What do you think?
Rate this book
The Potter's Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology
A former Calvinistic Reformed Baptist minister and now Director of Apologetics and Professor of Theology, recounts his theological journey in and out of Calvinism. In so doing, Dr. Flowers’ sets out to help his readers understand a non-Calvinistic “Traditional” Southern Baptist interpretation of the most quoted and relied upon chapters for defending Calvinistic Romans 8-9; Ephesians 1 and John 6. "In The Potter’s Promise, Dr. Leighton Flowers reveals, by means of a refreshingly clear and persuasive writing style, the theological and philosophical arguments that compelled him to abandon his previously held Calvinistic convictions. While some Traditionalists have a tendency to avoid certain Bible verses, Dr. Flowers tackles them fearlessly, placing them in their proper context in a manner consistent with the entirety of God’s Word. Calvinists have sometimes been known to object to Traditional writers and thinkers by making the claim, “You just don’t understand Calvinism.” Any such charge leveled against Dr. Flowers rings hollow. Having heard all the arguments Calvinism has to offer, he nevertheless disaffirms it. Every Calvinist needs to read this book to challenge their thinking and consider the other side. Every Traditionalist needs to read this book to become better equipped in defending their own view of salvation doctrine." -Dr. Rick Patrick, Executive Director of Connect 316 and Senior Pastor“Confused by the issues surrounding Calvinism? Does Romans 9 teach unconditional predestination? Want to cut through some of the red tape? Then read Leighton’s book. He is charitable but gets right to the point, making a strong, biblical case for a God who is glorified by sacrificing Himself for creation and not by sacrificing creation for Himself. He makes a strong case for the God of Jesus Christ.” - Austin Fischer, Pastor and Author of Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed.“Some passages (especially Romans 9) appear to support Calvinism, but does God really predestine particular persons for heaven or hell? And where is the knowledgeable expositor who also possesses an irenic disposition to answer such critical questions? Leighton Flowers nobly meets these qualifications and approaches the Scripture with a passion for the original language and context. We are all deeply in his debt for teaching us to hear God's Word so much better than we did before this book was written. Highly recommended.” -Dr. Malcolm B. Yarnell III, Research Professor of Systematic Theology, Author of God the Biblical Portraits and Royal Priesthood in the English Reformation and The Formation of Christian Doctrine"The Potter’s Promise is the fascinating pilgrimage of Leighton Flowers, Director of Apologetics and Youth Evangelism in the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Chronicled here is his journey out of Calvinism and into a New Testament faith through the saving grace of our Lord. This may well be the most important volume published this year for the reading of every young servant of Christ. Do you have the courage to read it?" –Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary“Having vacated theological Geneva after years as one of its finest citizens, Dr. Leighton Flowers is well aware of how to reason like a Calvinist. His masterful treatment of the biblical text, and his philosophically consistent reasoning, is sure to satisfy the pallet of the academically interested. Yet, his accessible writing leads to a rare accomplishment. Lay readers will have no difficulty understanding the Calvinist positions and the best responses to them. Any related bibliography that does not include Dr. Flowers masterful work will, henceforth, surely look odd.” – Dr. Braxton Hunter, President of Trinity Seminary
181 pages, Paperback
First published May 7, 2015
371 people are currently reading
486 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews
May 18, 2024
Leighton Flowers claims to be a former Calvinist, and has written a book defending what he terms the “traditional” view of Soteriology (salvation). He attempts to articulate the Calvinist position first, and then articulates his “traditional” view. Most of the book consists of his exegesis of the key biblical passages that are used to defend the Calvinist position—with an emphasis on Romans 9.
The first portion of the book is Flowers’ retelling of his history as a Calvinist, his change of heart, and an articulation of his “traditional” Soteriology. He calls it “traditional” because he argues that the early church fathers believed this and that the Calvinistic Soteriology was not taught until Augustine in the 4th century, as though this were definitive proof that it is a theological novelty and therefore suspect. Augustine's teaching, as is often the case, was formulated in the face of heresy at the time of the Pelagian controversy.
From the outset, Flowers lays down his conclusion, writing, “I refuse to believe God is merely seeking to redeem the very evil intentions and actions that He Himself brought to pass by ‘meticulous determinism.’ God is not merely determining to clean up His other determinations. He is cleaning up mankind’s libertarianly free choices and actions.” P. 56 This conclusion is at the heart of Flowers’ hermeneutic—he has essentially taken this refusal to the Bible and then began conforming it to his conclusion.
The cracks in Flowers’ soteriology appear early in his argument because he asserts more than he argues. For example, when discussing why Jesus so often hid himself from the Jews of his day, in what he calls the “Messianic Secret”, he carefully draws a distinction between what God did, and the way he normally works. That is to say Flowers argues that God “judicially hardened” the Jews of Jesus’ day to accomplish a greater purpose. But he then tries to argue that this is an exception to the way God works in his creation. He writes, “Do not allow the context of Israel’s Judicial hardening cloud your view of mankind’s inherent nature. People are very much capable of hearing and repenting when confronted by the gospel truth if they have not yet ‘become calloused’ to that truth (see Acts 28:27-28).” P. 64-65 This kind of assertion in the face of counter-evidence recurrs over and over throughout the book.
He acknowledges tension here when he writes, “Where we (Calvinists and Traditionalists) differ is in relation to the sufficiency of the gospel appeal sent by God Himself to invite all His enemies to be reconciled (2 Cor. 5:20).” P. 65 He agrees with Calvinists that “mankind is born sinful” but disagrees that mankind is not able to “admit their sinfulness in light of God’s clear and merciful revelation.” P. 65
Flowers’ again attempts to exclude the thrust of John 6:37, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” Flowers again applies his “Judicial hardening” argument to this passage, again asserting that this is an exception because of the nature of Christ’s mission to harden the Jews that the gospel might go forth to the Gentiles. There is truth there, but when every time God is seen to be hardening the hearts of men you must put an asterisk next to it, you don’t have a doctrine, but a hermeneutic in desperate need of re-examination. (p. 75)
He does more of the same with Ephesians 1:5: “…he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will…” Of this passage Flowers writes, “Does Paul ever state that God chose individuals to be effectually placed in Him, or does it simply state, he chose those who are in Him… Did Paul ever actually say that God has chosen particular individuals to be effectually placed in Him, or does it simply say that “believers in Him were also chosen?” p. 78 Again, Flowers uses eisegesis rather than exegesis. His “refusal” to believe what the passage says blinds him. Summarizing his view of the first chapter of Ephesians he writes, “The first chapter of Ephesians is not about God predetermining which individuals will be in Christ. This passage is about God predetermining the spiritual blessings for those who are in Christ through believing the word of truth (vv. 1-3).” p. 79 To read Ephesians 1 in this way, though he blinds himself to what the text says. Paul clearly writes that this is to a particular church at a particular time. Yes, surely this applies to the church today, but it first applies to the Ephesian church. Paul is indeed writing about “individuals”. He is writing about the individuals that constitute the Ephesian church to whom Paul was writing. God chose those believers “before the foundation of the world”.
Flowers evades the meaning of Romans 8:28-29 as well by refusing to affirm that the “these” of which Paul writes are believers—particularly the believers of the Roman church. Instead he tries to connect “those whom he foreknew” not to Paul’s audience as the text makes clear, but instead to “Abraham, Moses, David, etc.”. p. 88 Flowers thinks he has Calvinists in the corner when he challenges them to “explain away the use of the past tense verbs” in Romans 8:28-30. But again, Flowers has no awareness of how or why Paul uses the past tense of “predestined”, “called”, “justified” and “glorified”. He does not seem to understand that the past tense is used because the work is already done and the end has been brought forward into this present age. We are “justified” now because the future verdict has been brought forward. It is the same for “glorified”, indeed in 2 Corinthians 3:18 Paul writes that we “are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another…”
Flowers continues his selective hermeneutic when writing on Romans 10:21: “But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” Flowers again evades the implication that only some of Israel were saved because of God’s electing purposes. He doesn’t argue, but asserts, “Paul is not attempting to teach that only some Israelites have been chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world, but that (1) the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham is not dependent upon the faithfulness of his descendants; and (20 no Israelite has been chosen for salvation on the basis that he or she is an ethnic Israelite.” p. 112-113 Paul is definitely teaching those things, but Flowers excludes the possibility that it is God’s electing purposes at work because of his “refusal” to believe that anything more than the libertarian free-will of man is at work. This is Flowers go-to tactic—ignore the obvious implication of the text and instead emphasize another teaching found in the text.
The most interesting part of the book is where Flowers examines Romans 9:13, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated..” Here Flowers rightly chastises Calvinists that use this primarily as a text about two individuals: Jacob and Esau and election, as though it didn’t have any other meaning. It IS about them, but it is primarily about their covenant lines—the “children of promise”—reminding Paul’s audience that from the very beginning “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”. But Flowers falls in the other ditch, asserting it has nothing to do with election—again, he evades the obvious implication of the passage that it is God that elects.
In this same section Flowers has an interesting perspective on Ishmael. He argues that “the implications of a consistent Calvinistic interpretation would have to conclude that Ishamel was likewise hated and rejected by God before the creation of the world.” p. 122 He adds that we would have to think the same thing about Isaac’s six younger brothers born to Keturah after Sarah’s death. Flowers is absolutely right here. Calvinists too often follow Calvin in being quick to damn people outside the Mosaic covenant.
Flowers rightly questions the traditional Calvinistic judgment that those outside the Mosaic covenant cannot be believers. But this is where Flowers would do well to acquaint himself with other Calvinists such as James B. Jordan, Peter Leithart and others that acknowledge that Israel was God’s priestly people, acting on behalf of the nations, though there were many outside the Mosaic covenant that were saved. The Bible is full of such people, but Calvinists have been quick to damn them believing that only those within the Covenant could be saved. This is in fact in direct opposition to what Paul teaches in Romans 9 that it is not Old Covenant membership that saves, but the electing purposes of God.
Ultimately Flowers has to resort to emotional arguments. Near the end of the book he quotes a former student who, when considering Calvinism “felt ashamed of God, like I would have to hide this fact from my friends.” p. 150 This gets to the heart of the libertarian free-will argument--man exercising man's judgment and refusing to believe that we are incapable of our own choices and refusing to believe what the Scriptures have to say about God's electing purposes.
