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 am currently in the middle of watching flowers live stream over john 6 in regards to the RCC view of transub, i dont know any other way to reach out to flowers for a conversation than on here. Long story short although i agree with flowers on many points i believe he may be straw manning the papist on this topic, and would very much enjoy being able to share some information in regards to the papist view of John 6, Yall now have my email, please reach out to me if possible in regards to this topic, keep up the good work.
Welcome, Daniel… there are Provisionists like me on this blog page who would be happy to discuss John 6 with you from a Provisionist perspective. Leighton is not available on this site, but you might be able to get his attention better on the Facebook page of the Soteriology 101 Discussion Group.
Hi Dr Wagner. Kindly consider sharing with us your thoughts on the RCC view on John 6 even as you reach out to Dr Flowers.
Please, Ezekiel, just greet me as Brian. 🙂 Thx. Here’s what I see in John 6 that clearly goes against the RC view.
False theologies always point to verses that seem like they support them because of the similar words and phrases they need for that theology. The RC Eucharist is not in John 6.
1. The Lord’s Table was not even established yet when Jesus spoke in John 6.
2. Jesus interpreted the eating and drinking He was talking about right in the beginning of His speech. Eating is “coming” to Him and “drinking” is believing. Those two words are all through the rest of the chapter. John 6:35 NASB95 — Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.”
3. Jesus explains clearly to His disciples that He was not talking about physical eating or drinking, even asking them what will they do if He takes His physical body back to heaven.
John 6:61-63 NASB95 — But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”
4. It takes away from the gospel of the cross to think Jesus meant His flesh when He said that He “will give for the life of the world” (6:51) meant the Lord’s Table before His actual sacrifice on the cross.
5. Believing this passage is talking about transubstantiation requires trusting the dogma defined by a denomination who argued about it for almost 1000 years before setting an anathema for those who reject it. This denomination promoted persecution of all who professed to follow Jesus, but who would not join them. Why would anyone trust that denomination for theology or history?
Hi Dr Wagner. Thanks for your concise reply. RCC doctrine of transubstantiation is definitely not founded on the teaching of Scripture.
I am wondering what your response would be to Spurgeon’s “Free Will a Slave?”
Hello Tom and welcome.
.
From my perspective – Spurgeon exhibits all of the DOUBLE-MINDED patterns of the typical Calvinist thinking.
.
Calvinism does have its own version of “Free Will” which is as follows:
.
1) For any [X] which Calvin’s god decrees to infallibly come to pass – he must grant “FREEDOM” for that [X] to come to pass
.
2) If Calvin’s god does not grant “FREEDOM” for that which he decrees to come to pass – he is a house divided against himself.
.
3) But nothing within creation is ever granted “FREEDOM” to BE or DO other than that which is decreed
.
4) Nothing is granted existence within creation – that is NOT decreed
.
5) Nothing is granted existence within creation – that is an ALTERNATIVE of that which has been decreed
.
6) Nothing is granted existence within creation – that is CONTRARY to that which was decreed
.
ADAM IN THE GARDEN FOR EXAMPLE:
.
1) Adam was grated “FREEDOM” to [EAT] the forbidden fruit – because [EAT] is what was decreed
2) Adam was NOT granted “FREEDOM” to [NOT EAT] the forbidden fruit – because [NOT EAT] is CONTRARY to the decree
And that which is CONTRARY to the decree is not granted existence within creation
.
3) Therefore – Adam was not granted CHOICE between [EAT] and [NOT EAT]
because the option to [NOT EAT] was infallibly rejected and thus did not exist as an option for Adam
.
Additionally – even if an ALTERNATIVE option did exist for Adam (which is impossible)
He would still not have a CHOICE because no ALTERNATIVE impulse would be granted existence within his brain.
.
.
So you can see from this – that in Calvinism per the doctrine – humans are not granted CHOICE in the matter of anything
simply because ALTERNATIVES do not exist for humans to choose.
.
.
Blessings!
br.d
br.d
To Summarize what is granted to humans in Calvinism
.
