Why Provisionism Is Not Biblical

[Zaatar71]

Found this fine article from Reformation Today;

Why Provisionism Is Not Biblical​

Provisionism, a view popularized by Leighton Flowers, teaches that God has made salvation available to everyone and that anyone can choose to respond to that provision by exercising their faith. While this may sound reasonable or appealing, it does not align with what the Bible actually teaches about salvation.

1. It Denies How Deeply Sin Has Affected Humanity​

Provisionism assumes that people, in their natural state, can respond to God on their own. The Bible, however, is clear that human beings are spiritually dead because of sin. We cannot choose God by ourselves.

• John 6:44 says, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.”
• 1 Corinthians 2:14 says, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God.”
• Ephesians 2:1 says, “You were dead in your trespasses and sins.”

Being spiritually dead means we are completely unable to reach out to God on our own. Just as a dead person cannot bring themselves back to life, we cannot turn to God without Him first giving us life (Ephesians 2:5). Salvation is initiated by God, not by our effort or decision.

2. It Reverses the Biblical Order of Salvation​

Provisionism suggests that faith is something we produce first, and that faith allows God to save us. The Bible teaches the opposite: God must first give us new life, and that new life makes faith possible.

• 1 John 5:1 says, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.”
• John 3:3 says, “Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
• Acts 16:14 describes how God opened Lydia’s heart to respond to the gospel.

Faith is a result of God’s work in our hearts, not the starting point of salvation. We believe because God makes it possible for us to believe.

3. It Reduces God’s Role in Salvation​

Provisionism places the power of salvation in human hands. It suggests that God provides, but ultimately it is up to us to accept Him. Scripture, however, repeatedly emphasizes that salvation is entirely the work of God.

• Romans 9:16 says, “It depends not on human will or effort, but on God, who has mercy.”
• Ephesians 1:4 says, “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.”
• Acts 13:48 says, “As many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”

Faith itself is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8–9; Philippians 1:29). We do not save ourselves by deciding to believe; God’s mercy and initiative make salvation possible.

4. It Ignores the Transforming Work of the Holy Spirit​

Provisionism assumes that human hearts are capable of responding to God without divine help. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit must actively draw and change a person’s heart for salvation to happen.

• John 6:37 says, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.”
• Romans 8:30 says, “Those whom He predestined, He also called… justified… glorified.”

There is no neutral or naturally willing heart. Only the Spirit’s transforming work enables someone to turn to Christ in faith.

The Gospel Truth​

If salvation depended on our own ability to believe, it would no longer be grace—it would be something we earn or control. Scripture makes it clear that salvation comes entirely from God, so all glory goes to Christ.

• 1 Corinthians 1:30–31 says, “By His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness, sanctification and redemption… let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

Salvation is God’s work from beginning to end. He makes us alive, gives us faith, and secures our eternal life. Humans contribute nothing to our salvation except the sin that makes it necessary.

 

[DaveXR650]

Somebody told me that Dr. Flowers used to be a member on this site. I just thought that was remarkable. Tried to look up old posts but couldn't, the reason being that he claims to have taught Calvinism in the past and I wanted to see how he handled it then. I actually like listening to him and am just a little curious in that he sometimes uses arguments that are easily refuted by Calvinists and I question whether anyone could honestly claim his background and not know the obvious answers to what he sometimes argues.

That's not to say that some of his work, especially when he has the guy on who wrote "The Foundation of Augustinian Calvinism", that he does not make some good points. What I do is wait and see what is said about such a book and what I see is that it gets slammed, but not refuted point by point, which may say something. And that's interesting.

If you're interested, there is also a Lutheran on YouTube named Cooper who makes a pretty good case that Flowers is not Arminian but full on Pelagian, for what that is worth.

 

[JD731]

Found this fine article from Reformation Today;

​

4. It Ignores the Transforming Work of the Holy Spirit​

Provisionism assumes that human hearts are capable of responding to God without divine help. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit must actively draw and change a person’s heart for salvation to happen.

