🚩 A Critique of Provisionism Regarding Hell and Unbelief

[CCShorts]

Provisionism teaches that Jesus' sacrifice paid for the sins of everyone, leaving unbelief as the reason for condemnation. However, this raises a few logical inconsistencies:

1. Unbelief as Sin: The most obvious is If unbelief is a sin, then it should fall under the scope of what Jesus paid for on the cross. By sending people to hell for unbelief, it appears that God is requiring something additional beyond Christ’s work, which challenges the completeness of Jesus’ atonement as they describe it.

2. God’s Love and Partiality: Provisionists often argue that God loves all people equally. However, if God condemns people for something other than the sins Jesus paid for (like an incorrect "choice"), then it implies there is something else God values more than the individuals themselves. This undermines the concept of God’s unconditional love, as it suggests God values a correct decision over a person’s salvation.

3. Grace and Human Choice: If salvation is by grace alone, then a person's “choice” should not be what ultimately determines their salvation. If God could save by grace alone, the idea that He withholds salvation based on a choice contradicts the idea of grace. This view could imply that human decision is more powerful than God’s grace, effectively making grace conditional.

4. Hell as a punishment for a simple wrong choice raises another significant problem in the Provisionist view. If rejecting God's provision (Christ's sacrifice) is the reason people are cast into hell, this seems disproportionate when compared to the severity of eternal punishment. A person might make a "simple" decision of unbelief or rejection, but the response—eternal torment in hell—is an extreme consequence for such a decision.

To use an analogy, it's like offering someone a home and food, and if they "simply" decline the offer, the punishment is not just rejection or being left to their own devices—it’s being tortured for the rest of their life. The punishment doesn’t seem to fit the "crime" of rejecting the provision, especially when that provision was offered out of supposed love and grace.

This further questions the coherence of the idea that God is all-loving and all-gracious in the Provisionist framework. If hell is a place of eternal punishment, and God sends people there for not making the correct choice, this implies God values the "choice" more than the person. It also undermines the very essence of grace, which should not be conditioned on human decision-making.

Therefore, the inconsistency lies in the fact that, if hell is reserved for rejecting God's provision, it casts doubt on both the fairness of the punishment and the nature of God's grace and love as described in Provisionism.

5. Hell based on a single choice influenced by temporary circumstances—raises serious questions about fairness and justice in the Provisionist view.

If a person rejects God due to a particularly difficult day or moment and then dies soon after, this one instance of unbelief seals their eternal fate. This creates a scenario where someone is condemned to eternal punishment not because of a lifetime of considered choices, but because of one fleeting decision influenced by temporary emotions or circumstances. If they had lived longer or experienced different circumstances, they might have chosen differently.

This situation raises questions about the fairness of God’s judgment in Provisionism. If God knows a person might eventually make the "right" choice given time and different experiences, it seems harsh—and inconsistent with a God who supposedly loves all people equally—to condemn someone to eternal torment based on a momentary lapse. This would imply that God values the timing of one’s death as a determinant of eternal fate, rather than offering grace and patience that truly seeks each person’s redemption.

---

In a view where grace is not just offered, but sovereignly applied, as in Calvinism, God's decisions aren’t contingent on the randomness of life events or on human timing. Instead, they’re rooted in God’s perfect purpose, which ensures that His actions are both just and merciful, leaving no room for eternal consequences based on momentary lapses or life’s unpredictabilities.

...

 

[LeviR]

Provisionism teaches that Jesus' sacrifice paid for the sins of everyone, leaving unbelief as the reason for condemnation. However, this raises a few logical inconsistencies:

1. Unbelief as Sin: The most obvious is If unbelief is a sin, then it should fall under the scope of what Jesus paid for on the cross. By sending people to hell for unbelief, it appears that God is requiring something additional beyond Christ’s work, which challenges the completeness of Jesus’ atonement as they describe it.

2. God’s Love and Partiality: Provisionists often argue that God loves all people equally. However, if God condemns people for something other than the sins Jesus paid for (like an incorrect "choice"), then it implies there is something else God values more than the individuals themselves. This undermines the concept of God’s unconditional love, as it suggests God values a correct decision over a person’s salvation.

