John 1:11-13 Is Flowers correct?

RevMitchell said Dr. White was rude and attacked Dr. Flowers. Not even close. He traveled from Phoenix to Texas(not sure which city) to debate Romans 9. Dr. Flowers did not exegete that chapter. Dr. White did.

Then afterwards, Dr. Flowers attacked Dr. White on his podcast and when Dr. White engaged him on DL and Twitter, Dr. Flowers blocked him on Twitter.

But Dr. White was the rude one. :rolleyes:

 

Flowers did exeget the Romans 9 passage. Romans 9 refers to other scripture and Flowers was the only one who dealt with the other scripture that Romans 9 in fact mentions. One cannot understand Romans correctly without also looking at the other scripture it references.

 

It was a debate on Romans 9. Dr. White went verse-by-verse through that chapter. Dr. Flowers touched upon it here-and-there, hardly an exegesis of that chapter.

 

Dr. Flowers conflated the lump of clay with Israel. That lump of clay was not Israel, but all of mankind.

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. As He says also in Hosea, “I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, ‘MY PEOPLE,’ AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, ‘BELOVED.’”[Romans 9:21-25]

That lump can not be solely Israel. As you can see, the Gentiles were also included in that same lump of clay. All mankind is included in that lump of clay. All were fallen in Adam. God chose His ppl from that same lump of clay. That is who the vessels of mercy are, the elect of God. The vessels of wrath were in that same lump and God justly left them in their fallen state.

 

The Gentiles portion is a parenthetical statement within Paul's discourse. The Lump of clay is talking about Isreal, how do we know? That's the Entire focus in Chapters 9-11. Context, context, Context.

The objector is proclaiming, "But I'm of Israel, I'm born an Israelite!" But Paul states early in the passage, Not all Israel is Israel. They were hardened BECAUSE of their Unbelief, rejection of the Messiah.

The Potter/Clay is a discourse from Jeremiah--talking about Israel. It's synchronicity(?) demands we understand it in a particular light.

The objector is mad, not because he was not part of God's chosen elect unconditionally, but because he was not found In Christ! He thought being physically born of Abraham was enough!

 

This reeks of Darby’s dispensationialism. He said the church was parenthetical, too.

Your assertion here is way off base.

Verses 24, 25, & 26 Paul wrote even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. As He says also in Hosea, “I WILL CALL THOSE WHO WERE NOT MY PEOPLE, ‘MY PEOPLE,’ AND HER WHO WAS NOT BELOVED, ‘BELOVED.’” “AND IT SHALL BE THAT IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM, ‘YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE,’ THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED SONS OF THE LIVING GOD.”

The same lump is not solely Israel, but whole mankind.

 

I think my assertion is pretty spot on :)

I'm saying the "grammar" shows a parenthetical statement.

 

Why should that impress one over another? If I put down here a whole commentary of Rom 9 from a non-Calvinist are you going to receive it any better? I hardly think so.

I'm sure you think you have rebuttals for anything that could said anyway so a look at other scriptures from Paul the same writer about these similar truths in other passage all come together as pieces of a puzzle.

Does Paul's scriptures in other places contradict anything said in Rom 9? If the other scriptures act like road signs to keep you in line then what is so inferior with that?

 

It has to do with consistency. Dr. White's approach will work when he debates Muslims, Oneness Pentecostals, RCC, Open Theists, Molinists, et al.

If Dr. Flowers uses that approach against them in a debate, they will eat his lunch, drink his milk and take his snack $.

Dr. White asked Dr. Flowers if Saul of Tarsus could have refused the Christ and he said "he was able but not willing." That's a copout. Dr. White then said if God knew Saul of Tarsus would not refuse, then he could not have refused. Dr. Flowers punted on that and said he'd leave that for William Lane Craig to answer. Dr. White then said he wouldn't answer that either.

Arminianism has been replaced by non-Calvinism, which is a mixture of Open Theism and Molinism. :(

 

Thanks for your prayers Mitchell. Much appreciated.

 

Now, here's some post-debate fodder for ye blokes to read...


Final Observations on the Leighton Flowers Discussion (With Addendum) | Alpha and Omega Ministries

 

Whats the correct exegesis on romans 9 then?

I know a lot of Corporate Election (God elected the Church but individuals can become a part of it) thinkers like the one I've been in discussion with. Romans 16:7 "They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were IN CHRIST BEFORE I WAS. (They were elect before him)

Believe Romans 9 is only about Israel and the "seed" that brought messiah into the world.

Being physically Born into it doesn't qualify you

The Jews were temporarily hardened So God can Show mercy to all in Romans 11


But the Jews can be saved still if they repent and grafted back to the Tree
Romans 11
"And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!"

 

Not a cop out at all! He was able to disobey but not willing.

Well this goes down Calvinistic same usual path....if God has foreknowledge of all decisions and events (that is being outside of time) that means the actions of say a person must have been always set in stone with no free will to choose. Not what the Bible teaches.

In essence he had already answered the question. Paul was able to disobey but was not willing to. And Paul said himself to King Agrippa he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. Acts 26:18 Doesn't that most certainly infer he could have been?

Funny how you'd claim Calvinism which was developed in the middle ages where people in times before would have considered it extreme. The word of God alone is the only rock of assurance we have and not Arminianism, Calvinism , Open Theism, Molinism or any other ism you might want to mention.