Flowers’ “Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology” fails because it is not biblically defensible. John Frame in his book “The Doctrine of God’ spends about seven pages critiquing “libertarianism” and more than sufficiently destroys the entire system that Flowers presupposes. Frame even begins by acknowledging that the early church fathers were libertarian and Augustine introduced what has become the Reformed or Calvinist position. Frame clearly thinks this is no weakness in the Reformed doctrine.
Where Flowers seems content focusing on a few key texts, he nowhere addresses the larger teaching of Scripture on human freedom. All over the Bible it is clear that man is wicked and in desperate need not of not just the gospel but the redeeming work of the Holy Spirit. Former Calvinist or not, Flowers still has more learning to do concerning the Calvinist position.
The first portion of the book is Flowers’ retelling of his history as a Calvinist, his change of heart, and an articulation of his “traditional” Soteriology. He calls it “traditional” because he argues that the early church fathers believed this and that the Calvinistic Soteriology was not taught until Augustine in the 4th century, as though this were definitive proof that it is a theological novelty and therefore suspect. Augustine's teaching, as is often the case, was formulated in the face of heresy at the time of the Pelagian controversy.
From the outset, Flowers lays down his conclusion, writing, “I refuse to believe God is merely seeking to redeem the very evil intentions and actions that He Himself brought to pass by ‘meticulous determinism.’ God is not merely determining to clean up His other determinations. He is cleaning up mankind’s libertarianly free choices and actions.” P. 56 This conclusion is at the heart of Flowers’ hermeneutic—he has essentially taken this refusal to the Bible and then began conforming it to his conclusion.
The cracks in Flowers’ soteriology appear early in his argument because he asserts more than he argues. For example, when discussing why Jesus so often hid himself from the Jews of his day, in what he calls the “Messianic Secret”, he carefully draws a distinction between what God did, and the way he normally works. That is to say Flowers argues that God “judicially hardened” the Jews of Jesus’ day to accomplish a greater purpose. But he then tries to argue that this is an exception to the way God works in his creation. He writes, “Do not allow the context of Israel’s Judicial hardening cloud your view of mankind’s inherent nature. People are very much capable of hearing and repenting when confronted by the gospel truth if they have not yet ‘become calloused’ to that truth (see Acts 28:27-28).” P. 64-65 This kind of assertion in the face of counter-evidence recurrs over and over throughout the book.
He acknowledges tension here when he writes, “Where we (Calvinists and Traditionalists) differ is in relation to the sufficiency of the gospel appeal sent by God Himself to invite all His enemies to be reconciled (2 Cor. 5:20).” P. 65 He agrees with Calvinists that “mankind is born sinful” but disagrees that mankind is not able to “admit their sinfulness in light of God’s clear and merciful revelation.” P. 65
Flowers’ again attempts to exclude the thrust of John 6:37, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” Flowers again applies his “Judicial hardening” argument to this passage, again asserting that this is an exception because of the nature of Christ’s mission to harden the Jews that the gospel might go forth to the Gentiles. There is truth there, but when every time God is seen to be hardening the hearts of men you must put an asterisk next to it, you don’t have a doctrine, but a hermeneutic in desperate need of re-examination. (p. 75)
He does more of the same with Ephesians 1:5: “…he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will…” Of this passage Flowers writes, “Does Paul ever state that God chose individuals to be effectually placed in Him, or does it simply state, he chose those who are in Him… Did Paul ever actually say that God has chosen particular individuals to be effectually placed in Him, or does it simply say that “believers in Him were also chosen?” p. 78 Again, Flowers uses eisegesis rather than exegesis. His “refusal” to believe what the passage says blinds him. Summarizing his view of the first chapter of Ephesians he writes, “The first chapter of Ephesians is not about God predetermining which individuals will be in Christ. This passage is about God predetermining the spiritual blessings for those who are in Christ through believing the word of truth (vv. 1-3).” p. 79 To read Ephesians 1 in this way, though he blinds himself to what the text says. Paul clearly writes that this is to a particular church at a particular time. Yes, surely this applies to the church today, but it first applies to the Ephesian church. Paul is indeed writing about “individuals”. He is writing about the individuals that constitute the Ephesian church to whom Paul was writing. God chose those believers “before the foundation of the world”.
Flowers evades the meaning of Romans 8:28-29 as well by refusing to affirm that the “these” of which Paul writes are believers—particularly the believers of the Roman church. Instead he tries to connect “those whom he foreknew” not to Paul’s audience as the text makes clear, but instead to “Abraham, Moses, David, etc.”. p. 88 Flowers thinks he has Calvinists in the corner when he challenges them to “explain away the use of the past tense verbs” in Romans 8:28-30. But again, Flowers has no awareness of how or why Paul uses the past tense of “predestined”, “called”, “justified” and “glorified”. He does not seem to understand that the past tense is used because the work is already done and the end has been brought forward into this present age. We are “justified” now because the future verdict has been brought forward. It is the same for “glorified”, indeed in 2 Corinthians 3:18 Paul writes that we “are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another…”
Flowers continues his selective hermeneutic when writing on Romans 10:21: “But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” Flowers again evades the implication that only some of Israel were saved because of God’s electing purposes. He doesn’t argue, but asserts, “Paul is not attempting to teach that only some Israelites have been chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world, but that (1) the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham is not dependent upon the faithfulness of his descendants; and (20 no Israelite has been chosen for salvation on the basis that he or she is an ethnic Israelite.” p. 112-113 Paul is definitely teaching those things, but Flowers excludes the possibility that it is God’s electing purposes at work because of his “refusal” to believe that anything more than the libertarian free-will of man is at work. This is Flowers go-to tactic—ignore the obvious implication of the text and instead emphasize another teaching found in the text.
The most interesting part of the book is where Flowers examines Romans 9:13, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated..” Here Flowers rightly chastises Calvinists that use this primarily as a text about two individuals: Jacob and Esau and election, as though it didn’t have any other meaning. It IS about them, but it is primarily about their covenant lines—the “children of promise”—reminding Paul’s audience that from the very beginning “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel”. But Flowers falls in the other ditch, asserting it has nothing to do with election—again, he evades the obvious implication of the passage that it is God that elects.
In this same section Flowers has an interesting perspective on Ishmael. He argues that “the implications of a consistent Calvinistic interpretation would have to conclude that Ishamel was likewise hated and rejected by God before the creation of the world.” p. 122 He adds that we would have to think the same thing about Isaac’s six younger brothers born to Keturah after Sarah’s death. Flowers is absolutely right here. Calvinists too often follow Calvin in being quick to damn people outside the Mosaic covenant.
Flowers rightly questions the traditional Calvinistic judgment that those outside the Mosaic covenant cannot be believers. But this is where Flowers would do well to acquaint himself with other Calvinists such as James B. Jordan, Peter Leithart and others that acknowledge that Israel was God’s priestly people, acting on behalf of the nations, though there were many outside the Mosaic covenant that were saved. The Bible is full of such people, but Calvinists have been quick to damn them believing that only those within the Covenant could be saved. This is in fact in direct opposition to what Paul teaches in Romans 9 that it is not Old Covenant membership that saves, but the electing purposes of God.
Ultimately Flowers has to resort to emotional arguments. Near the end of the book he quotes a former student who, when considering Calvinism “felt ashamed of God, like I would have to hide this fact from my friends.” p. 150 This gets to the heart of the libertarian free-will argument--man exercising man's judgment and refusing to believe that we are incapable of our own choices and refusing to believe what the Scriptures have to say about God's electing purposes.
Flowers’ “Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology” fails because it is not biblically defensible. John Frame in his book “The Doctrine of God’ spends about seven pages critiquing “libertarianism” and more than sufficiently destroys the entire system that Flowers presupposes. Frame even begins by acknowledging that the early church fathers were libertarian and Augustine introduced what has become the Reformed or Calvinist position. Frame clearly thinks this is no weakness in the Reformed doctrine.
Where Flowers seems content focusing on a few key texts, he nowhere addresses the larger teaching of Scripture on human freedom. All over the Bible it is clear that man is wicked and in desperate need not of not just the gospel but the redeeming work of the Holy Spirit. Former Calvinist or not, Flowers still has more learning to do concerning the Calvinist position.
March 22, 2017
I'm Overjoyed that God Decreed This Book to be Written
As a huge fan of the author's Podcast: Soteriology 101, I couldn't wait for the book to come out. A fair treatment and thorough disarming of Calvinist dogma. A reader friendly approach that cuts through all the jargon, The Potter's Promise lays waste to the main fallacies that prop up a tragic system that challenges the very nature and integrity of the God of the Bible.
As a huge fan of the author's Podcast: Soteriology 101, I couldn't wait for the book to come out. A fair treatment and thorough disarming of Calvinist dogma. A reader friendly approach that cuts through all the jargon, The Potter's Promise lays waste to the main fallacies that prop up a tragic system that challenges the very nature and integrity of the God of the Bible.
June 28, 2015
Excellent ideas, expressed concisely. In desperate need of a proofreader! Caused me to sing worship songs to the God who is most characterized by His self-sacrificing mercy, not His self-exalting domination. Good illustrations and analogies throughout. Loved it.
December 10, 2023
Just as bad as I remember.
The quality of research here is abysmal. For the most part, he cites sermons and articles by John MacArthur and John Piper rather than any robust academic sources. His best source is Calvin's Institutes, but even this comes with some problematic assumptions, most notably that he apparently believes Calvin to be the paradigmatic teacher of Calvinism. A layperson might be forgiven for thinking that, since these doctrines have been so closely associated with Calvin. However, Calvin was not the first to articulate these ideas (within Protestantism, they were articulated by Zwingli and Bucer before Calvin), nor did he develop them fully (the doctrines would be refined by theologians of later generations like Perkins, Owen, and Turretin). There are also innumerable places where Flowers makes assertions about what "Calvinists often claim" without citing any source whatsoever.
The exegetical arguments are incredibly weak as well, largely because Flowers has a habit of importing ideas from other texts. For example, apparently Acts 22 is part of the historical context to John 6. Apparently Paul's Hagar-Sarah allegory in Galatians means the Jacob-Esau passage in Romans 9 is also an allegory. Apparently the "Messianic Secret" (a feature of the synoptic Gospels) explains why Jesus spoke the way he did in John 6. (There's no detailed analysis of this passage.) Flowers does not deal with any technical commentaries on the texts he discusses. For example, in Romans 9 he could have interacted with Douglas Moo (NICNT), John Piper ( TheJustification of God), or CEB Cranfield (ICC). But he doesn't. He also fails to interact with a number of key texts: Gen 8:21, Dan 4:35, Isa 55:11, Eph 2:8-9, Rom 8:7-8, Php 1:27, Jn 8:47, 1 Jn 5:1, etc.
