Semi-Pelagianism and Leighton Flowers

[DaveXR650]

People are posting videos of Leighton Flowers on this site. He's good and I think he gives Calvinists fits in many areas. I have recently become familiar with his work and have noticed a couple of things, one of which is that I think he is Semi-Pelagian. So I thought the above was interesting since he put it up himself.

He does a good job of defining the term in a way that disparages anyone who would use it on him. Does anyone though, know of a video or writing where he indicates that he is not Semi-Pelagian, rather than just that it is offensive to label him as such.

 

[Silverhair]

People are posting videos of Leighton Flowers on this site. He's good and I think he gives Calvinists fits in many areas. I have recently become familiar with his work and have noticed a couple of things, one of which is that I think he is Semi-Pelagian. So I thought the above was interesting since he put it up himself.

He does a good job of defining the term in a way that disparages anyone who would use it on him. Does anyone though, know of a video or writing where he indicates that he is not Semi-Pelagian, rather than just that it is offensive to label him as such.

Did you not listen to the video? How could he have made it any clearer?

 

[DaveXR650]

@Silverhair. He made it clear that he is offended by the term. And I thought he accurately defined the term. What he didn't do was say anything that indicated he disagreed with the meaning of the term - even as he himself defined it. One thing I don't like about Flowers is that he does this a lot. He goes right into debate technique mode (and he admits this himself right in the video) and then into outrage over the way he has been treated, without explaining what he does believe.

I noticed that once again you have led your reply with an insult, which is your tendency. Yes. I watched the video. I have watched a lot of his videos, though not all of them, and I have so far not found anything that would indicate to me that he is not Semi-Pelagian. I would think, if that term is offensive to you, you would either refute that you are one or at least come up with an alternative term. "Provisionist" won't do. As far as I know he coined it himself and is not authorized to claim that it is the traditional view of Southern Baptists.

I am not against the idea that God has provided everything necessary for our salvation and the only thing lacking is our response. What I am not sure about though, is the idea that we have an innate ability, naturally ours, that gives us the complete ability, without the Holy Spirit's help, to decide to come to Christ. I have so far not come across anything in Flowers videos that indicate to me that he does not believe this is the case - which means he exactly follows the definition of a semi-Pelagian. He des say that the gospel message is inspired but he comes short of saying that therefore it can exert a supernatural power on the soul of a person thus enabling them or encouraging them to believe.

If you know differently, put up the video or quote. He has a million videos and I could have easily missed one. It also bothers me when he puts up this what I think is fake outrage, when he does the same exact thing to Calvinists when he accuses them of being semi-gnostic and posts multiple videos of a guy making the case that Calvinism is reworked Manicheanism. Isn't that exactly what he is griping about?

 

[JonC]

People are posting videos of Leighton Flowers on this site. He's good and I think he gives Calvinists fits in many areas. I have recently become familiar with his work and have noticed a couple of things, one of which is that I think he is Semi-Pelagian. So I thought the above was interesting since he put it up himself.

He does a good job of defining the term in a way that disparages anyone who would use it on him. Does anyone though, know of a video or writing where he indicates that he is not Semi-Pelagian, rather than just that it is offensive to label him as such.

I don't watch his videos....much...
because he often misrepresent Calvinists in order to "win" his argument (and at his core he holds a lot of Calvinism I think is wrong). But he does make some good points at times.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair. He made it clear that he is offended by the term. And I thought he accurately defined the term. What he didn't do was say anything that indicated he disagreed with the meaning of the term - even as he himself defined it. One thing I don't like about Flowers is that he does this a lot. He goes right into debate technique mode (and he admits this himself right in the video) and then into outrage over the way he has been treated, without explaining what he does believe.

I noticed that once again you have led your reply with an insult, which is your tendency. Yes. I watched the video. I have watched a lot of his videos, though not all of them, and I have so far not found anything that would indicate to me that he is not Semi-Pelagian. I would think, if that term is offensive to you, you would either refute that you are one or at least come up with an alternative term. "Provisionist" won't do. As far as I know he coined it himself and is not authorized to claim that it is the traditional view of Southern Baptists.

