My criticism of Dr. Flowers: Inability and the Sin Nature

[Diserner]

I had previously addressed Dr. Flowers personally with the following:

The major sticking point for me, as a Classical Arminian, is that I strongly think "Provisionism" hides some aspects of self-righteous theology within the "nuances" of the language concerning the need for grace. Any and all denial of a need for internal grace must be met with extreme skepticism, if for no other reason than the only logical reason to deny a need for grace in any capacity, is to posit goodness and righteousness that is inherent in fallen humans. This needs to be brought out, because it is all that matters—if Provisionists will come clearly and cleanly out and say "There is no inherently righteous and good thing and ability in fallen and sinful humans," then we have no difference. But as far as I know they will not cleanly and clearly do that, thus they are denying the extent of the effects and description of spiritual death—without Christ we can do nothing, we are dead in sins. How you describe that internal need for grace, partial regeneration, change in ontology, effective drawing, whatever you say—it is not the technical description that matters. It is any and all implication of any inherent righteousness or goodness in humans that is not a supernatural working of grace from the Holy Spirit based solely in the merits of the Work of the Cross, and not originating and sourced in the goodness of a sinful and fallen human being dead in sins and blinded by Satan because we are all by nature children of wrath without some work of, yes, supernatural preceding grace (even if from birth, as John the Baptist needed the "Spirit" in the womb). So the denial of grace to any extent logically works out to a claim to self-righteousness denying that all merit was only achieved for creatures in original sin by Jesus on the Cross. That is the sticking point, and the only thing that really matters spiritually. This is erroneous logic pumped out by Dr. Flowers and I will repost my original protestations on Dr. Flowers blogs that I posted two years ago with no answer from him [at that time] in the reply to this.

 

[Diserner]

For any "Provisionists" or people interested in Provisionism, here were my main criticisms against it:


If anyone is curious to read the other side’s point of view, here from a Classical Arminian is just an overview of some errors I think Dr. Flowers makes regarding our position on prevenient (preceding) grace. Ironically, many are the same errors he points out that Calvinists are using against him. None of this is intended in an unkind or polemical spirit. I am not trying to “put down” or belittle a person or position, but point out arguments that don’t make sense and are inconsistent. If anyone is curious to read the other side’s point of view, here from a Classical Arminian is just an overview of some errors I think Dr. Flowers makes regarding our position on prevenient (preceding) grace. Ironically, many are the same errors he points out that Calvinists are using against him. None of this is intended in an unkind or polemical spirit. I am not trying to “put down” or belittle a person or position, but point out arguments that don’t make sense and are inconsistent.

1. The boogeyman fallacy concerning PG: “Hocus-pocus mystical magic on the heart” has become akin to “Pelagian goo getting on you.” In Greek we literally have the word “musterion” constantly being used with the Gospel, God’s working in the heart, and grace. “Christ in us” is literally called a “mystery” and “resurrection power,” not just a message. It is no more an argument to call getting born again getting “zapped” then to have revelation or grace called getting “zapped.” Calling something supernatural by a word designed to be diminutive is not an argument, it’s just an insult.

2. Demanding to know how something is done, but the explanation has no bearing on whether it is true or not. Calvinists insist that if you can’t explain exactly how God can know a free future, it can’t be. Not being able to explain exactly how God’s prevenient grace works, has no bearing on its truth. It is like claiming “If you can’t explain exactly how God created the world, then you can’t say the Bible says God created the world,” which atheists often use. “What exactly did God do when he created, and how did he do it; describe it or you can’t prove it.” This is a literal non-sequitur.

3. Hi-jacking definitions of words to preload one’s presuppositions already into them: “Sovereignty” and “The Gospel message” can be preloaded terms from Calvinists. Now we are told that we don’t believe “the Gospel message” is enough, but we define the Gospel as NOT just a message but the power and Person that come along with it. Never is it “just a message,” where is it called just a message? The Bible, in fact, makes a strong point to say the Gospel is not just “information” or “a message” or “words” for the brain, but a real supernatural power and revelation.

