Countering Provisionism

[pgwolv]

Dear Puritan Board

I have been discussing Calvinism with a self-proclaimed anti-Calvinist. I found out that he is a Provisionist, a term with which I was unfamiliar. I searched the Puritan Board for related discussions and found very little information.

What I know is that Leighton Flowers is one of the main proponents, and from GotQuestions.org and Flower's website, I saw that they/he also has a mnemonic

Similar to the TULIP in Calvinism, Provisionism can be summarized with the acrostic PROVIDE (see https://soteriology101.com/about-2/statement-of-faith for more information):
People sin: Which separated all from fellowship with God.
Responsible: Able-to-respond to God’s appeals for reconciliation.
Open door: For anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to His open arms.
Vicarious atonement: Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ’s blood.
Illuminating grace: Provides clearly revealed truth so that all can know and respond in faith.
Destroyed: For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit.
Eternal security: For all true believers.

I know that our Confessions are written along Calvinist lines, and I adhere to them. At first read, the Provisionist system almost causes a knee-jerk reaction in me, as it goes squarely against what I have come to believe. Can anyone please point me to Scripture that clearly refutes the Provisionist system? Is it worth trying to do so, or is it not as far wrong as Arminianism?

I saw on the Board that one of the problems is the definitions of terms that differs between our systems of theology, and that Flowers did not use exegesis in his debate against White, which is problematic. My searches also led me to Dr. McMahon's thesis and subsequent books, which I plan on reading soon, as I have many the questions that led to his thesis.

I am devoted to letting the Word of God dictate my thoughts, feelings, and actions. I guess I just want reaffirmation of why we hold to Calvinism as opposed to the supposedly more nuanced Provisionism.

Thanks!

 

[Taylor]

I wont spend the time to find biblical refutation of this system, except to say these people need to read Genesis through Revelation. But, I would like to address this system's proponents' equivocation on the term "responsible."

A common Arminian shibboleth is that all men are "responsible"—that is, "able to respond to God's appeals for reconciliation," as quoted above. But, for these people, "respond" only means one thing: to receive by faith. But that’s conveniently restrictive. Why does "respond" only ever mean "receive by faith"?

The fact is, all men not only are able to respond, but all men in fact do respond to God. Most men respond with hatred and contempt, while many respond with faith in Jesus Christ and repentance unto life. Both are responses, made by responsible people.

Arminians act as if being responsible means only "able to respond in faith." This is false.

 

[pgwolv]

Arminians act as if being responsible means only "able to respond in faith." This is false.

Is there a specific reason that they seem to do this?

 

[Eyedoc84]

Is it worth trying to do so, or is it not as far wrong as Arminianism?

Having been an official member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians for several years, I can tell you that Flowers’ is actually “wronger” than Arminianism. He is more Pelagian, and SEA will not have him as a member because of his view of original sin and the necessity of grace prior to conversion. Many self-proclaimed evangelical Arminians feel more at home with Calvinists than they do Flowers.

 

[Taylor]

Having been an official member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians for several years, I can tell you that Flowers’ is actually “wronger” than Arminianism. He is more Pelagian, and SEA will not have him as a member because of his view of original sin and the necessity of grace prior to conversion. Many self-proclaimed evangelical Arminians feel more at home with Calvinists than they do Flowers.

This is a good point. Flowers is an obsessed lunatic. I don't doubt the salvation of Arminians in general. One is not saved by being a Calvinist. However, when there is a man who seemingly devotes his entire life to "debunking" Calvinism, to the point where it's literally all he thinks and talks about, I fear for his soul.

 

[Pilgrim]

Basically "Provisionism" or "Traditionalism" is an attempt to rebut Calvinism within the Southern Baptist Convention in the USA.