I am not against the idea that God has provided everything necessary for our salvation and the only thing lacking is our response. What I am not sure about though, is the idea that we have an innate ability, naturally ours, that gives us the complete ability, without the Holy Spirit's help, to decide to come to Christ. I have so far not come across anything in Flowers videos that indicate to me that he does not believe this is the case - which means he exactly follows the definition of a semi-Pelagian. He des say that the gospel message is inspired but he comes short of saying that therefore it can exert a supernatural power on the soul of a person thus enabling them or encouraging them to believe.

If you know differently, put up the video or quote. He has a million videos and I could have easily missed one. It also bothers me when he puts up this what I think is fake outrage, when he does the same exact thing to Calvinists when he accuses them of being semi-gnostic and posts multiple videos of a guy making the case that Calvinism is reworked Manicheanism. Isn't that exactly what he is griping about?

Dave did you not see the ???? marks. No insult just wondering how you came to the conclusions you have. Yes he did define how a Semi-Pelagian approaches salvation but since you did say you actually did watch the video it just shows how little you actually listened.

1:56 traditional Southern Baptist, sometimes
1:58 referred to as provisionism, outright
2:01 deny this perspective. We teach that God
2:04 created mankind as responders and God is
2:07 always the initiator in the process
2:10 leading up to our salvation. God's
2:13 gracious initiative always precedes
2:16 man's response on provisionism, always

2:21 Dr. Adam Harwood in the journal of
2:24 Baptist theology and ministry wrote the
2:26 traditional statement in no way
2:28 prioritizes the human will over the
2:31 grace of God in the initial work of
2:33 salvation

God, as I have said numerous times, has provided the information to know Him whether creation, conviction of sin or even the gospel message but man still has to respond to that information. Calvinist such as yourself seem unable or more likely unwilling to grasp that simple biblical concept. You require God to give you faith after you are saved even though you were chosen prior to creation so why you actually need faith is a question that no calvinist can actually give a good answer to.

I have to wonder how much clearer God could have made it so that you could grasp what the bible is telling you. God is calling lost sinners to repentance and wants all to come to repentance and holds them responsible for the choices they make. So considering that do you really think He then says but only those that I pick out or give special grace to will be able to come to me. Would that not call His character into question? Yes it would.

God calls lost sinners to repentance
1] through creation Romans 1:20
2] the conviction of the Holy Spirit John 16:8-9
3] the gospel message Romans 1:16
4] observing Christians lives 1 Peter 2:12

When you complain about being labeled as a semi-gnostic perhaps you should look in your own backyard first. If you do not want to have that label then you should ditch that various views that have there foundation in Manicheanism.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Silverhair. The minutes you listed above are interesting to me in that I am saying that Flowers is I think deliberately obscuring what is actually meant by the concept of man's will preceding God's grace. The question here is does man have the natural ability without any aid from the direct action of the Holy Spirit - to evaluate the gospel message and make use of the provisions of Christ's atoning sacrifice and offer of pardon by believing and repenting - on his own. No one is arguing that those provisions do not precede any action or any movement by man, or that man can take some kind of initiative towards real salvation before knowing about the gospel.

Why does Arminius say "I say then, that it is very plain from the Scriptures, that repentance and faith cannot be exercised except by the gift of God"? And, if you are tempted to say that this means that the gift of God just means the provision of the finished work of Christ and the gospel message Arminius goes on to say in the same context, "For God has determined to save them who believe by the preaching of the word, and the preaching of the word, without the cooperation of the Holy Spirit is useless, and can effect nothing." Look at Richard Baxter and his take on this. "Beloved friends, if the Lord had not awakened me to believe and to lay to heart these things myself, I should have remained in a dark and selfish state, and have perished for ever".

Clearly, both of those guys, neither one Calvinists, fully believed that a direct action of the Holy Spirit is at work whenever anyone gets saved. I do not see that in the video of Flowers that I have posted. He insists that the information and work of Christ is first, but he is not arguing in the video that a work of the Spirit, directly on the heart of the person, is necessary in order for them to come to Christ." And while the Lutheran fellow is correctly pointing out that the term Semi-Pelagian can have a negative connotation he does not try to make a case that that is what Flowers is or is not teaching in that video. In fact, it is not clear that he is even aware his comments are going to be used to clear Flowers from the charge of semi-Pelagianism.

