Provisionism

[Carbon]

Lol, sometimes my conscience gets after me for my biases, but sometimes not. I can't stand the sight of his face. Just feels off kilter somehow (to put it nicely).

Brother, to be honest, I agree. I really don't like the guy

 

[Eleanor]

Occurs to me to mention, and I hope this isn't taken as Off Topic, the quote from, I think, an old Puritan, something along the lines that to add, in worship, to what God says about himself, is to detract from his glory.

Any addition to God is a subtraction.

To me, that is what Provisionism does. It is an attempt to combine some scripture to non-scripture by human means. It is equivocation and sophistry at best, but more like, heresy.

I think it was @Arial that expressed the deceptiveness of it. It feels to me like wolves among the flock. I'm glad it has a name, so that people might be skeptical of the whole of it, it being relatively new on their horizon, and not just skeptical of individual tenets that are hard to pin down. Maybe most believers in my acquaintance want to worship and not be discerning or careful. If it sounds good, they are all for it.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I believe [that Provisionism] is heresy.

I believe that, too, but maybe for a slightly different reason, which can be demonstrated by playing the game that I like to call "Pelagianism or Provisionism?"

Regarding Human Nature​

Innate Innocence: This view rejects the concept of original sin, arguing that humans are born morally neutral, without inherent corruption from Adam's sin. Each person is responsible only for their own sins, not those of ancestors.

A. Pelagianism
B. Provisionism
​

Free Will: This view holds that human free will is intact and capable of choosing good or evil without divine intervention.

A. Pelagianism
B. Provisionism
​

Regarding the Sinfulness of Man​

Total Depravity: This view denies that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will, rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned, and holds that the corruption of man's nature is limited, not total (i.e., humans retain the ability to obey God's commands autonomously).

A. Pelagianism
B. Provisionism
​

Regarding Grace​

External Assistance: This view holds that grace is understood as external aids—such as Christ's teachings, God's commands, and forgiveness of sins—rather than internal transformation. Grace facilitates righteousness but is not essential for initiating good acts. This view affirms the human capacity to choose virtue without inherent grace.

A. Pelagianism
B. Provisionism
​

Regarding Election​

Conditional on Merit: This view holds that election is based on God's foreknowledge of human merit—those who freely choose to follow God's laws are elected—emphasizing human agency over divine decree.

A. Pelagianism
B. Provisionism
​

These are trick questions—because the answer for every single one is both A and B.

Provisionism presents a distinct theological framework that emphasizes human—

Full stop. Little else needs to be said, for indeed the emphasis of Provisionism is humans (so it is barely and only technically theological).

In my experience dealing with Provisionists, it is not really anything more than anti-Calvinism. Evident particularly with Leighton Flowers but also with many of his followers in social media, nearly everything they publish or broadcast is an attack on Calvinism in one way or another—or, with Flowers, on James White.

 

[Carbon]

I believe that, too, but maybe for a slightly different reason, which can be demonstrated by playing the game that I like to call "Pelagianism or Provisionism?"

Regarding Human Nature​

Innate Innocence: This view rejects the concept of original sin, arguing that humans are born morally neutral, without inherent corruption from Adam's sin. Each person is responsible only for their own sins, not those of ancestors.

​

A. Pelagianism​

B. Provisionism​

​

Free Will: This view holds that human free will is intact and capable of choosing good or evil without divine intervention.

​

A. Pelagianism​

B. Provisionism​

​

Regarding the Sinfulness of Man​

Total Depravity: This view denies that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will, rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned, and holds that the corruption of man's nature is limited, not total (i.e., humans retain the ability to obey God's commands autonomously).

​

A. Pelagianism​

B. Provisionism​

​

Regarding Grace​

External Assistance: This view holds that grace is understood as external aids—such as Christ's teachings, God's commands, and forgiveness of sins—rather than internal transformation. Grace facilitates righteousness but is not essential for initiating good acts. This view affirms the human capacity to choose virtue without inherent grace.