He also demonstrates himself generally unfamiliar with systematic theology. He appears to be so myopically focused on the Monergism-Synergism debate that he neglects the ways that other loci affect soteriology. He shows no awareness of theological prolegomena, little awareness of theology proper or Christology, etc. This is comically demonstrated by the second footnote in chapter 1, where he states that one thing Calvinists disagree on among themselves is "the 'order salutis' (temporal order vs logical order)." Not only did he get the term wrong (it's ordo salutis), he also incorrectly defined it in the parentheses!
Half of the arguments are nothing more than rhetoric. He summarizes the Calvinist position in the most incendiary way he can whenever he contrasts it with his own view. He frequently uses terrible analogies instead of robust theological argument. He often argues against extreme minority positions within the Reformed camp, as though they represent Reformed orthodoxy.
All around, this book should never be used for research into soteriological debates. It's only worth reading for entertainment.
The quality of research here is abysmal. For the most part, he cites sermons and articles by John MacArthur and John Piper rather than any robust academic sources. His best source is Calvin's Institutes, but even this comes with some problematic assumptions, most notably that he apparently believes Calvin to be the paradigmatic teacher of Calvinism. A layperson might be forgiven for thinking that, since these doctrines have been so closely associated with Calvin. However, Calvin was not the first to articulate these ideas (within Protestantism, they were articulated by Zwingli and Bucer before Calvin), nor did he develop them fully (the doctrines would be refined by theologians of later generations like Perkins, Owen, and Turretin). There are also innumerable places where Flowers makes assertions about what "Calvinists often claim" without citing any source whatsoever.
The exegetical arguments are incredibly weak as well, largely because Flowers has a habit of importing ideas from other texts. For example, apparently Acts 22 is part of the historical context to John 6. Apparently Paul's Hagar-Sarah allegory in Galatians means the Jacob-Esau passage in Romans 9 is also an allegory. Apparently the "Messianic Secret" (a feature of the synoptic Gospels) explains why Jesus spoke the way he did in John 6. (There's no detailed analysis of this passage.) Flowers does not deal with any technical commentaries on the texts he discusses. For example, in Romans 9 he could have interacted with Douglas Moo (NICNT), John Piper ( TheJustification of God), or CEB Cranfield (ICC). But he doesn't. He also fails to interact with a number of key texts: Gen 8:21, Dan 4:35, Isa 55:11, Eph 2:8-9, Rom 8:7-8, Php 1:27, Jn 8:47, 1 Jn 5:1, etc.
He also demonstrates himself generally unfamiliar with systematic theology. He appears to be so myopically focused on the Monergism-Synergism debate that he neglects the ways that other loci affect soteriology. He shows no awareness of theological prolegomena, little awareness of theology proper or Christology, etc. This is comically demonstrated by the second footnote in chapter 1, where he states that one thing Calvinists disagree on among themselves is "the 'order salutis' (temporal order vs logical order)." Not only did he get the term wrong (it's ordo salutis), he also incorrectly defined it in the parentheses!
Half of the arguments are nothing more than rhetoric. He summarizes the Calvinist position in the most incendiary way he can whenever he contrasts it with his own view. He frequently uses terrible analogies instead of robust theological argument. He often argues against extreme minority positions within the Reformed camp, as though they represent Reformed orthodoxy.
All around, this book should never be used for research into soteriological debates. It's only worth reading for entertainment.
June 4, 2015
Professor Flowers writes four chapters before getting to Romans 9. His interpretation of the passage depends heavily on his summary of the parable of the Wedding Feast. He tries to import "the three callings" he sees in that parable into Romans 9. In the process, making Romans 9 into a jumbled mess. Since Romans 9 uses the term "call" several times, Professor Flowers tries to plug in one of "the three callings" from a parable in Matthew, rather than looking to chapters 8 and 9 of Romans to define "call." There were also a significant number of typos.
March 22, 2018
Ironically, no expositor of the Scriptures has ever said as much that so commended me to Calvinistic soteriology as Dr. Leighton Flowers.
May 28, 2019
The Potter's Promise is intended to be a critique of Reformed Soteriology. And on that count, in my opinion, it has largely fallen short. With full appreciation for Flowers' ardor for the truth, as well as his (largely) irenic tone, I do not believe this book to be an effective refutation of Reformed soteriology.
The Potter's Promise is manifestly not an exegetical work, but a popular one. Though the longest chapter in the book deals verse by verse with texts like Ephesians 1, John 6, and Romans 9, the impression that I got walking away from it was that he really didn't deal with what was in the text. He merely discussed what he thought the other view of that text was, and gave a quick response to it.
My critique of The Potter's Promise is two-fold (though much more could be said):
1. Flowers (largely) does not represent the view he critiques accurately. He attributes language to Reformed theology that its adherents would never use. He does not follow the category distinctions that Reformed theologians make, nor does he show an interest in dealing with those distinctions. His representation of Reformed exegesis and argumentation is shallow and trite. His interaction is anything but meaningful.
2. Flowers does not manifestly rely on the text of Scripture to make his points, but on analogies and vague, ill-defined principles. Scripture is quoted, but it is not closely examined. When it is quoted, it is illustrated by an analogy that does not capture the heart of the issue. It gives the appearance of a response to Reformed soteriology, but lacks substance.
Between these two shortcomings, The Potter's Promise was a very unconvincing read for me, though it was a good sounding board against many of the popular arguments against Reformed theology.
The Potter's Promise is manifestly not an exegetical work, but a popular one. Though the longest chapter in the book deals verse by verse with texts like Ephesians 1, John 6, and Romans 9, the impression that I got walking away from it was that he really didn't deal with what was in the text. He merely discussed what he thought the other view of that text was, and gave a quick response to it.
My critique of The Potter's Promise is two-fold (though much more could be said):
1. Flowers (largely) does not represent the view he critiques accurately. He attributes language to Reformed theology that its adherents would never use. He does not follow the category distinctions that Reformed theologians make, nor does he show an interest in dealing with those distinctions. His representation of Reformed exegesis and argumentation is shallow and trite. His interaction is anything but meaningful.
2. Flowers does not manifestly rely on the text of Scripture to make his points, but on analogies and vague, ill-defined principles. Scripture is quoted, but it is not closely examined. When it is quoted, it is illustrated by an analogy that does not capture the heart of the issue. It gives the appearance of a response to Reformed soteriology, but lacks substance.
Between these two shortcomings, The Potter's Promise was a very unconvincing read for me, though it was a good sounding board against many of the popular arguments against Reformed theology.
January 11, 2022
This was an excellent slow read. Dr. Flowers explains his journey in and out of Calvinism and works slowly through Romans 9 to explain how his thoughts changed so dramatically. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book which aligns more with my beliefs and understanding.
As I have always said, this is not an issue which I would try to convince another in or out of. Know what you believe and why you believe it. But if you are looking for a good book to understand Arminianism better, this would be a good one to pick up.
As I have always said, this is not an issue which I would try to convince another in or out of. Know what you believe and why you believe it. But if you are looking for a good book to understand Arminianism better, this would be a good one to pick up.
December 10, 2020
Former hard-core Calvinist Leighton Flowers humbly brings Christ's light and brilliant exegesis to expose the twisted philosophy of Calvinism. Along with his Soteriology 101 podcasts and website, 'The Potter's Promise' is an excellent, detailed summary from many angles, exposing Calvinism for what it is: a centuries-old human philosophy, an unbiblical systematic theology that periodically raises its head in the church. I don't agree with Flowers' interpretation of Romans 8:29-30; there are much more solid non-Calvinist interpretations of that passage by other Bible teachers such as Mike Winger (see his YouTube video on this passage). But Flowers' detailed study of Romans 9-11 - in historical context with the whole of scripture - is the clearest and most accurate I've read. It reveals where Calvinistic interpretations are presumptuous and taken out of context.
Calvinism is now aggressively surging in popularity in the United States, misleading both Christians and unbelievers, and assaulting the very character of God. Somewhat like Mormonism, Calvinism portrays itself as a return to conservatism, formality, and ‘deep’ theology. Many of its followers sneer at other denominations or methods of the Christian faith as inferior. It claims to exalt God more than traditional biblical Christianity, as if more of a good thing is always better: in the Calvinistic view, God controls and determines literally everything in a cosmic puppet show so that all the glory is His. The more control, the more glory. In this absurd view of sovereignty, the puppets can take no credit for anything, which somehow exalts God more. This petty god creates some puppets for heaven and some for hell, each person dangling from cosmic strings with no free will or choice. The ‘sovereign decree’ of Calvinism is that God has already created, ordained, and authored absolutely every detail of this world - including every abortion, rape, murder, molestation, holocaust, plane crash, etc. – for his “ultimate glory.” This view boils down to God being the author of sin, which in traditional biblical Christianity is nothing short of blasphemy. By John Calvin’s own admission: “The decree, I admit, is dreadful.”
As it does in many churches today, Calvinism slipped into our local church in a handsome, persuasive package. With most of us unaware of what was being pushed behind the scenes, it almost destroyed our congregation. It did destroy our college ministry – two college girls later told us with tears in their eyes that it became a ‘Calvinist indoctrination camp’. There were only a handful of students left from what was once a healthy ministry, and our church’s reputation on campus was horrible. In addition, our church’s social media, mid-week Bible studies, worship music and other formats became avenues to surreptitiously promote Calvinistic philosophy and organizations. Many people left our church as they heard the tone from the pulpit and felt the oppressive spirit. Most who left have never returned.
We had to be on our knees in prayer, learn a huge amount of biblical and historical information very quickly, and stand for traditional, biblical Christian beliefs. It came to a head as many of us had a difficult meeting with the Elder Board. Dozens of people came to express their frustration at the cultural and theological shift that had been allowed to take place in our church.
I wish I could say that our church has returned to its once vibrant state, but it hasn’t. Though we have tried to make peace with one another, the ideology and Calvinistic interpretations of passages still linger among some in our church, and much damage has been done in our community.
