SOTERIOLOGY 101, Provisionism [ Calvinists of course can be excluded.]

[praise_yeshua]

He was also a Calvinist pastor for over a decade. He is also a professor at Dallas Baptist Seminary.

Oft times there is a "blend" of traditional teaches that cross boundaries of most any classification. Provisionism has essentially been among Independent Baptist churches all over the southern part of the US. Even then, there are different flavors of IBCs.... Some exists in Midwest, California and even NE areas. They usually don't "run in the same circles".

"Independents" pretend they're not basically Congregationalists when they really are. Which most recently came to America from the nonconformist movements in England that included many varied beliefs.

Messy to say the least...

 

[praise_yeshua]

So you admit that Flowers established the name Provisionism.

That, definitionally, is founding it.

Everyone wants to "trace" their little roots back to other things, and maybe yes or no.

But if you found the name of something, you obviously founded it.

Why do I keep letting you bait me with irrational things, lol.

"Geesh."

No. I don't admit that at all. He might have originated the acrostic "PROVIDE". I don't even know if I believe that or not.

I've been among the Independent Baptist a large portion of my life. I know this subject much better than you do. There is always someone wanting to claim "originality". I resist such nonsense at every level. All it does is create egomaniacs.

I didn't bait you at all. Just told the truth. Get the details right and you'll change your mind. You're too loose with all of this.

 

[Dizerner]

I didn't bait you at all.

Yes, you did.

PERHAPS not intentionally, but just from a mixed up mind, that is possible.

But you are the one who thinks he knows just enough to be dangerous.

Nothing I said was incorrect, or even contentious for that matter.

 

[civic]

No. I don't admit that at all. He might have originated the acrostic "PROVIDE". I don't even know if I believe that or not.

I've been among the Independent Baptist a large portion of my life. I know this subject much better than you do. There is always someone wanting to claim "originality". I resist such nonsense at every level. All it does is create egomaniacs.

I didn't bait you at all. Just told the truth. Get the details right and you'll change your mind. You're too loose with all of this.

I like Leighton and he makes some great arguments against reformed theology

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes, you did.

PERHAPS not intentionally, but just from a mixed up mind, that is possible.

But you are the one who thinks he knows just enough to be dangerous.

Nothing I said was incorrect, or even contentious for that matter.

You linked the teaching to "Baptist" when it is much broader. I dealt with this with my very first sentence. Read my comments again.

We have a open dispute between us about many things. I'm trying to get you to be more exacting in your comments.

If you see it as "baiting".... who cares. It isn't my intent nor my desire. I simply disagree with you on many things.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I like Leighton and he makes some great arguments against reformed theology

I don't agree with him in the context of "always providing" the means for salvation to all. I can agree relative to the work of the early church. I see no such obligation in the plan of God anymore. I don't believe in the traditional thought of "All the Gospel to all the world and to all generations".

There is a tendency when someone first leaves "Reformed Doctrine" to go to an extreme opposite. Not saying he has. Just an observation. I rejected Reformed Theology many years ago. I don't really "fit in" anywhere anymore. I find it hard to just "keep my mouth shut" in most anything.

I am glad this forum allows us to "speak freely" here.

 

[civic]

I don't agree with him in the context of "always providing" the means for salvation to all. I can agree relative to the work of the early church. I see no such obligation in the plan of God anymore. I don't believe in the traditional thought of "All the Gospel to all the world and to all generations".

There is a tendency when someone first leaves "Reformed Doctrine" to go to an extreme opposite. Not saying he has. Just an observation. I rejected Reformed Theology many years ago. I don't really "fit in" anywhere anymore. I find it hard to just "keep my mouth shut" in most anything.

I am glad this forum allows us to "speak freely" here.

Since leaving Calvinism not sure what I am now. I believe certain Arminian doctrines and Provisionism. I’m a hybrid lol.

 

[Dizerner]

Dude just literally said the Gospel isn't for everyone.

This place is a cesspool.

 

[civic]

Dude just literally said the Gospel isn't for everyone.

This place is a cesspool.

And the tribe is a 3rd world county that never heard of Jesus ?