3. Grace and Human Choice: If salvation is by grace alone, then a person's “choice” should not be what ultimately determines their salvation. If God could save by grace alone, the idea that He withholds salvation based on a choice contradicts the idea of grace. This view could imply that human decision is more powerful than God’s grace, effectively making grace conditional.

4. Hell as a punishment for a simple wrong choice raises another significant problem in the Provisionist view. If rejecting God's provision (Christ's sacrifice) is the reason people are cast into hell, this seems disproportionate when compared to the severity of eternal punishment. A person might make a "simple" decision of unbelief or rejection, but the response—eternal torment in hell—is an extreme consequence for such a decision.

To use an analogy, it's like offering someone a home and food, and if they "simply" decline the offer, the punishment is not just rejection or being left to their own devices—it’s being tortured for the rest of their life. The punishment doesn’t seem to fit the "crime" of rejecting the provision, especially when that provision was offered out of supposed love and grace.

This further questions the coherence of the idea that God is all-loving and all-gracious in the Provisionist framework. If hell is a place of eternal punishment, and God sends people there for not making the correct choice, this implies God values the "choice" more than the person. It also undermines the very essence of grace, which should not be conditioned on human decision-making.

Therefore, the inconsistency lies in the fact that, if hell is reserved for rejecting God's provision, it casts doubt on both the fairness of the punishment and the nature of God's grace and love as described in Provisionism.

5. Hell based on a single choice influenced by temporary circumstances—raises serious questions about fairness and justice in the Provisionist view.

If a person rejects God due to a particularly difficult day or moment and then dies soon after, this one instance of unbelief seals their eternal fate. This creates a scenario where someone is condemned to eternal punishment not because of a lifetime of considered choices, but because of one fleeting decision influenced by temporary emotions or circumstances. If they had lived longer or experienced different circumstances, they might have chosen differently.

This situation raises questions about the fairness of God’s judgment in Provisionism. If God knows a person might eventually make the "right" choice given time and different experiences, it seems harsh—and inconsistent with a God who supposedly loves all people equally—to condemn someone to eternal torment based on a momentary lapse. This would imply that God values the timing of one’s death as a determinant of eternal fate, rather than offering grace and patience that truly seeks each person’s redemption.

---

In a view where grace is not just offered, but sovereignly applied, as in Calvinism, God's decisions aren’t contingent on the randomness of life events or on human timing. Instead, they’re rooted in God’s perfect purpose, which ensures that His actions are both just and merciful, leaving no room for eternal consequences based on momentary lapses or life’s unpredictabilities.

...

Hell is the condemnation to all humans who sinned in Adam(everyone)The penalty was to return to the dust we are made from. “Dust YOU are, and to dust YOU shall return.”

Unbelievers can do no worse.

Believers in Christ shall be made alive escaping the eternal punishment in Adam by being raised from the dead.

If one who believes and is in Christ would renounce his faith, he would become unjust and in contempt of Christ and would suffer a second death from which there is no more resurrection.

 

[CCShorts]

Hell is the condemnation to all humans who sinned in Adam(everyone)The penalty was to return to the dust we are made from. “Dust YOU are, and to dust YOU shall return.”

I will demonstrate from Scripture that hell is far more than physical death. The Bible consistently describes hell not just as physical decay, but as an eternal, conscious punishment for those who reject God.

Hell as Eternal, Conscious Punishment:

In Matthew 25:46, Jesus speaks of the final judgment, saying, “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Here, the punishment of the wicked is set parallel to the eternal life of the righteous, indicating that both are ongoing and everlasting.

Revelation 14:10-11 describes the fate of those who worship the beast: “They will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night.” This shows hell as an unending state of torment, not merely a return to dust.

Additionally, in Mark 9:48, Jesus describes hell as the place “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” This vividly illustrates an ongoing process, not a one-time event. The imagery suggests that hell is a place of continuous suffering without relief.

Hell’s Duration Compared to Eternal Life:

As seen in Matthew 25:46, hell’s punishment and heaven’s reward are described with the same Greek word for eternal, *aiónios*. If we accept that heaven is eternal life, we must also accept that hell is eternal punishment. There’s a balance here that makes it clear that both are conscious states, as Scripture contrasts them directly.

