Romans 9, James White vs. Leighton Flowers

[stenerson]

I heard it yesterday during my commute... Basically Flowers position is that man is responsible , which means he's "response able". And that Romans 9 deals with God choosing people for ministry and God using "temporarily hardened Israel" for his purpose. He didn't really exegete the passage , but gave a passionate, yet muddled Arminian sermon.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I have to say, that was one of the most frustrating debates I've ever watched. Flowers was just silly, plain silly. He wasn't even trying to be serious with Scripture, not even attempting. The more I watch James White, the more I am in awe not of his theology, but of his patience.

 

[stenerson]

I have to say, that was one of the most frustrating debates I've ever watched. Flowers was just silly, plain silly. He wasn't even trying to be serious with Scripture, not even attempting. The more I watch James White, the more I am in awe not of his theology, but of his patience.

Flowers made an extremely complicated and confusing presentation.. He's a smart and articulated man. But you have to make things muddled, complicated and confusing in order to make the texts say the opposite of what it is clearly saying.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Eh, I'll give him the complicated part. But, time, his presentation was quite clear. The deception was clear, the eisegesis was clear, and his contempt for the text was clear.

I dunno. I know I'm sounding quite uncharitable, but, like I said, it was an extremely frustrating thing to watch. I saw one side appeal to exegesis and the other appeal to emotion and pragmatics.

I commented on the video and am awaiting a response from Mr. Flowers. Basically, I was (and still am) absolutely astounded at the fact that after two hours of debate, Mr. Flowers' conclusion was an exact and accurate paraphrase of what Paul's objector asks in Romans 9:19.

 

[stenerson]

I commented on the video and am awaiting a response from Mr. Flowers. Basically, I was (and still am) absolutely astounded at the fact that after two hours of debate, Mr. Flowers' conclusion was an exact and accurate paraphrase of what Paul's objector asks in Romans 9:19.

Yeah, that always amazes me.. They seem to mimic almost word for word the language and attitude of the objector.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I got a response from Mr. Flowers. His only (and greatest) argument is that the objector in Romans 9 is the same objector as in Romans 3, who, is his mind, is a "judicially hardened Jew", not a Gentile. Of course, I called shenanigans on that. What a ludicrous argument! How could he arrive at that ridiculous conclusion? I pointed out the fact that the objections in Romans 9 are given a subject: "You will say to me then..." Romans 3 is given no such subject as a speaker. So, are we now supposed to assume that every time a question arises in Paul that it is some kind of hypothetical objector? Of course, he never responded.

I am always floored at how far one is willing to stretch both themselves and the text at hand to reach for any kind of supposed affirmation for their theological system.

 

[lesliedellow]

He didn't really exegete the passage , but gave a passionate, yet muddled Arminian sermon.

Yes, that is exactly what he did. No real argument - he just wants the world and his wife to know that he doesn't want Calvinism to be true.