In the process, we learned that what happened in our church is not unique at all. Calvinist pastors and teachers today are infiltrating church after church, seeking to ‘reform’ them. Most of these churches end up splitting and becoming reduced down to what Calvinists consider the ‘Elect’, which is their goal. There is no heart for the lost, the seeking, the questioning, the broken, the poor, or the downtrodden. In this unbiblical philosophy, there are no lost people, only the Elect and the Damned, both of were determined by God “before the foundations of the world” (mistranslation in the Calvinistic ESV Bible of the original Greek passage).
The biblical view is that God gives people real choice to love or reject Him. That is real love. In this higher view of sovereignty, God can handle the free choices of people and nations, and still work all things for His ultimate purposes.
Through the horrific experience in our church, I read every article and watched every podcast I could find on both sides of the issue. The spirit and tone of Calvinists are often arrogant, legalistic, small-minded, seeking to put God into a box they can comprehend. Leighton Flowers and other non-Calvinists generally have a completely different spirit of humility, gentleness, and wisdom, with a heart for the lost.
Flowers' honest telling of his difficult journey out of Calvinism is poignant. But you can't counter Calvinism with sentiment and John 3:16 alone. You have to have a rigorous exegetical defense of the scriptures pulled out of context by Calvinists to promote their worldview. This book does that and more, exalting God in His true sovereignty and majesty through His love for all people. The word 'gospel' means 'good news' of God's provision for all people to have the opportunity and free choice to come to Him in faith. Calvinism is 'bad news', an anti-gospel. It needs to be exposed for what it is.
'The Potters' Promise' addresses the primary scriptures used by Calvinists, culminating in a detailed exegesis of Romans 9-11, including the triumphant, hopeful message in Romans 11 that Calvinists ignore or rationalize away. It connects the passages in Romans to Old Testament passages about the 'Potter' that Paul's Jewish audience easily recognized. It puts these passages in the historical and biblical contexts that were understood in the first centuries of the Christian church.
This is a book that I can prayerfully share with those most affected by the onslaught of Calvinism, in our church and beyond.
Calvinism is now aggressively surging in popularity in the United States, misleading both Christians and unbelievers, and assaulting the very character of God. Somewhat like Mormonism, Calvinism portrays itself as a return to conservatism, formality, and ‘deep’ theology. Many of its followers sneer at other denominations or methods of the Christian faith as inferior. It claims to exalt God more than traditional biblical Christianity, as if more of a good thing is always better: in the Calvinistic view, God controls and determines literally everything in a cosmic puppet show so that all the glory is His. The more control, the more glory. In this absurd view of sovereignty, the puppets can take no credit for anything, which somehow exalts God more. This petty god creates some puppets for heaven and some for hell, each person dangling from cosmic strings with no free will or choice. The ‘sovereign decree’ of Calvinism is that God has already created, ordained, and authored absolutely every detail of this world - including every abortion, rape, murder, molestation, holocaust, plane crash, etc. – for his “ultimate glory.” This view boils down to God being the author of sin, which in traditional biblical Christianity is nothing short of blasphemy. By John Calvin’s own admission: “The decree, I admit, is dreadful.”
As it does in many churches today, Calvinism slipped into our local church in a handsome, persuasive package. With most of us unaware of what was being pushed behind the scenes, it almost destroyed our congregation. It did destroy our college ministry – two college girls later told us with tears in their eyes that it became a ‘Calvinist indoctrination camp’. There were only a handful of students left from what was once a healthy ministry, and our church’s reputation on campus was horrible. In addition, our church’s social media, mid-week Bible studies, worship music and other formats became avenues to surreptitiously promote Calvinistic philosophy and organizations. Many people left our church as they heard the tone from the pulpit and felt the oppressive spirit. Most who left have never returned.
We had to be on our knees in prayer, learn a huge amount of biblical and historical information very quickly, and stand for traditional, biblical Christian beliefs. It came to a head as many of us had a difficult meeting with the Elder Board. Dozens of people came to express their frustration at the cultural and theological shift that had been allowed to take place in our church.
I wish I could say that our church has returned to its once vibrant state, but it hasn’t. Though we have tried to make peace with one another, the ideology and Calvinistic interpretations of passages still linger among some in our church, and much damage has been done in our community.
In the process, we learned that what happened in our church is not unique at all. Calvinist pastors and teachers today are infiltrating church after church, seeking to ‘reform’ them. Most of these churches end up splitting and becoming reduced down to what Calvinists consider the ‘Elect’, which is their goal. There is no heart for the lost, the seeking, the questioning, the broken, the poor, or the downtrodden. In this unbiblical philosophy, there are no lost people, only the Elect and the Damned, both of were determined by God “before the foundations of the world” (mistranslation in the Calvinistic ESV Bible of the original Greek passage).
The biblical view is that God gives people real choice to love or reject Him. That is real love. In this higher view of sovereignty, God can handle the free choices of people and nations, and still work all things for His ultimate purposes.
Through the horrific experience in our church, I read every article and watched every podcast I could find on both sides of the issue. The spirit and tone of Calvinists are often arrogant, legalistic, small-minded, seeking to put God into a box they can comprehend. Leighton Flowers and other non-Calvinists generally have a completely different spirit of humility, gentleness, and wisdom, with a heart for the lost.
Flowers' honest telling of his difficult journey out of Calvinism is poignant. But you can't counter Calvinism with sentiment and John 3:16 alone. You have to have a rigorous exegetical defense of the scriptures pulled out of context by Calvinists to promote their worldview. This book does that and more, exalting God in His true sovereignty and majesty through His love for all people. The word 'gospel' means 'good news' of God's provision for all people to have the opportunity and free choice to come to Him in faith. Calvinism is 'bad news', an anti-gospel. It needs to be exposed for what it is.
'The Potters' Promise' addresses the primary scriptures used by Calvinists, culminating in a detailed exegesis of Romans 9-11, including the triumphant, hopeful message in Romans 11 that Calvinists ignore or rationalize away. It connects the passages in Romans to Old Testament passages about the 'Potter' that Paul's Jewish audience easily recognized. It puts these passages in the historical and biblical contexts that were understood in the first centuries of the Christian church.
This is a book that I can prayerfully share with those most affected by the onslaught of Calvinism, in our church and beyond.
February 15, 2023
As a former Calvinist, this book was an extremely refreshing work by a man truly seeking the character of God and what God has revealed about Himself through scripture.
Dr. Flowers is biblical, practical, exegetical, thorough, gracious, and loving in his refute of our Calvinistic brothers and sisters in Christ.
If you are a Calvinist, I truly believe if you pick up this book with an open mind, heart, and spirit, your opinion will change, and you will see the glory of God in His self-sacrificial love for all people rather than self-glorifying reprobation of some and individual election of some.
Dr. Flowers is biblical, practical, exegetical, thorough, gracious, and loving in his refute of our Calvinistic brothers and sisters in Christ.
If you are a Calvinist, I truly believe if you pick up this book with an open mind, heart, and spirit, your opinion will change, and you will see the glory of God in His self-sacrificial love for all people rather than self-glorifying reprobation of some and individual election of some.
July 31, 2017
Yeah, it took me several months to read all of it. It's a pretty heavy-duty theological explication of Romans 9, with a particular focus on why it doesn't mean what the Calvinists say it means. There's a bit of theological jargon, special language used to characterize certain specific meanings, but I could mostly understand it, even though some of the words weren't in the regular dictionary. I found it interesting and enlightening.
December 6, 2022
Dr. Flowers has been incredibly helpful to me on my journey out of Calvinism. This book, and his exposition of Romans 9 is truly incredible. It helps make so much more sense of the biblical text.
I might not agree theologically with everything Leighton holds to, but I recommend this work. Whether you’re a Calvinist or not, I believe it’s wise to hear other perspectives.
I might not agree theologically with everything Leighton holds to, but I recommend this work. Whether you’re a Calvinist or not, I believe it’s wise to hear other perspectives.
April 2, 2022
What Leighton calls "Traditional" may be so in some theological circles, but it's far from "Biblical." This is the kind of synergistic soteriological system that is developed when one doesn't want God to be God, or feels the need to protect Him from His own words.
October 10, 2018
A compelling, if not convincing, argument for a common sense view of free will against a 5-point Calvinist systematic. It’s definitely more philosophically appealing than double predestination (and compatible with a Molinist framework), and he shows how this perspective is scripturally supported. Especially interesting is his exegesis of Romans 8-9. I’m going to need to ruminate on that.
February 10, 2020
Bible based defense
His points wee fair and loaded with Scriptures that were taken in their full context. Great read for someone wanting to know more on this topic
His points wee fair and loaded with Scriptures that were taken in their full context. Great read for someone wanting to know more on this topic
January 1, 2024
This book is excellent and has been very eye-opening for me. Dr Leighton Flowers and his ministry (soteriology101.com) has blessed me immensely as I have reconsidered and changed my previously held Calvinistic view of soteriology. A clear and coherent interpretation of Romans 9 that makes more sense of the immediate context of the chapter, of Romans as a whole, and indeed many other passages of Scripture, while preserving the loving nature and character of God, has been instrumental in me changing my view. Dr. Flowers has provided that (as well as many other important considerations) in the Potter’s Promise.
September 28, 2019
This book is built on major imbalances, non-sequiturs, and exegesis of the doctrine of God from personal illustrations.
Firstly, in Chapter 1, God's love trumps all his other attributes - the argument is that because God's law is fulfilled in loving your neighbor, God therefore must love everyone equally. Why is there no category distinction between God and man? Why is this not read back into the OT? Did God fail to love those he drowned in the flood? In the Egyptians who drowned at the Red Sea?
Secondly, in chapter 2, his explanation on the Divine will comes from a text designed to indict Israel (Matthew 22:11-14). It's a breakdown of basic hermeneutics to take a parable (one point story) and build your theological system around it. That parable is not in the middle of a treatise on the Divine will. It's about condemning the Jews. That's all Jesus was trying to say. He wasn't explaining the ontology of the trinitarian will.