Revelation 20:10 also says that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be “tormented day and night forever and ever.” It goes on to say in verses 14-15 that anyone whose name is not found in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire—the same lake where torment is described as ongoing forever. This is not simply annihilation or returning to dust; it’s conscious, enduring torment.

The Second Death as More Than Physical Death:

The second death is described as the lake of fire in Revelation 20:14-15. It is more than the physical body's return to dust; it is the separation of the person from God and His goodness eternally. The first death may be the physical death (returning to dust), but the second death is an eternal punishment with no return, as Revelation 21:8 describes: “Their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Jesus warns in Matthew 10:28, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” This demonstrates that hell affects the soul as well as the body, indicating a punishment beyond mere physical death. God’s judgment involves both body and soul, and the reference to hell here is a complete destruction that goes beyond the grave.

Hell Is Not Just Physical Decay:

The idea of “returning to dust” refers to physical death as a consequence of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:19), but hell is portrayed as more than that. In Luke 16:19-31, Jesus gives the account of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man, after his death, is described as being in torment, conscious and aware, crying out for relief from his suffering in Hades. This illustrates that the condition of hell involves conscious suffering beyond the grave, refuting the notion that hell is simply decay or nonexistence.

Jude 1:7 further clarifies this, referring to Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of those who suffer “the punishment of eternal fire.” This punishment is something they “undergo,” suggesting that it is an ongoing experience, not merely the obliteration of existence.

...

 

[LeviR]

I will demonstrate from Scripture that hell is far more than physical death. The Bible consistently describes hell not just as physical decay, but as an eternal, conscious punishment for those who reject God.

Hell as Eternal, Conscious Punishment:

In Matthew 25:46, Jesus speaks of the final judgment, saying, “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Here, the punishment of the wicked is set parallel to the eternal life of the righteous, indicating that both are ongoing and everlasting.

Revelation 14:10-11 describes the fate of those who worship the beast: “They will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night.” This shows hell as an unending state of torment, not merely a return to dust.

Additionally, in Mark 9:48, Jesus describes hell as the place “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.” This vividly illustrates an ongoing process, not a one-time event. The imagery suggests that hell is a place of continuous suffering without relief.

Hell’s Duration Compared to Eternal Life:

As seen in Matthew 25:46, hell’s punishment and heaven’s reward are described with the same Greek word for eternal, *aiónios*. If we accept that heaven is eternal life, we must also accept that hell is eternal punishment. There’s a balance here that makes it clear that both are conscious states, as Scripture contrasts them directly.

Revelation 20:10 also says that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be “tormented day and night forever and ever.” It goes on to say in verses 14-15 that anyone whose name is not found in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire—the same lake where torment is described as ongoing forever. This is not simply annihilation or returning to dust; it’s conscious, enduring torment.

The Second Death as More Than Physical Death:

The second death is described as the lake of fire in Revelation 20:14-15. It is more than the physical body's return to dust; it is the separation of the person from God and His goodness eternally. The first death may be the physical death (returning to dust), but the second death is an eternal punishment with no return, as Revelation 21:8 describes: “Their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Jesus warns in Matthew 10:28, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” This demonstrates that hell affects the soul as well as the body, indicating a punishment beyond mere physical death. God’s judgment involves both body and soul, and the reference to hell here is a complete destruction that goes beyond the grave.

Hell Is Not Just Physical Decay:

The idea of “returning to dust” refers to physical death as a consequence of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:19), but hell is portrayed as more than that. In Luke 16:19-31, Jesus gives the account of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man, after his death, is described as being in torment, conscious and aware, crying out for relief from his suffering in Hades. This illustrates that the condition of hell involves conscious suffering beyond the grave, refuting the notion that hell is simply decay or nonexistence.

Jude 1:7 further clarifies this, referring to Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of those who suffer “the punishment of eternal fire.” This punishment is something they “undergo,” suggesting that it is an ongoing experience, not merely the obliteration of existence.

...

I believe it’s misinterpretation of the newer text that causes the change to the older text which tells us what the punishment is for the progeny of Adam.