What Flowers does here is very smart and very subtle. His claim that Semi-Pelagianism is where man initiates the salvation process is obscure at best. Like I said, semi-Pelagianism does not do this. What a semi-Pelagian believes is just that man was not so injured by the fall that he is unable to, on his own, respond to the gospel message and the finished work of Christ unaided by the Holy Spirit. I don't have anything against semi-Pelagians. For all I know they might be right. But I have discovered that this differs from Arminian, Baxterian, Wesleyan theology, and I think even the theology of Aquinas.

So once again, what I am trying to find out is whether anyone who is familiar with the work of Flowers can point me to something he has posted or written that indicates he believes that the Holy Spirit must directly work on a person before they can be saved. I'm not saying this is easy. I have read that Edwards and Owen, in some of their fairly brutal attacks on Arminianism, were actually arguing against semi-Pelagianism, so this does matter if one is trying to figure all this out. And once again, just to be clear, I am of the belief that all the guys above, from the past and including Dr. Flowers and the Lutheran are completely orthodox fellow believers and this though I think important, is not a primary issue.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair. The minutes you listed above are interesting to me in that I am saying that Flowers is I think deliberately obscuring what is actually meant by the concept of man's will preceding God's grace. The question here is does man have the natural ability without any aid from the direct action of the Holy Spirit - to evaluate the gospel message and make use of the provisions of Christ's atoning sacrifice and offer of pardon by believing and repenting - on his own. No one is arguing that those provisions do not precede any action or any movement by man, or that man can take some kind of initiative towards real salvation before knowing about the gospel.

Why does Arminius say "I say then, that it is very plain from the Scriptures, that repentance and faith cannot be exercised except by the gift of God"? And, if you are tempted to say that this means that the gift of God just means the provision of the finished work of Christ and the gospel message Arminius goes on to say in the same context, "For God has determined to save them who believe by the preaching of the word, and the preaching of the word, without the cooperation of the Holy Spirit is useless, and can effect nothing." Look at Richard Baxter and his take on this. "Beloved friends, if the Lord had not awakened me to believe and to lay to heart these things myself, I should have remained in a dark and selfish state, and have perished for ever".

Clearly, both of those guys, neither one Calvinists, fully believed that a direct action of the Holy Spirit is at work whenever anyone gets saved. I do not see that in the video of Flowers that I have posted. He insists that the information and work of Christ is first, but he is not arguing in the video that a work of the Spirit, directly on the heart of the person, is necessary in order for them to come to Christ." And while the Lutheran fellow is correctly pointing out that the term Semi-Pelagian can have a negative connotation he does not try to make a case that that is what Flowers is or is not teaching in that video. In fact, it is not clear that he is even aware his comments are going to be used to clear Flowers from the charge of semi-Pelagianism.

What Flowers does here is very smart and very subtle. His claim that Semi-Pelagianism is where man initiates the salvation process is obscure at best. Like I said, semi-Pelagianism does not do this. What a semi-Pelagian believes is just that man was not so injured by the fall that he is unable to, on his own, respond to the gospel message and the finished work of Christ unaided by the Holy Spirit. I don't have anything against semi-Pelagians. For all I know they might be right. But I have discovered that this differs from Arminian, Baxterian, Wesleyan theology, and I think even the theology of Aquinas.

So once again, what I am trying to find out is whether anyone who is familiar with the work of Flowers can point me to something he has posted or written that indicates he believes that the Holy Spirit must directly work on a person before they can be saved. I'm not saying this is easy. I have read that Edwards and Owen, in some of their fairly brutal attacks on Arminianism, were actually arguing against semi-Pelagianism, so this does matter if one is trying to figure all this out. And once again, just to be clear, I am of the belief that all the guys above, from the past and including Dr. Flowers and the Lutheran are completely orthodox fellow believers and this though I think important, is not a primary issue.

I understand that you want a clear action from the Holy Spirit before one can believe but the bible does not show that. Think through what you are asking for and the logical outcome.

If you require the Holy Spirit to have a decisive action/influence on a person before they can believe the gospel message or any other information about God then you are removing all responsibility from man. If the Holy Spirit does not do as you require by your stated view then it is impossible for the man to come to God. But if you say he is still responsible for not coming to God because he chose not to come you have to answer how is that possible for him to do when the Holy Spirit has not made it possible.