• John 6:37 says, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me.”
• Romans 8:30 says, “Those whom He predestined, He also called… justified… glorified.”

There is no neutral or naturally willing heart. Only the Spirit’s transforming work enables someone to turn to Christ in faith.

​

Nothing that Zaatar1 posted is true but here is a Biblical story that refutes what he claims about faith and the will.

John 20:19 Then the same day (resurrection day) at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

Until this time they had trouble believing he had risen from the dead so he offered them visual and convincing proof by showing them the scars in his body.

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Honest men will draw the correct conclusions concerning what and who was given to these men and on what basis he was given. Honest men will not argue that faith was given to them. Evidence was given so they would believe.

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Confirming truth.
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

This man Thomas had been with Jesus as his disciple for 3 years. Here is what happened 8 days later in Galillee when they next met with the resurrected Jesus and Thomas was with them there. He and those in whom he had sown doubt was mentioned by Matthew;

Mt 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Matthew just noted the doubters but John gives the details.

John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

The statement of Jesus to Thomas in verse 27 is incompatible with Calvinism's false teaching on faith and the will to believe. Faith is a command of Jesus, not a gift.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

[Zaatar71]

Nothing that Zaatar1 posted is true but here is a Biblical story that refutes what he claims about faith and the will.

John 20:19 Then the same day (resurrection day) at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

Until this time they had trouble believing he had risen from the dead so he offered them visual and convincing proof by showing them the scars in his body.

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Honest men will draw the correct conclusions concerning what and who was given to these men and on what basis he was given. Honest men will not argue that faith was given to them. Evidence was given so they would believe.

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Confirming truth.
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

This man Thomas had been with Jesus as his disciple for 3 years. Here is what happened 8 days later in Galillee when they next met with the resurrected Jesus and Thomas was with them there. He and those in whom he had sown doubt was mentioned by Matthew;

Mt 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Matthew just noted the doubters but John gives the details.

John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

The statement of Jesus to Thomas in verse 27 is incompatible with Calvinism's false teaching on faith and the will to believe. Faith is a command of Jesus, not a gift.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Your post seems to be unrelated to the truthful article posted. Did you post this by mistake?

 

[DaveXR650]

What I find in these debates is that we never get beyond throwing verses at each other and there really is no point. For instance, if you really look at what most Calvinists are saying, it turns out that the preemptive work of the Holy Spirit is work upon one's will. And they say the will is so much a part what you are that it is by definition impossible to distinguish this work, even if it is totally of the Holy Spirit, from just being your own decision. And therefore it baffles me that they would be perturbed at someone who claims they came to Christ based on their own free will when they agree they did, the only argument being in the origins of the change of will.

And regarding the will, I agree, mostly with Edwards in that the problem with us is our inclinations and the fact we don't tend to want Christ or find him attractive or worth our attention in our natural state. The idea is that all our desires and choices come from somewhere and while the choices are truly ours, the inclinations to do those choices are not self determined. Our choices, though free as humans, are not autonomous in origin.

Yet, I have found this not to be completely true. There are things one can do to influence your own inclinations and thus you can get into an endless debate of how the decision to do the thing that influences your inclinations was determined. Was that autonomous? The fact is, who knows. I have determined myself that I won't knock someone like Flowers, or Lennox, or Craig, who have a much higher view of self determination than I might be inclined to have. They could very well be right. In the scope of things today and how Western civilization is going we need all hands on deck.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Somebody told me that Dr. Flowers used to be a member on this site. I just thought that was remarkable. Tried to look up old posts but couldn't, the reason being that he claims to have taught Calvinism in the past and I wanted to see how he handled it then. I actually like listening to him and am just a little curious in that he sometimes uses arguments that are easily refuted by Calvinists and I question whether anyone could honestly claim his background and not know the obvious answers to what he sometimes argues.

That's not to say that some of his work, especially when he has the guy on who wrote "The Foundation of Augustinian Calvinism", that he does not make some good points. What I do is wait and see what is said about such a book and what I see is that it gets slammed, but not refuted point by point, which may say something. And that's interesting.

