Dizerner
Well-known member
The key difference between Arminianism and Provisionism is their denial of Preceding Grace, the need for an internal work in the heart to be saved.
So-called "Provisionism" was founded by Dr. Leighton Flowers:
The Unconditional Election Debate: An Universalist Perspective
- Thread starter Pancho Frijoles
- Start date
The key difference between Arminianism and Provisionism is their denial of Preceding Grace, the need for an internal work in the heart to be saved.
So-called "Provisionism" was founded by Dr. Leighton Flowers:
Eternally-Grateful
Well-known member
it is by grace that we are offered regeneration, or salvation. for By Grace we have been saved.The answer is simple—God can give grace without fully regenerating a person, which Preceding Grace is all throughout Scripture.
Calvinism is badly mistaken in both its logic and its misinterpretation of Scripture. Please see the following:'
but it must be recieved through faith. not of works lest anyone should boast
Eternally-Grateful
Well-known member
They sound like isms to me.The key difference between Arminianism and Provisionism is their denial of Preceding Grace, the need for an internal work in the heart to be saved.
So-called "Provisionism" was founded by Dr. Leighton Flowers:
Do they both believe salvation can be lost? ie. Eternal life is not really eternal?
civic
Well-known member
False claims poisoning the well fallacyThe key difference between Arminianism and Provisionism is their denial of Preceding Grace, the need for an internal work in the heart to be saved.
So-called "Provisionism" was founded by Dr. Leighton Flowers:
ARTICLE FOUR: THE GRACE OF GOD
We affirm that grace is God’s generous decision to provide salvation for any person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in uniting the believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith.We deny that grace negates the necessity of a free response of faith or that it cannot be resisted. We deny that the response of faith is in any way a meritorious work that earns salvation.
Ezra 9:8; Proverbs 3:34; Zechariah 12:10; Matthew 19:16-30, 23:37; Luke 10:1-12; Acts 15:11, 20:24; Romans 3:24, 27-28, 5:6, 8, 15-21; Galatians 1:6, 2:21, 5; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 3:2-9; Colossians 2:13-17; Hebrews 4:16, 9:28; 1 John 4:19
civic
Well-known member
ditto
civic
Well-known member
Here is a good article on Arminianism/Provisionism and their differences.
Prevenient Grace: Is this a minor point?
I recently had Dr. Roger Olson, of Truett Seminary, on the program to discuss his work on soteriology and some of our theological differences, which you can watch here. Dr. Olson is a scholar I hav…
soteriology101.com
Show me in the Bible where such additional grace is said to be needed and I’ll be the first to recant my perspective on this. But, we must be careful in this discussion not to misapply texts having to do with God purposefully and judicially blinding the truth of the gospel from large numbers of Israelites due to their own rebellion. Dr. Olson certainly would not want to make the same hermeneutical mistake as the Calvinist on this point. Dr. Olson continues:
And they need to delete the sentence that denies the incapacitation of free will due to Adam’s sin. Leaving the statement as it stands, without a clear affirmation of the bondage of the will to sin apart from supernatural grace, inevitably hands the Calvinists ammunition to use against non-Calvinist Baptists.
With all due respect to Dr. Olson (and I really mean that when I say it), but the classical Arminians are strange bed-fellows with the Calvinists when it comes to their individualizing of the text and this particular error of separating the grace from its means. God’s gracious means to enable faith IS the Gospel. The TRUTH will set you free (John 8:32). The very words that Christ spoke and gave us to proclaim are “spirit and life” (John 6:63). Faith comes by hearing God’s gospel truth (Romans 10:14), and we will be judged by the very words of Christ (John 12:48). Dr. Olson continues:
It doesn’t matter what “most Baptists” believe or what is the “traditional Southern Baptist understanding.” For a long time I’ve been stating that most American Christians, including most Baptists, are semi-Pelagian, not Arminian and not merely non-Calvinist.