Plus you set up a conflict in the Godhead. God the Father wants all to come to Him, the Son draws all to Him but the Holy Spirit only gives that ability to a limited few.

Actually I do not care about Arminian, Baxterian, Wesleyan theology, or even the theology of Aquinas. I have been a Christian for over 60 yrs and have not based my theology on what any of them have said. My trust in God came from the biblical text.

As I see it you are more concerned that Flowers or even me can be labeled as semi-Pelagian because that allows you to see your calvinist view as the correct one. As I see calvinism it throws up roadblocks and wants to narrow down who can be saved via your TULIP/DoG whereas God makes salvation available to all that will trust in Him.

At the end of the day one is not saved by being an Arminian or Calvinist or Wesleyan we are all saved by God because we have trusted in Him for our salvation.

 

[DaveXR650]

I understand that you want a clear action from the Holy Spirit before one can believe but the bible does not show that. Think through what you are asking for and the logical outcome.

It would actually be a lot simpler to explain things if that were the case but it does seem that several scriptures indicate certain spiritual things are revealed by the Spirit and that men do tend to not seek after such things on their own. Without spending a lot of time here, as this could be it's own thread, let me just say that in my opinion we as humans seek those things which we are motivated to seek. And unlike everything else we seek after, the Bible clearly states we don't naturally have such a motivation to seek after Christ. However; I do admit that it may well be that clearly telling someone they have offended God and are on their way to Hell may indeed be a sufficient source of motivation to make someone at least think. Maybe you're right.

If the Holy Spirit does not do as you require by your stated view then it is impossible for the man to come to God.

We've been through all that before and like I said before, if the problem is man not coming because he really doesn't want to or choose to on his own then he is certainly blameable, and you could still call that an "inability".

As I see it you are more concerned that Flowers or even me can be labeled as semi-Pelagian because that allows you to see your calvinist view as the correct one.

What I'm looking at here is that the view of free will that Flowers has is not just opposed by Calvinists but Arminians, Wesleyans and even some Catholics. The Semi-Pelagian view is common among Baptists, my old pastor was one, and like everything else it is more of a spectrum than a set theology. As you know you have a spectrum on free will from Hyper-Calvinist all the way to Pelagian and everything in between. I just happen to think that it's important to know where Flowers is on this and I am assuming that you cannot point me to any video where he claims not to be Semi-Pelagian or any other word for the same thing that you can think of.

 

[DaveXR650]

Following up @Silverhair . If I did this right, the above video, right at the 20 minute mark goes into some of the exact things I was trying to say. I just discovered this, by looking up the guy from Flowers's video at the opening post so I haven't heard it all but I thought it might be interesting. I don't claim to know who is finally right on this but thought it might be interesting for anyone else who has the same questions.

 

[DaveXR650]

Sorry. I didn't get the above video to go to the 20 minute mark automatically so if your time is limited manually move to the 20 minute mark.
Also, the above video points out another problem I have with Flowers and that is the way he uses clips from videos of others and either debates them by cutting and using selected clips or as in the video from the OP, he edits the person to make them appear to agree with him, which it seems is not really the case, at least here.

 

[Silverhair]

It would actually be a lot simpler to explain things if that were the case but it does seem that several scriptures indicate certain spiritual things are revealed by the Spirit and that men do tend to not seek after such things on their own. Without spending a lot of time here, as this could be it's own thread, let me just say that in my opinion we as humans seek those things which we are motivated to seek. And unlike everything else we seek after, the Bible clearly states we don't naturally have such a motivation to seek after Christ. However; I do admit that it may well be that clearly telling someone they have offended God and are on their way to Hell may indeed be a sufficient source of motivation to make someone at least think. Maybe you're right.

I do agree that men are motivated to seek after what we desire to know. That is why I believe that God uses various means to draw people to Himself. Not all people are
motivated by the same things. It could be hearing a hymn or seeing a sunset or the stars at night or even the gospel message. I truly believe that our God is a gracious and loving God that wants all to come to a saving knowledge.

We've been through all that before and like I said before, if the problem is man not coming because he really doesn't want to or choose to on his own then he is certainly blameable, and you could still call that an "inability".