Thirdly, Flowers redefines God’s sovereignty to a contingent attribute. God can only be sovereign if there’s something to be sovereign over, he argues in Chapter 3. His own words, “Sovereignty is a temporal characteristic, not an eternal one” (pg. 37). What? Sovereignty is not merely the expression of his control by the fruit of God’s aseity. God as the self-existent creator, is the source of all things inside and outside of time. Things do not have to exist for the potentiality of things to still rely on God’s sovereign power. It seems his definition of God is continually being redefined by his understanding of the creation. Leighton begins with the sovereignty of human autonomy and makes God’s expression dependent on the creation.
Fourthly, Flowers continues to define his view of God from stories he dreams up rather than Scripture. Very unhelpful. It would be good to walk us through the Bible when defining God not through word pictures.
Fifthly, Flowers conflates dominion with autonomy. He references texts like Psalm 115:16 to support libertarian free will but the whole point of that passage is not the freedom of man but the responsibility of man given God’s place designated to them within creation.
Sixthly, Flowers seems to think the reformed view is that God’s nature means he doesn’t have the power to give humans libertarian autonomy. That somehow God’s determining everything is a consequence of his nature that he can’t avoid. But reformers are not arguing this as if it’s the philosophical conclusion of our speculation. The point is that we are arguing what God has said about himself in Scripture (Isaiah 46:9-10, Proverbs 16:4).
Seventhly, Flowers argues that God can know the future events of a world (pg. 39-40) he doesn’t determine meticulously because he cannot be bound by the limits of our understanding. While that is certainly possible, he thinks it’s a counter to the reformed view of God’s determining everything and his knowledge of everything. The problem is, the reformed camp does not argue that God can ONLY know everything if he plans everything. Rather, we are saying that in Scripture, God’s knowledge of future events is tied to his decree of all events (Isaiah 46:9-10). We’re saying, given Scriptural evidence, God’s knowledge of the future is tied to his decree of it. Not that God couldn’t know an open universe. The problem is that God has not revealed such a view of creation in his word.
Eighthly, Flowers never puts forth a positive case for biblical anthropology and a case for the nature of the will. Nevertheless, he suspects clarifying Judicial hardening during the time of Christ liberates the rest of humanity as having libertarian free choices. The problem is, reformed theology doesn’t build its case merely on the ministry of Jesus. The issue is all over Scripture: Jeremiah 13:23, 17:9, Genesis 6:5, Ephesians 2:1-3, John 3:3. Yes, there is a partial hardening over Israel. No one denies that, but that doesn’t abolish all Scripture that speaks of man’s inability to be pleasing to God, even should he “choose” to obey him (Isaiah 64:6). Additionally, let’s consider Judicial hardening does work as a scapegoat for the traditionalist soteriology. What of those who died in their position of judicial hardening? Do not those who die in this state remain eternally separated from God? Leighton’s view doesn’t eliminate the reality of hardening, it only tries to reduce it to a few. It still portrays the view of God (in hardening some to eternal death) that he thinks is unbearable.
Ninthly, Leighton fails to deal with Isaiah 53:10 and the explicit statement that Christ would be crucified because God wills it to happen. Leighton tries to make it sound like Calvinists are indicted that God ordain evil be (pg 54) and yet doesn’t deal with the OT declaration of God’s plan for the crucifying of his son. That God has ordained it and it has been revealed in ancient history is evidence that it was not the result of libertarian free creatures. It was “the will of God to crush him.”
Regarding his reinterpretation of what he considers Calvinism’s three major texts:
John 6 - I’m not sure what his point was here. He wanted to make the point that the judicial hardening of the parables was simultaneously happening when Jesus explicitly exegeted his own identity to his people. The hardening from Mark (concealment through parables) was not taking place in John 6. H cites the audience as John 6:25-31, not noting the change in audience by verse 59. He also attempts to explain John 6 as only applying to his contemporary audience, however, Jesus explains that the context of the work he is referring to will apply to everyone who “will [be raised] upon the last day” (stated twice in verses 39-40).
Ephesians 1 – He tries to get around the specificity of this text by saying the “in him” of Ephesians doesn’t apply to individuals but towards an abstract category reserved for those who would believe. The problem is, he ignores the part where the letter says “to the saints at Ephesus.” Paul isn’t speaking in generalities, he’s speaking to specific Ephesians. He goes on to ask if “Paul ever actually says that God has chosen particular individuals to be effectually placed in Him” (pg. 78)? Had he gone into Ephesians 2, he’d notice Paul addressing this specific set of Ephesians saying, “God…when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ” (Ephesians 2:4-5). The Ephesians were “created in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:10). The Ephesians received the work of their predestining, they did not step into it. He appears to think he’s properly explained the text by pointing out that Ephesians 1:13-14 says the Ephesians were “included in Christ when [they] heard the message of truth.” First, I’m not sure where he got “you were included.” It’s not in the Greek. Secondly, these verses aren’t referring to being included “in him” at the hearing of the gospel, they’re referring to being sealed with the spirit at the hearing of the gospel. Paul’s point is not to suddenly take back their being “chosen in him before the foundation of the world” (verse 4). Paul’s point is that their being sealed in the work they were predestined for took place when they heard the gospel and received the Spirit (vv. 13-14).
Romans 9 – He sets up his interpretation of Romans 9 by arguing that Paul’s use of predestination in Romans 8 is an observation of God’s dealing with his past saints/Israel. The issue is, there’s no evidence of that in the text. Yes, God subjected the creation to futility (8:18-25) but the text shifts to his present audience in verse 26. By verse 28, the subject of those foreknown is not saints of the past but all those (including Paul’s audience) predestined. That’s why the application in verse 31 is a major encouragement to his audience, because it was about them. Which gets to his main point on this section. Flowers argues that Romans 9 is trying to answer how God’s promises could continue if Israel is in rebellion to their task to deliver the word. Flowers says Romans 9 is arguing for a distinction between Israelites chosen for service and Israelites chosen for rebellion both serving the advance of the Gospel. The issue is, the question Paul is answering is: “How can the audience rest in the promised of Romans 8:39 while seeing that Israel, God’s elect nation, appears to have been separated from his love. The apostle’s answer is that it depends on God’s purpose of election (Romans 9:11). This text isn’t answering the question he proposes. Lastly, let’s say that his interpretation of Romans 9 is correct. He feels relieved that he’s explained the vessels of destruction as not being salvific but temporarily hardened. He applies this to Esau and Pharoah. But just what were the consequences of their temporal hardening? For Esau read Malachi 1 and look at how God explains the application of his “hatred.” For Pharaoh, consider that this temporal hardening meant the loss of his son and drowning at sea with his army. Leighton throws the supposed character flaws of God in Calvinistic soteriology but Leighton’s position does not escape the tragedies found in Scripture.
I could go on but this just supposed to be a brief comment…
Firstly, in Chapter 1, God's love trumps all his other attributes - the argument is that because God's law is fulfilled in loving your neighbor, God therefore must love everyone equally. Why is there no category distinction between God and man? Why is this not read back into the OT? Did God fail to love those he drowned in the flood? In the Egyptians who drowned at the Red Sea?
Secondly, in chapter 2, his explanation on the Divine will comes from a text designed to indict Israel (Matthew 22:11-14). It's a breakdown of basic hermeneutics to take a parable (one point story) and build your theological system around it. That parable is not in the middle of a treatise on the Divine will. It's about condemning the Jews. That's all Jesus was trying to say. He wasn't explaining the ontology of the trinitarian will.
Thirdly, Flowers redefines God’s sovereignty to a contingent attribute. God can only be sovereign if there’s something to be sovereign over, he argues in Chapter 3. His own words, “Sovereignty is a temporal characteristic, not an eternal one” (pg. 37). What? Sovereignty is not merely the expression of his control by the fruit of God’s aseity. God as the self-existent creator, is the source of all things inside and outside of time. Things do not have to exist for the potentiality of things to still rely on God’s sovereign power. It seems his definition of God is continually being redefined by his understanding of the creation. Leighton begins with the sovereignty of human autonomy and makes God’s expression dependent on the creation.
Fourthly, Flowers continues to define his view of God from stories he dreams up rather than Scripture. Very unhelpful. It would be good to walk us through the Bible when defining God not through word pictures.
Fifthly, Flowers conflates dominion with autonomy. He references texts like Psalm 115:16 to support libertarian free will but the whole point of that passage is not the freedom of man but the responsibility of man given God’s place designated to them within creation.
Sixthly, Flowers seems to think the reformed view is that God’s nature means he doesn’t have the power to give humans libertarian autonomy. That somehow God’s determining everything is a consequence of his nature that he can’t avoid. But reformers are not arguing this as if it’s the philosophical conclusion of our speculation. The point is that we are arguing what God has said about himself in Scripture (Isaiah 46:9-10, Proverbs 16:4).
Seventhly, Flowers argues that God can know the future events of a world (pg. 39-40) he doesn’t determine meticulously because he cannot be bound by the limits of our understanding. While that is certainly possible, he thinks it’s a counter to the reformed view of God’s determining everything and his knowledge of everything. The problem is, the reformed camp does not argue that God can ONLY know everything if he plans everything. Rather, we are saying that in Scripture, God’s knowledge of future events is tied to his decree of all events (Isaiah 46:9-10). We’re saying, given Scriptural evidence, God’s knowledge of the future is tied to his decree of it. Not that God couldn’t know an open universe. The problem is that God has not revealed such a view of creation in his word.
Eighthly, Flowers never puts forth a positive case for biblical anthropology and a case for the nature of the will. Nevertheless, he suspects clarifying Judicial hardening during the time of Christ liberates the rest of humanity as having libertarian free choices. The problem is, reformed theology doesn’t build its case merely on the ministry of Jesus. The issue is all over Scripture: Jeremiah 13:23, 17:9, Genesis 6:5, Ephesians 2:1-3, John 3:3. Yes, there is a partial hardening over Israel. No one denies that, but that doesn’t abolish all Scripture that speaks of man’s inability to be pleasing to God, even should he “choose” to obey him (Isaiah 64:6). Additionally, let’s consider Judicial hardening does work as a scapegoat for the traditionalist soteriology. What of those who died in their position of judicial hardening? Do not those who die in this state remain eternally separated from God? Leighton’s view doesn’t eliminate the reality of hardening, it only tries to reduce it to a few. It still portrays the view of God (in hardening some to eternal death) that he thinks is unbearable.