God informed Adam that he would return to dust, not his body only. There are not two Adam’s in one Adam.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Provisionism teaches that Jesus' sacrifice paid for the sins of everyone, leaving unbelief as the reason for condemnation. However, this raises a few logical inconsistencies:

1. Unbelief as Sin: The most obvious is If unbelief is a sin, then it should fall under the scope of what Jesus paid for on the cross. By sending people to hell for unbelief, it appears that God is requiring something additional beyond Christ’s work, which challenges the completeness of Jesus’ atonement as they describe it.

2. God’s Love and Partiality: Provisionists often argue that God loves all people equally. However, if God condemns people for something other than the sins Jesus paid for (like an incorrect "choice"), then it implies there is something else God values more than the individuals themselves. This undermines the concept of God’s unconditional love, as it suggests God values a correct decision over a person’s salvation.

3. Grace and Human Choice: If salvation is by grace alone, then a person's “choice” should not be what ultimately determines their salvation. If God could save by grace alone, the idea that He withholds salvation based on a choice contradicts the idea of grace. This view could imply that human decision is more powerful than God’s grace, effectively making grace conditional.

4. Hell as a punishment for a simple wrong choice raises another significant problem in the Provisionist view. If rejecting God's provision (Christ's sacrifice) is the reason people are cast into hell, this seems disproportionate when compared to the severity of eternal punishment. A person might make a "simple" decision of unbelief or rejection, but the response—eternal torment in hell—is an extreme consequence for such a decision.

To use an analogy, it's like offering someone a home and food, and if they "simply" decline the offer, the punishment is not just rejection or being left to their own devices—it’s being tortured for the rest of their life. The punishment doesn’t seem to fit the "crime" of rejecting the provision, especially when that provision was offered out of supposed love and grace.

This further questions the coherence of the idea that God is all-loving and all-gracious in the Provisionist framework. If hell is a place of eternal punishment, and God sends people there for not making the correct choice, this implies God values the "choice" more than the person. It also undermines the very essence of grace, which should not be conditioned on human decision-making.

Therefore, the inconsistency lies in the fact that, if hell is reserved for rejecting God's provision, it casts doubt on both the fairness of the punishment and the nature of God's grace and love as described in Provisionism.

5. Hell based on a single choice influenced by temporary circumstances—raises serious questions about fairness and justice in the Provisionist view.

If a person rejects God due to a particularly difficult day or moment and then dies soon after, this one instance of unbelief seals their eternal fate. This creates a scenario where someone is condemned to eternal punishment not because of a lifetime of considered choices, but because of one fleeting decision influenced by temporary emotions or circumstances. If they had lived longer or experienced different circumstances, they might have chosen differently.

This situation raises questions about the fairness of God’s judgment in Provisionism. If God knows a person might eventually make the "right" choice given time and different experiences, it seems harsh—and inconsistent with a God who supposedly loves all people equally—to condemn someone to eternal torment based on a momentary lapse. This would imply that God values the timing of one’s death as a determinant of eternal fate, rather than offering grace and patience that truly seeks each person’s redemption.

---

In a view where grace is not just offered, but sovereignly applied, as in Calvinism, God's decisions aren’t contingent on the randomness of life events or on human timing. Instead, they’re rooted in God’s perfect purpose, which ensures that His actions are both just and merciful, leaving no room for eternal consequences based on momentary lapses or life’s unpredictabilities.

...

Excellent lucid and concise post. If I may add, Provisionists or synergistic theologies that place human free-will above even God and his Grace cannot explain how someone is saved. Those who claim that Grace is needed to be saved, but then say that this Grace does not violate man's free-will to choose, because if it does violate man's will then God is coercing people against their wills. They also claim that God's Grace is not effectual in saving anyone. So, the question becomes, if Grace is needed to save but it's not effectual, then what saves the person?

The huge problem with Provisionists and Synergistic Theologies, first of all, is their doctrine of the Fall and the gravity of sin. Which leads to a distorted, ineffective or nonexistent view of Grace. God is helpless without human permission or consent, and cannot save anyone without human cooperation. They jumps through all these hoops to avoid giving God all the Glory, Praise and Worship in redeeming lost condemned sinners from bondage to sin, death. They want to find good in man that they can cling to for salvation. This is why they refuse to believe that man is totally ruin and lost; they are dead in sins and trespasses. The only hope is a Merciful and Gracious God.​

 

[CCShorts]

I believe it’s misinterpretation of the newer text that causes the change to the older text which tells us what the punishment is for the progeny of Adam.