​

A. Pelagianism​

B. Provisionism​

​

Regarding Election​

Conditional on Merit: This view holds that election is based on God's foreknowledge of human merit—those who freely choose to follow God's laws are elected—emphasizing human agency over divine decree.

​

A. Pelagianism​

B. Provisionism​

​

These are trick questions—because the answer for every single one is both A and B.




Full stop. Little else needs to be said, for indeed the emphasis of Provisionism is humans (so it is barely and only technically theological).

In my experience dealing with Provisionists, it is not really anything more than anti-Calvinism. Evident particularly with Leighton Flowers but also with many of his followers in social media, nearly everything they publish or broadcast is an attack on Calvinism in one way or another—or, with Flowers, on James White.

Nice!


Agreed!

 

[Josheb]

Does everyone know what Provisionism is? It is good to get familiar with it, it can be very deceptive. I believe it is heresy.​

I used this article from Monegism.

Understanding Provisionism: A Theological Perspective​

Provisionism is a relatively new theological stance within Christian circles, gaining prominence through the work of theologian Leighton Flowers and adopted by many Southern and Independent Baptists. Though it bears similarities to Arminianism and Semi-pelagianism, it also has distinct differences, particularly regarding views on eternal security and prevenient grace. At its core, Provisionism emphasizes the sufficiency of the gospel—God’s Word empowered by the Holy Spirit—to enable a response from all who hear the call to be reconciled with God (John 6:63; Hebrews 4:12).

Core Tenets of Provisionism​

Provisionism can be summarized by the acrostic PROVIDE:

• People sin: Sin has separated all from fellowship with God.
• Responsible: Humans are able to respond to God's appeals for reconciliation.
• Open door: Anyone may enter by faith; whosoever will may come to God’s open arms.
• Vicarious atonement: Christ's atoning sacrifice provides a way for anyone to be saved.
• Illuminating grace: God's grace reveals truth clearly so that all can know and respond in faith.
• Destroyed: Those who do not believe and resist the Holy Spirit face destruction.
• Eternal security: True believers are secure in their salvation eternally.

[Content deleted for the sake of space]​

Conclusion​

Provisionism presents a distinct theological framework that emphasizes human responsibility and the universal scope of Christ's atonement. It challenges classical Reformed doctrines by asserting the sufficiency of the gospel and the capability of all individuals to respond to God's call. While it remains outside the bounds of traditional Reformed orthodoxy, it offers a perspective that aligns closely with many Southern and Independent Baptist beliefs, promoting a theology that underscores the universal offer of salvation and eternal security for believers.

That is a very good summary of Provisionism. Well done.

However, some important nuances from the PROVIDE viewpoint are missing. What Leighton Flowers presents is...

Thus, the Pelagian foundation is clearer.