For every human event – and every human impulse – the decree never grants more than *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN OPTION*
And man is granted NO SAY in the matter of what that option will be
And man is granted NO ability to refrain.
.
Thus it follows – man is never granted a CHOICE in the matter of anything.
.
Blessings
br.d
2 Chronicles 32:31 (ESV) “And so in the matter of the envoys of the princes of Babylon, who had been sent to him to inquire about the sign that had been done in the land, God left him to himself, in order to test him and to know all that was in his heart.” Looks like God removed all protection/control over Hezekiah and allowed him to stand on his own free will!
Tim,
Looks like God removed all protection/control over Hezekiah and allowed him to stand on his own free will!
.
br.d
Hello Tim,
Firstly- in Calvinism – there is no such thing as Calvin’s god removing “control” over anything within creation – since the doctrine stipulates not one atomic particle can make the slightest movement without that movement being decreed to infallibly come to pass.
.
John Calvin explains
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
Calvinist R.C. Sproul
-quote
If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, God is not God. (Sovereignty of god)
.
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but *EVERY TWIST AND TURN* of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
.
Calvinist Louis Berkhof
-quote
God is immediately operative in every act of the creature. Everything that happens from moment to moment is determined by the will of god – and * in EVERY instance the IMPULSE to action PRECEDES from god (Systematic Theology)
.
.
Secondly – Calvinists do not hold the same meanings for words which NORMAL people have.
.
So – concerning words like “Permit”, “Permission”, and “Allow”
These words in Calvinism – all function as replacement words for “CAUSE”
.
1) What Calvin’s god CAUSES by infallible decree – he PERMITS/ALLOWS
2) What Calvin’s god does not CAUSE by infallible decree – he does not PERMIT/ALLOW
.
John Calvin explains
-quote
When [Augustine] uses the term PERMISSION, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4), where he proves that the will of god is the supreme and primary CAUSE of all things….(Institutes 1, 16, 8)
.
.
So when the NON-Calvinist reads that text – what he sees are:
1) ALTERNATIVES granted to creation
2) Humans are granted CHOICE between those ALTERNATIVES
3) That CHOICE is *UP TO* the creature to make
.
But you should be able to see (1-3) above do not exist in Calvinism
because their existence would falsify the doctrine of decrees
.
Blessings
br.d
God has decreed that I not be a Calvinist! 🙂
br.d
Well – if what you mean by “God has decreed” is what is entailed as the foundational core of Calvinism
then that statement would be self-refuting. :-]
.
This particular aspect of Calvinism is very difficult for all Calvinists.
Because – if they allow themselves to take at face value – what the doctrine stipulates – they don’t like what they see.
.
All Calvinists – because of the radical nature of the doctrine have a LOVE-HATE relationship with it.
.
For example – it is very consistent for a Calvinist to forcibly assert there is no such thing as AUTONOMY granted to humans in Calvinism.
.
But after that Calvinist makes that declaration – he starts to face what is entailed in it – he becomes very uncomfortable with it.
.
.
So if one closely examines Calvinist statements – one will find those statements are always designed to create a FACADE of AUTONOMY granted to man.
.
Calvinists use language to create AMORPHIC / COSMETIC representations (existing in appearance only) of AUTONOMY granted to humans.
.
.
This is why Calvinist language – has for many generations been recognized as a language of DOUBLE-SPEAK
.
Blessings
br.d
I don’t believe in the Calvinistic god. The God I worship never caused sin. The ideas expressed above can be found in the Gnostics/Manicheans prior to the advent of Augustine II (approximately 412 AD). Unfortunately much of Christianity followed his pernicious teachings (not the Eastern Orthodox and parts of the West) that orginated with God’s enemies. God’s sovereignty which, by His own choosing He limits where it is not necessary to fulfill all His will and accomplish all His will, demonstrates how very powerful He is! He doesn’t create robots designed/programmed down to their atomic structures in order to have His will be done. For those who disagree, you need to believe that i was decreed by God before the foundation of all creation to write what I just wrote!
br.d
Yes! That would be logically correct :-]
.
As a matter of fact – when you unpackage the doctrine – it becomes even more devastating.
.
Consider the following:
.
1) A Jehovah’s Witness reads scripture – and the PERCEPTION that comes to pass within his mind – is that scripture affirms JW doctrine is TRUE – and Calvinist doctrine is FALSE
.
2) A Mormon reads scripture – and the PERCEPTION that comes to pass within his mind – is that scripture affirms Mormon doctrine is TRUE – and Calvinist doctrine is FALSE
.
3) A Catholic reads scripture – and the PERCEPTION that comes to pass within his mind – is that scripture affirms Catholic doctrine is TRUE – and Calvinist doctrine is FALSE
.
QUESTION #1:
Are these PERCEPTIONS TRUTH-BASED?
.
Obviously NOT – because no Calvinist is going to say scripture affirms Calvinist doctrine as FALSE
.
QUESTION #2:
Are these PERCEPTIONS DECREE-BASED?
.
Obviously Yes for the Calvinist – because nothing happens within creation that is not decreed
.
.
THUS IN CALVINISM:
Human PERCEPTIONS are not TRUTH-BASED
.
The Calvinist ( just like Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, and Catholic etc) PERCEIVE their doctrine as TRUE
not because it is
But because that is what was decreed
.
And their brains are not permitted to PERCEIVE OTHERWISE
.
Thus it follows
Calvinism as a belief system (by its own admission) is no more TRUTH-BASED than Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, Catholic …..etc
.
There but for the grace of God go I :-]
.
Blessings
br.d
Does this mean you do NOT affirm the BFM2K?
The above states, “We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.”
But the BFM states, ” It [regeneration] is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through
conviction of sin, TO WHICH THE SINNER RESPONDS in repentance toward God and faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ” (emphasis added).
The BFM seems pretty clear that regeneration is prior to responding.
Hello Marc and welcome
I am not familiar with what the BFMSK is
But I suspect it is some kind of confession – perhaps for Reformed Baptists.
.
If that is the case – then that confession would have to take the position of regeneration prior to responding
The foundational core of Calvinism (i.e. Reformed doctrine) is EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as enunciated within Calvin’s doctrine of decrees.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
THUS:
1) An impulse cannot happen within the human brain unless that impulse was knowingly and willingly decreed
2) The decree is infallible – and thus whatever is decreed to happen – will happen infallibly
3) The human brain is a fallible entity
4) That which is fallible – can never RESIST that which is infallible
5) Therefore – EVERY impulse that comes to pass within every human brain – comes to pass INFALLIBLY and IRRESISTIBLY
6) So all sinful evil impulses – as well as salvific impulses – are *MADE* to come to pass IRRESISTIBLY within the human brain
.
This is where Calvinists get the term “Irresistible” grace
So for the Calvinist – the term “Regeneration” is defined as an infallible salvific impulse existing within the human brain.
And that impulse cannot exist without an infallible decree
.
.
Since the NON-Calvinist does not have Calvin’s doctrine of decrees
Then the NON-Calvinist does not have EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DETERMINISM (EDD) as part of their doctrine
And in such case – impulses which come to pass within their brains do not come to pass infallibly and irresistibly.
And humans are granted CONTROL over the impulses in their brains.
.
Blessings
br.d
Please Remove RICHARD RICE from you list of trusted theologians. he is a seventh day adventist and they are a cult. they are semi pelagian and do not affirm the trinity. makes me sad to see this!
Thank you allison
I will pass this on
.
Blessings
br.d
Can anyone recommend a non-calvinist leaning commentary?
Hello Steve and welcome
.
This question has been asked before – and Brian provided an excellent answer
But I can’t remember where it is posted.
Could you possibly do a search in the “Our Beliefs” page here – and see if you find Brian answering this question?
.
In the mean time – I will reach out to Brian and ask him to get back with you
.
Blessings
br.d
Steve,
There is a web-site called “Studylight.org”
.
Go to google – and enter “studylight.org commentaries” into the google search field.
This will bring you to their web-page
.
This page is divided into sections – and the very first section at the top is Bible commentaries
You will find a line which starts with “Available Languages”
And under that line – there is another line
This line says:
“You may choose to display only links to commentaries written from a particular theological stance by clicking one of the five following links:”
.
Right below that text – you will see another line which allows for selecting different options.
The first option will be “ALL”
Then to the right of that – you will see the option “Arminianism (37)”
This means there are 37 products the page will bring up for you – which are not Calvinist commentaries.
.
Let me know if you have trouble finding this
.
Blessings
br.d
Can you explain or share the provisionist understanding of prayer vs the reformed or Calvinistic understanding? Does God change His mind in response to our prayers? If this is too difficult to answer in this forum, could you please direct me to some resources? Thank you.
Hello Tom and welcome.
.
Most people who are unfamiliar with Calvinism (aka Reformed theology) have no comprehension of how radical Calvin’s doctrine actually is.
.
The extreme radical nature of the doctrine shows up in Calvinist statements – because Calvinists themselves internally struggle with the radical nature of the doctrine – and their statements are often statements which contradict the doctrine – and/or which deny the doctrine.
.
In Calvinism – there is no such thing as Calvin’s god changing his mind about anything that comes to pass within creation – because Calvin’s god – at the foundation of the world – prior to creation – made decisions for every movement of every atomic particle that will happen – at every instance in time – within creation.
.
And those decisions are infallible and Immutable (infallibly unchangeable)
.
Every movement of every atomic particle (including every impulse in every human brain) is determined by an infallible decree.
.
The infallible decree establishes two things for every event
1) What is SELECTED to be granted existence within creation
2) What is REJECTED in lieu of that which was SELECTED.
.
John Calvin
-quote
The creatures…are so governed by the secret counsel of god, that *NOTHING HAPPENS* but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed. (Institutes 1. 16. 3)
.
An infallible decree does not grant existence to any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees.
.
.
ADAM IN THE GARDEN
1) Before Adam was created – a divine decision was made concerning whether Adam will [EAT] the fruit at TIME-T or [NOT EAT] the fruit at TIME-T
.
2) The event of Adam [EATING] the fruit at TIME-T was infallibly SELECTED
.
3) The event of Adam [NOT EATING] the fruit at TIME-T was infallibly REJECTED
.
Therefore – when TIME-T rolls around – there is only *ONE SINGLE PREDESTINED RENDERED-CERTAIN* option granted existence.
.
Adam *WILL* infallibly and immutably [EAT] at TIME-T
Nothing within creation – is granted the ability to BE OTHER than that which was decreed
So NO ALTERNATIVE is granted existence to Adam
.
Additionally – the decree must also establish the impulse that will come to pass within Adam’s brain at TIME-T
And NO ALTERNATIVE impulse will be granted existence within Adam’s brain at TIME-T
.
.
CONCERNING PROVISIONISM:
Provisionism – is simply the proposition that for whatever God requires of any person – he himself will PROVIDE whatever is necessary for that person to comply or obey.
.
For example – when Jesus commands the lame man at the pool of Bethesda to get up and walk.
That command comes with a PROVISION which gives the man whatever is necessary for him to obey that command.
But what each man will BE/DO is not predestined
Man is granted a CHOICE in the matter.
And that CHOICE is left UP TO the man.
.
.
In Calvinism – the model of human functionality – is more like that of robots.
.
Calvinist Robert R. McLaughlin
-quote
“God merely *PROGRAMMED* into the divine decrees all our thoughts, motives and actions”(The Doctrine of Divine Decree pg 4)
.
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
Not only is every atom and molecule, every thought and desire, kept in being by god, but *EVERY TWIST AND TURN* of each of these is under the *DIRECT CONTROL* of god (The Providence of God pg 22)
.
.
Let me know if that doesn’t help to explain the difference.
.
Blessings
br.d
Hi, I recently left the International Christian Churches(ICC), an offshoot of the ICOC formed by Kip Mckean. Im having a really hard time reconciling the purpose of baptism and salvation, as we believed unless one is aware of what baptism does and is made into a disciple before their baptism, they cannot be saved and any other baptism is null and void. They still affirm salvation by grace through faith, but say that it’s exactly at baptism when our sins are forgiven and no other time. What exactly is the provisionist view, as what I described is exactly why I couldn’t stay?
Hello Barry and welcome
You will recall in scripture – as one example – the Jail manager asking Paul “What must I do to be saved”
You will notice Paul does not include Baptism as a requirement within his answer
“Believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved”
.
Water baptism for the vast majority of the believing population serves the purpose of the believer making a outward declaration of dedication to the Lord
.
You will also notice Jesus in some of his interactions with religious people talks about TRADITIONS of men.
Washing of pots – etc
.
Jesus states “You heap burdens upon the shoulders of God’s people that you yourself would not even lift a finger to bear”
.
IMHO: There will always be religious people who will operate that way.
They will insist upon applying burdens onto the hearts and lives of sincere believers
.
Personally for me – and for the vast majority of believers throughout history – there is only one single requirement for salvation – which is belief.
.
We will certainly bump into people who are going to go beyond that – and insist in one thing or another as an extra qualification.
But we see all of those “extra qualifications” as man-made.
.
I would guess that you are a sincere and honest person – or you would not raise this as a concern.
Please let me know if that helps you.
There is no need for this to be a burden for you.
.
Blessings
br.d
Hi Barry,
While I’m not a provisionist, and would not recommend any offshoot of the ICOC such as the ICC, I believe that baptism, as part of the Great Commission given by Jesus, is necessary for obedience to the gospel.
In the example of the Jailer asking Paul “What must I do to be saved” in (Acts 16:30), Paul DOES include both Baptism and Repentance as a requirement when he preached the gospel to this pagan roman soldier (see 16:32-34).
The translation of (16:31) “Believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” is correct. And according to Thayer, this verse means “to have a faith directed toward”. Vine says: “to believe,” also “to be persuaded of,” and hence, “to place confidence in, to trust,” signifies, in this sense of the word, reliance upon,..”
If this is correct, then what Paul is telling this pagan unbeliever to do to be saved, is:–To have a faith directed toward Jesus Christ that places confidence in, trust, and reliance upon Him.
You will then note, that having preached to him, the jailer washed their stripes signifying (repentance).
And then he and his household were baptized that same hour of the night (v.33). Where did he hear of the need to repent and be baptized? Obviously from Paul when he preached to them.
Whats interesting is that it was only AFTER he was baptized does the scripture say in (v.34) that “he rejoiced, HAVING BELIEVED in God with all his household.”
Therefore the context would indicate that ‘Believing upon the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved’ involves a lot more than one might initially have assumed.
THE CONTROVERSY OVER WATER BAPTISM
.
The question needs to be addressed concerning historical controversies among Bible readers over certain doctrinal topics, and where those controversies strongly correlate with the relative emphasis and clarity those topics received within the N.T. writings.
.
It is logical to conclude certain subjects addressed by N.T. authors would be identified by them as critical subjects for people to clearly understand. The more critical the subject, the more emphasis the N.T. author would place on that subject, and the more that emphasis would be consistently repeated.
.
Salvation by faith for example is one such topic. We should be able to assume, the N.T. authors have a high urgency concerning the salvation of all persons. That urgency would compel N.T. authors to place a commensurate emphasis on the most critical factors having to do with salvation, as they understood them.
.
The resulting consequence of subjects which N.T. authors emphasized as critical and consistently repeated throughout the N.T. should directly correlate to the degree to which the Bible reading population can universally agree upon such subjects.
.
Since we can assume that – then it makes perfect sense that “Salvation by faith” would stand as a critical subject emphasized by N.T. authors.
.