Provisionism is not Arminianism. It is worse than Arminianism. It is closer to Semi-Pelagianism. They deny original sin (which they call "original guilt") and say that man is not charged with sin until he actually starts sinning. For some that may mean that man is not guilty of sin until he reaches the "age of accountability." Arminians don't deny the imputation of Adam's sin (they affirm a form of total depravity, although may not accept Calvinist views of imputation) but they believe that everyone is granted sufficient grace (termed prevenient grace) to be able to believe the gospel. Provisionists deny that a prior work of grace is needed. Some in Arminian churches who are less knowledgeable also do not understand their traditional teaching on prevenient grace. Sproul once said that the modern church is really more Semi Pelagian than it is Arminian, and I think it may be this kind of thing that he had in mind. (There are a lot of things that many members of many Calvinistic churches do not understand about their doctrines either, sadly.)

Provisionism was originally called "traditionalism," by which they mean the soteriology of early-mid 20th Century Southern Baptists, some of whom were not conservatives. It basically teaches that you can come to God unaided by a prior work of the Holy Spirit (they deny this, but both Calvinists and real Arminians say they are unclear at best) and then, to varying degrees, often teach a form of Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) in which repentance from sin is more or less optional. Arminianism on the other hand has such an emphasis on works in the Christian life that they tend toward legalism, and teach that salvation can be lost. The worst of them teach that it can be lost if you commit some "Big" sin but that you can repent and become saved again. Usually these are Pentecostals and maybe some Holiness or Wesleyan people. Sounder Arminians teach that salvation can be lost, but that apostasy consists of a definitive rejection of the faith.

Even the more sophisticated provisionists strenuously reject the idea that they are Arminian because they believe that their embrace of eternal security is incompatible with Arminianism. But some Arminians such as Roger Olson disagree. (Some of the more ignorant Arminians will argue that even embracing eternal security makes one a Calvinist!)

I think they so strenuously reject original sin because they believe that acceptance of that doctrine means that infants dying in infancy are damned. They teach that infants dying in infancy are "safe" rather than saved. (I've seen Dr. Adam Harwood use this terminology.) The infant hasn't exercised faith but also hasn't had sin imputed to them. They will say that man inherits a propensity or inclination toward sin that will inevitably lead him to sin once he is capable of moral action.

From where I sit, Free Will Baptist soteriology (i.e. "Reformed Arminianism" as opposed to Wesleyan Arminianism--I think the distinction mainly has to do with a rejection of Wesley's model of sanctification) is actually preferable to provisionism. To some Southern Baptists, that's a radical thing to say. But it is my well considered opinion that some Southern Baptists have all but made a golden calf out of the Cooperative Program (their way of funding missions) and thus remain yoked to people who are practically Semi-Pelagian. While the Cooperative Program enabled Calvinists to go on the mission field and plant churches that wouldn't have gotten that level of funding otherwise, it also results in paying the salaries of "provisionist" seminary professors, missionaries, and church planters. Some don't think they would have "access" to solid or accredited seminaries if they left the convention.

To find specific rebuttals, you'll probably need to find Southern Baptist resources. But since you are in South Africa I can see where that might be difficult. This board isn't the best place to go for that. It is mainly a Presbyterian board. Although I haven't watched any of them, I do know that James White has rebutted Leighton Flowers from time to time.

 

[Pilgrim]

I guess I just want reaffirmation of why we hold to Calvinism as opposed to the supposedly more nuanced Provisionism.

I don't find provisionism to be particularly nuanced at all. It is confused and for that reason may come across as confusing. When it comes to the semi-pelagian charge, what they give with one hand they take away with the other. You end up going around and around with them.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I guess I just want reaffirmation of why we hold to Calvinism as opposed to the supposedly more nuanced Provisionism.

Is there some specific question you have? Again, even many knowledgeable Arminians find Provisionism confused and dangerously unbiblical.

 

[pgwolv]

(There are a lot of things that many members of many Calvinistic churches do not understand about their doctrines either, sadly.)

This is all too true! I grew up in a so-called Calvinistic denomination, but these things were never taught.

