Provisionalism vs Calvinism

[Reformed]

Yes, that's him.

Thank you. That is what I thought.

 

[rsr]

Skandelon, i.e., Leighton Flowers, is now director for personal evangelism and apologetics for the Baptist General Convention Texas.

 

[MartyF]

I really can't summarize 4 hours of material and do it any justice. If anyone is interested, I'd encourage them to listen to it on their commutes, or breaks, or at work if your able etc. You don't need the video, people listen to audio books all the time, treat this similarly if you would like to hear the differences in world view and how each understands as I think both Calvanists and Provisionalist / traditional SBC views are very well represented in the material.

Umm . . . R.C. Sproul’s book What is reformed theology? is about an hour shorter.

I’m sorry but LF babbles on and on at times and a 5 hour video is a lot of babbling. I sometimes posted an LF video to show that a certain passage has already been talked to death and to demonstrate that yes, people are aware of the passage they might think is a brand new revelation. But one could summarize this video or point out what they think is important.

 

[SovereignGrace]

To the best of my knowledge, he's never been a member of Baptist Board and he most certainly isn't an active member of the Admin team.

Please refrain from personal attacks in the public forum

Skandelon IS Dr. Leighton Flowers. Just look at his avatar pic.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

SG, as I said before, I have no reason to know what Dr. Flowers looked like. It's not like he speaks or writes to the FBFI audience.

Skandelon IS Dr. Leighton Flowers. Just look at his avatar pic.

 

[Iconoclast]

Wasn't Skandelon Leighton Flowers? I may be wrong on his Baptist Board username.

He still is one and the same,
Around the time of the failed Romans 9 debate, He told plus he was going to do his podcast, so He would not have time to do both.

 

[Iconoclast]

Do a YouTube search on the Romans 9 debate and you will see it is him.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Do a YouTube search on the Romans 9 debate and you will see it is him.

Oh, what a train wreck on his part.

#epicfail

 

[Iconoclast]

Oh, what a train wreck on his part.

#epicfail

Yes,I gave him credit at the time because he was going to put his beliefs on the line openly.
I mean, a person can only offer what they believe is true.
But to see him avoid the text and try and move the goal post was sad indeed.
Dr.White would have attempted to help him if he tried and came up short, but made a sincere attempt.
We saw the debacle. Maybe only the Steve Tassie fiasco was worse.
Now, to Leightons credit he endured what I thought was horrible conduct at the hands of Hernandez, and zacharides debate.
They were correct overall on doctrine, but graceless in their presentation.

 

[OldArmy]

If by "support it" you mean a detailed exegetical explanation, I suggest you used the advanced search feature and search by posts in the Calvinism/Arminian subforum. I have posted on this subject numerous times and in great detail. If you are looking for a basic primer on the subject, consider this:

Any soteriological system that pivots on the will of man is, by definition, synergistic, i.e. man cooperating with God in salvation.

Any soteriological system that subordinates man's will in relation to God's sovereign decree according to election is monergistic.

Provisionalism/Traditionalism pivots on the will of man. i.e. the individual has the free will to either accept or reject the gospel message. Calvinism pivots on the sovereign soteriological decree of God, in which the individual who is effectually called will also respond in faith.

I don't think you even realize you're doing eisegesis. You're view only stands with you're systems esiegetical understanding. Which is not arrived at by simply reading the text, which is a translation. How do translations work? The scholars translating the text don't use hidden meanings taught for specific words and phrases.

They use normal defined meanings from the dictionary to convey the meaning of the original language being translated. Not some special hidden definition. The provisional interpretation can easily be arrived at by simply reading the text as translated in any normal main stream translation, where has Calvinism must teach it's understanding of specific phrases and words.

This and the problem of double predestination is why I left Calvanism and reverted back to my original understanding of a traditional/provisional understanding which doesn't paint God in such a way as to lay the fault of sin at God's feet, but at the person committing the sin. Yes I know you punt to mystery which is a poor cop out. Just own it.

Yes both views "punt" to mystery at some point but the point and way are night and day different. You think you're minimizing man and magnifying the Lord, but from my vantage point you're sullying His name to paint man as less guiltless.

