What is Provisionism?
Please watch this video to better understand why some of us prefer the label “Provisionism” over “Arminianism” or “Traditionalism.” The focus of this soteriological view is on God’s gracious and loving provision for every individual so that anyone may believe and be saved.
Here is a list of articles, statements and resources to help you better understand the “Provisionist” soteriological perspective:
- See Dr. Flowers’ book “The Potter’s Promise.”
- See Dr. Flowers’ book “God’s Provision for All.”
- See Dr. Flowers’ 6-Session Curriculum titled “Tiptoeing Through TULIP.”
- See the Baptist Faith & Message
- Read this summary of the “The Corporate View of Election.”
- For more resources please CLICK HERE.
Why are you sometimes called a “Traditionalist?”
Dr. Eric Hankins wrote a statement (see below) which references the “traditional” beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention over the last 75-100 years. The label “Traditionalist” was used by some to distinguish our view from the more recent resurgence of Calvinistic beliefs within the convention. We recognize the shortcomings of this label which is why some prefer the term “Provisionism.”
We affirm:
A STATEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL SOUTHERN BAPTIST UNDERSTANDING OF GOD’S PLAN OF SALVATION
(Written by Dr. Eric Hankins. See a list of Southern Baptist professors, pastors and theologians who have signed this statement and the ever growing list of other biblical scholars who affirm the non-Calvinistic interpretation of the scriptures in the comment section below.)
Preamble
Every generation of Southern Baptists has the duty to articulate the truths of its faith with particular attention to the issues that are impacting contemporary mission and ministry. The precipitating issue for this statement is the rise of a movement called “New Calvinism” among Southern Baptists. This movement is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation, characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.
While Calvinists have been present in Southern Baptist life from its earliest days and have made very important contributions to our history and theology, the majority of Southern Baptists do not embrace Calvinism. Even the minority of Southern Baptists who have identified themselves as Calvinists generally modify its teachings in order to mitigate certain unacceptable conclusions (e.g., anti-missionism, hyper-Calvinism, double predestination, limited atonement, etc.). The very fact that there is a plurality of views on Calvinism designed to deal with these weaknesses (variously described as “3-point,” “4-point,” “moderate,” etc.) would seem to call for circumspection and humility with respect to the system and to those who disagree with it.
For the most part, Southern Baptists have been glad to relegate disagreements over Calvinism to secondary status along with other important but “non-essential” theological matters. The Southern Baptist majority has fellowshipped happily with its Calvinist brethren while kindly resisting Calvinism itself. And, to their credit, most Southern Baptist Calvinists have not demanded the adoption of their view as the standard. We would be fine if this consensus continued, but some New Calvinists seem to be pushing for a radical alteration of this longstanding arrangement.
We propose that what most Southern Baptists believe about salvation can rightly be called “Traditional” Southern Baptist soteriology, which should be understood in distinction to “Calvinist” soteriology. Traditional Southern Baptist soteriology is articulated in a general way in the Baptist Faith and Message, “Article IV.” While some earlier Baptist confessions were shaped by Calvinism, the clear trajectory of the BF&M since 1925 is away from Calvinism. For almost a century, Southern Baptists have found that a sound, biblical soteriology can be taught, maintained, and defended without subscribing to Calvinism. Traditional Southern Baptist soteriology is grounded in the conviction that every person can and must be saved by a personal and free decision to respond to the Gospel by trusting in Christ Jesus alone as Savior and Lord. Without ascribing to Calvinism, Southern Baptists have reached around the world with the Gospel message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. Baptists have been well-served by a straightforward soteriology rooted in the fact that Christ is willing and able to save any and every sinner.
New Calvinism presents us with a duty and an opportunity to more carefully express what is generally believed by Southern Baptists about salvation. It is no longer helpful to identify ourselves by how many points of convergence we have with Calvinism. While we are not insisting that every Southern Baptist affirm the soteriological statement below in order to have a place in the Southern Baptist family, we are asserting that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists and that they do not want Calvinism to become the standard view in Southern Baptist life. We believe it is time to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology.
Below is what we believe to be the essence of a “Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation.” We believe that most Southern Baptists, regardless of how they have described their personal understanding of the doctrine of salvation, will find the following statement consistent with what the Bible teaches and what Southern Baptists have generally believed about the nature of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
ARTICLES OF AFFIRMATION AND DENIAL
ARTICLE ONE: THE GOSPEL
We affirm that the Gospel is the good news that God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person. This is in keeping with God’s desire for every person to be saved.
We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.