Provisionism was originally called "traditionalism," by which they mean the soteriology of early-mid 20th Century Southern Baptists, some of whom were not conservatives. It basically teaches that you can come to God unaided by a prior work of the Holy Spirit (they deny this, but both Calvinists and real Arminians say they are unclear at best) and then, to varying degrees, often teach a form of Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) in which repentance from sin is more or less optional. Arminianism on the other hand has such an emphasis on works in the Christian life that they tend toward legalism, and teach that salvation can be lost. The worst of them teach that it can be lost if you commit some "Big" sin but that you can repent and become saved again. Usually these are Pentecostals and maybe some Holiness or Wesleyan people. Sounder Arminians teach that salvation can be lost, but that apostasy consists of a definitive rejection of the faith.

Even the more sophisticated provisionists strenuously reject the idea that they are Arminian because they believe that their embrace of eternal security is incompatible with Arminianism. But some Arminians such as Roger Olson disagree. (Some of the more ignorant Arminians will argue that even embracing eternal security makes one a Calvinist!)

I think they so strenuously reject original sin because they believe that acceptance of that doctrine means that infants dying in infancy are damned. They teach that infants dying in infancy are "safe" rather than saved. (I've seen Dr. Adam Harwood use this terminology.) The infant hasn't exercised faith but also hasn't had sin imputed to them. They will say that man inherits a propensity or inclination toward sin that will inevitably lead him to sin once he is capable of moral action.

From where I sit, Free Will Baptist soteriology (i.e. "Reformed Arminianism" as opposed to Wesleyan Arminianism--I think the distinction mainly has to do with a rejection of Wesley's model of sanctification) is actually preferable to provisionism. To some Southern Baptists, that's a radical thing to say. But it is my well considered opinion that some Southern Baptists have all but made a golden calf out of the Cooperative Program (their way of funding missions) and thus remain yoked to people who are practically Semi-Pelagian. While the Cooperative Program enabled Calvinists to go on the mission field and plant churches that wouldn't have gotten that level of funding otherwise, it also results in paying the salaries of "provisionist" seminary professors, missionaries, and church planters. Some don't think they would have "access" to solid or accredited seminaries if they left the convention.

To find specific rebuttals, you'll probably need to find Southern Baptist resources. But since you are in South Africa I can see where that might be difficult. This board isn't the best place to go for that. It is mainly a Presbyterian board. Although I haven't watched any of them, I do know that James White has rebutted Leighton Flowers from time to time.

Thank you very much for your explanations, they are very clear.

 

[pgwolv]

Having been an official member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians for several years, I can tell you that Flowers’ is actually “wronger” than Arminianism. He is more Pelagian, and SEA will not have him as a member because of his view of original sin and the necessity of grace prior to conversion. Many self-proclaimed evangelical Arminians feel more at home with Calvinists than they do Flowers.

Thank you for the insight

 

[Taylor]

Is there a specific reason that they seem to do this?

To maintain their false doctrine.

 

[retroGRAD3]

If you are looking for specific scripture to refute, I would say the book of Romans. One thing to keep in mind as well about Flowers is that he is a terrible exegete. He never stays in the text being discussed (see his debate with James white on Romans 9). He always needs to jump to somewhere else to try and prove his beliefs and often takes passages completely out of context and often times puts scripture against scripture. He also uses analogies endlessly that have nothing to do with the text, always used for emotional effect. Finally, in his "debates" notice he will never positively represents his side. All he ever does is attack calvinism. I do think he is one of the most dangerous false teachers out there today.

 

[pgwolv]

If you are looking for specific scripture to refute, I would say the book of Romans.

This is actually one of the main books I focus on, but the Provisionists define "election" as being for service rather than for salvation. What would be the main prooftexts to support our definition for election? It seems clear to me, I just can't articulate it clearly and Scripturally.