4. The “how dare you misrepresent me” fallacy: stating back the logical implications of the premises of your opponent is not misrepresenting them. For example, this objector is not saying Dr. Flower’s does not “profess” to believe in the sin nature, as Calvinist’s “profess” to believe in free will, but that that conclusion does not follow from his premises. If I claim until I’m blue in the face that I believe in A and I believe in B, but then I say that A + B = A + B is misrepresenting me, then I’m being internally inconsistent and it is not misrepresenting to call me out on that logical error. You may disagree that my logic holds, but I’m not attempting to misrepresent you.

5. Double-speak: this is when one claims to believe in something, but then later goes on to say numerous things that completely exclude that claim. If you truly believe humans are literally born with a sin nature, then it is inconsistent to say it is superfluous or unnecessary for them to need internal grace to respond to God. If you truly believe it is unjust for God to require something of someone they cannot do, then you, by definition, believe the Law of God, which is called “holy, just and good,” is inherently unjust because God is asking us to do something we can’t do. You can’t have your “the Gospel would be unjust if men can’t believe it” cake and then eat your “the law is perfectly just if man can’t perform it” cake too.

6. Broad-sweeping claims that necessitate approaching a Biblical text with prejudice: something like “free will is not in the Bible” is the same type of argument as “prevenient grace is not in the Bible.” It is better to simply deal with each verse than just hand-wave with sweeping generalities. It is stating a claim in such a way as to assume what you set out to prove, and to paint your own claim as already the default and obvious position. What is in the Bible or not in the Bible, must be explained and expounded upon without broad-sweeping assumptions and declarations.

 

[Diserner]

There are many verses in the Bible indicating God’s grace precedes man’s response, and here is a brief overview of just a few. We see it in OT metaphors of the dry bones being called to life or helplessly lying in a pool of blood while God speaks life, or a vineyard needing much care before producing fruit, or a heart that is like stone and needs to be replaced, or even the very start of the Bible where the Spirit is hovering over dark and chaotic waters.

It’s all over the NT with Jesus saying apart from him we can do nothing and will dry up and die, that the light must come before man can respond to it, that Jesus brought the anointing and the Spirit with him to open blind eyes and set the captives free, which things a simple message does not do. We have constant talk of “enlightenment” and the “natural mind” being not enough to understand the things of God. The natural mind is the mind we are born with, unaided by the Holy Spirit’s illumination.

We must do so much logical judo to make these say something other than that we need grace to respond, and the only logical reason one would deny this need for grace is some form of self-righteousness and self-goodness in man. People have gone so far as saying “no one seeks God” really means people do seek, if you look at the original Psalm, even though Paul’s own summation is “all are guilty.” Paul’s argument doesn’t work if “those who are in the flesh [actually can] please God.” If in my flesh dwells no good thing, then only the Holy Spirit can convict the world of sin and righteousness, not a message only; God’s gracious appeals need more than just to be gracious, they need actual grace.

Judicial hardening indeed is best seen as a removal of predeceding/prevenient grace, since grace will be working since birth on our inherent deadness in Adam to resurrect us. This is why David says “take not your Holy Spirit from me,” rather than “take not your gracious message from me.” If the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life, the words can be spoken without Spirit and without life: a dead inefficacious message. The Bible never automatically brings revelation or life all by itself, it becomes a dead religious book, like for the Pharisees.

And the argument that unbelievers can freely believe such demonic works as the Quran/Koran avoids the argument altogether that many feel they cannot believe in it naturally, and the Bible says deception comes from the working of evil spirits in every instance, not the inherent ability to believe Muhammad flew up to heaven on a winged horse. I don’t find I naturally have the ability to believe Muhammad did that.

For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake. (1 Thess. 1)

How would Dr. Flowers even define a gospel in “word only” when he defines “word only” as sufficient? Dr. Flowers would say it was literally impossible for the gospel to ever be in word only, by definition, yet Paul here clearly disagrees. Why would Paul definitively say here that a gospel without “power” and “the Holy Spirit” and “much assurance” is not the same kind of gospel? It would make no sense at all.

Jesus said to them, “These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. (Luke 24)

It makes no sense for minds to need “opening” if they can simply listen to a “gracious” message and that is all they need. This goes the same for the devil constantly being said to blind and mislead people before God brings the truth to them; the “light of the Gospel of the glory of God in Christ” is said to be “blinded” by the god of this world. The devil would be incapable of blinding people that had a natural ability to believe, yet we are all by nature children of wrath. And Paul praying that the veil being take away and the heart’s eyes being opened… it just goes on and on, preceding grace is one of the most well-attested doctrines in all the Bible. Paul did not “argue the Scriptures” believing he was alone and intellectually powered, the Holy Spirit was said to be a witness alongside the apostles (Acts 5:32), not conflated as their actual witness.

The above are not just isolated scriptures, there are many more like them. I have previously supported Dr. Flowers for several years in his stand against Calvinism, and I sincerely love him as a brother in the Lord, but I feel he is very unfair and inconsistent to the Classical Arminian position. Surprisingly in the end I find it a more evil doctrine to put goodness in man (Provisionism), than to put evil in God (Calvinism); because even if you put evil in God you can still admit you are fully evil, and have a strong foundation of grace, that is, a complete commitment to admit you are fully evil and only God can save you. Self-righteousness in the Bible is said to be a big enough sin to even block forgiveness (see the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector). So by becoming offended at God over man being born with a sin nature, because it makes man inherently incapable of keeping the Law which God clearly commands, we foster a rebellious spirit against the truth of original sin and look instead to find some inherent goodness somewhere in humans that is not the work of preceding undeserved grace. It is cultivating a self-righteous spirit of pride that denies the full extent of our sinfulness to the very core of our being.

God bless you all and thank you for the platform to defend my position.


Dr. Flowers addressed these critcisms (in my view very inadequately) here:

In summary, just as Calvinism promotes an evil God so does Provisionism promote a self-righteous man.

Let us rather promote the true grace of God, that in us is no good thing at all but Christ.

 

[Diserner]

Since this time he has been using another fallacy a lot:

7. Arguing that if a certain grace of God fixes a certain problem, it makes the problem meaningless and pointless. So if preceding grace fixes total inability, it's better to just deduce that we might as well skip the need for grace altogether and jump right into innate ability. As if we are positing needlessly complex solutions, and grace being generously offered to all means we never even needed it to begin with.

They mock the grace of God by calling it invisible "pink aardvarks" and "blue elephants."

This would mean that getting saved means you no longer really ever needed a Savior.

Becoming healed then means you never needed a healer.

If the redeemed end up in heaven, it may as well been like the fall never even happened.

This is all pure non-sequitur to try to produce some kind of knee-jerk emotional response.

 

[civic]

Here is Leighton himself explaining what Provisionism is and what it is not for the members and guests that are interested. I’m not a Provisionist but since he is not here to defend himself you can hear it from the horses mouth .

 

[Diserner]

Here are comments I personally wrote to Warren McGrew on his Youtube channel:

@dizerner
If you deny that Christ suffered the punishment for your sins, you are denying God's established means of grace, and making your own path to righteousness. You are also denying the purity of God's holy standards, and setting up your own standards with whatever feels like justice to you. I sincerely hope Christ's suffering wrath for our sins will cover the denial that he even did suffer our punishment, if we will, at the least, acknowledge we need "something" Christ did to save us. But it's skirting dangerously close to damnation.

@dizerner
@IdolKiller I watched all of them bro. Many more than once. The arguments are not that good and truth comes by revelation, as Scripture clearly tells us. As soon as you get a guy depending on his own intellect, you've fallen into self-reliant pride without fail.

Consider you guys "go-to" verse, "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD." You are the ones actually justifying the wicked here. It only takes one lie to be a liar. It only takes one murder to be a murder. But you have forgiveness without justice, you are "justifying the wicked" by saying no atonement is needed.

Is atonement "justifying the wicked?" It does justify people were once wicked but it does not violate justice—if a criminal does his time, pays for his crime, than legally he has absolved the moral debt incurred. Yes, human justice is not 1 to 1 with divine justice, but some similarities show. And if the wicked truly fully pays for his crime, he is not being "justified" apart from Law, he is actually enacting real justice. One sin breaks them all, and God doesn't just "let it go," that is justifying the wicked.