Genesis 3:15; Psalm 2:1-12; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Luke 19.10; Luke 24:45-49; John 1:1-18, 3:16; Romans 1:1-6, 5:8; 8:34; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 4:4-7; Colossians 1:21-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-16; 2 Peter 3:9
ARTICLE TWO: THE SINFULNESS OF MAN
We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.
We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty (?) before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.
Genesis 3:15-24; 6:5; Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 6:5, 7:15-16;53:6;Jeremiah 17:5,9, 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:19-20; Romans 1:18-32; 3:9-18, 5:12, 6:23; 7:9; Matthew 7:21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25; 6:9-10;15:22; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27-28; Revelation 20:11-15
ARTICLE THREE: THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST
We affirm that the penal substitution of Christ is the only available and effective sacrifice for the sins of every person.
We deny that this atonement results in salvation without a person’s free response of repentance and faith. We deny that God imposes or withholds this atonement without respect to an act of the person’s free will. We deny that Christ died only for the sins of those who will be saved.
Psalm 22:1-31; Isaiah 53:1-12; John 12:32, 14:6; Acts 10:39-43; Acts 16:30-32; Romans 3:21-26; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:10-14; Philippians 2:5-11; Col. 1:13-20; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 9:12-15, 24-28; 10:1-18; I John 1:7; 2:2
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
ARTICLE FIVE: THE REGENERATION OF THE SINNER
We affirm that any person who responds to the Gospel with repentance and faith is born again through the power of the Holy Spirit. He is a new creation in Christ and enters, at the moment he believes, into eternal life.
We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.
Luke 15:24; John 3:3; 7:37-39; 10:10; 16:7-14; Acts 2:37-39; Romans 6:4-11; 10:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 2:20; 6:15; Colossians 2:13; 1 Peter 3:18
ARTICLE SIX: THE ELECTION TO SALVATION
We affirm that, in reference to salvation, election speaks of God’s eternal, gracious, and certain plan in Christ to have a people who are His by repentance and faith.
We deny that election means that, from eternity, God predestined certain people for salvation and others for condemnation.
Genesis 1:26-28; 12:1-3; Exodus 19:6;Jeremiah 31:31-33; Matthew 24:31; 25:34; John 6:70; 15:16; Romans 8:29-30, 33;9:6-8; 11:7; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2:11-22; 3:1-11; 4:4-13; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 1 Peter 1:1-2; 1 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 7:9-10
ARTICLE SEVEN: THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
We affirm God’s eternal knowledge of and sovereignty over every person’s salvation or condemnation.
We deny that God’s sovereignty and knowledge require Him to cause a person’s acceptance or rejection of faith in Christ.
Genesis 1:1; 6:5-8; 18:16-33; 22; 2 Samuel 24:13-14; 1 Chronicles 29:10-20; 2 Chronicles 7:14; Joel 2:32; Psalm 23; 51:4; 139:1-6; Proverbs 15:3; John 6:44; Romans 11:3; Titus 3:3-7; James 1:13-15; Hebrews 11:6, 12:28; 1 Peter 1:17
ARTICLE EIGHT: THE FREE WILL OF MAN
We affirm that God, as an expression of His sovereignty, endows each person with actual free will (the ability to choose between two options), which must be exercised in accepting or rejecting God’s gracious call to salvation by the Holy Spirit through the Gospel.
We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person. We deny that there is an “effectual call” for certain people that is different from a “general call” to any person who hears and understands the Gospel.
Genesis 1:26-28; Numbers 21:8-9; Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15; 1 Samuel 8:1-22; 2 Samuel 24:13-14; Esther 3:12-14; Matthew 7:13-14; 11:20-24; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 9:23-24; 13:34; 15:17-20; Romans 10:9-10; Titus 2:12; Revelation 22:17
ARTICLE NINE: THE SECURITY OF THE BELIEVER
We affirm that when a person responds in faith to the Gospel, God promises to complete the process of salvation in the believer into eternity. This process begins with justification, whereby the sinner is immediately acquitted of all sin and granted peace with God; continues in sanctification, whereby the saved are progressively conformed to the image of Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit; and concludes in glorification, whereby the saint enjoys life with Christ in heaven forever.
We deny that this Holy Spirit-sealed relationship can ever be broken. We deny even the possibility of apostasy.
John 10:28-29; 14:1-4; 16:12-14; Philippians 1:6; Romans 3:21-26; 8:29,30; 35-39; 12:1-3; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Ephesians 1:13-14; Philippians 3:12; Colossians 1:21-22; 1 John 2:19; 3:2; 5:13-15; 2 Timothy 1:12; Hebrews 13:5; James 1:12; Jude 24-25
ARTICLE TEN: THE GREAT COMMISSION
We affirm that the Lord Jesus Christ commissioned His church to preach the good news of salvation to all people to the ends of the earth. We affirm that the proclamation of the Gospel is God’s means of bringing any person to salvation.