Likewise, it does not matter what classical Arminians believe or how ancient councils have framed this discussion. It is never right to label and dismiss people with manmade Catholic titles of heresy, especially when we all deny the heretical component of that original doctrine (i.e the denial of the sin nature and our need for a Savior from conception).
I would love to set aside the Pelagian boogeyman labels for a time and have a biblical conversation about any passage which Dr. Olson believes supports the unfounded idea that fallen humanity are born in such a condition that they cannot willingly respond to God’s own Holy Spirit inspired appeals to be reconciled from the Fall. It seems to me that God’s gospel appeals, in and of themselves, would be sufficient to do what He means for them to do. John 20:31 clearly lays out what his inspired words are meant to do:
“…these [scriptures] have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”
Must we muddy the waters by suggesting that God, at some unknown point in the life of everyone, has to move in some other gracious way to enable all people to respond to the already gracious, powerful, Holy Spirit wrought truth of the gospel? What text necessitates such complex theological explanations? Why create a redundant theological term when the biblical word is more than sufficient? The GOSPEL is God’s enabling grace and the ONLY reason some do not have “ears to hear” is if they have become blinded or calloused against it because they have continually closed their eyes to the truth (John 12:39-41; Acts 28:23-28). There is nothing in scripture, as far as I can tell, which suggests men are born in such condition that would prevent them from responding to “the double edge sword” of the Holy Spirit’s soul piercing gospel truth (Heb. 4:12).
Olson writes:
Calvinists and Arminians stand together, with Scripture, against semi-Pelagianism. (Romans 3:11 and 1 Corinthians 4:7 to name just two passages.)
Regarding Romans 3:11, the teaching that “no one seeks God,” does not prove that no one can respond to God’s gracious means to seek and save us (i.e. through the gospel appeal). And the context of the 1 Corinthians 4:7 passage ironically warns us against saying you are of Paul or Apollos (i.e. of Calvin or Arminius) because “what do you have that you were not given?” How that supports the concept that the gospel itself is not a sufficient work of supernatural enabling grace is beyond me. In a follow up comment, Dr. Olson gives this less than helpful “litmus test” to determine if one falls into the heretic category:
The litmus test is this: Do you believe the initiative in salvation (speaking here of the individual’s salvation) is God’s or the human person’s? Can a sinner exercise a good will toward God apart from special assisting grace? If the answer to the first question is “God’s” and to the second is “no,” then I will count you an Arminian, not a semi-Pelagian.
Of course I believe God takes the initiative in salvation. He takes the initiative by sending the Law, His Son, the Spirit, the apostles, the Scriptures, and His Bride filled with Holy Spirit filled messengers to carry his powerful gospel appeal to every living creature. So, would I pass his first test question?
To Olson’s second inquiry, I would quickly say “no, a sinner cannot exercise faith apart from hearing the gracious truth of the gospel appeal.” Faith does come by hearing, after all. How will they believe in one whom they have not heard (Rom. 10)? So, would I pass his second test question, or can we assume the good doctor forgot his parenthetical exception of “the gracious gospel truth” leaving me to fail his heretical litmus test?
Means Mean Something:
Both Arminians and Traditionalists believe the Holy Spirit is personally working to enable the lost to come to faith so as to be saved. We disagree as to the MEANS by which the Holy Spirit does this.For instance, one Arminian friend of mine said to me, “In my mind even the thought experiment of whether the gospel is sufficient without the personal work of the Holy Spirit makes no sense…” I agree with him, that does not make any sense.
Do you see the clear contrast between the Arminian and myself on this point? The Arminian thinks I believe “the gospel is sufficient without the personal work of the Holy Spirit,” whereas I actually believe, “the gospel is sufficient BECAUSE it is the personal work of the Holy Spirit.”
Should we ever conclude that God’s words, graciously inspired by His Spirit, are somehow insufficient to lead anyone who hears them to faith and repentance?
Need there be some kind of extra grace that makes the grace of the gospel powerful enough to lead one to salvation? I see no convincing evidence of this need in scripture, do you? If you do see it, is that because God has granted you a grace which makes you more capable of seeing truths revealed in scripture that He has kept from me and other believers? Or could it simply be that we all have the same gracious revelation and any errors of interpretation or suppressing of its truth is due only to our own free choices?