Ninthly, Leighton fails to deal with Isaiah 53:10 and the explicit statement that Christ would be crucified because God wills it to happen. Leighton tries to make it sound like Calvinists are indicted that God ordain evil be (pg 54) and yet doesn’t deal with the OT declaration of God’s plan for the crucifying of his son. That God has ordained it and it has been revealed in ancient history is evidence that it was not the result of libertarian free creatures. It was “the will of God to crush him.”
Regarding his reinterpretation of what he considers Calvinism’s three major texts:
John 6 - I’m not sure what his point was here. He wanted to make the point that the judicial hardening of the parables was simultaneously happening when Jesus explicitly exegeted his own identity to his people. The hardening from Mark (concealment through parables) was not taking place in John 6. H cites the audience as John 6:25-31, not noting the change in audience by verse 59. He also attempts to explain John 6 as only applying to his contemporary audience, however, Jesus explains that the context of the work he is referring to will apply to everyone who “will [be raised] upon the last day” (stated twice in verses 39-40).
Ephesians 1 – He tries to get around the specificity of this text by saying the “in him” of Ephesians doesn’t apply to individuals but towards an abstract category reserved for those who would believe. The problem is, he ignores the part where the letter says “to the saints at Ephesus.” Paul isn’t speaking in generalities, he’s speaking to specific Ephesians. He goes on to ask if “Paul ever actually says that God has chosen particular individuals to be effectually placed in Him” (pg. 78)? Had he gone into Ephesians 2, he’d notice Paul addressing this specific set of Ephesians saying, “God…when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ” (Ephesians 2:4-5). The Ephesians were “created in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:10). The Ephesians received the work of their predestining, they did not step into it. He appears to think he’s properly explained the text by pointing out that Ephesians 1:13-14 says the Ephesians were “included in Christ when [they] heard the message of truth.” First, I’m not sure where he got “you were included.” It’s not in the Greek. Secondly, these verses aren’t referring to being included “in him” at the hearing of the gospel, they’re referring to being sealed with the spirit at the hearing of the gospel. Paul’s point is not to suddenly take back their being “chosen in him before the foundation of the world” (verse 4). Paul’s point is that their being sealed in the work they were predestined for took place when they heard the gospel and received the Spirit (vv. 13-14).
Romans 9 – He sets up his interpretation of Romans 9 by arguing that Paul’s use of predestination in Romans 8 is an observation of God’s dealing with his past saints/Israel. The issue is, there’s no evidence of that in the text. Yes, God subjected the creation to futility (8:18-25) but the text shifts to his present audience in verse 26. By verse 28, the subject of those foreknown is not saints of the past but all those (including Paul’s audience) predestined. That’s why the application in verse 31 is a major encouragement to his audience, because it was about them. Which gets to his main point on this section. Flowers argues that Romans 9 is trying to answer how God’s promises could continue if Israel is in rebellion to their task to deliver the word. Flowers says Romans 9 is arguing for a distinction between Israelites chosen for service and Israelites chosen for rebellion both serving the advance of the Gospel. The issue is, the question Paul is answering is: “How can the audience rest in the promised of Romans 8:39 while seeing that Israel, God’s elect nation, appears to have been separated from his love. The apostle’s answer is that it depends on God’s purpose of election (Romans 9:11). This text isn’t answering the question he proposes. Lastly, let’s say that his interpretation of Romans 9 is correct. He feels relieved that he’s explained the vessels of destruction as not being salvific but temporarily hardened. He applies this to Esau and Pharoah. But just what were the consequences of their temporal hardening? For Esau read Malachi 1 and look at how God explains the application of his “hatred.” For Pharaoh, consider that this temporal hardening meant the loss of his son and drowning at sea with his army. Leighton throws the supposed character flaws of God in Calvinistic soteriology but Leighton’s position does not escape the tragedies found in Scripture.
I could go on but this just supposed to be a brief comment…
April 29, 2020
I give this book 2 stars due to the uniqueness in his interpretation of Romans 9. I do not agree with the author’s conclusions or hermeneutic. I do not think he provided a detailed, consistent exegesis of Romans 9. I also seriously question how “Calvinistic” the author was in his former days. He uses phraseology that almost no Reformed theologian would use and in the process creates a caricature of the Calvinist position. He also weakens his argument by providing the simple foreknowledge view of the Arminian and other alternative views of election (which are distinct from his own) and concludes in so many words “any of these alternatives might work and therefore show that Calvinism is not correct”. This book is not heavy in philosophy (as opposed to a slightly more philosophical work in “Chosen but Free” by Norman Geisler) but he maintains a similar, Arminian philosophy of God (God is all-loving and unable to demonstrate different kinds or degrees of love because that would be against His benevolent nature...therefore man has libertarian free will).
Although the book was short and a fairly easy read, a scripture and subject index would have been helpful.
I have to say I enjoyed reading a different interpretation of Romans 8:28-9:33 (which is the bulk of the book, pg. 81-147). Again, I do not agree with the author’s approach to the text or the conclusions he makes. Nonetheless, I was able to glean some truth from the text regarding Israel’s role in history as God’s elect nation to bring the word of God and the Word of God to the world. I think the author grabbed a lot of different sources (e.g. NT Wright) and cobbled together an alternative meaning to this section of Scripture (one in which a literal “plain-sense” reading could not produce). The author freely admits that we might err if we take this passage and the “allegories” that Paul is presenting in this text to be literal rather than “allegorical, figurative” (pg. 116). The author claims that calvinists take a lot of theological baggage (presuppositions) and read them into this text to see in this section of scripture the predestination of individuals to salvation. Honestly, I think a plain sense reading of the text provides the Bible student the foundation of God’s electing purposes. I could read Romans 8-9 numerous times without ever coming to the conclusions that the author provides. Read Romans 8 and 9 and see if you come to this conclusion - God’s elect nation (Israel) would not thwart God’s original purpose to Abraham (to bless the whole Earth as a nation by bringing the redemptive plan to the nations as a word and as a person [Jesus, a Jew]), but He would either elect individuals within the nation (e.g. Isaac, Jacob -> noble purposes, vessels of mercy) or judicially (temporarily) harden individuals (e.g. Pharaoh, Jews who crucified Jesus -> vessels of ‘common use’) all to bring about His redemptive plan and promise to Abraham (blessing the world, grafting in of gentiles...etc.) despite their general unfaithfulness to Him as the Potter so that all individuals everywhere may turn to Christ in faith of their own libertarian free will. Talk about showing up to a text with theological baggage!
I think the Bible ultimately teaches SOME of these truths (Israel’s national rejection of the Messiah will not thwart God’s plans) and perhaps we would all do better to appreciate how God works corporately in the affairs of men. The author cannot walk through the text word by word, because it simply teaches that God has a sovereign purpose in election of individuals.
Rom 8:1 no condemnation to those IN CHRIST. Rom 8:2-3 Paul, personally/individually FREE from law of sin and death. Rom 8:4 WE walk not after flesh, but after Spirit. Rom 8:5-8 THEY that walk after the flesh mind the things of the flesh and are NOT (nor CAN they be) subject to the law of God... they CANNOT please God. Rom 8:9 YOU are NOT in the flesh, but in the Spirit. Rom 8:10-18 Christ is in you...your mortal bodies will be quickened...we don’t have the spirit of bondage/fear...we are joint heirs with Christ. Rom 8:19-25 the whole creation is waiting for the redemption of Christians’ mortal bodies/glorious liberty. Rom 8:26-27 Spirit of God makes intercession for us.
Romans 8:28-33
[28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. [29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. [30] Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. [31] What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? [32] He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? [33] Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Where is Israel, where is Abraham, where is judicial hardening, where is corporate election? The text is speaking about US (v. 31, 32), the elect (v. 33), those foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified according to His purpose. These are the same people (the Roman Christians) who are free from condemnation (v 1) not waking after the flesh (v 4) who have the Spirit (v 9).
Romans 9 brings in many characters and Old Testament stories. However, Paul’s application follows the individuals in mind in Romans 8...
Romans 9:22-24
[22] What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: [23] And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, [24] EVEN US, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Paul says we (the “us” would have to be the Roman Christians + the apostle Paul) are vessels of mercy afore prepare to unto glory, called of both Jews and Gentiles. The author simply cannot accept that individuals are in view here as the subjects of God’s eternal salvific purposes.
Lastly, I am not sure why the author refers to this as the “traditionalist” view. As a Baptist for the past 10 years, I have never read a Baptist commentary (NT Wright is an Anglican BTW) nor heard a Baptist minister, theologian, or even a Sunday school teacher ever walk through Rom 8 and 9 in this fashion producing these conclusions. My biggest concern is that the author will cobble together anything from any source to “de-calvinize” the Bible by any means. Is this really the best way to approach the Bible?
Although the book was short and a fairly easy read, a scripture and subject index would have been helpful.
I have to say I enjoyed reading a different interpretation of Romans 8:28-9:33 (which is the bulk of the book, pg. 81-147). Again, I do not agree with the author’s approach to the text or the conclusions he makes. Nonetheless, I was able to glean some truth from the text regarding Israel’s role in history as God’s elect nation to bring the word of God and the Word of God to the world. I think the author grabbed a lot of different sources (e.g. NT Wright) and cobbled together an alternative meaning to this section of Scripture (one in which a literal “plain-sense” reading could not produce). The author freely admits that we might err if we take this passage and the “allegories” that Paul is presenting in this text to be literal rather than “allegorical, figurative” (pg. 116). The author claims that calvinists take a lot of theological baggage (presuppositions) and read them into this text to see in this section of scripture the predestination of individuals to salvation. Honestly, I think a plain sense reading of the text provides the Bible student the foundation of God’s electing purposes. I could read Romans 8-9 numerous times without ever coming to the conclusions that the author provides. Read Romans 8 and 9 and see if you come to this conclusion - God’s elect nation (Israel) would not thwart God’s original purpose to Abraham (to bless the whole Earth as a nation by bringing the redemptive plan to the nations as a word and as a person [Jesus, a Jew]), but He would either elect individuals within the nation (e.g. Isaac, Jacob -> noble purposes, vessels of mercy) or judicially (temporarily) harden individuals (e.g. Pharaoh, Jews who crucified Jesus -> vessels of ‘common use’) all to bring about His redemptive plan and promise to Abraham (blessing the world, grafting in of gentiles...etc.) despite their general unfaithfulness to Him as the Potter so that all individuals everywhere may turn to Christ in faith of their own libertarian free will. Talk about showing up to a text with theological baggage!