• In saying "a divine provision became necessary," Provisionism compromises divine omniscience and makes salvation a contingency (nod to @makesends), an afterthought, a provision necessary as a consequence of some uncreated condition with the provision not part of the original plan. That's a huge problem for a lot of scripture and basic Christian doctrine.
• In saying "a divine provision will be heard," any possibility of God withholding salvation is negated. Nothing concerning salvation can be hidden or veiled by God. There is no basis for God ever "veiling" anything concerning the provision of salvation. Implicit with this position is the necessary understanding (because it would be useless to provide hearing if the faculties for understanding it do not also exist). This is also a lazy view of salvation. God presents the provision, which will be heard and understood, and He need do nothing else because, once expressed, the provision is all that's needed, and the matter of salvation is entirely a matter of the hearer's response.
• The offering to all isn't a part of departure for Calvinists. This is often misunderstood by Calvinists, but Calvin did express the belief the gospel was presented and available to all. It simply could not be received and responded to by sinfully dead and enslaved creatures (which is the population from which the elect are selected). For Provisionism not selection is necessary because every creature has an inherent ability to respond. The elect have appointed themselves.
• The "vicarious" aspect is misleading. Monergism also teaches the sufficiency of Christ's work but makes a distinction between the sufficiency and the efficiency of that work. Christ on Calvary is sufficient for all but efficient, or effective only in the lives of those God has chosen, in the lives of those in whom God is at work for the express purpose of saving them from sin. What Provisionism means to assert with the "V" is that the value of God's provision is sufficient. It is nothing more than a different wording for "God could save everyone with His provision," which isn't saying anything new, nor anything of much substance. Everyone believes God could save everyone. Duh (I guess he needed a "v" to make the acrostic work )
• Illuminating grace runs into conflict with divine sovereignty. It necessarily implies God's effort isn't sufficient and isn't sufficiently efficient. In other words, it not only contradicts God's omnipotent sovereignty but also contradict the previous point of Provisionism. If the truth is clearly revealed then the refusal to accept it is delusional and that contradicts the prior claim of the creature's ability to hear and understand. It also implies the sin that does not prevent receipt and understanding exists in the form of the delusion existing when the heard provision is denied. Simply put, why would a person how has heard and understood the provision, who also has the faculties to receive it, accept, and act upon the truth, deny the sufficient truth?
• The "D" is another place of common ground because monergists and synergists alike understand God mete's out just recompense for sin. The problem with Provisionism is that it has removed any and all basis for refusal. It's also played bait and switch with "unbelief." A person who hasn't heard the provision is not unbelieving; they are lacking in knowledge or ignorant and Provisionism says everyone will hear and understand and be able to react. People who know, understand, and can act are not unbelieving; they are denying, they are delusionally denying. In other words, most of the human population is mentally ill. Understand me. A delusion is what occurs when someone holds a belief contrary to reality. A delusional disorder exists when the interpretation of reality is erroneous but Provisionism excludes the possibility of error in interpretation. The provision will be heard and the providing of the provision is sufficient for the provision, the truth, to be understood correctly. So the destruction isn't just! God's destroying the mentally ill who cannot otherwise be responsible for their actions. Either that..... or the providing of the provision has caused a new a problem, a problem that needs to be solved but which the provision is incapable of addressing, much less solving because it is the source of the problem. Get rid of the provision and there's nothing to provide the delusion that keeps a person from God. Sound nonsensical? It is. It's not my analysis that's nonsensical. It is the interaction of the principles of Provisionism that is nonsensical.
• The eternal aspect of the provision says nothing about the creature. All the "E" says is God's provision, the provision that became necessary, is always around and always available.... eternally so. Flowers, however, has elaborated to affirm TULIP's "P".

"Those of us who hold to 'The Corporate View of Election' (the most widely held view of Southern Baptist biblical scholars), likewise affirm the Calvinistic doctrine that 'those who are truly saved will persevere to the end and cannot lose their salvation.'”​

So.... Provisionism is semi-pelagian and semi-Calvinist...... except Flowers has again committed a very common error in understanding TULIP (one even Cals sometimes make). Perseverance of the Saints," or "Eternal Security," is not about the saint. It's about God. TULIP's "P" simply asserts God will finish His work in the one He is saving. Therefore, while Flowers would like to think of Provisionism affirming the permanence of salvation it does so by denying God's work and affirm the work of the sinful creature.



In other words, Provisionism has problems with every single point of its soteriology. If I were to examine the individual (proof-texted) verses listed in the acrostic the chronic misuse of scripture would also be self-evident. In addition to the inherent problems, Provisionism serves as a cautionary tale because it proves an otherwise very intelligent, very educated, very earnest and devoted, well experienced teacher can be dumb as a rock, teach waywardly, and lead many astray. The contrast also indicates something else worth mention: @Carbon just did a much better job of correctly presenting an opponent than Flowers does. There is usually some dubious aspect of using only critics to understand any position (no matter how educated, objective and well-intentioned the critic may be). It's always best to also go to sources in their own words (but who has time to read every article at Soteriology 101?) but we can see the op has done well.