If you're interested, there is also a Lutheran on YouTube named Cooper who makes a pretty good case that Flowers is not Arminian but full on Pelagian, for what that is worth.

I believe that Flowers was on the website when I first joined. He had a nom de plume and I can't remember what it was.
I agree that Flowers does seem to be Pelagian.

 

[Tea]

I believe that Flowers was on the website when I first joined. He had a nom de plume and I can't remember what it was.

I did some digging, and it looks like he went by @Skandelon.

 

[Zaatar71]

What I find in these debates is that we never get beyond throwing verses at each other and there really is no point. For instance, if you really look at what most Calvinists are saying, it turns out that the preemptive work of the Holy Spirit is work upon one's will. And they say the will is so much a part what you are that it is by definition impossible to distinguish this work, even if it is totally of the Holy Spirit, from just being your own decision. And therefore it baffles me that they would be perturbed at someone who claims they came to Christ based on their own free will when they agree they did, the only argument being in the origins of the change of will.

And regarding the will, I agree, mostly with Edwards in that the problem with us is our inclinations and the fact we don't tend to want Christ or find him attractive or worth our attention in our natural state. The idea is that all our desires and choices come from somewhere and while the choices are truly ours, the inclinations to do those choices are not self determined. Our choices, though free as humans, are not autonomous in origin.

Yet, I have found this not to be completely true. There are things one can do to influence your own inclinations and thus you can get into an endless debate of how the decision to do the thing that influences your inclinations was determined. Was that autonomous? The fact is, who knows. I have determined myself that I won't knock someone like Flowers, or Lennox, or Craig, who have a much higher view of self determination than I might be inclined to have. They could very well be right. In the scope of things today and how Western civilization is going we need all hands on deck.

Hello DaveXR650,Let me address your points separately; You said;

[In the scope of things today and how Western civilization is going we need all hands on deck.]

In terms of Christians vs. Islam, or RC, church, or Cults, and world religions, Yes we do stand together as best we can.
Jerry Falwell and the "moral majority" was an attempt to unite a broad range among professing Christendom against societal evils, abortion, drugs, sodomites etc. It gathered in people from churches, and perhaps even cults to stand for morals and against moral evils. It was flawed in that it even made alliances with those who denied the Trinity, but at least were against the evils identified. It fell apart eventually, because it was a mixed multitude.
That being said a distinction must be made between those broad issues, and more specific truth

 

[Zaatar71]

I did some digging, and it looks like he went by @Skandelon.

That is helpful.

 

[Zaatar71]

DaveXR650, Your first point spoke of the difference between a God centered Soteriology, and a man centered soteriology. You said this;

[And therefore it baffles me that they would be perturbed at someone who claims they came to Christ based on their own free will when they agree they did, the only argument being in the origins of the change of will.]

That is a massive difference however! At the heart of it, is does God save completely, or is the work and effort of man co-equal with God's work? To put it another way;

Is a spiritually dead sinner able to save himself by coming to God of his own, will/volition?
,
OR
Is he indeed spiritually dead in Adam, and in need of Spirit given life by new birth, enabling his dead will to have life and come to God most willingly?

Can a person think they are freely coming to Jesus, when in truth it is the Effectual call of God drawing them savingly, yes they can, but will come to find out it was God the whole time. Not a small or insignificant difference to be "smoothed over".

 

[DaveXR650]

Can a person think they are freely coming to Jesus, when in truth it is the Effectual call of God drawing them savingly, yes they can, but will come to find out it was God the whole time. Not a small or insignificant difference to be "smoothed over".

Yeah, this is apparently what Spurgeon did as he himself described it. I do think it should be smoothed over. I see the truth of Calvinism and, I also see plenty of passages of scripture where the exchange would be meaningless and absurd if God or an apostle was not speaking to people as if there was a real free will interaction going on.

