The following is a response to Dr. Leighton Flowers’ post on X:
Once again, Dr. Flowers has chosen to commit another drive by post. Since others have asked for me to support my assertion that the post above presents a false dichotomy, I will happily do so. In doing so, I will also demonstrate that Flowers’ comment grossly oversimplifies the debate, mischaracterizes Compatibilism (Theistic Determinism), begs the question by assuming that LFW must be true without any proof, and uses a non-sequitur to draw his conclusion.
First, let’s address the false dichotomy. Flowers asserts that one of three options must be true: LFW is true, God purposely determines that many of his children believe false doctrine, or that only those who have a certain view of Theistic Determinism are truly Christians.
This is a false dilemma because it falsely asserts that the options presented by Flowers are the only possible options when, in fact, theological differences neither necessitates LFW nor divine deception among believers. Since Flowers’ progression of thought is to assert Calvinists must affirm divine deception, this is where we must start. As I have repeatedly stated, Flowers misrepresents the Calvinistic view of Compatibilism as fatalistic. Flowers’ modus operandi is to falsely present creatures as automatons rather than moral agents possessing creaturely free will, limited by the constraints of his nature and environment. We are fallen creatures in a fallen world. We have a sin nature. We are not programmed. We are volitional. I will dive deeper into the scope of our creaturely free will when we discuss Libertarian Free Will (LFW).
Theological debates do not require either LFW or divine deception once one understands our fallen nature. However, it is easy for Flowers to be dismissive when he denies Original Sin and the radical corruption of our fallen nature (Romans 1:21). Compatibilism asserts that God is completely sovereign and accomplishes his sovereign decree (Ephesians 1:11) through primary and secondary causes. Secondary causes include the free choices made by volitional creatures impacted by their sin nature and environment, this sin-cursed world. Therefore, there is a fourth option to Flowers’ false dichotomy: theological differences stem from our human limitations in comprehending the mind of God or divine revelation. This is seen in scripture where Jesus’ disciples were with him and had a veiled understanding. It is seen in passages like 1 Corinthians 13:12. It is also seen in things like the Jerusalem Council, and even when Peter speaks of how difficult Paul’s writing is to understand.
Flowers’ false dichotomy also fails to consider God’s divine purpose in theological debate. While I, as a Compatibilist, readily admit that I lack the mind of God (Isaiah 55:8); such debates and differences ought to humble believers and increase our dependence on scripture and prayer for discernment on these secondary issues.
Flowers’ statement dismisses the human equation in Compatibilistic Theistic Determinism where there is perfect harmony between the sovereignty of God and the creaturely free will of man. In this, he has mischaracterized Compatibilism and the presentation of only three possible choices.
Next, Flowers begs the question by stating that LFW is correct without proving LFW — or even attempting to do so. The purpose of this response is not to refute LFW. I have done that on many occasions. Flowers’ assertion that LFW is true because of his stated alternatives is a non-sequitur. There is a great saying that I have fallen in love with: there are two ditches. If you can only see one of them, you are probably standing in the other. In order to distance himself from Compatibilism, he has planted himself firmly in the ditch of LFW. Rather than affirming creaturely free will, Flowers requires Libertarian Free Will. The trouble with Libertarian Free Will is that it must be undetermined by any prior cause, divine or natural. Thus, LFW can be nothing more than a hypothetical philosophical concept or it must be modified to only mean freedom from divine determinism while ignoring the causation via nature or other free creatures.
LFW, when viewed Biblically, must be further modified so as to be suspended for some people in some circumstances. Are there any examples in scripture where God determined anything whatsoever? Perhaps the cross (Acts 4:26-27). If under certain conditions or for certain people, God can violate one’s LFW, even temporarily, one cannot know if he is operating freely or by causation. LFW falls apart quickly when one considers natural determinism or the violation of one’s LFW by another’s LFW such as in cases of human violence and cruelty, or mental decisions resulting from such trauma.
Thirdly, I emphatically reject any notion that only those who have a perfect understanding of the complexities of Soteriology are truly Christian. Such a requirement would be adding secondary issues to the fundamentals of the gospel of grace.
Dr. Flowers has yet again engaged in drive-by theology supported by his mischaracterizations, redefined terms, and logical fallacies. My consistent plea to Dr. Flowers is that he simply accurately represent his opponents. Brother Flowers has asserted in this thread that this platform doesn’t lend itself to continued long-term engagement. Dr. Flowers, this is not a platform limitation. It is an unwillingness to engage with depth or intellectual honesty.
No responses yet