 

[Reformed]

I don't think you even realize you're doing eisegesis. You're view only stands with you're systems esiegetical understanding. Which is not arrived at by simply reading the text, which is a translation. How do translations work? The scholars translating the text don't use hidden meanings taught for specific words and phrases.

They use normal defined meanings from the dictionary to convey the meaning of the original language being translated. Not some special hidden definition. The provisional interpretation can easily be arrived at by simply reading the text as translated in any normal main stream translation, where has Calvinism must teach it's understanding of specific phrases and words.

This and the problem of double predestination is why I left Calvanism and reverted back to my original understanding of a traditional/provisional understanding which doesn't paint God in such a way as to lay the fault of sin at God's feet, but at the person committing the sin. Yes I know you punt to mystery which is a poor cop out. Just own it.

Yes both views "punt" to mystery at some point but the point and way are night and day different. You think you're minimizing man and magnifying the Lord, but from my vantage point you're sullying His name to paint man as less guiltless.

I suggest you follow my advice in post #18 and research my previous exegetical support.

 

[OldArmy]

I suggest you follow my advice in post #18 and research my previous exegetical support.

I read it, I understand it. I understand what "real" (5 point) Calvanists believe. I was discipled under a hardcore OPC Calvinist pastor for two years, we sat down once sometimes twice a week for hours discussing these sorts of things.

I don't think you grasp my point of view though because you're likely to busy being dismissive to.

You can't ignore the problem of double predestination, you can't ignore the esiegetical readings required to achieve a Calvinistic understanding. And appealing to, two nature's is just ridiculous. He's multi personal, not of multiple natures.

Okay well, you can ignore these problems, but you shouldn't! Challenge your presuppositions and biases. Honestly look at scripture from both views and examine which actually harmonizes with scripture better. Worst case scenario, you become more convinced.

I assert the traditional view doesn't have to dance around so many conflicting scriptures. I'll end there though, I'm not going to keep going back and forth. But God isn't the author of men doing wicked things, there's no evil within His nature he can't do that. If he were, He would be culpable.

 

[Reformed1689]

My view is neither Calvinism or Arminianism, yet my view is Monergistic.

What do you believe?

 

[Iconoclast]

I read it, I understand it. I understand what "real" (5 point) Calvanists believe. I was discipled under a hardcore OPC Calvinist pastor for two years, we sat down once sometimes twice a week for hours discussing these sorts of things.

I don't think you grasp my point of view though because you're likely to busy being dismissive to.

You can't ignore the problem of double predestination, you can't ignore the esiegetical readings required to achieve a Calvinistic understanding. And appealing to, two nature's is just ridiculous. He's multi personal, not of multiple natures.

Okay well, you can ignore these problems, but you shouldn't! Challenge your presuppositions and biases. Honestly look at scripture from both views and examine which actually harmonizes with scripture better. Worst case scenario, you become more convinced.

I assert the traditional view doesn't have to dance around so many conflicting scriptures. I'll end there though, I'm not going to keep going back and forth. But God isn't the author of men doing wicked things, there's no evil within His nature he can't do that. If he were, He would be culpable.

Give an example of what you believe is eisegesis. to clarify your ideas.

 

[Reformed]

I read it, I understand it.

You did a search on my previous posts from previous threads and read my exegesis? Then please quote my posts and show me where my exegesis is faulty.

You can't ignore the problem of double predestination, you can't ignore the esiegetical readings required to achieve a Calvinistic understanding.

Double predestination is not a problem. Also, just because you say something does not make it real. I disagree that I have used eisegesis to "achieve a Calvinistic understanding". In order for your accusation to have validity, you need to show my error. You have yet to do that. You can attempt to do that by researching my past posts in other threads. I am not going to do your work for you. Even my opponents on this board (if they are honest) will admit I have never shied away from putting forth an exegetical argument for my position.

Okay well, you can ignore these problems, but you shouldn't! Challenge your presuppositions and biases. Honestly look at scripture from both views and examine which actually harmonizes with scripture better. Worst case scenario, you become more convinced.

Okay well, you can continue to make unfounded statements, but you shouldn't! You assume I have done none of the things you suggest I do. That is presumption on your part.

I assert the traditional view doesn't have to dance around so many conflicting scriptures.