God informed Adam that he would return to dust, not his body only. There are not two Adam’s in one Adam.

It’s essential to clarify that the newer texts—specifically, Jesus’ teachings—do not alter the older texts but instead bring fuller understanding of concepts only partially revealed before. Jesus, who alone knows the full scope of hell, provides clearer insights into the eternal nature of punishment.

New Testament Completes Old Testament Understanding:
Jesus frequently expanded on the Old Testament teachings to reveal the full meaning of judgment. In Matthew 5:21-22, for instance, He deepens the understanding of murder and anger, showing how the New Testament clarifies and completes the old teachings, rather than changing them. Similarly, the New Testament reveals the spiritual reality of hell as more than physical death.

Body and Soul as Separate:
Jesus explicitly distinguishes between the physical body and the soul, as seen in Matthew 10:28: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Here, Jesus shows that physical death (returning to dust) is distinct from the spiritual punishment of the soul. This indicates two aspects of humanity: a body that returns to dust and a soul that endures beyond physical death.

The Soul is Not Made from Dust:
Genesis 2:7 says that God created man from the dust and then breathed the breath of life into him, making him a living soul. While the body originates from dust, the soul is a distinct, immaterial part of man, breathed into him by God. Therefore, the punishment for sin involves more than just a physical return to dust; it also includes consequences for the soul, as indicated by Scripture’s descriptions of hell as an ongoing torment affecting the soul (e.g., Revelation 20:10-15).

“One Adam”;
The claim that “there are not two Adams in one Adam” misunderstands the biblical concept of body and soul. Genesis 2:7 indicates that man is made of both body and soul, and both aspects are affected by sin. Just as physical death affects the body, spiritual death (the second death) affects the soul, leading to eternal punishment for those who reject God.

Romans 5:12-21 clarifies that while Adam’s sin brought physical death into the world, it also introduced spiritual death and separation from God. Jesus’ work in the New Testament emphasizes the need for spiritual regeneration to escape not just physical death but also the second death in hell.

...

 

[LeviR]

It’s essential to clarify that the newer texts—specifically, Jesus’ teachings—do not alter the older texts but instead bring fuller understanding of concepts only partially revealed before. Jesus, who alone knows the full scope of hell, provides clearer insights into the eternal nature of punishment.

New Testament Completes Old Testament Understanding:
Jesus frequently expanded on the Old Testament teachings to reveal the full meaning of judgment. In Matthew 5:21-22, for instance, He deepens the understanding of murder and anger, showing how the New Testament clarifies and completes the old teachings, rather than changing them. Similarly, the New Testament reveals the spiritual reality of hell as more than physical death.

Body and Soul as Separate:
Jesus explicitly distinguishes between the physical body and the soul, as seen in Matthew 10:28: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Here, Jesus shows that physical death (returning to dust) is distinct from the spiritual punishment of the soul. This indicates two aspects of humanity: a body that returns to dust and a soul that endures beyond physical death.

The Soul is Not Made from Dust:
Genesis 2:7 says that God created man from the dust and then breathed the breath of life into him, making him a living soul. While the body originates from dust, the soul is a distinct, immaterial part of man, breathed into him by God. Therefore, the punishment for sin involves more than just a physical return to dust; it also includes consequences for the soul, as indicated by Scripture’s descriptions of hell as an ongoing torment affecting the soul (e.g., Revelation 20:10-15).

“One Adam”;
The claim that “there are not two Adams in one Adam” misunderstands the biblical concept of body and soul. Genesis 2:7 indicates that man is made of both body and soul, and both aspects are affected by sin. Just as physical death affects the body, spiritual death (the second death) affects the soul, leading to eternal punishment for those who reject God.

Romans 5:12-21 clarifies that while Adam’s sin brought physical death into the world, it also introduced spiritual death and separation from God. Jesus’ work in the New Testament emphasizes the need for spiritual regeneration to escape not just physical death but also the second death in hell.

