Why Provisionism Is Not Biblical

[Silverhair]

Watch the video above from minute 53 through 57. They clearly lay out the differences and when Dr. Olsen explains the concept of prevenient grace Dr. Flowers disagrees and says that this view is a tactical error in battling the Calvinist view of a special work of the Spirit prior to salvation. This occurs right at 57:40 in the video. Come on. He comes right out and says it.

But what Flowers said is biblical or do you not agree with Paul when he said the gospel is the power of God to salvation? As Flower's rightly said it is a calvinist view that we need this special work of the Spirit prior to salvation.

God's grace is found in all the various means that He has provided to draw man to Himself.

The calvinist errors when they say the person has to be regenerated prior to being able to trust the gospel message. The bible does not support that view.

The boogeyman of Pelagianism came from the mind of Beza not from scripture.

That Flower's disagrees with Olsen does not make Flower's view Pelagian. For the calvinist anyone that disagrees with their soteriological view is a Pelagian or at best a semi-pelagian.

 

[Silverhair]

This is the whole crux of the matter I think. You are right but the question is, how does it come about that we have a righteous heart? The bare concise statement all sides make on this don't satisfy me. I do not believe that stating that one is saved and then responds by having faith and repentance is sufficient. But equally, I don't believe that we who start out with clearly unrighteous hearts, when provided with the information needed, can somehow bring ourselves to a change of heart which like you correctly say, does precede a true confession of faith. The differences here are subtle but important.

This is why I say that if I have to pick a system it would be what is commonly called Calvinism. Yet, when you carefully read what the Calvinist practicing preachers said it often seems at odds to me with the way modern Calvinist theologians frame things. I really like Horatius Bonar. He explicitly taught that the atonement is in no way limiting who can come to Christ and he taught that if you refuse the gospel it is only because of your own free will. And he quoted John Owen and others like Robert Traill in support his case. His Calvinist credentials are not in question.

He also goes on to explain the dangers of your and Dr. Flowers positions and how it can easily go into the idea that "faith" is something you work up from within yourself and thus turn into a work or a pre-condition for salvation. I do not say that you or Dr. Flowers actually do this but if we are really sinful by nature, if it is true for instance that Calvinism can develop a coldness that misrepresents God, as even Martyn Lloyd-Jones used to say - then why would it also not be true that your side can be prone to move into a self made system as Horatius Bonar goes on to explain in careful detail.

Once again, I am not saying you do that because I have no way to know your heart. But neither do you have the right to assume a Calvinist must have certain attitudes because you don't believe their theology, especially if you haven't read the guys who actually lived and preached under that system.

Sorry to go on so long. I know I tend to do so.

I agree the crux of the problem is how does a person come to believe. For the calvinist it seems to be that God has to make them believe which I find to be an unbiblical view.

For me and what I see as a biblical view God has provide the various means for man to know Him. God holds man responsible for the choices they make so logically the man has the ability to make real choices. The fact that many will chose to reject God does not invalidate the ability of man to make real choices.

Again I agree that just as calvinism can be taken to far so can free will.

You fall back to the various Calvinist writers to find support, I am not saying that is wrong, but I go to scripture and see that man makes real choices starting in Genesis through to Revelation. We are judged by our choices and if those choices have to be determined or require special intervention then how is that free.

If man has the ability to choose to sin without the intervention of the Holy Spirit what makes you think he needs that intervention in order to believe?

 

[JD731]

Your ideas you shared show me a dedicated Bible student whom I respect and I am not going to try to refute what you said. I agree that there are quite a few differences between Reformed Baptists and regular Baptists regarding end times events and I honestly don't know how I feel about all that. I don't know if I buy into Calvinist end times explanations at all.

Dave, I have given a right smart of thought about your biblical position you posit in your comments. I am going to call you a moderate Calvinist, but a Calvinist nevertheless. So I am going to present this post to demonstrate that it is the Calvinist theologians that you are believing and not the actual words of the scriptures. Because of this refusal to believe the words it results in Calvinism believing in and preaching a false Jesus. For a man like you to allow yourself to be manipulated to not ask questions and find out about things like I raised where ten of the Apostles were given the Holy Spirit by the breath of Jesus on resurrection day and the very authority of Jesus Christ himself to bind sins and loose sins in his absence. Why are you not interested in an answer?