We deny that salvation is possible outside of a faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Psalm 51:13; Proverbs 11:30; Isaiah 52:7; Matthew 28:19-20; John 14:6; Acts 1:8; 4:12; 10:42-43; Romans 1:16, 10:13-15; 1 Corinthians 1:17-21; Ephesians 3:7-9; 6:19-20; Philippians 1:12-14; 1 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Timothy 2:5; 2 Timothy 4:1-5
Who supports the Non-Calvinistic interpretation?
Loraine Boettner, a respected Calvinistic Historian and Theologian, wrote “It may occasion some surprise to discover that the doctrine of Predestination was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the fourth century. The earlier church fathers placed chief emphasis on good works such as faith, repentance, almsgiving, prayers, submission to baptism, etc., as the basis of salvation. They of course taught that salvation was through Christ; yet they assumed that man had full power to accept or reject the gospel. Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized; yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also that of God’s absolute Foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will. It was hard for man to give up the idea that he could work out his own salvation. But at last, as a result of a long, slow process, he came to the great truth that salvation is a sovereign gift which has been bestowed irrespective of merit; that it was fixed in eternity; and that God is the author in all of its stages. This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect.”
So, even by Calvinistic scholars own admission the Earliest Church Fathers did not teach the Calvinistic view of election, but in fact taught “the absolute freedom of the human will…a kind of synergism in which there was a co-operation between grace and free will.” These Early Church Fathers include:
-Clement of Rome (AD30-100)
-Ignatius (AD30-107)
-Barnabas (AD100)
-Justin Martyr (AD 110-165)
-Irenaeus (AD120-202)
-Tatian (AD110-172)
-Tertullian (AD145-220)
-Clement of Alexandria (AD153-217)
-Origen (AD185-254)
-Hippolytus (AD170-236)
-Novatian (AD210-280)
-Archelaus (AD277)
-Alexander of Alexandria (AD273-326)
-Lactantius (AD260-330)
STUDY BIBLE
Some have asked if I recommend any particular study Bibles. I have not vetted any one fully but I have enjoyed The Peoples New Testament with Explanatory Notes – One Volume Edition (2 volumes in 1) [Hardcover] B.W. Johnson (ISBN-13: 978-0892251414, ISBN-10: 0892251417)
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
I recommend this Systematic Theology by Dr. James Leo Garrett
Also, below is an ever growing list of modern day scholars who do not affirm the Calvinistic interpretation of the scriptures:
AW Tozer
Howard Marshall
Doug Stuart
NT Wright
Gordon Fee
Scott McKnight
David Baker
William W. Klein
Grant Osborne
Robert Shank
David A. DeSilva
Bill T. Arnold
John Oswalt
Brian Abasciano (he helped with this list)
Ben Witherington III
Thomas Oden
C.S. Lewis
Craig Blomberg (not A or C, but probably leans slightly more A)
Craig Keener
Jack Cottrell
Gerald O. McCulloh (edited * “Man’s Faith and Freedom: The Theological
Influence of Jacobus Arminius”)
James Luther Adams (from “Man’s Faith and Freedom”)
Russell Henry Stafford (from “Man’s Faith and Freedom”)
Geoffrey F. Nuttall (from “Man’s Faith and Freedom”)
Roger Olson
Dale Moody
Paul Copan
James D. G. Dunn
Jerry Walls
Joseph Dongell
Clark Pinnock
Donald M. Lake
William G. Witt
A. Skevington Wood
Vernon C. Grounds
Terry L. Miethe
Richard Rice
John E. Sanders
Fritz Guy
Klyne Snodgrass
Robert Picirilli
F. Leroy Forlines
Matthew Pinson
Stephen Ashby
Chuck Smith
George Bryson
Greg Laurie
William Lane Craig
Billy Graham
Adrian Rogers
Michael Brown
Leonard Ravenhill
David Wilkerson
Bruce Reichenbach
David J. A. Clines
William G. MacDonald
James D. Strauss
C. Stephen Evans
Paul R. Eddy
William J. Abraham
A. Philip Brown II
Derek Prince
Jack Hayford
Gene L. Green
Gareth Lee Cockerill
James Leonard
John Wesley
Chrarles Edward White
Anthony Chadwick Thornhill
Aaron Sherwood
B.J. Oropeza
David Lewis Allen
Steve Lemke
Adam Harwood
Jerry Vines
Paige Patterson
Richard Land
Malcolm Yarnell
Bruce A. Little
Robert W. Wall
G. Walter Hansen
Philip H. Towner
Adam Clarke
John Lennox
Paul Ellingworth
William G. MacDonald
James Strauss
Philip Towner
John Wenham
Gary Habermas
Nigel Turner
Max Turner
Peter Cotterell (?)