...

I’ve been told that Moses was wrong about the creation of man and his death.
Your post is not saying that but only that Moses is incomplete about it.

I don’t think so.

I had a conversation with a Roman Catholic scholar who believes man has an immortal soul, as Catholics are suppose to believe,.where I asked him, “When was man given an immortal soul?”
He responded, “At his creation”

If that is true, why does Moses speak In opposition to that idea?

Moses says the man became a living soul when given the breath of life. All animals are living souls with the breath of life. This is easily proved when you look at the Hebrew.

According to Moses, the man became a living soul when God breathed the breath of life into the man. And the penalty for his sin was that the man would expire by having the breath of life being taken from him. And then the man would return to dust.

I’ve accepted that truth from Moses and sought to correctly understand the New Testament based on that truth. And sure enough, it all fits nicely.

I would be happy to discuss this matter with anyone interested as I have a solid grasp on it.

I won’t hold my breath.

 

[Josheb]

Provisionism teaches that Jesus' sacrifice paid for the sins of everyone, leaving unbelief as the reason for condemnation. However, this raises a few logical inconsistencies....................................

Very good op, @CCShorts. I tried to read through the entirety of Flowers' website but there's just too much there to read everything. Still, I've read scores of his articles and the op is excellent. Provisionism is heretical. It's Pelagian, even if Flowers and his supporters say otherwise. That said, I'd like ot make a few minor tweaks to the op for the sake of clarity.

First, unbelief is a sin. According to Romans 14, "whatever is not from faith is sin." Paul wrote that to a bunch of believers about supporting those in their assembly whose faith was weak. Consider how the "whatever" of that verse applies to those completely lacking in faith. Is it sinful only for those who believe to act outside of faith, or is it sinful for anyone to do so? Is there now a special sin that applies solely to believers? By believing we bring the risk of more sin upon ourselves? No, scripture makes it bluntly clear, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." Unbelief is a sin, and the op addresses the intersection with Provisionism well. Jesus did cover the sin of unbelief, and provisions does bring into question its own claims about the sufficiency and efficiency of Calvary. But more importantly, if unbelief is a sin and unbelief is a synergistic aspect of salvation that exists solely in the unbelieving sinner to change in his still-sinful flesh then salvation is by sinful flesh through faith, not by grace through faith. Because, in Provisionism, belief precedes regeneration there, logically speaking, a group of people who believe with/in their still unregenerate flesh. It does not matter how long the interval between belief and regeneration may be, whether a fraction of a nanosecond, a day, week, month, or any length of time, what Provisionism does (and most synergism do) is create a third class of people: the group of people who are believing but not yet regenerate. In classic Reformed Arminianism this would be the group to whom God has revealed Himself but they've chosen not to believe. There is no possibility without the alternative of unbelief but once the knowledge of God/knowing God is obtained the previously ignorant unbeliever is now an informed unbeliever. The knowledge of God/knowing God proves ineffective (despite the sufficiency and efficiency of Calvary). The informed unbeliever has given God a big, "Meh," and gone about his/her way worse off than he was before. This is very much akin to the subtle distinction between Eve (who sinned under the condition of deceit) and Adam (who sinned without the condition of deceit). The problems in Provisionism relevant to the first point of this op could probably max out an entire single post.

Exponentially numerous problems in Provisionism exist relevant to point 2, too. The basic problem is the fallacy, and the conflation of God's supposed unconditional love. God does love all humans, but His love is not unconditional, nor does it exist in the same way to the same extent. He loves every single sinful human to the point He lets them draw breath for what remains of their earthly life. Scripture provides us with a couple of explanations for this, like giving them the opportunity to repent, or providing for them a temporal "reward," or simply to be used as fodder for God's purposes, but they all boil down to the facts they will not have any excuse in the end and His love was not unconditional. Soteriologically speaking (Provisionism is a soteriological doctrine) all the conditions come after salvation, our having been created in Christ for good works is the exact same condition for which humanity was created in the beginning (see Gen. 1:28). Salvation is the act of love. It is the epitome of God's love for humanity. God could have made life so it ended the instant a person committed their first sin (in the already sinful state) but He did not do that. He showed mercy, compassion, grace..... love. He could had a response to sin in which He actively spoke our existence out of existence, as the just recompense for sin meted out at the time of the offense. The fact that he lets any unbeliever draw breath for a nanosecond is love. Every unbeliever trashes that love not believing..... that love comes with a condition: God is not mocked; whoever For the one who sows to his own flesh will reap destruction from the flesh. Every sinner has liberty to mock God and His love, but it's a mistake to think there are no conditions attached to that liberty.