John 20:21 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:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

Why aren't you curious about that? If you were reading the gospel accounts of Jesus Christ as a narrative you would have already read before this event where Jesus Christ had told these very men that when he established his kingdom they would sit on thrones as kings over Israel judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Here he is giving ten of these same men kingdom powers to act in his very authority. Later, and I quoted Jesus saying, that while he was gone to receive the kingdom and to return that these same ten men would be required to give account of their stewardship.

What this means to me is that we are reading events that as yet has nothing to do with you and me as gentiles in the narrative except as the history of the unfolding drama of God's redemption. This does not mean the same thing to you, I am guessing, because you have listened to the misinformed Calvinist sages who reject the Lord Jesus as being revealed as the King of the Jews and over a never ending kingdom over their nation and in their land on the earth. Therefore I have these gospels in the KINGDOM of GOD context. You likely do not have these words in a kingdom context because there is not a kingdom context in Calvinism that resembles anything that is revealed in the scriptures.

These very same apostles eventually, in just a few years, met the same fate from the Jews over whom Jesus came to rule the world, except for John, The Jews killed all the apostles and prophets and if death ended the promise of Jesus Christ to these men then there is no logical reason he will keep a promise to us. But, God is faithful and death is no object for God and he will at an appointed time raise these men from the dead and they will sit on twelve thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

Fifteen hundred years of preaching and writing of the Jewish nation presented the Messiah of God as both a King and Savior who was coming. The emphasis of the preaching of Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry was that he, personally, was the promised Messiah and the son of God, yet the son of David and the son of Abraham through the virgin. AT the end of his preaching and when he died those in Israel who believed that he was indeed the Messiah were justified by believing that but not a single person believed he was the resurrected savior, including the apostles and prophets. I am going to write you one more post and prove this from scripture without a doubt. This tells me one cannot believe in a mystical Jesus and be saved. One must believe in the historical and prophetical Jesus. He can and will save sinners.

The kingdom of God on the earth through Israel was the emphasis of the earthly ministry of Jesus and the kingdom of God in it's spiritual born again state is the emphasis while he is away, the church, his body and his bride. This is not a matter of OT prophecy but is a mystery after the resurrection revealed through the apostle Paul and you and I as gentiles are invited to participate through faith believing what these apotles and prophets say about him.

Stay tuned for my proof.

 

[Silverhair]

The key to all of this is found if you listen to the above video right at 56:50. Dr. Flowers interrupts Dr. Olsen and Dr. Olsen says "we are getting into the weeds". Then you hear James White, who is providing the video feed own voice with "this ain't the weeds". What is going on here and what follows is Dr. Flowers explaining exactly what his views are.

Notice what he says. Dr. Flowers says the bondage of the will does not mean that you lack the ability to decide you need help and ask for it. And here is the core of the issue for both Arminians and Calvinists. And this is what you have to get a handle on. The bondage of the will is as stated - a bondage of the will! And thus, if it truly is of your will it is already the result of your own decisions and who you actually are, that you are in this condition in the first place. And if that is true then the idea that you can extricate yourself by your own will (which is the only reason you are there in the first place) is preposterous. You say well, can't I change my mind? Sure, but what will induce you to change your mind? You already say that man already knows right from wrong by a conscience, yet here you are, a sinner by choice. You say "well, you heard the gospel". True, but the problem here is if the bare information of the gospel could help then why couldn't the knowledge of right and wrong and your own free will been enough to induce you to turn around and live right. You see, that is the logical path and I have just described what the true Pelagians and more specifically, the Socinians did believe.

The bible says we are slaves to sin and I agree but even a salve can make real choices. To deny that is to deny reality.

Dave your will is to do the will of God correct? His will is that we not sin. Do you ever sin Dave, I know I do. So if we can do other than what we will why would you think that the unsaved person could not do the same. They have a sin nature, just as we all do.

If the only way for someone to over come their sin nature and trust in God is if the Holy Spirit intervenes and causes them to choose God then we have to account for the disconnect in the Godhead. God the Father desires all to come to repentance and yet the Holy Spirit only makes some come to repentance so we have one in disagreement with the other.