Michael Brown
David Jeremiah
Dave Hunt
J. W. MacGorman
E. Y. Mullins
Herschel Hobbs
W. T. Conner
Frank Stagg
Fisher Humphreys
Bert Dominy
Ken Keathley
Norm Geisler
Alister McGrath
David Bentley Hart
Mike Licona
I have began compiling a list of scholars in this field who have rejected the Calvinistic interpretation of the scriptures for benefit of those who may be interested. Not all of these scholars are Baptist obviously, but they all have credentials as scholars on this subject:
AW Tozer
Howard Marshall
Doug Stuart
NT Wright
Gordon Fee
Scott McKnight
David Baker
William W. Klein
Grant Osborne
Robert Shank
David A. deSilva
Bill T. Arnold
John Oswalt
Brian Abasciano (he helped with this list)
Ben Witherington III
Thomas Oden
C.S. Lewis
Craig Blomberg (not A or C, but probably leans slightly more A)
Craig Keener
Jack Cottrell
Gerald O. McCulloh (edited *”Man’s Faith and Freedom: The Theological
Influence of Jacobus Arminius”)
James Luther Adams (from “Man’s Faith and Freedom”)
Russell Henry Stafford (from “Man’s Faith and Freedom”)
Geoffrey F. Nuttall (from “Man’s Faith and Freedom”)
Roger Olson
Dale Moody
Paul Copan
James D. G. Dunn
Jerry Walls
Joseph Dongell
Clark Pinnock
Donald M. Lake
William G. Witt
A. Skevington Wood
Vernon C. Grounds
Terry L. Miethe
Richard Rice
John E. Sanders
Fritz Guy
Klyne Snodgrass
Robert Picirilli
F. Leroy Forlines
Matthew Pinson
Stephen Ashby
Chuck Smith
George Bryson
Greg Laurie
William Lane Craig
Billy Graham
Adrian Rogers
Michael Brown
Leonard Ravenhill
David Wilkerson
Bruce Reichenbach
David J. A. Clines
William G. MacDonald
James D. Strauss
C. Stephen Evans
Paul R. Eddy
William J. Abraham
A. Philip Brown II
Derek Prince
Jack Hayford
Gene L. Green
Gareth Lee Cockerill
James Leonard
John Wesley
Chrarles Edward White
Anthony Chadwick Thornhill
Aaron Sherwood
B.J. Oropeza
David Lewis Allen
Steve Lemke
Adam Harwood
Jerry Vines
Paige Patterson
Richard Land
Malcolm Yarnell
Bruce A. Little
Robert W. Wall
G. Walter Hansen
Philip H. Towner
Adam Clarke
Ravi Zacharias (?)
Paul Ellingworth
William G. MacDonald
James Strauss
Philip Towner
John Wenham
Gary Habermas
Nigel Turner
Max Turner
Peter Cotterell (?)
Michael Brown
David Jeremiah
Dave Hunt
J. W. MacGorman
E. Y. Mullins
Herschel Hobbs
W. T. Conner
Frank Stagg
Fisher Humphreys
Bert Dominy
Ken Keathley
See also the list of Traditional Statement signers at http://www.connect316.net
Please respond to add more to this list…
Is FF Bruce Calvinist?
No
where/which churches (denominations) agree with your statement of faith ?
Dr. Flowers is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention and according to surveys most members in the SBC agree with Dr. Flower’s soteriology.
I have many FF Bruce(brethren) commentaries and he could be added to this list.
also there is also George E. Ladd(baptist), Oliver B. Greene( baptist), H.A. Ironside(brethren), David Stern (messianic Jew)(the complete Jewish bible).and Spiros Zodhiates (hebrew greek key study bible). These men all support the free will response of the sinner through the gospel.They all reject the notion man has no free will to accept Christ or that God predestines anyone to believe or anyone to hell.
The English Hebrew Greek key word Bible is not Calvinistic, but the Spanish translation that they print is. I own a print copy of both KJV in English 1991 older edition and Reina Valera 1960 in Spanish from 2016. I do not have the newer style English edition however. Even the definitions are written with a calvinistic slant.
David Jeremiah is now a Calvinist! Check out his study Bible and his booklet on Romans, does not believe man has a choice in salvation. Please change your list. Thank you!