In regard to point 3, not only does Provisionism make God a conditionally loving, lesser-choiced, not-actually-omnipotent god (as the op correctly observes), Provisionism also makes God dependent on the sinner. The devil is in the details here because Provisionism (along with all the other volitionalist soteriologies) does just say God is dependent on humanity for His plan of salvation to be successfully, it asserts God is dependent of sinful humanity. The righteous Creator is dependent on the sinful creature, the sinless Law Maker is dependent on the lawless lawbreaker, the Ever-Faithful dependent upon the sinfully faithless. Because these conditions are ontological, Provisionism inherently asserts the nature of the sinner is greater in significance and power than the nature of God. Volitionalists typically know this to be the case and typically defend volitionalism by saying God has willingly submitted Himself to the (sinner's fleshly) human choice but that is a position nowhere found in scripture and a position that defies any semblance of logic or reason given the (almighty, sovereign) ontology of God as asserted in the Bible.

As an annihilationist. I have a different perspective on hell, but the points made in the op are valid..... especially if the case of the unbeliever is that of the informed unbeliever versus the uninformed unbeliever. At least the ignorant unbeliever can say, "I did not know" before getting shipped off to endless torturous rotting decay. It's not actually accurate to say the informed belief-denying sinner is denied entrance because of unbelief. If he understands the gospel and chooses not to believe then what s/he's chosen is hell, not not-heaven. Because the gospel necessarily includes the victory of Christ over the grave for the prospect of eternal life in him, the person who's heard the gospel and chooses not to do that option knowingly chooses the other option. There's no third option in the gospel. The ignorant unbeliever may, logically, think, "I can have my own way," but that's not possible for the person who has heard the gospel of Christ knowing Jesus is a big deal specifically because he overcame the grave, and did it so that non-believer hearing the gospel can have eternal life if he just chooses correctly. In other words, Provisionism limits the volitionalists playing field to a strict, blunt, harsh dichotomy: knowingly choosing heaven or knowingly choosing hell. The one who has heard the gospel and still thinks there's a third option is not a rational volitionalist; s/he's delusionally psychotic. Furthermore, both the informed choice for hell and the informed choice predicated on a bad day mean neither God nor the sinner are in charge. There's something else more sovereign, however short-lived, than either of them: the circumstances of the moment. Implicit within the power-of-the-bad-day is premise of God's neglect: He did not reveal the gospel sufficiently to overcome the circumstances of the moment. Bad God, bad God.


Regardless of whatever problems may be thought to exist in monergism. Provisionism as not a better alternative. It is, both scripturally and rationally, a much worse volitionalism than classic Reformed Arminianism (at least Arminius understood the majesty of God and the sinner's depravity).


Good op.

 

[Josheb]

I’ve been told that Moses was wrong about the creation of man and his death.
Your post is not saying that but only that Moses is incomplete about it.

Is it that Moses is wrong, or that portion of scripture written by Moses is wrong?

 

[LeviR]

Is it that Moses is wrong, or that portion of scripture written by Moses is wrong?

I believe neither Jesus or Paul contradict Moses or correct him. Moses was spot-on.

 

[Josheb]

I believe neither Jesus or Paul contradict Moses or correct him. Moses was spot-on.

That is not an answer to my question. The previous post stated,

I’ve been told that Moses was wrong about the creation of man and his death. Your post is not saying that but only that Moses is incomplete about it.

And I am asking for some clarification. Was it Moses, or scripture that Moses wrote that was wrong?


Btw, I am not the one who wrote the post you quoted in Post 7. That would be @CCShorts' Post 6.


Post 7 states, "Moses was wrong," and I would like some clarification pertaining to that claim. Was it Moses that was wrong, or scripture that was wrong?