He always needs to jump to somewhere else to try and prove his beliefs and often takes passages completely out of context and often times puts scripture against scripture.

How does "putting scripture against scripture" differ from the concept that "scripture interprets scripture"? Is this not also a part of exegesis? Or is one not allowed to use other parts of scripture when exegeting?

I do think he is one of the most dangerous false teachers out there today.

It seems like it, and from what Chris said above, this seems to be because of the Semi-Pelagianism that it promotes, if I understand correctly.

 

[Taylor]

This is actually one of the main books I focus on, but the Provisionists define "election" as being for service rather than for salvation. What would be the main prooftexts to support our definition for election? It seems clear to me, I just can't articulate it clearly and Scripturally.

Ah, yes. Who can bring any charge against those whom God has appointed for service? Make your calling and appointment to service sure.

Nonsense.

 

[retroGRAD3]

This is actually one of the main books I focus on, but the Provisionists define "election" as being for service rather than for salvation. What would be the main prooftexts to support our definition for election? It seems clear to me, I just can't articulate it clearly and Scripturally.

How does "putting scripture against scripture" differ from the concept that "scripture interprets scripture"? Is this not also a part of exegesis? Or is one not allowed to use other parts of scripture when exegeting?

It seems like it, and from what Chris said above, this seems to be because of the Semi-Pelagianism that it promotes, if I understand correctly.

1. Election seems to be defined Biblically in Romans 8 and 9. God is very clearly making a specific choice in 9 that has nothing to do with Esau or Jacob in themselves.

2. When I say putting scripture against scripture, I mean he argues in a way where he is also saying the bible contradicts itself and so you need his interpretation to understand it properly. That means things like reading the book of John backwards. Scripture does interpret scripture and generally people want to harmonize the bible. He does not appear to be interested in that though.

 

[83r17h]

I think the best thing is to read Flowers' book "The Potter's Promise." It's his laying forth the provisionist case. You'll notice that he does practically no exegesis, but assumes a premise (Reformed theology is bad, and wrong, and man is autonomous from God), then reinterprets things in line with it. He also spends basically all his time (as others have mentioned, and as is a common pattern with every provisionist I've ever met) just attacking Calvinism without bothering to engage with what our confessions actually say, or our exegetical work.

Hodge's commentary on Ephesians 1 is a pretty strong rebuttal to any Scriptural arguments that they make.

Systematically: they don't have a system. They have an assortment of buffet theology to get conclusions they like. There's little connection to theology proper or Christology. Their shallow theology proper consists of the following argument:

1. God is love.
2. Therefore, God cannot help but love his creation.
3. Therefore, God cannot help but provide salvation for his creation.
4. Therefore, God must provide salvation for all humans.
5. Therefore, God respects human choice.

(That's a short summary from the early part of Flowers' book)

Now, I'm not sure where the connection between 4 and 5 is in their argument. It doesn't quite seem to follow. But needless to say, it's all superficially based on a surface level understanding of God's love, where God's purpose of existence is the benefit and service of humanity. It's an abstract and speculative concept of love, divorced from the doctrine of the Trinity: that God's love is directed to a specific end - himself. By making it abstract, they redirect it to their own ends to justify their doctrine.

I have also never had a provisionist response to the question I've posed to them, that follows between 3 and 4 in their logic. What about fallen angels? According to their logic, God is obligated to provide a way of salvation for them too. Yet we know that he has not.

Fundamentally, they are operating in a paradigm where God is a creature. They view God's will as necessarily displacing human will, thus if God's will is involved, then there can be no authentic human willing. For authentic human willing, there must be an absence (or displacement) of God's willing. However, this makes God a creature in the same sense that denying God's omnipresence on the basis that God would displace space makes God a creature.

Finally: they act as if they are the only ones in the history of the world to recognize a corporate aspect to election / salvation. This is similar to things like NPP, which act the same way. However, that completely ignores the centrality of covenant theology to Reformed soteriology, which not only recognizes corporate aspects, but does it in a much more biblical way than either the NPP or provisionist alternatives. And the covenantal theology we have also unifies the corporate and individual aspects, whereas provisionism seems to eliminate the individual.