I think the Bible ultimately teaches SOME of these truths (Israel’s national rejection of the Messiah will not thwart God’s plans) and perhaps we would all do better to appreciate how God works corporately in the affairs of men. The author cannot walk through the text word by word, because it simply teaches that God has a sovereign purpose in election of individuals.
Rom 8:1 no condemnation to those IN CHRIST. Rom 8:2-3 Paul, personally/individually FREE from law of sin and death. Rom 8:4 WE walk not after flesh, but after Spirit. Rom 8:5-8 THEY that walk after the flesh mind the things of the flesh and are NOT (nor CAN they be) subject to the law of God... they CANNOT please God. Rom 8:9 YOU are NOT in the flesh, but in the Spirit. Rom 8:10-18 Christ is in you...your mortal bodies will be quickened...we don’t have the spirit of bondage/fear...we are joint heirs with Christ. Rom 8:19-25 the whole creation is waiting for the redemption of Christians’ mortal bodies/glorious liberty. Rom 8:26-27 Spirit of God makes intercession for us.
Romans 8:28-33
[28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. [29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. [30] Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. [31] What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? [32] He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? [33] Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Where is Israel, where is Abraham, where is judicial hardening, where is corporate election? The text is speaking about US (v. 31, 32), the elect (v. 33), those foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified according to His purpose. These are the same people (the Roman Christians) who are free from condemnation (v 1) not waking after the flesh (v 4) who have the Spirit (v 9).
Romans 9 brings in many characters and Old Testament stories. However, Paul’s application follows the individuals in mind in Romans 8...
Romans 9:22-24
[22] What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: [23] And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, [24] EVEN US, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Paul says we (the “us” would have to be the Roman Christians + the apostle Paul) are vessels of mercy afore prepare to unto glory, called of both Jews and Gentiles. The author simply cannot accept that individuals are in view here as the subjects of God’s eternal salvific purposes.
Lastly, I am not sure why the author refers to this as the “traditionalist” view. As a Baptist for the past 10 years, I have never read a Baptist commentary (NT Wright is an Anglican BTW) nor heard a Baptist minister, theologian, or even a Sunday school teacher ever walk through Rom 8 and 9 in this fashion producing these conclusions. My biggest concern is that the author will cobble together anything from any source to “de-calvinize” the Bible by any means. Is this really the best way to approach the Bible?
October 24, 2017
This is an outstanding resource for those who want to look into Traditionalist Soteriology. Dr. Flowers dives deep into traditionally Calvinistic passages and demonstrates some of the faulty exegesis and hermeneutical interpretations of Reformed thinkers. Not afraid to tackle the hard passages, Dr. Flowers looks at the them from a holistic hermeneutical approach keeping in mind who the writers were writing to and who they were writing about. I encourage those who embrace Calvinistic Soteriology to read this, not to change your minds, but to understand that there is a strong and robust theology that has counter explanations to the Reformed systematic.
December 26, 2018
Does God determine to redeem his own determinations?
That God determines to redeem his own determinations is the Calvanistic position in a nutshell. This book is no polemical treatment. It is the best biblical exposition and defense of libertarian free will in response to the gospel that I have ever read, as well as an exhaustive treatment of predistination and foreknowledge. Highly recommended to all who are interested in the subject.
That God determines to redeem his own determinations is the Calvanistic position in a nutshell. This book is no polemical treatment. It is the best biblical exposition and defense of libertarian free will in response to the gospel that I have ever read, as well as an exhaustive treatment of predistination and foreknowledge. Highly recommended to all who are interested in the subject.
September 18, 2019
Dr. Flower’s view is not only his own-the perspectives in this book come from NT Wright, CS Lewis and AW Tozer among others. (Citations all included in the book) This book is phenomenal. An honest publication. Brilliant and scholarly defense of non-reformed theology that would be useful for any non-reformed Christian of any tradition/denomination.
May 10, 2019
Great defense of traditional soteriology, and a worthy challenge to the Calvinism that is so much in vogue.
When God says He loves the cosmos and that he desires all men to be saved, He means it. Leighton’s work is essential in the defense of God’s goodness and a proper interpretation of the Bible. I sincerely appreciate the prescience and relevance of this book.
When God says He loves the cosmos and that he desires all men to be saved, He means it. Leighton’s work is essential in the defense of God’s goodness and a proper interpretation of the Bible. I sincerely appreciate the prescience and relevance of this book.
January 12, 2022
This is really bad. The author writes like it’s a personal grudge instead of a difference in theology. Arguments are either old Arminianism arguments or nonsensical. Traditionalism is just Arminianism.
November 15, 2015
Leighton Flowers, a Baptist pastor and leader, shares his journey away from the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. A fascinating little book.
October 17, 2021
I just finished "The Potters Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology," by Leighton Flowers.
I found this an odd book to read. In play here are three schools of theological thought: Classical Theism (Calvinism), neo classical theism (Flowers) and open theism (me). So when Flowers clarifies a point against classical theism I happily record it or recieve it. Then he makes a point about neo classical theism (the eternal now) and I'm like "bro, really? You can't really get there without a streetcar named "philosophy." So it's a love/hate relationship in the context of a hate/hate relationship (only speaking of concepts here, not people).
Flowers begins on a note of humility which we should embrace, in whatever school of thought we see it in, when speaking about theology. Having been a Calvinist he knows that one just doesn't read a book and loose their Calvinism usually. So he lays out how he was challenged by alternative interpretations of some of the major Calvinist prooftexts, especially Rm 9.
Flowers establishes the character of God as Love and then dives into what Love is and is not compared to the Calvinist system. Love isn't omnipotent, omniscient or benevolent (1Cor 13: 1-3) it is patient, kind, etc (1 Cor 13: 4-8). When these are used to define Love, which God is, the Calvinist foundation is rocked because much of the TULIP and its ramifications can not exist along side a biblical description of love nor the life of Christ.
Flowers, when defending neo classical theism against classical theism, falls into the "eternal now" trap which reaches back to philosophy more than scripture. He offers some Lewis so that we can think God is relational too with God is in the eternal now and present in history. The last part an be defended with scripture while the first part cant.
A insightful point is that the TULIPs "T" for total inability is shown to be an incorrect theological point based on Jesus' having used parables to keep some in the dark about the greater message. It seems the Jews of Jesus day were possibly able rather than inability.
Flowers goes on to speak to self hardening and judicial hardening. Self hardening means that the person who has libertarian freewill picks their oath which hardenes their heart away from God. Judicial hardening is God's active role working in one's self hardening to assist further hardening. I believe this is an overly cumbersome concept which need to state if Judicial hardening is positive or active or negative or inactive on the Divine side. Negative or inactive would say: If we say no to God (self hardening) he accepts our no and backs off then this covers both sides, His and ours while not placing fault on God. It also corresponds with the "what you intended for evil God intended for good."
Next, and the majority of the pages, are reserved to speaking to Calvinist prooftexts found in Jn 6, Rm 8-9, etc. This is over 70pp so I'm not laying it out but if you are bothered by the thought of being a mindlessly determined lump of clay and need out of that jail this major chapter is for you. If you really dig the mindlessly determined lump of clay thing then you may want to pass over this chapter. God and the Future are open to either option.
#LeightonFlowers #ThePottersPromise #Soteriology
I found this an odd book to read. In play here are three schools of theological thought: Classical Theism (Calvinism), neo classical theism (Flowers) and open theism (me). So when Flowers clarifies a point against classical theism I happily record it or recieve it. Then he makes a point about neo classical theism (the eternal now) and I'm like "bro, really? You can't really get there without a streetcar named "philosophy." So it's a love/hate relationship in the context of a hate/hate relationship (only speaking of concepts here, not people).
Flowers begins on a note of humility which we should embrace, in whatever school of thought we see it in, when speaking about theology. Having been a Calvinist he knows that one just doesn't read a book and loose their Calvinism usually. So he lays out how he was challenged by alternative interpretations of some of the major Calvinist prooftexts, especially Rm 9.
Flowers establishes the character of God as Love and then dives into what Love is and is not compared to the Calvinist system. Love isn't omnipotent, omniscient or benevolent (1Cor 13: 1-3) it is patient, kind, etc (1 Cor 13: 4-8). When these are used to define Love, which God is, the Calvinist foundation is rocked because much of the TULIP and its ramifications can not exist along side a biblical description of love nor the life of Christ.
Flowers, when defending neo classical theism against classical theism, falls into the "eternal now" trap which reaches back to philosophy more than scripture. He offers some Lewis so that we can think God is relational too with God is in the eternal now and present in history. The last part an be defended with scripture while the first part cant.
A insightful point is that the TULIPs "T" for total inability is shown to be an incorrect theological point based on Jesus' having used parables to keep some in the dark about the greater message. It seems the Jews of Jesus day were possibly able rather than inability.
Flowers goes on to speak to self hardening and judicial hardening. Self hardening means that the person who has libertarian freewill picks their oath which hardenes their heart away from God. Judicial hardening is God's active role working in one's self hardening to assist further hardening. I believe this is an overly cumbersome concept which need to state if Judicial hardening is positive or active or negative or inactive on the Divine side. Negative or inactive would say: If we say no to God (self hardening) he accepts our no and backs off then this covers both sides, His and ours while not placing fault on God. It also corresponds with the "what you intended for evil God intended for good."
Next, and the majority of the pages, are reserved to speaking to Calvinist prooftexts found in Jn 6, Rm 8-9, etc. This is over 70pp so I'm not laying it out but if you are bothered by the thought of being a mindlessly determined lump of clay and need out of that jail this major chapter is for you. If you really dig the mindlessly determined lump of clay thing then you may want to pass over this chapter. God and the Future are open to either option.
#LeightonFlowers #ThePottersPromise #Soteriology
August 11, 2021
I read this book twice in a row. I devoured it in 2 days, then turned around and read it again, this time slowly and carefully with my bible open beside me so I could check each scripture reference as I went along. Spoiler alert: There are a LOT of scripture references!
After thus giving it the "third degree", I whole-heartedly recommend it to anybody wondering if there might be an alternative view to Calvinism that actually accounts for the famous "election" passages without coming up with the rather odd "Looking down the corridor of time" perspective that is the only other explanation I'd heard before I read this book.