I suspect that much of the dispute within in the church over the centuries would not have been necessary if we simply dropped this unfounded presupposition that God’s gracious work needs more grace to work.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Isaiah 54:8: “With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you,”
I agree with you in that God loves everyone.
Some Calvinist friends I have known are reluctant to affirm that God loves everyone, and not just "the elected". They are also reluctant in affirming that they are expected by Jesus to love everyone, even their enemies.
I have received responses like: "Well, I have not been commanded to hate anyone...".
While "not hating" is OK, Jesus command is much higher. It is about loving.
Why do some Calvinists show this reluctance?
I am not sure, but I suspect that it would be unsustainable for them to uphold that God loves persons who He pre-destined for destruction.
It would also be unsustainable for them to admit that Jesus asks them to love their enemies, because then, if they do, they would be showing more love than God himself.
Eternally-Grateful
Well-known member
Just further evidence that we need to get rid of "isms" and just speak the word.Here is a good article on Arminianism/Provisionism and their differences.
Prevenient Grace: Is this a minor point?
I recently had Dr. Roger Olson, of Truett Seminary, on the program to discuss his work on soteriology and some of our theological differences, which you can watch here. Dr. Olson is a scholar I hav…
Show me in the Bible where such additional grace is said to be needed and I’ll be the first to recant my perspective on this. But, we must be careful in this discussion not to misapply texts having to do with God purposefully and judicially blinding the truth of the gospel from large numbers of Israelites due to their own rebellion. Dr. Olson certainly would not want to make the same hermeneutical mistake as the Calvinist on this point. Dr. Olson continues:
And they need to delete the sentence that denies the incapacitation of free will due to Adam’s sin. Leaving the statement as it stands, without a clear affirmation of the bondage of the will to sin apart from supernatural grace, inevitably hands the Calvinists ammunition to use against non-Calvinist Baptists.
With all due respect to Dr. Olson (and I really mean that when I say it), but the classical Arminians are strange bed-fellows with the Calvinists when it comes to their individualizing of the text and this particular error of separating the grace from its means. God’s gracious means to enable faith IS the Gospel. The TRUTH will set you free (John 8:32). The very words that Christ spoke and gave us to proclaim are “spirit and life” (John 6:63). Faith comes by hearing God’s gospel truth (Romans 10:14), and we will be judged by the very words of Christ (John 12:48). Dr. Olson continues:
It doesn’t matter what “most Baptists” believe or what is the “traditional Southern Baptist understanding.” For a long time I’ve been stating that most American Christians, including most Baptists, are semi-Pelagian, not Arminian and not merely non-Calvinist.
Likewise, it does not matter what classical Arminians believe or how ancient councils have framed this discussion. It is never right to label and dismiss people with manmade Catholic titles of heresy, especially when we all deny the heretical component of that original doctrine (i.e the denial of the sin nature and our need for a Savior from conception).
I would love to set aside the Pelagian boogeyman labels for a time and have a biblical conversation about any passage which Dr. Olson believes supports the unfounded idea that fallen humanity are born in such a condition that they cannot willingly respond to God’s own Holy Spirit inspired appeals to be reconciled from the Fall. It seems to me that God’s gospel appeals, in and of themselves, would be sufficient to do what He means for them to do. John 20:31 clearly lays out what his inspired words are meant to do:
“…these [scriptures] have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”
Must we muddy the waters by suggesting that God, at some unknown point in the life of everyone, has to move in some other gracious way to enable all people to respond to the already gracious, powerful, Holy Spirit wrought truth of the gospel? What text necessitates such complex theological explanations? Why create a redundant theological term when the biblical word is more than sufficient? The GOSPEL is God’s enabling grace and the ONLY reason some do not have “ears to hear” is if they have become blinded or calloused against it because they have continually closed their eyes to the truth (John 12:39-41; Acts 28:23-28). There is nothing in scripture, as far as I can tell, which suggests men are born in such condition that would prevent them from responding to “the double edge sword” of the Holy Spirit’s soul piercing gospel truth (Heb. 4:12).
Olson writes:
Calvinists and Arminians stand together, with Scripture, against semi-Pelagianism. (Romans 3:11 and 1 Corinthians 4:7 to name just two passages.)
Regarding Romans 3:11, the teaching that “no one seeks God,” does not prove that no one can respond to God’s gracious means to seek and save us (i.e. through the gospel appeal). And the context of the 1 Corinthians 4:7 passage ironically warns us against saying you are of Paul or Apollos (i.e. of Calvin or Arminius) because “what do you have that you were not given?” How that supports the concept that the gospel itself is not a sufficient work of supernatural enabling grace is beyond me. In a follow up comment, Dr. Olson gives this less than helpful “litmus test” to determine if one falls into the heretic category:
The litmus test is this: Do you believe the initiative in salvation (speaking here of the individual’s salvation) is God’s or the human person’s? Can a sinner exercise a good will toward God apart from special assisting grace? If the answer to the first question is “God’s” and to the second is “no,” then I will count you an Arminian, not a semi-Pelagian.
Of course I believe God takes the initiative in salvation. He takes the initiative by sending the Law, His Son, the Spirit, the apostles, the Scriptures, and His Bride filled with Holy Spirit filled messengers to carry his powerful gospel appeal to every living creature. So, would I pass his first test question?
To Olson’s second inquiry, I would quickly say “no, a sinner cannot exercise faith apart from hearing the gracious truth of the gospel appeal.” Faith does come by hearing, after all. How will they believe in one whom they have not heard (Rom. 10)? So, would I pass his second test question, or can we assume the good doctor forgot his parenthetical exception of “the gracious gospel truth” leaving me to fail his heretical litmus test?
Means Mean Something:
Both Arminians and Traditionalists believe the Holy Spirit is personally working to enable the lost to come to faith so as to be saved. We disagree as to the MEANS by which the Holy Spirit does this.
For instance, one Arminian friend of mine said to me, “In my mind even the thought experiment of whether the gospel is sufficient without the personal work of the Holy Spirit makes no sense…” I agree with him, that does not make any sense.
Do you see the clear contrast between the Arminian and myself on this point? The Arminian thinks I believe “the gospel is sufficient without the personal work of the Holy Spirit,” whereas I actually believe, “the gospel is sufficient BECAUSE it is the personal work of the Holy Spirit.”
Should we ever conclude that God’s words, graciously inspired by His Spirit, are somehow insufficient to lead anyone who hears them to faith and repentance?
Need there be some kind of extra grace that makes the grace of the gospel powerful enough to lead one to salvation? I see no convincing evidence of this need in scripture, do you? If you do see it, is that because God has granted you a grace which makes you more capable of seeing truths revealed in scripture that He has kept from me and other believers? Or could it simply be that we all have the same gracious revelation and any errors of interpretation or suppressing of its truth is due only to our own free choices?
I suspect that much of the dispute within in the church over the centuries would not have been necessary if we simply dropped this unfounded presupposition that God’s gracious work needs more grace to work.
I was saved in a Baptist church and spent most of my life in a Baptist church.. Calvinism or Armenians never crossed our minds. And I personally reject both "isms" although I may agree with some of what they say.
Eternally-Grateful
Well-known member
Jesus said 2 commands are the greatest. one is to love our neighbor. in context. Our neighbor may be our enemy..
civic
Well-known member
Agreed and the "isms" can give us an idea about ones perspective on a given passage or their theological slant- or another way of putting it their presuppositions.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Yes, absolutely.
When the scribe asked Jesus to explain this out, Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan.
Let's remember that these two groups were not only ethnically different: they accused each other of what we would call today heresy.
They accused each other of not obeying God. They saw each other as impure.
Something like some Calvinist and Arminians see each other in this Forum, or some Unitarians and Trinitarians.
The Good Samaritan treated the Jew as if he had been part of his own family/tribe.