So by the principle of union with Christ, and the two becoming one spirit, as the Scripture very forcefully tells us, whatever happened to Christ is what happened to us, because we are joined, we are considered one—under the "God is a nice guy who just forgives without upholding his holiness" scheme you all have going on, there is no need for our old man, our body of sin, the first Adam, to be crucified with him, and many such depictions. God can just "let it go" without upholding his own character by cheap forgiveness.

Jesus compared his ordeal on the Cross to the travail of a woman. You want there to be no travail and no new birth—we are just good people who need polishing up and Jesus shows us the way, instead of Jesus actually being the way. A righteousness by faith offends our self-goodness and self-righteousness, because it all comes as a gift.

I encourage more prayers like you initially prayed—consider praying the old Calvinist prayer you once prayed, "Show me if I'm like this." Because only a proud man would think he was now beyond that kind of prayer.

God bless.

 

[Diserner]

Here is Leighton himself explaining what Provisionism is and what it is not for the members and guests that are interested. I’m not a Provisionist but since he is not here to defend himself you can hear it from the horses mouth .

He has defended himself, he is not a victim.

People don't point out their own doublespeak and logical inconsistencies, lol.

As you constantly tell the Calvinists...

 

[civic]

He has defended himself, he is not a victim.

People don't point out their own doublespeak and logical inconsistencies, lol.

As you constantly tell the Calvinists...

And those who teach PSA.

 

[Rockson]

. Double-speak: this is when one claims to believe in something, but then later goes on to say numerous things that completely exclude that claim.

I agree Dizerner and this does happen much of the time. That's why when a Calvinist tells me they believe Adam and Eve had free will but they believe in the WCF I hold to the position NO THEY DO NOT. There can be exceptions however when something needs balanced out and to understand how one is meaning a term.

If you truly believe humans are literally born with a sin nature, then it is inconsistent to say it is superfluous or unnecessary for them to need internal grace to respond to God.

Depends on what one means by saying internal grace. There is I think a way you could say that and be right or say that and be wrong. Did we need God's anointed and empowered message. YES. Does a sin nature though have to mean one has no inclination whatsoever to respond to God I would say that would just not be true.

What is in the Bible or not in the Bible, must be explained and expounded upon without broad-sweeping assumptions and declarations.

I agree.

 

[Johann]

And those who teach PSA.

Sorry mate-I am all for PSA,

 

[civic]

Sorry mate-I am all for PSA,

which destroys the Tri-Unity of God.

 

[Johann]

which destroys the Tri-Unity of God.

Not so.

 

[civic]

Not so.

Yes there was a separation with the Father , Son and Holy Spirit and God is Immutable.

You have a logical and Theological contradiction within the Tri-Unity of God. Its a divided God. Yet God cannot be divided since God is One.

Its as simple as that.

 

[Johann]

Yes there was a separation with the Father , Son and Holy Spirit and God is Immutable.

You have a logical and Theological contradiction within the Tri-Unity of God. Its a divided God. Yet God cannot be divided since God is One.

Its as simple as that.

Not here to pontificate or going for a back and forth @civic.
Enjoy your day.

 

[civic]

Not here to pontificate or going for a back and forth @civic.
Enjoy your day.

No problem but this is where we debate and defend our beliefs. And the reason I reject PSA is for the reasons I just stated which are facts the PSA advocates cannot avoid.

Enjoy your day too.

I'm starting a new job today and pretty excited about it.

 

[Johann]

No problem but this is where we debate and defend our beliefs. And the reason I reject PSA is for the reasons I just stated which are facts the PSA advocates cannot avoid.

Enjoy your day too.

I'm starting a new job today and pretty excited about it.

What job? I'm glad with you brother.

In a Senior Assisted Living Community as the community relations director a job I love.

 

[Johann]

What job? I'm glad with you brother.

In a Senior Assisted Living Community as the community relations director a job I love.

Good for you civic.
J.

 

[civic]

Good for you civic.
J.

 

[Johann]

Thanks-but this is not for me brother.

 

[civic]

Thanks-but this is not for me brother.

No worries there are different strokes for different folks. Thats why God made us all different just as there are no two fingerprints the same, snowflakes, people etc..... Variety is a blessing from God as we are not robots that God has preprogrammed. Diversity is a good thing my friend and I can respect that you are different than me.