There is no such thing as a traditional view. It is a contrived term.

'll end there though, I'm not going to keep going back and forth.

Good decision. You just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.

 

[OldArmy]

Give an example of what you believe is eisegesis. to clarify your ideas.

1 Timothy 2:1-4
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of yGod our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to b the knowledge of the truth.

So, does all mean all? Or only the elect? It doesn't read only the chosen since before creation. It says all. His desire is for ALL men (humans) to come to Him, from kings to peasants. And don't give me that "all types or categories " it doesn't say that either. Or that God has two wills. He doesn't argue with himself, or have a mental illness. Besides if one will wishes all could have been, why didn't he design things that way? Was he not capable? It reads, "Who desires ALL people to be saved" because He does.

So then the Calvinist argues so what can God not have what he desires? And begins an argument of sovereignty because they're arguing on a defensive to support their Calvinism and not look for truth. What if God's sovereignty reflects a kings, is he not sovereign over what is his? But does he micromanage every decision everyone makes? Or does he give orders, commands, decrees, laws etc? What if God wants people to choose Him... wait aren't there scriptures that say that much?

Inserting presuppositions into the meanings of death so that one can't choose. And thus the argument turns to absurd accusations that one's not accountable of their choices. It's tiresome and irrational. Anyone that hasn't intensely hardened their heart beyond the point of seeking can choose. And God wants them to choose life and truth as His ways are far beyond ours and superior on perhaps countless levels. He wants what's best for us like any good father.

The difference is choice/free will/free agency. Sufficiency of atonement does not mean it's applied to everyone. It's only applied to those who believe Yeshua/Jesus was who he claimed to be, what He said was/is true and that his atoning blood is sufficient.

I really wish Calvinist would take up the challenge of trying to read the scriptures for what it actually say, which given their presuppositions and programming is quite a challenge. I know because just two years of Calvinistic discipleship required several months of intense struggling with just reading the scriptures for what they actually said. And I tell you a Infinitely greater character/representation of God is revealed.

Choice is real, so is accountability for our choices, God really does want us all to choose him. I don't believe he made any human being as a vessel for destruction. Though, he will allow them to reject Him and suffer the consequences. Why else does The Word testify? Why spread the Gospel? Why does God's word plead to the reader/hearer to turn and choose if there is no choice? It only makes sense that there is a real choice.

So why do some choose to believe and others don't I have been asked. There's a million possibilities from ones life experiences, I can't answer such a question anymore than you can answer the question of how many square miles creation is. But that doesn't mean your view is accurate because you asked a impossible question Calvinism has crafted an answer too. (Yes I'm aware of the Calvinistic answer) indeed, it is a gift from God. But I think the Calvinist twists that statement. It is a gift in the same way God's grace of not just condemning all of man kind which He can has every justification in doing if He chose it is a gift from God. He says over and over in scripture "your faith", "believe" etc. Not, hold on, here take this rejuvenation so that you can believe. Everyone is born capable of believing, creation, His word, and the testimony of His children testify. Some harden their hearts, some sear their souls, some don't. The reasons why are as many as there are stars, but choices were/are made by man, wither to accept or reject God. And from the natural conclusions drawn from the wording of the text (not presuppositions inserted) that is exactly how God designed it to be, a choice.

God, who can do no evil, he is not culpable for our choices, it's part of the reason the Lord atoning blood had to be shed, because guilt lies at our feet, because they are OUR choices, our sins. (And obviously a filthy rag can't clean it's self with itself) Double predestination is not a problem for the traditional view. It places a higher view of God and a lower view of man. Which Calvinism purports to do, but in actuality paints God as the cause but somehow not culpable, it's irrational nonsensical and there's a better understanding that's more harmonious with all of scripture, oh and it's not illogical.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello OA.
Thanks for your response.

1 Timothy 2:1-4
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of yGod our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to b the knowledge of the truth.

So, does all mean all? Or only the elect?

The verse tells us who is in view.;
2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
He is praying for kings, and those in authority so we cal live in peace.

It doesn't read only the chosen since before creation. It says all. His desire is for ALL men (humans) to come to Him, from kings to peasants. And don't give me that "all types or categories " it doesn't say that either.