This is the kind of love God expects from us, because that's the kind of love He gives to all people from all religions, even if we think they are mistaken.
So, if @TomL or @Doug Brents tell me I am not their brother in Christ, but they are willing to treat me as the Samaritan treated the Jew, what else may I ask? They are treating me like as if I were their brother.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
You're right, my friend... and furthermore, in practice, their theological differences have NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER in the decisions they take every day.
No group sins more or sins less, or loves more or loves less, as a result of TULIP or the doctrine of "Prevenient Grace".
Discussions in this regard should be confined in the sphere of intellectual curiosity, building of skills for debate, and socializing.
To achieve this, what our friends have to understand is that only a few fraction of truths are salvific. These salvific truths are so few, and so simple, that can be understood by the most uneducated people on earth, and by children.
Certainly, some may feel threatened to realize that spending years in theological studies do not confer them any advantage before the eyes of God in terms of salvation. Most of Forum members are very interested in Theology, including me. But such interest should be a joyful interest. If it generates hard feelings, it would be infinitely a more spiritual activity to play chess or soccer.
Last edited:
Dizerner
Well-known member
Both systems allow for OSAS as an optional component, that is, they do not take a hard stance.
Although OSAS is very obviously unbiblical.
Dizerner
Well-known member
There is a denial of a preceding internal work of grace, even if it's not as plainly stated here.
Dizerner
Well-known member
Sounds like you've bought into Calvinist false logic.
Just take a look through this:
Doug Brents
Well-known member
You, like many others, equate God's "love" with "salvation". God loved us when we were still sinners (Rom 5:8). So His love is NOT equal with salvation.Yes, absolutely.
When the scribe asked Jesus to explain this out, Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan.
Let's remember that these two groups were not only ethnically different: they accused each other of what we would call today heresy.
They accused each other of not obeying God. They saw each other as impure.
Something like some Calvinist and Arminians see each other in this Forum, or some Unitarians and Trinitarians.
The Good Samaritan treated the Jew as if he had been part of his own family/tribe.
This is the kind of love God expects from us, because that's the kind of love He gives to all people from all religions, even if we think they are mistaken.
So, if @TomL or @Doug Brents tell me I am not their brother in Christ, but they are willing to treat me as the Samaritan treated the Jew, what else may I ask? They are treating me like as if I were their brother.
I may treat you well, and take care of you when you are hurt, and offer to teach you and lead you to Christ, but that does not make you my brother in Christ. Only your surrender to God through faith in Jesus will make us brothers.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
I agree, and let me complement your post with this reflection:
Hearing is not the only way. Before Paul referred to "hearing", Jesus had referred to "seeing".
Faith comes from seeing. Seeing what?
Seeing the good works of people who are followers of Christ: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. (Matthew 5:6)
Understanding these two ways is very useful, in my opinion, because they set a different context.
Hearing is about words. Seeing is about actions.
If we place the origin of faith in "hearing", we will link faith to words. We must preach to reach others.
But if we place the origin of faith in "seeing" we will link "faith" with works. We must shine to reach others.
Dizerner
Well-known member
This is also a watering down of the sin nature, by calling it a mere inclination or corruption, and denying necessary enslavement of the will.
As this allows for a sinless state between birth and a person's first sin, which circumvents the work of Christ and allows innocent people to die.
Dizerner
Well-known member
Now, now, you are familiar with the term "cherry picking."
"And they shall go forth and look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, And their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." (Isa. 66:24 NKJ)
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
God's love leads to salvation. Sooner or later, somehow, somewhere. But it never fails.
Well, Jesus didn't bother to explain if, months later, the Samaritan ended considering the Jew a child of Abraham or viceversa.
We don't know but... would that matter?
Whatever the meaning of "brother" you have in mind, it is OK, if leads you to do what the Samaritan did.
In Mexico, my country, friends call each other "cuate", which means: "my twin brother" or "carnal" which means "my brother in the flesh" or, in the North of Mexico, "compadre", which means "spiritual parent of the child for whom I'm the biological father".
Similar threads