You asked the question "why couldn't the knowledge of right and wrong and your own free will been enough to induce you to turn around and live right." Dave we have seen examples of just that, people have turned away from the gang life, from drink, form a sinful life by their own choice. I have seen this for myself in people I know and none were because they had trusted in God.

Man will make real choices for their own reasons. Some will hear the gospel and reject it some will see creation and realize the standard evolution / big bang theory just does not work.

My question is why do you limit the ability of man to make choices? God doesn't.

 

[DaveXR650]

The calvinist errors when they say the person has to be regenerated prior to being able to trust the gospel message. The bible does not support that view.

You might be right. There certainly is no hint in scripture of regenerated people who are still unbelievers. But there again, if you have read Owen you would know that he discussed that and felt that probably regeneration occurred at the same time as belief and that whether you are thinking in logical terms or chronologically might give you a different answer. (I only keep using Owen because I am familiar with his writings and he is the classic example of a high Calvinist, which no one will dispute).

But be careful because you also do not find in scripture God acting like the genie in Aladdin when Al was under water hovering around going "come on, Al. You have to ask for it or I can't help". I find that if one believes Flowers system with the same exactness that you require Calvinists to believe Calvinism then you can't honestly pray for someone once they have been provided with the gospel message because now it is up to their own free will. And, if it is totally up to your own free will, and that is, your own free will, that is the only reason you are save and your neighbor isn't then you are truly better than them and that is why you are saved. You see. This is the only logical conclusion from following your system in the same way you demand that Calvinists follow theirs. That is why I keep saying these systems are great as guardrails but not so good if followed at every point, which I don't do.

The boogeyman of Pelagianism came from the mind of Beza not from scripture.

Pelagius and Augustine had their discussions in the 4th century. While it's true that we lost track of Pelagius and he may have been a much nicer guy that we know, the labels are shorthand for a set of beliefs that we agree on somewhat for purposes of discussion. If the shoe fits and so on.

 

[Silverhair]

But be careful because you also do not find in scripture God acting like the genie in Aladdin when Al was under water hovering around going "come on, Al. You have to ask for it or I can't help". I find that if one believes Flowers system with the same exactness that you require Calvinists to believe Calvinism then you can't honestly pray for someone once they have been provided with the gospel message because now it is up to their own free will. And, if it is totally up to your own free will, and that is, your own free will, that is the only reason you are save and your neighbor isn't then you are truly better than them and that is why you are saved. You see. This is the only logical conclusion from following your system in the same way you demand that Calvinists follow theirs. That is why I keep saying these systems are great as guardrails but not so good if followed at every point, which I don't do.

I have to differ with you on whether I should pray for someone after they have heard the gospel message. I can and have prayed that God would work in they lives through various means to draw them to Him. Have you not heard of people that heard the gospel but rejected it but later came to faith. I have.
Whatever God uses to draw man to Himself it is still in the end the man's choice.

Pelagius and Augustine had their discussions in the 4th century. While it's true that we lost track of Pelagius and he may have been a much nicer guy that we know, the labels are shorthand for a set of beliefs that we agree on somewhat for purposes of discussion. If the shoe fits and so on.

If the shoe fit then I would agree but it does not fit.

Pelagius was accused of saying man could save himself. Have you heard Flower's say such a thing?

My placing my faith in God did not save me, God by His grace saved me because I believed in Him. This is what Flower;s said in that video.

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave your will is to do the will of God correct? His will is that we not sin. Do you ever sin Dave, I know I do. So if we can do other than what we will why would you think that the unsaved person could not do the same. They have a sin nature, just as we all do.

This is a good point and I hope I don't give the impression that I think it is absurd to say so. This really is the default position of most Baptist believers that I know personally. And most of us are not "pure" in this but hold a range of positions. My Bible study leader is anti Calvinist and he prays fervently that God will change peoples hearts so that they can be saved. That is an extremely Calvinistic way to pray but I wouldn't tell him that. Many Calvinists say that if you finally reject the gospel and refuse it the results are totally on you, not God. That is an extremely Arminian, and maybe even Pelagian thing to say.