According to us: God loved us, therefore he sent Christ. According to them: God sent Christ, therefore he loves us. In their model of corporate election, God cannot love you as a sinner. God's love and election is based on union with Christ for them. That's a problem, and at odds with the Scriptural data that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Again, this is where Hodge's commentary on Ephesians 1 is extremely helpful - the federal union is the ground of the voluntary union.

<end rant about how terrible provisionism is>

 

[retroGRAD3]

Ah, yes. Who can bring any charge against those whom God has appointed for service? Make your calling and appointment to service sure.

Nonsense.

Indeed, the "service" definition really shows the terrible exegesis. How can that definition possibly make sense?

 

[pgwolv]

I think the best thing is to read Flowers' book "The Potter's Promise." It's his laying forth the provisionist case. You'll notice that he does practically no exegesis, but assumes a premise (Reformed theology is bad, and wrong, and man is autonomous from God), then reinterprets things in line with it. He also spends basically all his time (as others have mentioned, and as is a common pattern with every provisionist I've ever met) just attacking Calvinism without bothering to engage with what our confessions actually say, or our exegetical work.

Hodge's commentary on Ephesians 1 is a pretty strong rebuttal to any Scriptural arguments that they make.

Systematically: they don't have a system. They have an assortment of buffet theology to get conclusions they like. There's little connection to theology proper or Christology. Their shallow theology proper consists of the following argument:

1. God is love.
2. Therefore, God cannot help but love his creation.
3. Therefore, God cannot help but provide salvation for his creation.
4. Therefore, God must provide salvation for all humans.
5. Therefore, God respects human choice.

(That's a short summary from the early part of Flowers' book)

Now, I'm not sure where the connection between 4 and 5 is in their argument. It doesn't quite seem to follow. But needless to say, it's all superficially based on a surface level understanding of God's love, where God's purpose of existence is the benefit and service of humanity. It's an abstract and speculative concept of love, divorced from the doctrine of the Trinity: that God's love is directed to a specific end - himself. By making it abstract, they redirect it to their own ends to justify their doctrine.

I have also never had a provisionist response to the question I've posed to them, that follows between 3 and 4 in their logic. What about fallen angels? According to their logic, God is obligated to provide a way of salvation for them too. Yet we know that he has not.

Fundamentally, they are operating in a paradigm where God is a creature. They view God's will as necessarily displacing human will, thus if God's will is involved, then there can be no authentic human willing. For authentic human willing, there must be an absence (or displacement) of God's willing. However, this makes God a creature in the same sense that denying God's omnipresence on the basis that God would displace space makes God a creature.

Finally: they act as if they are the only ones in the history of the world to recognize a corporate aspect to election / salvation. This is similar to things like NPP, which act the same way. However, that completely ignores the centrality of covenant theology to Reformed soteriology, which not only recognizes corporate aspects, but does it in a much more biblical way than either the NPP or provisionist alternatives. And the covenantal theology we have also unifies the corporate and individual aspects, whereas provisionism seems to eliminate the individual.

According to us: God loved us, therefore he sent Christ. According to them: God sent Christ, therefore he loves us. In their model of corporate election, God cannot love you as a sinner. God's love and election is based on union with Christ for them. That's a problem, and at odds with the Scriptural data that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Again, this is where Hodge's commentary on Ephesians 1 is extremely helpful - the federal union is the ground of the voluntary union.

<end rant about how terrible provisionism is>

Thanks a lot! I will definitely look for Hodge's commentary on Ephesians 1, which is the type of reading I want to do on the subject. Will you please also define "NPP" for me, or point to a resource on the subject?

I appreciated your rant

 

[retroGRAD3]

NPP = new perspectives on Paul