W. Ian Thomas
So, I assume based on the articles of faith above that you lean more heavily to the Lordship Salvation side rather than Free-Grace? Also, do you view the Bible dispensationally or do you accept aspects of supercessionism? I do appreciate your honesty and balance regarding Calvinism. Are you familiar with C. Gordon Olson and his book “Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism” which presents a mediate theology?
I am not sure Greg Laurie should be listed here? Here is a section directly from Harvest.org and their Statement of Faith:
“Salvation
We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, as the substitutionary atonement in our place, and that salvation is found in none other than Jesus Christ. Before Creation, God chose those who would be saved and granted this unearned grace solely based on His sovereign good pleasure. “
There are also other statements that are Calvinistic. I’m I just reading it wrong?
I had thought that you were Arminian in your theology but this statement of faith denies the possibility of apostasy. This has been the one sticking point for me with Arminian theology. I thought I had settled on the Baptist statement of faith as posted above, but after reading Forlines began to feel convinced I was wrong. Do you have any thoughts on this, posts, or resources you can point me to?
I have a podcast titled the “P” of Tulip where I cover this. Let me know if u can’t find it on the podcast page
david pawson 🙂
Here is an article from John Frame that I would be interested in your take. This is the Calvinism that I ascribe to: Free Will and Moral Responsibility: http://frame-poythress.org/free-will-and-moral-responsibility/
First, the article titled “why did you choose Christ” touches on this. We don’t believe a LFW choice is “uncaused” as Frame paints it. We believe in agent causation. The cause of a choice is the chooser and if that seems incoherent then so is Gods choice to create you and save you.
Thank you I have been looking for a list of scholars who are not Calvinists and how I can do a study. May I know any discussion on penal substitution and cristus victor
Look at the beliefs page for a start
To say LFW is coherent because God has LFW lacks depth of thought. God is eternal and infinite. And possibly outside of time. God is the Uncaused Cause. These attributes are inexplicable! But there is a comparison that we can understand. God can not sin. Therefore if LFW demands the ability to sin then God does not have LFW.
Here is a quote from Ligon Duncan that you might find interesting:
“The Church Fathers…lived in a time when Stoic and Manichian and other types of determinism where dominate in the philosophical world of the day. In other words, there was an impersonal fatalism that was dominating large swaths of philosophy in their own time. And in reaction to that fatalism—that impersonal determinism—what do you think they stressed? Free will! Now they mean absolutely nothing like what Arminius will mean sixteen centuries later. Or even what high medieval Roman Catholicism will mean. And they are rightly reacting against something that is unbiblical, because determinism is unbiblical.”
– Ligon Duncan T4G Address, Duncan of the Church Fathers, 00:31:56
http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2010/04/22/duncan-on-the-church-fathers/
Can you recommend a book that explains your traditional position?
If you affirm that God has knowledge of and sovereignty over the fate of every person, is He not effectively ordaining the eternal condemnation of those who choose to reject Him through His very choice to create them? It seems to me that to affirm God’s omniscience and omnipotence is to affirm the Calvinist’s position on predestination. The distinction between your position and theirs seems to boil down to semantics. Every time I wrestle with the fate of the unrepentant, I either end up feeling like God is ultimately evil and vain (creating beings He has condemned to hell while demanding their worship) or He isn’t God at all (not omniscient or not omnipotent). I was an atheist for most of my life, then a Christian, but now I find myself an unwilling agnostic or pr maybe an atheist again, and all my unbelief stems from my inability to resolve this question. I feel like I desperately want to believe. Please help me understand where I have got this wrong!
I’m not sure which, but a leighton discussed this on a certain podcast. I had the same problem. In fact I used to believe the bible taught Calvinism and that God was causing my doubts and unbelief and chose me for hell. Awesomely I do not believe that anymore!! My unbelief was from me not God.
i think of us Humans as like bubbles in the water of God. God is sovereign and he being God made us able to make real choices either obeying or disobeying God. Just because He knows what choices we will make does not mean He predestined those choices. He knew before he made us, that making us free to choose would result in Jesus on the cross. It seems from the Bible that He wants a real response that He doesn’t force.
