This was taken from a post on Dr. James White facebook post (Feb. 20, 2017)
Dr. Leighton Flowers, the appointed defender of semi-Pelagianism in the Southern Baptist Convention, just said these words in his attempted response to Romans 8:5-7: “Notice the gospel is not even mentioned in this text. This is the number one proof text used for Calvinists to prove that the gospel is insufficient to enable a lost person to respond to its appeal, and yet it doesn’t even mention the gospel. This the number one proof text of Calvinists to prove that the Holy Spirit wrought powerful gospel appeal to be reconciled to God is insufficient apart from some extra supernatural work, i.e., regeneration, preceding it, and yet it does not even mention the gospel, at all.”
Remember, Dr. Flowers, without coercion from the Reformed community, claims himself to be a “former Calvinist.” When you claim to be a former whatever you place yourself under a higher standard of truthfulness and accuracy in your representation of what you claim you once believed (but now deny). Unfortunately, this is not the first time Dr. Flowers has produced a statement that leaves those of us who have been Reformed for many decades (in comparison to his rather brief journey in Reformed theology) shaking our heads in wonderment.
It is hard to know how to respond to statements like this, to be honest. Romans 8 is one of the most gospel-rich texts in all of Scripture. Described by many as the very pinnacle of gospel revelation, the text specifically addresses the distinction between those who are according to the Spirit (those in Christ Jesus, indwelt by the Spirit of God), and those who are according to the flesh. Indeed, it is hard to understand how Paul could be more plain, for he states, “You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you” (v. 9). Terms such as death, life, peace, law, subjection to law, pleasing God, sin and righteousness are right here in these verses. To demand that the very term “gospel” be used here is stunning. It is stunning because a simple search on Dr. Flowers’ computer program would reveal to him that the root εὐαγ* does not appear between Romans 2:16 and Romans 10:15. Does it follow, then, that Romans 3 is not “about the gospel”? Romans 5? Yes, well, I think we can see how poor a methodology, and argument, is found here.
But it only gets worse. Dr. Flowers presents himself as an expert in this field, and part of his self-listed credentials is that he was once a Calvinist. Well then, can he explain why he is constantly being corrected in his misrepresentation of Reformed thought? Let us consider his statement. What Reformed person has ever pointed to this text as evidence of gospel insufficiency? None, of course. The mixing of categories and simple inaccuracy of Flowers’ words is astounding. Which Reformed writer disconnects the gospel from the work of the Spirit of God in bringing about salvation? None, of course. In fact, “Word and Spirit” is about as central an affirmation of Reformed theology as you can find. The gospel is not meant to “enable” sinners to do anything: it is the powerful message of what GOD has done, not something that enables MAN to do something great! It is not the intention of the gospel to “enable” man in the first place, so Flowers’ misrepresentation is patent. The gospel is powerful because, when made alive in the heart by the Spirit of God, it is the singular and sole means of salvation. Flowers is implicitly arguing here that the gospel somehow “enables” man to repent and believe OUTSIDE OF as he puts it, “some extra supernatural work, i.e., regeneration.” I do hope the reader will see the danger of separating Word and Spirit, and in this case, insisting upon the spiritual capacity and ability of the natural man, the unregenerate man, to bring about the successful working of the Triune God, and that without that capacity, the Triune God is left disappointed, having failed His true goal (remember, for the Traditionalists, it is vitally important that God try, and fail, to save men).
But what truly took my breath away as I was listening to this was the incoherence of the following statement: “the Holy Spirit wrought powerful gospel appeal.” How can Dr. Flowers not see how his argument is utterly misrepresentational of his former position? Is he seriously suggesting that in his former Calvinistic church they did not believe that the gospel message was indeed powerful BECAUSE it was made to be so in the hearts and minds of the hearers by the very power of the Holy Spirit? Does he not see the contradiction between on the one hand speaking of a “Holy Spirit wrought powerful gospel appeal” and his unbiblical disjunction of this (said almost derisively) “some extra supernatural work, i.e., regeneration”? If regeneration is not the work of the Holy Spirit, then what accomplishes it?
The fact is, Flowers is missing a central and vital truth in Paul’s theology: the gospel does indeed invoke a powerful reaction when it is proclaimed with authority: to those who are perishing, it is offensive, foolish and repulsive. To those who are being saved, it is wisdom, power, and glory. And then Paul defines the perishing and those who are being saved not in light of their autonomous wills, but in light of God’s autonomous will: “but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” What determines if you are perishing or being saved? The electing grace of God. And though Dr. Flowers will invest many more hours attempting to get around this divine truth, like the rock it is, it cannot be moved.