I don't have any answer except to say that to the extent I use these theological systems I use them as guard rails to keep from getting too far into the weeds theologically. I do not take every statement as absolute truth to be followed to the letter. A lot of the verses you use and verses Calvinists use are describing what happens, not explaining how it happens. Paul preaches, some mock, some are indifferent, and some believe for instance says nothing that proves Calvinism or non-Calvinism because it was not intending to try to.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have to differ with you on whether I should pray for someone after they have heard the gospel message. I can and have prayed that God would work in they lives through various means to draw them to Him. Have you not heard of people that heard the gospel but rejected it but later came to faith. I have.
Whatever God uses to draw man to Himself it is still in the end the man's choice.

Definitely God uses "means" and circumstances to bring us to faith. That is explicitly taught in scripture whether it be from seeing miracles or just the kindness of God. But equally I see times of spiritual moving of people according to God's will and plan that go way beyond a providing of necessary information and instead indicate God's sovereignty in salvation.

There is at some level, a choosing or rejecting by men. This is clearly taught by Calvinist preachers though. Owen has a whole chapter on the dangers of resisting the drawing of the Holy Spirit and he comes right out and says that Jesus can do nothing for you if you refuse to believe. Is he still wrong for saying that since he was a Calvinist? I guess the question comes down to one of emphasis. Are we morally neutral, groping around in search for God, or is that as C.S. Lewis said as silly as a mouse in search of a cat. And this is what I was saying before. I don't care if someone wants to label me a Calvinist or not but in my view Calvinism better describes the pursuing and capturing of those he chooses to save than the other systems of theology. Paul describes himself in his testimony in Philippians chapter 3 as following after Christ with his free will - after speaking of being "apprehended" by Christ.

 

[kyredneck]

the fact that a person’s heart needs to be changed first in order to respond

AMEN! BINGO! GLORY HALLELUJAH! SPOT ON!

 

[Zaatar71]

He gets the job done, He provided the means to draw people to Himself but then it is up to the person to choose to trust in or reject Him. God does not do that for them.

No, that is not accurate

 

[Silverhair]

Definitely God uses "means" and circumstances to bring us to faith. That is explicitly taught in scripture whether it be from seeing miracles or just the kindness of God. But equally I see times of spiritual moving of people according to God's will and plan that go way beyond a providing of necessary information and instead indicate God's sovereignty in salvation.

I agree on both counts. That is what I see in scripture.

 

[Silverhair]

AMEN! BINGO! GLORY HALLELUJAH! SPOT ON!

The person changes their heart. They respond to the information that they have. They have the ability to trust inn or reject God.

 

[Silverhair]

No, that is not accurate

You keep making that claim but scripture shows you are wrong Z.

 

[37818]

Romans 1:16, . . . of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . .

Hebrews 4:12, For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[kyredneck]

The person changes their heart. They respond to the information that they have. They have the ability to trust inn or reject God.

Not.

2nd Corinthians Chapter 4

6​	Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Want no part of your man-centric Pelagian religion.

 

[Zaatar71]

The person changes their heart. They respond to the information that they have. They have the ability to trust inn or reject God.

Not according to the biblical gospel SH, God gives the new heart ezk36:25-27

 

[Silverhair]

Not.

2nd Corinthians Chapter 4

6​	Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Want no part of your man-centric Pelagian religion.

You can keep deny the word of God but it will do no good KY.

Light does shine in the heart of those that respond in faith. See Rom 10:9-10 or Eph 1:13 or Jn 20:31.

Not pelagian just biblical.

 

[Silverhair]

Not according to the biblical gospel SH, God gives the new heart ezk36:25-27

Z what is it with your constant denial of the means of salvation.

Eph 2:8-9 is clear enough that even you should be able to understand it.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Eph 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

But it seems you are more concerned in supporting the calvinist theory than you are in trusting the word of God.

 

[Zaatar71]

Z what is it with your constant denial of the means of salvation.

Eph 2:8-9 is clear enough that even you should be able to understand it.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Eph 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

But it seems you are more concerned in supporting the calvinist theory than you are in trusting the word of God.

I like and believe all these verses. besides, JohnC says I am not a Calvinist

 

[Silverhair]

I like and believe all these verses. besides, JohnC says I am not a Calvinist

If you believe them why do you disagree with them?