I would recommend to anyone who truly wants to learn the truth as it is in Jesus, that they would FIRST study the “theology” of the Word of God; for “theology” is simply the ‘study of GOD.’ Then after that, study what the Scriptures says about man and his sin. Whenever the diligent believer grasps even just a little of what the Scriptures teach with respect to these 2 subjects, you’ll began to understand the glorious truths of God’s Free and Sovereign Grace. But be very careful: DON’T try to put God in what man teaches according to the systems that man has; ALWAYS prove man’s systems by God’s Word; and never be afraid that if you learn something different from what you been taught by the church or denomination you belong to, to reject anything that contradicts God’s Word. Keep this verse in mind as you study: “You thought that I was altogether such an one as yourself: but I will reprove you, and set them in order before your eyes” (Psalm 50:21). Besides, He also says: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” says JEHOVAH. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8,9). God bless you and His Spirit “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). Amen.
Dr Flowers .. I think you might find your “ancestors” as “stepchildren of the reformers!” Leonard Verduin wrote a book “the reformers and their stepchildren.” The stepchildren were those who broke away from the Reform tradition for various reasons — one was believer’s baptism. They were rejected as rebaptizers — Weidertaufer! There were others who met in secret away from the state church, those who believed that they ought to live a Christian life if they were saved, etc. It is a very engaging book.
Bob Bauman,
I know your post is from three years agod, but I found it interesting you brought up Verduin. I never hear anyone mention him, but his work was quite profound and has been very helpful for me. I have “Reformers and Their Stepchildren.” Have you read “Anatomy of a Hybrid?” Anyway, I find Verduin’s work so interesting because as a non-calvinist dispensationalist, Verduin (who was reformed) was independently coming to conclusions that support a non-calvinistic/dispensational view.
Thank you for your open and honest work in these issues, especially in regard to how first century and the patristics thought.
I do have one question: What is your understanding of “progressive revelation” or better yet, just “progressive learning” about how to understand/interpret the scriptures aright. For example: could it be the God used Augustine to discover some very important biblical truths that were not discovered yet before him? There is a strong argument for “earlier the better” as NT Wright and others help us think about……but that does not mean “the earlier the better” is absolutely always right and best. The Patristics has some wrong theology too. Where does earlier the better or later the better start and end or is correct or wrong?? Wow, now we’re getting into religio-historical philosophy….ouch.
Here is a good little article making in important distinction in how we are to properly answer the question: Was Calvinism in the early church fathers? Both Calvinists and Arminians can learn from this for sure!
http://gentlereformation.com/2011/08/05/were-the-early-church-fathers-calvinists-a-brief-reply-to-dr-fernandez/
I see you list Robert Shank as one of many respected biblical scholars who reject Calvinism. Have you read “Life in the Son” by Robert Shank. I am not a Calvinist and am not convinced of the OSAS position. Shank was a Southern Baptist who came to reject the OSAS position after doing an exhaustive study of it. Just curious if you’ve read “Life in the Son” and if so, what are your thoughts on it? Just stumbled across your FB page and this website. Well done, brother. Thank you.
I have read portions over the years but don’t recall that particular portion of his work.
Leighton, Why is the doctrine of the Judgment Seat of Christ missing from SBC circles (Rom 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:10-15; 9:24-27; 2 Cor 5:10)? This doctrine clears up many of the passages that Calvinists often use to “prove” that any work done by the Christian is “of God” and if works are absent, the person was “never really saved” (ala Thomas Schreiner). Thanks for your ministry and I am a big fan of the book!
Dr. Michael Heiser is non-Calvinist and an ANE scholar. I’d love for you to interact with him.
I would like to add several scholars to your list who are not Calvinist and also not Arminian in their theology. These men are truly students of the Word and traditionalist. These would include Zane Hodges, Dr. Robert Wilkin, Shawn Lazar, C. Gordon Olson, Dr. Anthony Badger, Dr. Laurence Vance, Dave Hunt, and Charles Bing.
Would you mind doing an article on the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart? I just recently read an essay where someone said that “that the Bible clearly states that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart after each plague.” That’s not what I read in any of my Bibles. In the Bible versions that I have read it said that Pharaoh’s hardened his own heart, then God respected his choice and hardened Pharaoh’s heart as judgement. I agree with you that if Pharaoh had no choice, then why did God hold him accountable?
Thanks for your answer in this matter.
I recently watched your podcast from Feb. 15, 2017 entitled “Can you lose your Salvation? Traditionalism, Calvinism and Arminianism.” I made the following comment:
I have several questions about and objections to your reasons, Dr. Flowers, for believing that a person could not forfeit their salvation by turning from Christ after having genuinely trusted in him and, therefore, having been born from above. I hope that you will see this comment and be able to answer. I tend to agree with Dr. Brown (and John Wesley) on this point, although I cannot be absolutely certain about it and have some questions about that view, as well. First, you said that someone who has been born (again) cannot be unborn. My answer is that a person cannot be unborn, but he can die. Adam was a son of God. However, he died because of his rebellion, and death passed onto us all as a result. Why then after a person has been reborn could he not die again by returning to a state of rebellion against God? The prodigal son was a son, but his father said that he was dead (because he left the father) until he returned to the father in humble repentance. Jude verse 12 states about certain people that, “These are…trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots…” Notice that they are twice dead (and they aren’t physically dead yet). Also, notice that their fruit withers (or has withered?) and now they no longer have any fruit. They had roots but became “plucked up.” This fact would seem to indicate that a person can have the fruit of the new birth but that it can wither and die and they will no longer bear fruit. I have more questions/objections, but think I had better address them later.