But what you continue to overlook is your view that the Holy Spirit must make the decisive action prior to the man being able to trust in God. So if no decisive action then the man can not trust in God can he. Your view makes a mockery of the many times that we are told to respond to the gospel message as there is a consequence for denying it. From scripture we see that God expects man to make real choices.

What I'm looking at here is that the view of free will that Flowers has is not just opposed by Calvinists but Arminians, Wesleyans and even some Catholics. The Semi-Pelagian view is common among Baptists, my old pastor was one, and like everything else it is more of a spectrum than a set theology. As you know you have a spectrum on free will from Hyper-Calvinist all the way to Pelagian and everything in between. I just happen to think that it's important to know where Flowers is on this and I am assuming that you cannot point me to any video where he claims not to be Semi-Pelagian or any other word for the same thing that you can think of.

From what I have heard of Flowers he is quite clear that we have to hold fast to scripture. The fact he does not agree with calvinism does not make him a Semi-Pelagian. Although I am sure you will disagree with that. My main concern is that the Gnostic view seems to be quite common among those that hold to the TULIP/DoG and as we have seen it runs from the Hyper through to the Moderate calvinist.

That is why I am glad that I did not run into either the A or C view as I do not fully agree with either. I think both views want to uphold the character of God but as both are man-made views they both fall short. Although I do see the Arminian view is closer to the bible than Calvinism.

 

[DaveXR650]

The fact he does not agree with calvinism does not make him a Semi-Pelagian. Although I am sure you will disagree with that.

What makes someone Semi-Pelagian is that their views line up with semi-Pelagianism.

But what you continue to overlook is your view that the Holy Spirit must make the decisive action prior to the man being able to trust in God. So if no decisive action then the man can not trust in God can he.

If men are able by their own natural ability to evaluate the facts of the gospel and then decide for Christ on their own - that is indeed semi-Pelagianism. In truth, that is closer to flat out Pelagianism as Cooper points out in the video above. If God brings about faith in someone by arranging trials, circumstances, illnesses, setbacks, good gospel witnesses, exposure to scripture and so on and you are willing to believe that those things were essential and therefore primary causes of someone's coming to Christ, yet as you notice, there is not a direct action of the Holy Spirit directly on the heart of the person - then you would I think be more semi-Pelagian. According to Cooper, and I haven't heard much of him yet, but he seems to me to think that Provisionism is actually closer to Pelagianism.

What makes this complicated is that a regular historic Calvinist also believes in all those things above being sovereignly used by God to work faith in a person. But they also believe that the Holy Spirit acts directly upon the heart of a person at the minimum to enlighten, awaken, and convict.

The practical importance of this as a Baptist is the following. Many Baptists have always historically put a high stock in the Holy Spirit being the direct driver of someone getting saved or responding to a witness. Sermons constantly warned of the dangers of resisting a felt pull or prompting of the Holy Spirit leading you to salvation. (Calvinist Puritan era sermons constantly did this too.) Flowers to me, seems to go beyond this to the idea that we are unimpaired and free enough naturally that this is not necessary. Then he claims this to be the "traditional" Baptist view. I don't think it is. I think the traditional Baptist view is a mild type of Calvinism that denies a limited atonement and believes this grace is resistible. It differs from Arminianism in that it believes, like the Calvinists, that a true Christian will persevere to the end, always. And it differs from the Calvinists in that it does not have the tendency to emphasize the sovereignty of God to the point where man does not have a real responsibility to respond, and a real possibility of refusing to respond.

My open question is still this. Does Flowers system of "Provisionism" have a place in it for a direct pull or action on the heart of a person by the Holy Spirit? I understand he maintains that God has acted first towards us in providing an offer of forgiveness and redemption through the prior actions of Christ. And I realize he teaches that the gospel message must be heard before anyone can believe. I haven't come across anything that indicated he does, so far.

This question is extremely important for people who might stumble across Flowers's videos without realizing where he may be going with this.

 

[kyredneck]

he often misrepresent Calvinists in order to "win" his argument

That was his m.o. as 'Skandelon' on this board years ago (actually it's the m.o. of a lot of anti-Cals these days).

 

[JonC]

That was his m.o. as 'Skandelon' on this board years ago (actually it's the m.o. of a lot of anti-Cals these days).

Unfortunately obtaining "victory" by misrepresenting the opposing views is and has been the m.o. of most whe enter the calv vs arm discussion, regardless of which camp they have chosen.