 

[Josheb]

Understanding Provisionism: A Theological Perspective

Provisionism is a relatively new theological stance within Christian circles, gaining prominence through the work of theologian Leighton Flowers and adopted by many Southern and Independent Baptists.....

This particular point is often also a point of deceit because Provisionism and Traditionalism are often interchanged. The attempt to switch labels, and the attempt to call the that soteriological model "Traditionalism," is an appeal to avoid the problems of developing doctrine and competing doctrine by insinuating that view of soteriology has veracity because it is what the ECFs believed before the RCC got ahold of salvation and other viewpoints made a mess of soteriology. The unstated logical argument being, "We believe what the ECFs believed and taught so we are, therefore, correct." That is a genetic fallacy (a source does not prove correctness or accuracy). Most of the ECFs were also antisemitic so let's all be antisemites. It's much more common to find Baptist congregations associating with Traditionalism rather than Leightonism (er, I mean Provisionism. My bad ), but most of the differences are without distinction. One chief difference, however, is that Traditionalists may believe a person can lose his or her salvation while Provisionism (at least as Flowers teaches it) does not.

The point being that Provisionism is new, coincides with it's also being misrepresentative, along with Traditionalism, by teaching it is a fallback to the ECF era and ECF teaching. It is not, other than perhaps its commonality with the teachings of Pelagius.

 

[makesends]

In saying "a divine provision became necessary," Provisionism compromises divine omniscience and makes salvation a contingency (nod to @makesends)

Haha! Well, at least that does, to some degree, solidify to my mind your mistaken conception of the meaning of contingency! (Just kidding)

In saying "a divine provision became necessary," Provisionism compromises divine omniscience and makes salvation a contingency (nod to @makesends), an afterthought, a provision necessary as a consequence of some uncreated condition with the provision not part of the original plan. That's a huge problem for a lot of scripture and basic Christian doctrine.

Yes, In saying "a divine provision became necessary," Provisionism also compromises divine omniscience in that it denies God's WHOLE INTENTION FOR EVEN CREATING IN THE FIRST PLACE. It makes this temporal existence an end in itself, and Heaven only an afterthought --at best, "delightful icing on the cake".

• In saying "a divine provision will be heard," any possibility of God withholding salvation is negated. Nothing concerning salvation can be hidden or veiled by God. There is no basis for God ever "veiling" anything concerning the provision of salvation. Implicit with this position is the necessary understanding (because it would be useless to provide hearing if the faculties for understanding it do not also exist). This is also a lazy view of salvation. God presents the provision, which will be heard and understood, and He need do nothing else because, once expressed, the provision is all that's needed, and the matter of salvation is entirely a matter of the hearer's response.
• The offering to all isn't a part of departure for Calvinists. This is often misunderstood by Calvinists, but Calvin did express the belief the gospel was presented and available to all. It simply could not be received and responded to by sinfully dead and enslaved creatures (which is the population from which the elect are selected). For Provisionism not selection is necessary because every creature has an inherent ability to respond. The elect have appointed themselves.
• The "vicarious" aspect is misleading. Monergism also teaches the sufficiency of Christ's work but makes a distinction between the sufficiency and the efficiency of that work. Christ on Calvary is sufficient for all but efficient, or effective only in the lives of those God has chosen, in the lives of those in whom God is at work for the express purpose of saving them from sin. What Provisionism means to assert with the "V" is that the value of God's provision is sufficient. It is nothing more than a different wording for "God could save everyone with His provision," which isn't saying anything new, nor anything of much substance. Everyone believes God could save everyone. Duh (I guess he needed a "v" to make the acrostic work )
• Illuminating grace runs into conflict with divine sovereignty. It necessarily implies God's effort isn't sufficient and isn't sufficiently efficient. In other words, it not only contradicts God's omnipotent sovereignty but also contradict the previous point of Provisionism. If the truth is clearly revealed then the refusal to accept it is delusional and that contradicts the prior claim of the creature's ability to hear and understand. It also implies the sin that does not prevent receipt and understanding exists in the form of the delusion existing when the heard provision is denied. Simply put, why would a person how has heard and understood the provision, who also has the faculties to receive it, accept, and act upon the truth, deny the sufficient truth?
• The "D" is another place of common ground because monergists and synergists alike understand God mete's out just recompense for sin. The problem with Provisionism is that it has removed any and all basis for refusal. It's also played bait and switch with "unbelief." A person who hasn't heard the provision is not unbelieving; they are lacking in knowledge or ignorant and Provisionism says everyone will hear and understand and be able to react. People who know, understand, and can act are not unbelieving; they are denying, they are delusionally denying. In other words, most of the human population is mentally ill. Understand me. A delusion is what occurs when someone holds a belief contrary to reality. A delusional disorder exists when the interpretation of reality is erroneous but Provisionism excludes the possibility of error in interpretation. The provision will be heard and the providing of the provision is sufficient for the provision, the truth, to be understood correctly. So the destruction isn't just! God's destroying the mentally ill who cannot otherwise be responsible for their actions. Either that..... or the providing of the provision has caused a new a problem, a problem that needs to be solved but which the provision is incapable of addressing, much less solving because it is the source of the problem. Get rid of the provision and there's nothing to provide the delusion that keeps a person from God. Sound nonsensical? It is. It's not my analysis that's nonsensical. It is the interaction of the principles of Provisionism that is nonsensical.
• The eternal aspect of the provision says nothing about the creature. All the "E" says is God's provision, the provision that became necessary, is always around and always available.... eternally so. Flowers, however, has elaborated to affirm TULIP's "P".