Would you be able to respond to me somehow? Thanks!
“We deny even the possibility of apostasy.” I think you’d better not deny the possibility of falling away (apostasia) since the Bible speaks about it. I don’t think you want to deny something that the Bible teaches. You may understand it differently than someone else, but you can’t deny that the Bible talks about apostasy. II Thess. 2:3 is one example: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away (apostasy) first.”
Dr. Andrew Farley author of “God without Religion” is also a non-Calvinistic scholar
Thank-you for your website ,been listening to Leighton appreciate his clarity ,so went here to get general synopsis , found all beautifully stated ,Yet have this question The Bible appears clear on Eternal Security yet you seem to contradict in reference to ( Hebrews 13:8 Malachi 3:6 ) Revelation 3:5 as Exodus 32:33 concerning apostasy Jude 4 as in falling away 2 The. 2:4 Strong’s G646 (apostasia) apostasy, to forsake as in because iniquity will abound the love of many shall grow cold,he that endures ( wise virgins) prepare for darkness of lawlessness by buying the truth (Diligently studying as in the process of Eternal Security assured in 2Peter 2-11 notice verse 3 God no longer in giving business for He has ALREADY given us All things that pertain to Life and Godliness through the Knowledge of Him Who has called us to Glory and Virtue …Thus verse 4 whereby are given unto us exceedingly great and precious promises that by these we Might be a partaker of the divine nature having Escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust, verse 10 wherefore the rather brother and give diligence to make your calling and election sure for if you do these things you shall never fall. Hebrews : 2:1 therefore we ought to give the more Earnest heed to the things which we have heard least at any time we should let them slip. 3:12-14 take heed Brethren least there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the Living God but exhort one another daily while it is called today Least any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin for we are made partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast until the end. Hebrews 6:4-6 for it is impossible for those who were once enlightened and have tasted of the Heavenly gift and where made partakers of the Holy Ghost and have tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the world to come If they shall fall away to renew them again unto repentance seeing They Crucified to themselves the Son of God afresh and put Him an open shame. You might remember the Bible used to say that Jesus was the sower of the word the key parable the most important Parable saying unless you understand this parables how can you understand any parable it doesn’t say that anymore just like many other changes ( read KJV New Testament 100’s of times in last 46 years ) remember when Jesus said you don’t put new wine into old wineskins Why ,(they won’t stretch anymore) saying they would burst… The word “wineskins” is no longer found in my 90 year old Bible or in Strong’s concordance neither “wineskin” ate you studied enough to remember when KJV use to read, In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth? No more says that, another example quote or write down the Lord’s prayer to words have been replaced Thus Psalms 119:11
Lastly please write down John 3:16 that one hasn’t changed but can you write exactly what is said without changing it meaning? The majority of preachers misquote one word which vastly chan it meaning like John 8:32 set free is no where in the Bible unless you use it in Questioning the Goodness of God Genesis 3:1 to be set free from God by disobedience Romans 6::16 2Peter 2:20-22
Dr. Flowers,
I have a question which I guess falls under the category of “Perseverance.” Recently, I had taken an inductive Bible study on the book of Hebrews. The organization that writes the study leans heavily towards Calvinism. Although I am not a Calvinist, (I’m a traditionalist), I usually don’t have a problem with it as I can overlook their view of predestination in light of their other scholarly theological study methods. However, when presenting Hebrews 10 (not an easy passage to exegete), they were very firm on the statement that if a “Christian” habitually or willfully sins, then they were never a Christian. While I do agree that a Christian will have evidence of a changed life and will produce fruit. I’m having trouble believing that person cannot sin or even turn away for even an extended period of time. We all sin every day, which makes it habitual, and I believe that God sometimes allows us to go our own way to show us the consequences and need of Him., like the Prodigal Son from Luke 15. But a true Christian will ultimately come back. Then again, if a person dies before they are able to repent, does that mean they were not saved? Do you see my problem? I would love to hear your views. I also think this may connect to the Lordship vs Free Grace debate. I’m not really sure where I land on that either. But the above statements probably give some indication. I would appreciate your viewpoints.