I’ve been told....

Would you mind telling us who it was that told you Moses was wrong? If we know the source for that claim, then perhaps we'll better understand the assertion Moses was wrong and thereby be better able to address the matter.

1. Was it Moses that was wrong, or scripture that was wrong?
2. Who told you this?

.

 

[LeviR]

That is not an answer to my question. The previous post stated,

​

​

​

And I am asking for some clarification. Was it Moses, or scripture that Moses wrote that was wrong?


Btw, I am not the one who wrote the post you quoted in Post 7. That would be @CCShorts' Post 6.


Post 7 states, "Moses was wrong," and I would like some clarification pertaining to that claim. Was it Moses that was wrong, or scripture that was wrong?

Would you mind telling us who it was that told you Moses was wrong? If we know the source for that claim, then perhaps we'll better understand the assertion Moses was wrong and thereby be better able to address the matter.

1. Was it Moses that was wrong, or scripture that was wrong?
2. Who told you this?

.

It is believed that Moses gives us the account of the creation of man and his death. But more importantly it is the word of God and of truth.

Some time ago I was having this discussion with someone on a Christian forum. I don’t remember the screen name of the person.
As much as people would like, they can’t deny what is actually being said by the scripture. For example, Gen 2:7 can not be denied. One needs to either say that Moses was wrong or that what he says needs to be adjusted in some way.

I disagree with that. I believe Moses was exactly right in what he says about the creation and death of man.

 

[Josheb]

It is believed that Moses gives us the account of the creation of man and his death. But more importantly it is the word of God and of truth.

Which is wrong? Moses? Or scripture?

Some time ago I was having this discussion with someone on a Christian forum. I don’t remember the screen name of the person.

So the statement "Moses was wrong" came from some unidentifiable person?

I disagree with that. I believe Moses was exactly right in what he says about the creation and death of man.

Great. Then how was Post 7 germane to what @CCShorts has posted in Post 6 and the op?


Nix that. Tell me first whether or not you are familiar with Provisionism?

 

[LeviR]

Which is wrong? Moses? Or scripture?

So the statement "Moses was wrong" came from some unidentifiable person?

Great. Then how was Post 7 germane to what @CCShorts has posted in Post 6 and the op?


Nix that. Tell me first whether or not you are familiar with Provisionism?

See post #12

See post #2

 

[Josheb]

Provisionism, for those who do not already know what it is. the soteriology is largely the invention of one man, Leighton Flowers, and his website Soteriology 101 contains all the arguments asserting and defending Provisionism a person could ever want to read. It is noted the webpage offers a video for those who "prefer the label 'Provisionism' over 'Arminianism' or 'Traditionalism.'” The three are not identical, and conflation is common (along with Wesleyan soteriology). The crux of Provisionism is that God's grace has provided all that is necessary for every sinful non-believing individual to believe and be saved. This is identical to what Pelagius is reported to have believed. Pelagius was not representative of the ECFs (which is why Augustine was asked to address Pelagius' views) but appeals to the ECFs as an apologetic defense of Provisionism are common (especially among Traditionalists). The chief point of division between orthodox Arminianism and Provisionism is Arminius' acceptance and assertion of what we now call Total Depravity. Flowers and Provisionism denies the soteriologically prohibitive and preventive effects of sin held to be true in Augustinian soteriology (which includes both Calvin and Arminius).

 

[Mr GLee]

eternal punishment.

I would offer.

The key to understand eternal punishment. Dead never to rise to new born again life( Ecclesiastes 12:7)

The appointment is to die once .No retrial or double jeapordy.

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
The idea that men do not die and return to dust was needed for the Limbo-Purgatory the wondering, sufferings, wondering . . false doctrines

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Death the letter of the law "Thou shalt not or in dying you will come to a end and flesh return to dust while the temporal spirit given under the letter (death)return to God who gave it.

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Hell, the daily sufferings we experience in these earthen bodies of death. Yoked with Christ he makes our burden lighter with a living hope beyond the grave.

The death of death

In the new order the letter of the law death no longer has any power .

The old things (letter) will not be remembered or ever come to mind forever and ever more.

Revelation 20:14 And death and (its sufferings) hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.