Calvinism, Arminianism, and Provisionism?

[JesusFan]

I'm guessing that you mean, is the possibility of a saving faith inherent in lost persons?

Your question is loaded on many levels.

One: Because it only allows two possibilities, the same two possibilities that Calvinism allows. It's the two options model, which is not Biblical. It's the flesh vs. Spirit, without allowing distinctions in the Spirit. It's born again or the flesh. I can show how that idea is not Biblical by asking you a simple question. One that was posed already but not answered. How did these believe?

John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

And two: Technically a saving faith is the faith that begins with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That's what Jesus Authored and Finished. That's the work that He began in us and promised to finish. This is a result of the initial faith and the indwelling. Most people use the term 'faith', especially 'saving faith' very loosely, but in the context of your question I would not. You must distinguish a saving faith from our initial faith, called believing. If you believe, then you will have eternal life (John 3:16). If you believe, you will be saved (Romans 10:9). Technically, a saving faith is always the result of the initial faith. If you think that distinction is unbiblical, then think of the Paul vs. James debate. Paul is speaking of justification, the initial faith, and James is speaking of the evidences of faith (life), the fruit of the Spirit, the ongoing faith. OT believers had the initial faith, but did not have the ongoing, because they did not have the Spirit in them. None good, no not one (no Spirit).

You are playing both sides of the fence in the way you use "saving faith", counting it all as one, not because the Bible says to, but because Calvinism says to. By saying "saving faith', one can mean initial faith (cause) or one can also mean ongoing faith (life) , but they are two different questions, and you're trying to blend them into one.

Is prevenient grace inherent or a gift from God? Both, prevenient grace allows both man to chose, and God to give.

Problem is Prevenient grace theology is a john wesley model, but not found in the scriptures

 

[jakethebaptist]

In contrast, Flowers argues that the grace provided through the preaching of the gospel is sufficient for salvation without the need for any special inward work of the Holy Spirit.

Does Romans 1:16 -17 not provide scriptural support for this?

And where does faith come from? For in Romans 10:17, it comes from hearing the Word of God.

 

[JonC]

Does Romans 1:16 -17 not provide scriptural support for this?

And where does faith come from? For in Romans 10:17, it comes from hiearing the Word of God.

I think people sometimes hold "biblical" ideas apart from reality.

If a scientist explains to you methylmercury is deadly you would probably have enough faith to avoid it. Where does that faith come from? It cones from hearing that methylmercury is deadly.

It is not inherent in you (you were not born with a belief that methylmercury is deadly). BUT it is also not something given to you by the scientist (the scientist gave you the information). You could reject that information.

But with faith in God sometimes people treat this as if it is a metaphysical "thing". I am not sure why.

You are absolutely right. Faith comes from hearing the Word of God.

 

[Dave G]

Leighton Flowers offers a new option, Provisionalism.

I was raised in "Provisionism" ( sometimes known as "Traditionalism" ) for over 25 years after coming to Christ during the preaching of His words in 1978.

My friend, this has been around for quite some time, but until recently never really had a label.
On a personal note,
The more I investigate its origins, the more I find that it's something that began to spring up during and after the "Reformation" in England and in other places, but never really gained much of a following until the last 300 years or so, and especially within the past 150 years in America.

The reason I left it, was because I began to see differently during my own personal studies of the Scriptures.

Also,
The reason I reject it as being the truth, is because of how it fails to address many of the things that the Lord Jesus and His apostles and prophets had to say about how and why anyone is saved.

Having sat under prominent preachers of it for almost half my converted life, I can personally tell you that not once was election ever dealt with, not once were key passages of God's word ( such as John 6, Romans 9, Ephesians 1 and 2 ) ever read through, studied and declared from the pulpit, and not once was satisfactory explanation ever given for the differences in what the Bible says versus what the preachers think that it says.

In other words, what they were saying didn't match what God is saying.


I'm sorry, Dave, but we'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't see "Provisionism" anywhere in the Scriptures, but like you and "Calvinism", I do see where pieces of it can be supported from some of them.

 

[Dave G]

And where does faith come from? For in Romans 10:17, it comes from hearing the Word of God.

My friend, if you'll look closer at the passage you quoted, you'll see that it comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the word of God:

" So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. "

God speaks, and His people listen, understand and, more importantly, believe His words.

In other places, we find that Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of faith ( Hebrews 12:2 ), that it is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen ( Hebrews 11:1 ).
That it is the faith of God's elect ( Titus 1:1 ) and the gift of God ( Ephesians 2:8 );
Which is said by the Lord to be "of" Jesus Christ... that it actually comes from Jesus Christ ( Romans 3:22, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 2:20 ).

Before that faith came to us, God's people were kept under the Law...after it came to us, we are no longer under the Law because it was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Our faith is evidential and part of who we are in Christ...
It cannot and does not exist as a means to gain God's favor;

That anyone believes on His Son is the evidence of His work in and through a person.

 

[Dave...]

I was raised in "Provisionism" ( sometimes known as "Traditionalism" ) for over 25 years after coming to Christ during the preaching of His words in 1978.

My friend, this has been around for quite some time, but until recently never really had a label.
On a personal note,
The more I investigate its origins, the more I find that it's something that began to spring up during and after the "Reformation" in England and in other places, but never really gained much of a following until the last 300 years or so, and especially within the past 150 years in America.

The reason I left it, was because I began to see differently during my own personal studies of the Scriptures.

Also,
The reason I reject it as being the truth, is because of how it fails to address many of the things that the Lord Jesus and His apostles and prophets had to say about how and why anyone is saved.

Having sat under prominent preachers of it for almost half my converted life, I can personally tell you that not once was election ever dealt with, not once were key passages of God's word ( such as John 6, Romans 9, Ephesians 1 and 2 ) ever read through, studied and declared from the pulpit, and not once was satisfactory explanation ever given for the differences in what the Bible says versus what the preachers think that it says.

In other words, what they were saying didn't match what God is saying.


I'm sorry, Dave, but we'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't see "Provisionism" anywhere in the Scriptures, but like you and "Calvinism", I do see where pieces of it can be supported from some of them.

Hey Dave.

Actually flowers does deal with most if not all those passages, but in other videos. I'm not a Flowers fan, but I do like to hear opposing thoughts on Scripture. I expected it to be old in bits and pcs. Mabey he just invented the term. Kind of like the acronym TULIP came later down the road from it's theological camp.

There truly is really nothing new under the sun. Todays Pentecostal Charismatic churches are just reincarnated mystery religions. In many ways, I believe that Calvinism is todays Scribes and Pharisees.

As for provisionism not in Scripture? "My grace is sufficient." God will provide.

 

[Dave...]

Having sat under prominent preachers of it for almost half my converted life, I can personally tell you that not once was election ever dealt with, not once were key passages of God's word ( such as John 6, Romans 9, Ephesians 1 and 2 ) ever read through, studied and declared from the pulpit, and not once was satisfactory explanation ever given for the differences in what the Bible says versus what the preachers think that it says.

Dave

I found this if you're interested. I haven't read any of it so I'm not promoting it, just providing you with a provisionist who attempted to answer those passages that you said were avoided.

Answering Calvinistic Proof Texts

Calvinists readily admit their teachings are difficult to swallow even for the most committed believer. Calvin himself refers to the doctrine of reprobation as a “dreadful decree” …

soteriology101.com