Cherie, thanks for the question. The best thing to do would be to join the Soteriology 101 Discussion group on Facebook and you’ll get several viewpoints on this and a place to talk through it.
Frédéric Louis Godet was a swiss theologian who should also be added to this list. He rejects the Calvinistic view on predestiantion.
Leighton, ARTICLE 8, states. “We deny that the decision of faith is an act of God rather than a response of the person.” How does square with Ephesians 2:8 where Paul supposedly states that even “this faith” is not of ourselves? Thank you in advance for your response and for all the things you’re teaching me in your writings.
Hey Rudy, I work with Dr. Flowers on this ministry. We would say that Paul isn’t saying “the faith was injected into me as an effectual, irresistible gift” but that “this faith” signifies the economy of salvation. That is, God has set up this faith (Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Proclamation) so that we may believe in it and gave us the ability, as made in the Image of God, to believe in it. God did all the works that we may believe in. I hope that helps
You can add much of the so-called “Plymouth Brethren” to your list as well. We have a long romantic history with the Baptists, especially the likes of D.L Moody. John Darby is sometimes considered a Calvinist by people with an agenda, but anyone who has read his writings knows that isn’t true. He was just really strong on election at a time when Arminianism was quite popular, especially in America. None of his closest pupils had anything nice to say about Calvinism. Most of the time, they didn’t care much for ANY of Calvin’s thoughts on scripture. Darby and William Kelly are always bringing up Calvin’s comments on various scriptures just to disagree with them.
All the said, I think you would be safe to include classic Brethren writers like William Kelly, C.H. Mackintosh, F.W. Grant, J.B. Stoney, and John Ritchie. Some of the mor modern authors and speakers would be John Lennox (just released an excellent book about determinism), Jabe Nicholson (currently producing an unCalvinistic series on YouTube), David Dunlap, Mike Attwood, and plenty of others. Like the Baptists, the Brethren are divided on the Calvinism topic. I blame John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, and laziness to search the scriptures for ourselves.
Hi I didn’t see a contact email on the site, so I’ll post here:
Your recent YouTube video “Salvation Through the Eyes of a Prodigal” is spelled incorrectly (actually it omit’s a word)
Are there no women theologians?
Tracy,
For some reason, almost all women theologians are extremely liberal and deny the inerrancy of the Bible. This is quite unfortunate. Perhaps it is because theological training directly relates to male leadership (1 Tim. 2:12) as pastors are to be men, and theology departments of Biblical educational institutions only place men in faculty positions.Thus, usually only egalitarian women pursue careers in theology at egalitarian institutions, and egalitarianism goes hand in hand with liberal theology.
I really appreciate the brief exegesis on Eph.1 at the 46 minute time stamp in this video. I’m having trouble figuring out which other posts/resources on the website include similar exegesis for Rom. 9, 1 Peter 2, and similar passages. (just a note, I think the desiring God website does a good job visually presenting exegesis on various biblical passages, not that I agree with that exegesis, but the viewpoint is clearly presented in an understandable way). Could you provide links/pings to the posts that include scriptural exegesis?
Hi Dr. flowers, I was looking for a place to send an email and couldn’t find any so I guess I’ll have to ask my question here. I’ve heard you say many times that you were a Calvinist for 10 years but then on this Monday’s podcast during the conversation you mentioned that you were either slowly moving away from Calvinism or were no longer a Calvinist for seven years before you told anyone. That’s of paraphrase so sorry if it’s not quite accurate. My question is were you a convinced Calvinist for 10 years and then spent seven years moving out of Calvinism or were you a convinced Calvin is for three years and the other seven years of moving away from Calvinism was part of your 10 years? Thank you.
Dr. Flowers, I have been enjoying all of your wonderful resources and learning a ton about Calvinism and Soteriology. I am interested in the interconnection between the 5-points. I hear a lot of non-Calvinists refer to themselves as “1-point Calvinists” (Preservation of the Saints) , and considering the interconnection between the points, I am wondering if this is logically consistent. Wouldn’t this 1-point view also necessitate a belief in Irresistible Grace? God’s grace would need to become irresistible following regeneration if once saved, always saved is the case, right? This seems to only differ from the Calvinist view in regards to the point at which grace becomes irresistible. The Calvinist would say before regeneration, and a 1-pointer would say after. Once the prodigal son returns home does his father bar the windows and lock the door? Is the prodigal son unable to escape back to that wild country? Has his will has been irresistibly changed? Thanks, Randall.
^Perseverance