Just like the author, I spent about a decade of my life as a Calvinist, starting in my early teens. But a few years ago my trust in that theological system began to wane, because it required holding to things that I simply could not makes sense out of logically, was giving me a rather fatalistic view of life, making prayer seem pointless, and absolutely crippling my evangelism. How does one go about sharing the gospel with someone when you can't even honestly say "Jesus died for you?" (because you don't know if He actually did or not, since he only died for the elect.)
There were a bunch of other reasons I found myself pulling away from the Calvinist ideology, but the problem was, I I did not know how to interpret the Calvinist "proof texts" through any other lens, so I was uncomfortably settled in a "I'm not sure how this all works, but God is outside time so maybe we just can't quite understand it." That is, until I read this book.
Mr. Flowers does an excellent job laying out the "Provisionist" view of these passages (which is distinct from the Arminian view). I found it extremely helpful, and am beginning to find myself moving toward a faith in which so many thing (prayer, evangelism, obedience, the problem of evil, etc) make so much more sense to me than they did through the Calvinist lens. Am I sure Mr. Flowers has it right? No. And I am definitely continue to study and listen to arguments from both sides. But I do believe his view fits with the scriptural evidence at least as well as Calvinism, and honestly, in my opinion, it fits better. Even if you are a convinced of Calvinism and have no questions about your theological system, I still think you should read this book just to make sure you fully understand the other side of the argument. Don't write him off without hearing his view from his own lips. Look the opposition square in the eye, I say. If your view is the correct one, it ought to stand the scrutiny just fine.
After thus giving it the "third degree", I whole-heartedly recommend it to anybody wondering if there might be an alternative view to Calvinism that actually accounts for the famous "election" passages without coming up with the rather odd "Looking down the corridor of time" perspective that is the only other explanation I'd heard before I read this book.
Just like the author, I spent about a decade of my life as a Calvinist, starting in my early teens. But a few years ago my trust in that theological system began to wane, because it required holding to things that I simply could not makes sense out of logically, was giving me a rather fatalistic view of life, making prayer seem pointless, and absolutely crippling my evangelism. How does one go about sharing the gospel with someone when you can't even honestly say "Jesus died for you?" (because you don't know if He actually did or not, since he only died for the elect.)
There were a bunch of other reasons I found myself pulling away from the Calvinist ideology, but the problem was, I I did not know how to interpret the Calvinist "proof texts" through any other lens, so I was uncomfortably settled in a "I'm not sure how this all works, but God is outside time so maybe we just can't quite understand it." That is, until I read this book.
Mr. Flowers does an excellent job laying out the "Provisionist" view of these passages (which is distinct from the Arminian view). I found it extremely helpful, and am beginning to find myself moving toward a faith in which so many thing (prayer, evangelism, obedience, the problem of evil, etc) make so much more sense to me than they did through the Calvinist lens. Am I sure Mr. Flowers has it right? No. And I am definitely continue to study and listen to arguments from both sides. But I do believe his view fits with the scriptural evidence at least as well as Calvinism, and honestly, in my opinion, it fits better. Even if you are a convinced of Calvinism and have no questions about your theological system, I still think you should read this book just to make sure you fully understand the other side of the argument. Don't write him off without hearing his view from his own lips. Look the opposition square in the eye, I say. If your view is the correct one, it ought to stand the scrutiny just fine.
December 24, 2018
I was introduced to Flowers by James White (a favorite apologist, despite his failure to convince me of his Calvinism). Initially listening to Flowers' Soteriology 101 podcast, I was impressed with *most* of what he had to say as simple, straightforward, and Biblical responses to Calvinist argumentation and exegesis. (His open door to Molinism and favor for William Lane Craig are rather disconcerting.) This book is a good brief presentation of his exegesis and arguments. His explanation of Romans 8 is gold. The most common-sense natural explanation of the text I have seen. Most Arminian interpretations I've seen are plagued by "theology controlling exegesis." Calvinists fare *much, much* better, save for the little complication of "glorified" being in the past tense, and they have a "well, okay, sure" kind of explanation of that that I won't complain about too much--though it's still something in the text that doesn't lend itself to *ready* explanation--it certainly departs from normal Biblical common-sense usage. But Flowers surpasses them all. My only concern is that the only places I have found his exegesis are in him and in is source: the latter I find problematic as being a group that leans toward a kind of baptismal regeneration (or at least water baptism as a requirement for salvation). His explanation of Ephesians 3 is solid, helpfully presented, and rather common among non-Calvinist exegetes with a high view of the text. I did find his section on Romans 9 to fail in clarity--I can't really assess his argument or interpretation here because it wasn't always clear to me. One day, I might return to it and try again, perhaps reading it alongside Forlines (Arminian) and Piper (Calvinist). I think Flowers is a little overly eager to throw Arminians under the bus, and he is not as Reformed (as in Reformed Arminian) as I am. But I am thankful for his helpfully clarifying approach to many of the passages and arguments at issue between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the conservative Evangelical tradition.
February 15, 2021
This book was so helpful for me as someone who struggles with reconciling freewill and determinism in the Bible. I loved getting to see Ephesians 1, John 6 and Romans 9 through a different, and I would argue, more biblical lens than the Calvinistic doctrine offers. Dr. Flowers walks through his rise and fall of Calvinistic beliefs and offers ample practical evidence for why Calvinism is an incorrect approach to Soteriological doctrine.
For the longest time, the words “elect,” “predestined,” “foreknown” and “chosen” haunted me because there seemed to be no way to explain those words in the Bible without a Calvinistic lens. Dr. Flowers (along with the many commentaries and scholars he references along the way) invites us to a compelling view of these words and the Scriptures surrounding them. Now, I can know biblically that God has provided a way for ALL to respond to His grace if they would humble themselves and receive His help.
Dr. Flowers opens the book so beautifully connecting one logical point to another and flowing almost flawlessly. Later on in the book, however, the writing was still logical and helpful and practical, but the writing style seemed a little less organized. The thoughts later on in the book seemed slightly scattered and repetitive. For example: I kept working my brain through thought provoking paragraphs only to find that the paragraphs were making the same points made 3 pages ago and 10 pages before that and even 100 pages before that. The only thing I did not appreciate with the writing style was its repetitiveness. Other than that, I loved this book!
For the longest time, the words “elect,” “predestined,” “foreknown” and “chosen” haunted me because there seemed to be no way to explain those words in the Bible without a Calvinistic lens. Dr. Flowers (along with the many commentaries and scholars he references along the way) invites us to a compelling view of these words and the Scriptures surrounding them. Now, I can know biblically that God has provided a way for ALL to respond to His grace if they would humble themselves and receive His help.
Dr. Flowers opens the book so beautifully connecting one logical point to another and flowing almost flawlessly. Later on in the book, however, the writing was still logical and helpful and practical, but the writing style seemed a little less organized. The thoughts later on in the book seemed slightly scattered and repetitive. For example: I kept working my brain through thought provoking paragraphs only to find that the paragraphs were making the same points made 3 pages ago and 10 pages before that and even 100 pages before that. The only thing I did not appreciate with the writing style was its repetitiveness. Other than that, I loved this book!
August 25, 2023
Calvinism is one of those subjects I have studied a bit, but feel the need to study more upon. Thus it was I picked this book up. It isn't large, a bit of a negative in my mind, but the author's story of his journey out of Calvinism was interesting. What changed his mind?
At the outset, let me say that I do not think Flowers covers the arguments in detail, nor do I necessarily agree with his approach on the arguments he does discuss. But he writes well, reasons well, and especially illlustrates with great clarity. And, to his everlasting credit, he contextually tackles the entirety of Romans 9 verse by verse. Having done the same with Romans 6-8 in relation to sanctification in one of my own books, I greatly respect someone who does the same with the key passage regarding any controversial subject. I both agreed and disagreed with aspects of his approach to Romans 9, but overall, I think he reasoned well.
This is not the best short book I've read on Calvinism. That would be John Parkinson's The Faith of God's Elect. But this book is helpful, if for nothing else in showing us a thoughtful, spiritual, contemporary man's journey out of Calvinism.
Helpful book, just on the edge of being a good one.
At the outset, let me say that I do not think Flowers covers the arguments in detail, nor do I necessarily agree with his approach on the arguments he does discuss. But he writes well, reasons well, and especially illlustrates with great clarity. And, to his everlasting credit, he contextually tackles the entirety of Romans 9 verse by verse. Having done the same with Romans 6-8 in relation to sanctification in one of my own books, I greatly respect someone who does the same with the key passage regarding any controversial subject. I both agreed and disagreed with aspects of his approach to Romans 9, but overall, I think he reasoned well.
This is not the best short book I've read on Calvinism. That would be John Parkinson's The Faith of God's Elect. But this book is helpful, if for nothing else in showing us a thoughtful, spiritual, contemporary man's journey out of Calvinism.
Helpful book, just on the edge of being a good one.
October 31, 2022
Plausible non-Calvinist reading of Romans 9
Flowers provides a convincing (at least plausible) reading of Romans 9, along with other key biblical passages (Eph 1; John 6), to arrive at a compelling non-Calvinist interpretation. He reveals the weaknesses of typical Calvinist readings, and throughout attempts to represent Calvinist views fairly. The scriptural version of God he portrays is not one who requires meticulous determinism in order to reveal his glory, but a God who loves and desires every person to benefit from the salvation provided through Christ.
Even if a Calvinist is not persuaded by Flowers, I think they will at least need to admit that his interpretation of these key Calvinist passages are plausible. And if so, then (pragmatically) why stick with a Calvinist view, where God's secret will works to condemn those he predetermined to be condemned? There is another, better supported reading of Scripture available, and with much better news. Why not give it a try?
Flowers provides a convincing (at least plausible) reading of Romans 9, along with other key biblical passages (Eph 1; John 6), to arrive at a compelling non-Calvinist interpretation. He reveals the weaknesses of typical Calvinist readings, and throughout attempts to represent Calvinist views fairly. The scriptural version of God he portrays is not one who requires meticulous determinism in order to reveal his glory, but a God who loves and desires every person to benefit from the salvation provided through Christ.
Even if a Calvinist is not persuaded by Flowers, I think they will at least need to admit that his interpretation of these key Calvinist passages are plausible. And if so, then (pragmatically) why stick with a Calvinist view, where God's secret will works to condemn those he predetermined to be condemned? There is another, better supported reading of Scripture available, and with much better news. Why not give it a try?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews