Provisionalism vs Calvinism

Leighton Flowers has been well represented on this board. I know I am not going to spend 4 hours listening to him when he and I have had our back and forth moments in this venue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

Especially when his views are not what the scriptures are teaching to us!

 

Then you should pick some key point.

 

Brother, if you are not acquainted with the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debates on this board, they can get rather heated. Leighton Flowers used to be an active member of this board and was engaged in numerous vigorous debates with Calvinists (like me). Those of us who have been on the board awhile remember those debates, so the issue is not new for us. I pick and choose my involvement in Calvinist vs. Arminian debates these days, if only because there is nothing new under the sun. I have yet to read something that is new in the on-going debate.

 

And if there is something new, we can be guaranteed it is unscriptural.

 

There are only two views of Christian soteriology = Monergistic or Synergistic. I know some people on this board eschew labels but I cannot help that. Calvinism and Arminianism are ubiquitous terms in that each of them represents either the Monergistic or Synergistic view. Flowers claims to believe in corporate election, which is just another iteration of a synergistic soteriology. Provisionalism is just another novel term for Traditionalism, i.e. Synergism - different mask but the same face. It is an attempt to repackage a synergistic soteriology to make it seem like theological heavy lifting was done.

 

My view is neither Calvinism or Arminianism, yet my view is Monergistic. Where does either Calvinism or Arminanism teach Christ's propitiation for the whole world is also that He be the Judge of those who perish?

 

Mine.

More and more “doctrine of grace” folks are turning from the thinking of limiting the blood. But taking john’s statement “...not only for our (believers - and by some thinking Jewish believers) sins but also the sins of the whole world” in the fullest terms.

In doing so, it conforms the truth of the atonement as to being completely effective based upon belief, and not upon the insufficiency of blood.

We all sin, we are all going to physically die, for that is the wages of sin. The Lord’s blood was shed for the forgiveness of sin, but not the consequences - for all die.

Yet for believers, they pass from death to life (eternal) because of belief.

Paul preached reconciliation, in the letters he explained how reconciliation is brought, how it changes, how the changes are lived, and how the hope of the believer is secured.

So, although I embrace the doctrines of grace it is a very carefully thought through modified view.

Btw, in my opinion Flowers is showing the character of vain glory as he desires attention, seeks to be noticed, puff himself up.

Isn’t he still listed as a moderator establishing some of the rules on the BB?

 

Where in the word of God is that taught?

 

This is he: Skandelon. He hasn't been active on the board in awhile. He is active still, I believe, at Soteriology101.

 

If by "support it" you mean a detailed exegetical explanation, I suggest you used the advanced search feature and search by posts in the Calvinism/Arminian subforum. I have posted on this subject numerous times and in great detail. If you are looking for a basic primer on the subject, consider this:

Any soteriological system that pivots on the will of man is, by definition, synergistic, i.e. man cooperating with God in salvation.

Any soteriological system that subordinates man's will in relation to God's sovereign decree according to election is monergistic.

Provisionalism/Traditionalism pivots on the will of man. i.e. the individual has the free will to either accept or reject the gospel message. Calvinism pivots on the sovereign soteriological decree of God, in which the individual who is effectually called will also respond in faith.

 

Wasn't Skandelon Leighton Flowers? I may be wrong on his Baptist Board username.

 

Yes, that's him.