If he stated all men without distinction meaning all men everywhere...WHY WOULD HE FEEL THE NEED TO SINGLE OUT KINGS AND THOSE IN AUTHORITY?
They would be included in the All. Do you see what I am saying?

Or that God has two wills. He doesn't argue with himself, or have a mental illness. Besides if one will wishes all could have been, why didn't he design things that way? Was he not capable? It reads, "Who desires ALL people to be saved" because He does.[/QUOTE]

OA....God has purposed to save a multitude in His Son. It is a covenant death on their behalf. We do not believe he wishes or hopes but rather Acts by His Eternal Decree.

9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
Every person God has purposed to be saved, will indeed be lost:
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This is speaking of the elect Covenant Children.

So then the Calvinist argues so what can God not have what he desires? And begins an argument of sovereignty because they're arguing on a defensive to support their Calvinism and not look for truth. What if God's sovereignty reflects a kings, is he not sovereign over what is his? But does he micromanage every decision everyone makes? Or does he give orders, commands, decrees, laws etc? What if God wants people to choose Him... wait aren't there scriptures that say that much?

While God does not micromanage people, but can overrule a person at any time.
We have a will and make choices and yet we read this;
21 The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

Inserting presuppositions into the meanings of death so that one can't choose. And thus the argument turns to absurd accusations that one's not accountable of their choices. It's tiresome and irrational. Anyone that hasn't intensely hardened their heart beyond the point of seeking can choose. And God wants them to choose life and truth as His ways are far beyond ours and superior on perhaps countless levels. He wants what's best for us like any good father.
]

We do not insert presuppositions. We derive them from scripture alone
The fall has left man separated from God as a rebel alienated from the life of God.
He is unable to come unless effectually drawn
eph4:18, isa59:1-8 psalm 14:1-3

The difference is choice/free will/free agency. Sufficiency of atonement does not mean it's applied to everyone. It's only applied to those who believe Yeshua/Jesus was who he claimed to be, what He said was/is true and that his atoning blood is sufficient.

Mans will is bound not free.

Choice is real, so is accountability for our choices, God really does want us all to choose him. I don't believe he made any human being as a vessel for destruction. Though, he will allow them to reject Him and suffer the consequences. Why else does The Word testify? Why spread the Gospel? Why does God's word plead to the reader/hearer to turn and choose if there is no choice? It only makes sense that there is a real choice.

We have substantial agreement here. We are accountable,. the free offer of the gospel is proclaimed, Men respond to the gospel, only when effectually drawn.

So why do some choose to believe and others don't I have been asked. There's a million possibilities from ones life experiences, I can't answer such a question anymore than you can answer the question of how many square miles creation is. But that doesn't mean your view is accurate because you asked a impossible question Calvinism has crafted an answer too. (Yes I'm aware of the Calvinistic answer)

Men because of the fall never choose God, or believe first apart from the Spirit.God uses the means of grace to accomplish the salvation of the elect.

Everyone is born capable of believing, creation, His word, and the testimony of His children testify. Some harden their hearts, some sear their souls, some don't. The reasons why are as many as there are stars, but choices were/are made by man, wither to accept or reject God. And from the natural conclusions drawn from the wording of the text (not presuppositions inserted) that is exactly how God designed it to be, a choice.

No...not even close. This denies scripture up and down the line.

Now I am glad we can partially agree and am thankful you could articulate your position while engaging the Calvinist position mostly accurately.

 

[OldArmy]

Hello OA.
Thanks for your response.


The verse tells us who is in view.;
2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
He is praying for kings, and those in authority so we cal live in peace.



If he stated all men without distinction meaning all men everywhere...WHY WOULD HE FEEL THE NEED TO SINGLE OUT KINGS AND THOSE IN AUTHORITY?
They would be included in the All. Do you see what I am saying?

Thank you for taking the time for that lengthy reply, but from where I'm standing that's not the refutation you probably think it is. You stood on Calvinism, I already understand what it purports and reject it.

But can you begin to even see my perspective? Or do you just dismiss it and default to what you were taught the scriptures mean rather than examining what they say. Btw, I'm not claiming to perfectly understand all scripture I most certainly don't and I'd be extremely suspicious of anyone who did.