I have seen anti-Calvinists misrepresent Calvinism as "cosmic child abuse", faitalism, making men into "robots", etc.

But I have also seen Calvinists misrepresent free-will theology as denying divine sovereignty, making men the author of their own salvation, denying salvation by grace, etc.


It is the m.o. of the ignorant, those who do not understand positions other than their own and in the end do not truly understand their own position.

 

[DaveXR650]

That was his m.o. as 'Skandelon' on this board years ago (actually it's the m.o. of a lot of anti-Cals these days).

That is him! That's pretty funny.

 

[Dave G]

why you actually need faith is a question that no calvinist can actually give a good answer to

Scripture itself answers that question, Silverhair:
" But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." ( Hebrew 11:6 ).

I understand that you want a clear action from the Holy Spirit before one can believe but the bible does not show that.

Yes, it does:

Acts of the Apostles 16:14
Romans 8:29-30.
Ephesians 1:3-14.
Ephesians 2:1-10

Please read these again, sir...
The answer to who ( God's elect, those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world ) and when ( before they believed, when they were dead in their sins ) is right in the words themselves.

 

[Silverhair]

Scripture itself answers that question, Silverhair:
" But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." ( Hebrew 11:6 ).

Yes, it does:

Acts of the Apostles 16:14
Romans 8:29-30.
Ephesians 1:3-14.
Ephesians 2:1-10

Please read these again, sir...
The answer to who and when is right in the words themselves.

If you are going to quote me then at least have the courtesy to use the full quote in context. Your approach is less than ethical.

"You require God to give you faith after you are saved even though you were chosen prior to creation so why you actually need faith is a question that no calvinist can actually give a good answer to."

So the question still stands, why do you calvinists need faith to be saved. By your own theology your lack of faith will have on impact.

For the absolutely elect must have been saved without him; and the non-elect cannot be saved by him

So if you are going to attempt to answer the question then at least be honest and answer the question asked.

 

[Dave G]

If you are going to quote me then at least have the courtesy to use the full quote in context.

I quoted what I felt was pertinent.
Please forgive me if you think I'm trying to place what you said in a bad light.

Your approach is less than ethical.

My intention was anything but unethical, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

So the question still stands, why do you calvinists need faith to be saved.

Sir, I'm not a "Calvinist", I'm a blood-bought child of the living God...
I'm a Christian, saved by grace through faith.

So if you are going to attempt to answer the question then at least be honest and answer the question asked.

To answer the question:
Because the Bible says that faith is a necessary evidence of one's being saved and called with an holy calling.
It also says that without faith it is impossible to please God.

May He bless you in many ways.

 

[Silverhair]

I quoted what I felt was pertinent.
Please forgive me if you think I'm trying to place what you said in a bad light.

My intention was anything but unethical, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

Sir, I'm not a "Calvinist", I'm a blood-bought child of the living God...
I'm a Christian, saved by grace through faith.

To answer the question:
Because the Bible says that faith is a necessary evidence of one's being saved and called with an holy calling.
It also says that without faith it is impossible to please God.

May He bless you in many ways.

I understand that you quoted what you thought was pertinent but in doing so you completely changed what I said.

I referred to it as unethical because I have had more than one poster on here do the same thing in the attempt to twist what I had said. My apologies.

As you may have noted the comment/questiion was directed to calvinists and their theology of election prior to creation.

Actually the bible says that faith is a necessary evidence before one is saved. We are not saved so we will believe but because we do believe.

Romans 10:9-10 is clear in this:
There are two conditions stated in vs 9
if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord
and
{if you} believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead
{then} you will be saved

The person may or may not complete the actions in question.

Read Romans 10:8-14 to understand this teaching in context

 

[Dave G]

Actually the bible says that faith is a necessary evidence before one is saved. We are not saved so we will believe but because we do believe.

...and that is where we disagree, I'm sorry to say.

On my end, you appear to see it as "conditional" ( probably because of Romans 4:1-9 ), and because of election ( what Paul wrote to the churches in Romans 8, Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, for example ), as well as what the Lord tells us in the below, I see it as evidential:

" Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.:" ( Hebrews 11:1 ).

" For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:" ( Ephesians 2:8 )