How is the gospel for them ?

I’ll get the popcorn ready

BTW everyone is entitled to their opinion. And what makes you think everything you believe is without error ?

 

[civic]

Dude just literally said the Gospel isn't for everyone.

This place is a cesspool.

Sounds just like something Slick or White would say to their opponents that disagree with them.

hmmmmmmmm

 

[TibiasDad]

I , admittedly have not overly studied and just gave an obligatory scanning on these but ....

As I understand things Wesleyan thought is into prevenient grace, or that God's grace is available to all people, enabling them to respond to Him.

Both would be true, though they are two different ideas.

They also hold a belief in Original Sin.

That would be true as well.

They do subscribe to predestination and that God's predestination is based on foreknowledge of who will choose to accept salvation.

A quasi yes; God’s predestination refers to the character traits of a class of people, those who believe, and what their ultimate destiny will be. He does not predestined individuals to believe or disbelieve.

Provisionism the idea that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will decisions.

Then God is not omniscient, and cannot be God.

The also do not hold with the effect of Original Sin as effecting our inherent ability to believe in Christ when presented with the gospel.

We cannot believe without something being present to believe in. In other words, we cannot believe in Christ if Christ was not offered by God for us to believe in.

Also, OS, in my estimation, does not negate the ability to believe per se, it only makes us more likely to disobey than obey.

Prevenient Grace tempers the power of OS so as to keep us from destroying ourselves as a race. It does not save in itself, but mitigates the effect of sin to protect us.

They also subscribe to predestination , though differently in that God provides salvation to everyone, allowing for individual choice.

I see no difference between this a Wesleyan thought.

Beyond that I think both of them are nuts.

I think that calling something “nuts” while admitting you haven’t “overly studied and just gave an obligatory scanning” is nuts!


Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

And the tribe is a 3rd world county that never heard of Jesus ?

How is the gospel for them ?

I’ll get the popcorn ready

BTW everyone is entitled to their opinion. And what makes you think everything you believe is without error ?

I'm glad you understood what I said.

I was simply saying that God isn't obligated "to all the world" throughout all of human history.

I will now add that I believe WE ARE obligated. That is includes me and every other person on this planet. We are our brother's keeper.

 

[Presby02]

Since leaving Calvinism not sure what I am now. I believe certain Arminian doctrines and Provisionism. I’m a hybrid lol.

Or confused?

 

[Presby02]

I like Leighton and he makes some great arguments against reformed theology

Such as?

 

[civic]

Such as?

similar to mine

 

[Jim]

Thank you.

For God said to Moses, "I will show mercy to anyone I choose, and I will show compassion to anyone I choose." So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it. - Romans 9:15-16 [NLT]

The mercy and compassion being shown is not about salvation but about physical conditions and actions. The potter and clay metaphor has to do with the physical life here on earth, not the life of the spiritual in the hereafter. We know that because of verse 22-23.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Since leaving Calvinism not sure what I am now. I believe certain Arminian doctrines and Provisionism. I’m a hybrid lol.

Why do you have to be anything other then a man who loves Jesus?

 

[FreeInChrist]

Both would be true, though they are two different ideas.



That would be true as well.


A quasi yes; God’s predestination refers to the character traits of a class of people, those who believe, and what their ultimate destiny will be. He does not predestined individuals to believe or disbelieve.


Then God is not omniscient, and cannot be God.


We cannot believe without something being present to believe in. In other words, we cannot believe in Christ if Christ was not offered by God for us to believe in.

Also, OS, in my estimation, does not negate the ability to believe per se, it only makes us more likely to disobey than obey.

Prevenient Grace tempers the power of OS so as to keep us from destroying ourselves as a race. It does not save in itself, but mitigates the effect of sin to protect us.



I see no difference between this a Wesleyan thought.


I think that calling something “nuts” while admitting you haven’t “overly studied and just gave an obligatory scanning” is nuts!


Doug

Nuts I am. Just call me macadamia.

Any thoughts on predestination IMHO is nuts.

 

[civic]

Why do you have to be anything other then a man who loves Jesus?

Ditto