In addition, I have extensively read and re read many of the best of the Puritans and I have noticed something. They may not have at a practical level, functioned at the level of determinism that modern internet Calvinists are functioning at. For instance, Owen has a whole book on how to avoid apostacy which should be impossible for a true believer. Now I understand that warning against apostacy may be a means to keep a person who is truly saved from falling into it thus fitting in perfectly as being a cause of God's keeping, yet, I have to admit there is an argument that for the warning to have any real meaning, the possibility must in some sense be real - and possible.

In addition, Owen said at one point that reading scripture, observing the sacraments, and hearing preaching might indeed increase the likelihood of further work by the Holy Spirit and thus increase the chances you will eventually believe. He also warned that one should not refuse calling or conviction of the Holy Spirit because it may eventually be withdrawn leaving a person with no chance of coming to Christ. Decide for yourself but I have to admit that that implies a level of free will that may not fit with extreme determinism. And this is Owen we are talking about.

I look at Edwards, one of my favorites. In one of his sermons that I have he says that "Christ has died, all is prepared for you. The only thing lacking is your consent". Ask yourself. Does that fit the description of salvation that some of the new Calvinists are giving? I'm not saying it can't, as preaching like that will effectually call in the elect and the others will reject. Fair enough, but I am not going to be too tough on someone who perceives that as a true and open invitation. And in fact, I do try to smooth things over in that I don't care how Calvinistic or deterministic you insist theology should be in order to be correct but I do demand this: that the gospel "offer" or invitation as it were is actual and real in the sense that anyone who comes to Christ he has directly promised to save. That again, is from Owen.

Now do our non-Calvinist brothers (and I mean brothers) do the same thing? Absolutely. There is a really good movie about C.S. Lewis called "The Most Reluctant Convert". It's Lewis's own story told in his own words and he describes himself as an unwilling and obstinate individual who was literally pursued by God until he finally believed. And he admits he cannot explain how it happened, though the movie is an attempt to do so. It's probably the most Calvinistic description of salvation by a non-Calvinist that you will ever see. Just like Wesley's hymn "And Can it Be" has a line "Long my imprisoned spirit lay, fast bound by sin and nature's night. Thine eye diffused a quickening ray, I woke, the dungeon flamed with light. My chains fell off, my heart was free. (and then and only then) I rose, went forth and followed thee."

So, that's why I basically do think we should work on a lot of "smoothing over". A long time ago a Calvinist on here took someone to task for using Revelation 3:20 incorrectly he said, as an invitation passage. When I pointed our and gave the references to 4 or 5 well know Calvinist theologians using that passage like an invitation he was rather unhappy. My contention is that these systems of theology are useful as guide rails to prevent going off into error but they unwisely used as an end all thing to follow without question.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Reformation Today

Be skeptical of anything endorsed by any "Reformation" source. For instance, RT endorses Consubstantiationism (new term?), rebirth by baptism - neither of which is Scriptural.

 

[Zaatar71]

Yeah, this is apparently what Spurgeon did as he himself described it. I do think it should be smoothed over. I see the truth of Calvinism and, I also see plenty of passages of scripture where the exchange would be meaningless and absurd if God or an apostle was not speaking to people as if there was a real free will interaction going on.

In addition, I have extensively read and re read many of the best of the Puritans and I have noticed something. They may not have at a practical level, functioned at the level of determinism that modern internet Calvinists are functioning at. For instance, Owen has a whole book on how to avoid apostacy which should be impossible for a true believer. Now I understand that warning against apostacy may be a means to keep a person who is truly saved from falling into it thus fitting in perfectly as being a cause of God's keeping, yet, I have to admit there is an argument that for the warning to have any real meaning, the possibility must in some sense be real - and possible.

In addition, Owen said at one point that reading scripture, observing the sacraments, and hearing preaching might indeed increase the likelihood of further work by the Holy Spirit and thus increase the chances you will eventually believe. He also warned that one should not refuse calling or conviction of the Holy Spirit because it may eventually be withdrawn leaving a person with no chance of coming to Christ. Decide for yourself but I have to admit that that implies a level of free will that may not fit with extreme determinism. And this is Owen we are talking about.