What we find then among the Bible reading population does verify this – that “Salvation is by faith” is universally accepted. That universal acceptance can be understood as correlating with the fact that N.T. authors consistently made “Salvation by faith” abundantly clear.
.
The results of that emphasis provided by N.T. authors on that subject will then directly correlate to the degree to which the Bible reading population can universally agree and hold to “Belief in the Lord Jesus” as a necessary requirement for salvation. And that just happens to be the case.
.
So what we are doing here – is examining the current consensus of the Bible reading population – and seeing how that consensus reflects the emphasis which N.T. authors placed on certain subjects.
.
Now in regard to salvation by water baptism – there is an obvious disagreement among the Bible reading population concerning its emphasis.
.
There are those who insist water baptism is a necessary requirement of salvation.
.
Adherents to this view are likely to argue, water baptism is to be “folded into” or a “critical component of” salvation by faith.
.
They may insist that the absence of water baptism entails the absence of true faith and thus the absence of salvation by faith. They may insist upon water baptism as a necessary component of faith. Without water baptism there is no true faith – and thus no true salvation.
.
Critiques of this view are likely to see making water baptism a test of faith, as a form of “works salvation”.
.
Water baptism as a form of works salvation is of course going to be rejected by the adherents of water baptism.
.
So we see the controversy and difference of opinion among the Bible reading population concerning the necessity of water baptism.
.
And there are going to be those who identify the reason for this difference of opinion as correlating to a lack of emphasis placed upon this subject by N.T. authors.
.
Where there is universal agreement on “Salvation by faith” among the Bible reading population, that same agreement does not exist concerning salvation by water baptism.
.
These people will conclude, the N.T. authors did not place a high emphasis on water baptism as necessary for salvation – and that lack of emphasis by the N.T. authors correlates to the difference of opinion among sincere Bible readers today.
.
These people will conclude the N.T. authors lack of emphasis on water baptism as a clear indicator that it was not held as a critical requirement for salvation. If the N.T. authors held water baptism as a critical requirement for salvation – one would certainly expect to see warnings to believers over its necessity.
.
For example – letters to the churches. If the author of any of those letters anticipates new converts within a given congregation to which he is writing, and if that N.T. author held water baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation, surely that author would put a high emphasis on warning that congregation that they should not allow members to postpone water baptism because their salvation depends upon it.
.
But no such warnings or emphasis is found within the letters to the churches, leading to the conclusion that water baptism as a necessary requirement for salvation was something future Bible readers would construe from out of a small number of verses – and from its comparative lack of emphasis by N.T. authors conclude it could not have been something the N.T. authors believed.
.
Obviously – the controversy will continue.
And each individual believer must weight the evidence and make up his own mind.
Br.d,
People make all sorts of different assertions on just about everything in the Bible. And, as you said yourself, men will use scripture to prove those assertions. The thing about that, is that I have listened to unbelievers use that as a reason to reject the Bible and say you can’t really know the truth by following the Bible. We need to be careful that we don’t make the same mistake because of different views over baptism and faith alone.
It is also a mistake to think that salvation THROUGH faith does not involve conditions.
Furthermore, the Great Commission, which Jesus gave before He ascended back into heaven, gave much emphasis to those conditions of faith, such as baptism.
Now concerning those pastoral Epistles which you spoke about, yes, there is more mention of faith than baptism, but that’s to be expected. These letters were written to believers, and as believers there would have been little need to always keep repeating HOW they were saved THROUGH faith — That it involved repentance and baptism!
So when Paul said, ‘you were saved when you believed’ they would have understood that these things were included in that statement.
I hope this helps,
Take care.
br.d
Hi Aiden – yes – your thoughts would be expected taking your current position into view.
.
As for me – I’m happy with my latest deliberations over the subject.
And happy to let each individual weight the evidence and use their best wisdom :-]
.
Good to chat with you again my friend!!
Hope this finds you and yours well!!
.
Blessings!
No problem, br.d
It was good talking to you again.👍