by Matthew Cserhati
Leighton Flowers is a vocal critic of Calvinist theology, and the director of Soteriology 101, which has over 1000 videos on YouTube. He has also authored several books. The YouTube channel’s description is this: “Dr. Leighton Flowers, former Calvinistic professor, explains why Calvinism is not Biblical. Our channel is dedicated to providing you with insightful and engaging content that will challenge your perspective on Calvinism and help you understand the flaws in its teachings.”
Flowers describes Calvinism as deterministic, Manichaean, Gnostic, Stoic, and neo-Platonic. He claims that Calvinism presents God not as a loving God, but who cuts off people from salvation before they were born. In his view the Calvinist God is one who micromanages all events, down to the very last detail. He contrasts God in the Calvinist system to God in his Provisionist (Arminian) system, who is manifestly good, and never brings any calamities on people.
The big question is, is Flowers’ view of God biblical? Does it mesh with reality? Are his criticisms of Calvinism valid?
Let’s start with the character of God. Ephesians 1:4 says that election is an act of God’s love! “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.” Romans 8:28 says: “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” God’s love is manifested in election, even though God was never obliged to save not even one sinner who is in open rebellion against him. In Deuteronomy 7:6–7 we read: “The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples”.
On the other hand, if Flowers makes salvation contingent upon an informed free will choice for Christ, how then can babies dying in the womb get to heaven? Babies who are not even self-aware. What about the mentally deficient? The unreached? People left behind on earth after the rapture? In Provisionism, God would place all these people into hell.
In contrast, the Westminster Confession (a Calvinist confession of faith), chapter 10, paragraph 3 says: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” Calvinists give the chance that some infants are saved, by grace alone, not by performance.
Flowers understands the force of the argument against Provisionism, so he claims that all babies dying in infancy go to heaven because they are innocent and haven’t committed any sins. This is in contradiction with the teaching of original sin, which says that all men are born with a sin nature inherited with Adam, reflected in Psalm 51:5: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” With this, Flowers contradicts a cardinal Christian doctrine.
Does Calvinism have roots in Greek philosophy? Calvinism has close ties to the theology of Augustine, whom Flowers claims bases his theology in neo-Platonism and Manichaean theology. Flowers view is very simplistic. He seems to equate neo-Platonism with Augustinianism, and then Augustinianism with Calvinism. This is the boogyeman fallacy: just because one of my beliefs shares something in common with a false ideology doesn’t necessarily mean that it is heretical. Neo-Platonism may indeed be correct, when it comes to God determining all things. Islam was influenced by Judaism and Christianity, although it did distort the teachings of these two prior religions. Thus, although election may indeed be biblical, albeit it was distorted in Islamic fatalism.
What if things are the other way around? Hasn’t Flowers thought about this? Neo-Platonism may have gotten determinism from the Bible: “In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11) Another verse: “Whatever the Lord pleases He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places.” (Psalm 135:6) – is there anything that happens that God does not decree? Proverbs 16:33 says: “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” Does Augustinianism necessarily absorb all falsehoods from neo-Platonism? And in a second step, does Calvinism necessarily absorb all falsehoods from what may be in Augustinianism? Many Calvinists reject some of Augustine’s theology, such as sacerdotalism, or his conflation of sanctification and justification.
Greek philosophy is very broad. There were many competing schools of Greek philosophy. One cannot reduce Greek philosophy merely to just neo-Platonism or Stoicism. For example, Epicurean philosophy upholds the autonomy of man. In his letter to Menoeceus, Epicurus writes this: “Necessity destroys responsibility and chance is inconstant; whereas our own actions are autonomous, and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach.” We could well claim that Flowers is a 21st century Epicurean!
Furthermore, if God does not cause all events, then some events must necessarily be out of his control. This type of thinking leads to Open Theism, another name for consistent Arminianism.
Flowers claims that Calvinism is based on Manichaeism is unfounded. Manichaeism does not teach determinism in the Calvinistic sense. According to Michael Tardieu’s book Manichaeism, there is a class of believers called the elect, but non-elect can become members of the elect. Manichaeism is a dualistic religion with a good god and a bad god, of equal power and strength, vying for the attention of autonomous humans in the middle. It is actually Flowers’ Provisionism that is closer to Manichaeism than Calvinism.
What is the fundamental flaw in Flowers Provisionist brand of Arminianism? Something that is left unsaid in many of Flowers’ videos must be bright to light here. When he critiques Calvinism as a deterministic religion, he is attacking the wrong target: hyper-Calvinism. Furthermore, in erroneously equating hyper-Calvinism with true Calvinism, Flowers ignores a key teaching of Calvinism: concurrence. Flowers should know better since he has taught Calvinist theology.
Concurrence teaches that man has free will, defined either by his unregenerate or by his born-again nature. Joshua exercises his free will in following the Lord: “But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15). There are many verses in the Bible that highlight men being commanded to exercise their free will and follow Jesus. In Matthew 4:19 Jesus commands his disciples, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men”. Calvinism in no way denies man’s free will and man’s responsibility for his actions.
However, the Bible also talks about God’s sovereign choice in verses such as John 15:16, where Jesus tells the disciples: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit”. Here Jesus literally tells us that we did not choose him. Another verse, Romans 9:16 also clearly states God’s sovereign will in our salvation: “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” Then there are verses, which teach both man’s ability but God’s sovereignty all in one: “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12–13).
In summary, Flowers attacks a straw-man theology, hyper-Calvinism. But hyper-Calvinism is only half the story. Flowers places heavy emphasis on man’s free will, which itself is also part of a one-sided theology, namely Arminianism. Both hyper-Calvinism and Provisionism describe only one side of salvation. The two are mysteriously held together in tension with one another in the full system of Calvinism. Flowers would be better spending his time not by attacking full-orbed Christianity that teaches both God’s immanence (free will), but His transcendence (sovereignty) as well.
-----
For more on this see Cserhati's book: A Critique of Provisionism: A Response to Leighton Flowers’s “The Potter’s Promise”