Perhaps the reason some believe and others don't is under our noses in scripture with the parable of the sower.

But if you think any young child that dies goes to Him, (duno if you do, I do) then that would seem to suggest to me anyway we all start as "good" soil able to recieve the word and believe. (I did not mean that good as in worthy or anything like that so please don't go down that road, I simply meant like in context to the parable)

Also as for the Kings/ authority comment maybe I just suck at English but I read that and to me it seems to stress it as if to say "even kings".

 

[Particular]

I read it, I understand it. I understand what "real" (5 point) Calvanists believe. I was discipled under a hardcore OPC Calvinist pastor for two years, we sat down once sometimes twice a week for hours discussing these sorts of things.

I don't think you grasp my point of view though because you're likely to busy being dismissive to.

You can't ignore the problem of double predestination, you can't ignore the esiegetical readings required to achieve a Calvinistic understanding. And appealing to, two nature's is just ridiculous. He's multi personal, not of multiple natures.

Okay well, you can ignore these problems, but you shouldn't! Challenge your presuppositions and biases. Honestly look at scripture from both views and examine which actually harmonizes with scripture better. Worst case scenario, you become more convinced.

I assert the traditional view doesn't have to dance around so many conflicting scriptures. I'll end there though, I'm not going to keep going back and forth. But God isn't the author of men doing wicked things, there's no evil within His nature he can't do that. If he were, He would be culpable.

No problem with the "double-predestination."
Generally, the folks who have a problem cannot accept that all humans are corrupt by nature and, apart from grace, all humans receive the just judgment due. Call this just and righteous judgment whatever you wish and note that all humanity would be predestined to God's wrath, except for the gracious pardon of God, which God determined before the foundation of the world.

 

[Dave G]

@OldArmy
A few questions, if you don't mind my curiosity:

The difference is choice/free will/free agency.

Where in Scripture, do you see "free agency" declared By God?

I'm not speaking about God doing his part to fulfill His covenant with Israel...I'm referring to God declaring that all men are "free agents".
Is that view based on implication, or declaration?

In other words, where does Scripture state ( essentially ), " Mankind is free to choose salvation"?
I can show you where it states that mankind hates Jesus Christ and will not come to Him, and that there is none that seeks God.

But I cannot show you where God declares that men are free to either choose to accept Christ or choose not to.
To me, that is an assumption.

Sufficiency of atonement does not mean it's applied to everyone.

Where in Scripture do you see that the atonement has to be applied to someone ( as if it hasn't already been applied and is "waiting" )?

I see where it was definitely applied, but nowhere do I see that it resides somewhere, waiting to be applied when we believe, for example.

It's only applied to those who believe Yeshua/Jesus was who he claimed to be, what He said was/is true and that his atoning blood is sufficient.

It is sufficient.

While I believe the bolded part, I do not see you showing Scripture that states when His blood was applied to the believer.
Then there's the problem of who Christ died for, and what that death accomplished.

Similar to the above point, where do you see His word developing when His blood is / was applied?

I really wish Calvinist would take up the challenge of trying to read the scriptures for what it actually say, which given their presuppositions and programming is quite a challenge.

I personally know of some Calvinists who are unable to think and reason with Scripture outside of what they have been taught by other men.
I also know of some "Calvinists" who can actually understand Scripture outside of what they were taught from pulpits.

Do you lump them all together as one?
I hope not.

My real question:
Why do you think that "Calvinists" have a problem with what Scripture actually says?

I have no trouble seeing what this says, for example:

" But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you." ( John 10:26 ).
" But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you." ( John 10:26, NKJV )

Choice is real, so is accountability for our choices, God really does want us all to choose him.

I agree with the first part.
Where do you see Scripture that states that God wants all men to choose Him?

I don't believe he made any human being as a vessel for destruction.

Neither did I, roughly 16 years ago.

Though, he will allow them to reject Him and suffer the consequences.

Where is that declared in God's word?

I see Scripture that states that we already have rejected Him, and do so perpetually ( Romans 1:18-32, Romans 3:10-18, John 3:19-20, Psalms 10:4 ), but I do not see clear statements that He allows men to reject Him and suffer the consequences while He somehow waits for us to choose Him.

Thanks in advance for your replies.