I look at Edwards, one of my favorites. In one of his sermons that I have he says that "Christ has died, all is prepared for you. The only thing lacking is your consent". Ask yourself. Does that fit the description of salvation that some of the new Calvinists are giving? I'm not saying it can't, as preaching like that will effectually call in the elect and the others will reject. Fair enough, but I am not going to be too tough on someone who perceives that as a true and open invitation. And in fact, I do try to smooth things over in that I don't care how Calvinistic or deterministic you insist theology should be in order to be correct but I do demand this: that the gospel "offer" or invitation as it were is actual and real in the sense that anyone who comes to Christ he has directly promised to save. That again, is from Owen.

Now do our non-Calvinist brothers (and I mean brothers) do the same thing? Absolutely. There is a really good movie about C.S. Lewis called "The Most Reluctant Convert". It's Lewis's own story told in his own words and he describes himself as an unwilling and obstinate individual who was literally pursued by God until he finally believed. And he admits he cannot explain how it happened, though the movie is an attempt to do so. It's probably the most Calvinistic description of salvation by a non-Calvinist that you will ever see. Just like Wesley's hymn "And Can it Be" has a line "Long my imprisoned spirit lay, fast bound by sin and nature's night. Thine eye diffused a quickening ray, I woke, the dungeon flamed with light. My chains fell off, my heart was free. (and then and only then) I rose, went forth and followed thee."

So, that's why I basically do think we should work on a lot of "smoothing over". A long time ago a Calvinist on here took someone to task for using Revelation 3:20 incorrectly he said, as an invitation passage. When I pointed our and gave the references to 4 or 5 well know Calvinist theologians using that passage like an invitation he was rather unhappy. My contention is that these systems of theology are useful as guide rails to prevent going off into error but they unwisely used as an end all thing to follow without question.

Thanks for expressing your thoughts. I am glad you are constantly working on your understanding.

 

[Zaatar71]

Be skeptical of anything endorsed by any "Reformation" source. For instance, RT endorses Consubstantiationism (new term?), rebirth by baptism - neither of which is Scriptural.

Well .it is a good caution to keep in mind with any source. They agree on about 85% of things, the remaining 15 percent, is where some go one way, some go another

 

[Silverhair]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I did some digging, and it looks like he went by @Skandelon.

That's the chap!

 

[Zaatar71]

View attachment 13027

Like I said, Pelagian at it's core, confused as to it's understanding of the cross! Thanks for sharing and exposing this error.

 

[Silverhair]

So your saying that any theological system that uses the biblical text as it's support is Pelagian to it's core. That must include your calvinism . Both your WCF & LBCF do the same thing Z.

I have pointed out the errors of calvinism many times and you still support that pagan view,. Why is the Z? If you cannot even see the error in calvinism you are not qualified to judge others understanding of scripture.

 

[Zaatar71]

So your saying that any theological system that uses the biblical text as it's support is Pelagian to it's core. That must include your calvinism . Both your WCF & LBCF do the same thing Z.

I have pointed out the errors of calvinism many times and you still support that pagan view,. Why is the Z? If you cannot even see the error in calvinism you are not qualified to judge others understanding of scripture.

Do you know what is meant by Pelagian?

what is pelagianism - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

 

[JD731]

What I find in these debates is that we never get beyond throwing verses at each other and there really is no point.

I did not intend to throw any verses. I intended to quote from the source of doctrine, the scriptures. This in a setting where Jesus addressed the very issue of the will. Are there scriptures that says something different?

Dave, to whom would you suggest we go to find the truth? What would be the point of Jesus proving his bodily resurrection to Thomas by showing his wounds if the plan was just to infuse faith in him?

There is no truth to the doctrine that faith to believe the saving gospel of Jesus Christ is the gift of God because a sinner does not have a will.

Your post seems to be unrelated to the truthful article posted. Did you post this by mistake?

No mistake, Zaatar71, I made the point that the whole article is an error and I singled out one of those Calvinistic doctrines to prove it. I could have chosen any of them. However I am just being blunt, not mean. I would like to see you use your own free will to believe the truth.