Why Provisionism Is Not Biblical

[kyredneck]

Tried to look up old posts

Something has changed, can't do it anymore, site no longer even recognized by internet search engine.

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.

Skandelon was very much a free-willer in 2009, NOT a Calvinist.

 

[Zaatar71]

Something has changed, can't do it anymore, site no longer even recognized by internet search engine.



Skandelon was very much a free-willer in 2009, was no Calvinist.

It seems as if all such persons who claim that they used to be a Calvinist,never really were, Their posts betray them.They post things that are basic truths that all believers should be familiar with, but they do not seem to have a basic grasp of those truths.

 

[kyredneck]

It seems as if all such persons who claim that they used to be a Calvinist,never really were,

It seems to me that most Monergists were once Synergists, for real.

 

[DaveXR650]

Skandelon was very much a free-willer in 2009, NOT a Calvinist.

It might have been you who first told me about him being on here. It would be interesting if it were possible to see how he changed over time. I have not watched all his videos so maybe he does elsewhere.

 

[Zaatar71]

It seems to me that most Monergists were once Synergists, for real.

Many were because many churches start out as mixed works.

 

[kyredneck]

Many were because many churches start out as mixed works.

What about you? Were you a free-willer before coming to the truths of Sovereign Grace?

I was raised in a hyper-hellengelical SB church, never questioned it until I began studying the scriptures.

 

[Tea]

Tried to look up old posts

Something has changed, can't do it anymore

Yes, it seems the overall season search function doesn’t go back very far. I hope that gets fixed eventually.

You can, however, search for threads he’s started by adding his name to the filter. He’s posted quite a bit in the Baptist theology/Bible study section.

Baptist Theology & Bible Study

General discussion of Baptist theology

www.baptistboard.com

 

[Zaatar71]

What about you? Were you a free-willer before coming to the truths of Sovereign Grace?

I was raised in a hyper-hellengelical SB church, never questioned it until I began studying the scriptures.

no...I was a Rc, and did not really know anything other than the external religious veener the RC church offered. I did not even know what doctrine was. Thankfully ,I drifted away from that, and eventually found an actual bible.

 

[kyredneck]

I hope that gets fixed eventually.

Don't get your hopes up, it was probably done intentionally.

 

[kyredneck]

You can, however, search for threads

How? Where?

 

[Tea]

How? Where?

Check this link.

Baptist Theology & Bible Study

General discussion of Baptist theology

www.baptistboard.com

I’m on mobile, so for me the filter options are on the top right.

 

[kyredneck]

Tried to look up old posts but couldn't, the reason being that he claims to have taught Calvinism in the past

Here

 

[Zaatar71]

How? Where?

Yeah, that link shows a bunch of Leighton Flowers posts...

 

[kyredneck]

Check this link.

Baptist Theology & Bible Study

General discussion of Baptist theology

www.baptistboard.com

I’m on mobile, so for me the filter options are on the top right.

I'll PM you later. Thanks.

 

[JesusFan]

My self will which was opposed to God was overcome by God's Mercy and grace.
I would never have believed with my self will. No man can. My belief and salvation was 100% of God.

Spiritual dead sinners cannot even desire much less will themselves to salvation

 

[JesusFan]

I See SH, you are a new disciple of JOHNC, lol. JohnC says I am not a Calvinist, so I am in the clear, lol
So you follow the bogus teaching, I follow the Puritans, as JohnC is infallible in his pronouncements!

Think many posting here on our Board totally misunderstand what we Calvinists really hold with, and also think some are not fully understanding the historically held view of the Atonement of Jesus called Psa.

 

[DaveXR650]

As was discussed on another thread there are various approaches among Calvinistic scholars with regard to the extent of the atonement.

Calvinists from the "Princeton" tradition (Hodge, Shedd, Dabney etc) taught Christ's "work is equally available for all" and that God "did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men," and "the reason why any man perishes, is not that there is no righteousness provided suitable and adequate to his case, or that it is not freely offered to all that hear the gospel, but simply because he willfully rejects the proffered salvation…It [our doctrine] opens the door for mercy, as far as legal obstructions are concerned”

While other Calvinists ('high Calvinists') tended to disagree and instead "affirm an Atonement which fully satisfied God for those on whose behalf it was made" and them alone. (A. Pink)

Respected Calvinistic scholar Richard Muller addresses this apparent distinction:

“There has been some scholarly disagreement on this issue–and sometimes a doctrinal wedge is driven between ‘Calvin’ and the ‘Calvinists,’ ...​

The terms ‘universal’ and ‘limited atonement’ do not represent the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed view–or, for that matter, the view of its opponents. The issue was not over ‘atonement,’ broadly understood, but over ‘satisfaction’ made by Christ for sin- and the debate was never over whether or not Christ’s satisfaction was limited: all held it to be utterly sufficient to pay the price for all sin and all held it to be effective or efficient only for those who were saved. The question concerned the identity of those who were saved and, therefore, the ground of the limitation–God’s will or human choice. Thus, both Calvin and Bullinger taught that Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all, both commended the universal preaching of the Gospel, both taught the efficacy of Christ’s work for the faithful alone–and both taught that faith is the gift of God, made available to the elect only. In other words, the inference of a limitation of the efficacy of Christ’s satisfaction to the elect alone is found both in Bullinger and in Calvin, despite differences between their formulations of the doctrine of predestination. (Richard Muller, After Calvin, 14).​

This is the distinction I was attempting to draw in the last thread while being accused of misrepresenting Calvinism. Maybe this article from Muller will provide the needed objective voice for my accusers to (1) acknowledge and define the historical distinction among Calvinists in their handling of biblical atonement, and (2) discuss with objectivity their own views in relation to these apparent distinctions.

My purpose in this is to examine how 'high' Calvinists (like Pink) consistently defend their view of the free genuine offer of the gospel to all people while seemingly denying the concept of 'universal satisfaction' (ref. Muller's quote).

NOTE: Please keep things cordial and on topic. Thanks

So, I went back and took a look at some of these posts. I am surprised at a post like this one. Most non-Cal guys don't read Muller. These are second level arguments against some of the way modern internet Calvinists have been speaking. I may have underestimated Flowers.

 

[Silverhair]

Okay, Knowledge of What as it relates to what we read described in scripture? What passages tell us of God's knowledge/ If a person questioned you on it, how would you help clarify that large word?

I answer their questions from the word of God. Which is just what I would hope you would do. I would point to prophecy both fulfilled and yet to be fulfilled.

Perhaps you can tell me why you deny clear scripture when it does not fit your preconceived theological views?

 

[Zaatar71]

I answer their questions from the word of God. Which is just what I would hope you would do. I would point to prophecy both fulfilled and yet to be fulfilled.

Perhaps you can tell me why you deny clear scripture when it does not fit your preconceived theological views?

I would do that, however I am not sure what scripture you are posting about? I think we might discover something if you could provide several scriptures that you think are violated?

 

[Zaatar71]

Sure I have heard the term used any number of times by calvinists. You throw it around like some great got ya. In reality I have not seen anyone on this board that would even come close to fitting even what you calvinists think it means.

This is a REAL QUOTE from Leighton Flowers...
Straight up PELAGIANISM
"It doesn’t require a supernatural power to put your trust or allegiance in someone else.

Putting your trust in science or a false God doesn’t require a supernatural work of the Spirit so why assume putting your trust in God requires a supernatural work of the Spirit?

The power (if it exists at all) is in the one in whom you trust. If you put your trust in someone without power (Allah) then you’re not converted because he doesn’t have the power to save. If you put your trust in Christ then you receive the supernatural power which brings salvation."
-Leighton Flowers