Calvinism, Arminianism, and Provisionism?

[Reynolds]

Leighton Flowers offers a new option, Provisionalism. I think what I like most about this is that it removes the discussion from the traditional framing of the debate, which I never really agreed with anyway. After all, Calvin water baptized infants, so he wasn't a sure theological bet, to be sure. This is probably the closest to my beliefs, but I reserve the right to say that there is still some differences, as I noticed a few, and don't yet know all the details of this theological position.

I like his statement about the many who claim that we are not born as bad as we can be. In reply, Flowers states that he believes that the Bible teaches that we are not born as hardened as we can be either, which I agree with. If you really think about it, that's it in a nut shell and a good way to frame the debate. Are we born as hardened as we can be? If not, then it's not total depravity as Calvinism teaches. Flowers has a few of these videos that get into more detail about provisionism and he does provide Scripture used to back up his claims, but those videos are a lot longer. I'm going to get into this more eventually. I picked the shortest one. You can look up "Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers" and watch the longer, more detailed ones if you like.

If Leighton flowers agrees with It, I don’t need to watch it to know I disagree with it.

 

[Dave...]

If Leighton flowers agrees with It, I don’t need to watch it to know I disagree with it.

"Test all things; hold fast what is good."

 

[Dave...]

Hello Dave.....,
I don't have much time right now, but I will just say that, in common with many of the Puritans (Most notably William Perkins), I do not see regeneration as a one-off event, but rather as a process. I think it is clear that God must open the heart of someone before he can repent and believe, but also that regeneration is not definitely over until after he has done both those things. I wrote a series of articles about 15 years ago on the New Birth. Here is the relevant one: New Birth (7) The Order of the New Birth Have a browse.

Sorry, somehow I missed this. I'll check it out tonight. Thanks

 

[JonC]

The bible also tells us that we can respond to the various means that God uses to draw man to Himself. Do I need to trot them out for you again?

And we are also told that we are responsible for how we respond to those means.



The fact that you use the term "will not" but that we see numerous people that have actually done so points to the reality of "free will". We see this in John 3:18, John 5:38-40, John 6:45. I have no problem with the reality that man will reject God but you do have a problem with the reality that man will also turn and trust in God as it does not fit the man-made religion that you follow.

You need to consider all the word of God not just the parts you like. Proverbs 3:5-7, Act of the Apostles 17:24-27, Heb 11:1, Heb 11:6.

Well since God has not commanded men and women to walk on the ceiling or fly like Superman in order to be saved we do not have to worry about that do we.

Perhaps you should consider these words:
Isa 45:21 "Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.
Isa_45:22 "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other.

God has provide the means for man to know Him and He will hold them responsible for how they respond.

Ultimately Calvinism minimizes God and elevates man.

In the Bible when God acts this is based on His own nature which is proclaimed. Sometimes God acts for a specific purpose and so that all do not respond He hardens their hearts (like with Pharoah - God's actions are no so benign that they do not draw men, so God hardened Pharoah's heart to accomplish His plan).

 

[Dave...]

Hello Dave.....,
I don't have much time right now, but I will just say that, in common with many of the Puritans (Most notably William Perkins), I do not see regeneration as a one-off event, but rather as a process. I think it is clear that God must open the heart of someone before he can repent and believe, but also that regeneration is not definitely over until after he has done both those things. I wrote a series of articles about 15 years ago on the New Birth. Here is the relevant one: New Birth (7) The Order of the New Birth Have a browse.

Hey Martin.

Most Calvinists see two choices, born again or the flesh. That's the biggest error right there. OT believers could not be born again, yet they believed. Even Calvin recognized this, but, I believe he started with the wrong framework foundationally. He recognized that there was a difference in regeneration from the OT to the NT, but framed it with the assumption that OT believers must have been born again, and thus regenerate, and that what happened in the NT must be something more. Half of that is true. What happened in the NT WAS something more, but that 'more' was being born again. Foundationally, the OT believers could not be born again.

Calvin assumed OT believers must have been born again, how else could they believe? He reasoned. That assumption is based off of a faulty understanding of Scripture, mainly idea total depravity and ignoring the historical context that I spoke about earlier.

 

[Dave...]

Ultimately Calvinism minimizes God and elevates man.

In the Bible when God acts this is based on His own nature which is proclaimed. Sometimes God acts for a specific purpose and so that all do not respond He hardens their hearts (like with Pharoah - God's actions are no so benign that they do not draw men, so God hardened Pharoah's heart to accomplish His plan).

Did you mean to say Arminianism minimizes God and elevates man?

 

[JonC]

Did you mean to say Arminianism minimizes God and elevates man?

Although I believe both are wrong, no, that is not what I meant to say.

Calvinism treats God as if He were "the old man upstairs". They view the mind of God snd the mind of man as equal in nature and power (God cannot achieve His will in salvation except this go against man's will). The only way God can be sovereign is to decree all that occurs. Why? Because that woukd be the only way for man to be completely sovereign. God cannot be above man, man cannot be below God.

Arminianism, for its flaws, does not share this trait.