaiah demures who's will triumph's?
No squaring of the circle needed to note that God calls. God initiates. God empowers. And it is particularly important to note that in the face of reluctance of those so called by God it is God's very self who removes the obstacle. Not the human dead in their sin.
Christ is the hero of every salvation story contained in the scriptures. Christ should be the hero in every Christian testimony.
We (Christians) should become less so that he becomes more.
Needing to give God permission to act takes the spotlight off of where it rightly belongs.
Which is the Calvinist position.
And here is some Sproul since he was lifted up as a positive example.
Both videos are relatively quick and clear.