In the end, after all the thinking I've heard and read from them and about them, I have to conclude they are making words mess with their head. It's sophistry.

"Those of us who hold to 'The Corporate View of Election' (the most widely held view of Southern Baptist biblical scholars), likewise affirm the Calvinistic doctrine that 'those who are truly saved will persevere to the end and cannot lose their salvation.'”
So.... Provisionism is semi-pelagian and semi-Calvinist...... except Flowers has again committed a very common error in understanding TULIP (one even Cals sometimes make). Perseverance of the Saints," or "Eternal Security," is not about the saint. It's about God. TULIP's "P" simply asserts God will finish His work in the one He is saving. Therefore, while Flowers would like to think of Provisionism affirming the permanence of salvation it does so by denying God's work and affirm the work of the sinful creature.

Well put. While it is true that what God is accomplishing makes nothing automatic for the person, it does not imply that the person need not concern themselves with obedience, etc --that is, as I say it, that it is by God's use of means that he accomplishes his ends--, Flowers wants to affirm the work of the creature, (and, most strangely, the work of the SINFUL creature, at that!), in keeping himself (no doubt with assistance from God), instead of it being a sure fact by GOD's doing, and not by ours.

This, like the Synergist's view of Salvation, divides the work as part God's job, and part our job. But the truth is that it is all of it God's work, and we necessarily "do so because it is so". We are here at HIS behest. Who do we think we are?!

In other words, Provisionism has problems with every single point of its soteriology. If I were to examine the individual (proof-texted) verses listed in the acrostic the chronic misuse of scripture would also be self-evident. In addition to the inherent problems, Provisionism serves as a cautionary tale because it proves an otherwise very intelligent, very educated, very earnest and devoted, well experienced teacher can be dumb as a rock, teach waywardly, and lead many astray.

Not to justify Flowers, but to some degree this applies to all who assume to teach others. We all fall short, but that does not excuse us from being careful in our, thoughts, conceptions, words and constructions.

The contrast also indicates something else worth mention: @Carbon just did a much better job of correctly presenting an opponent than Flowers does. There is usually some dubious aspect of using only critics to understand any position (no matter how educated, objective and well-intentioned the critic may be). It's always best to also go to sources in their own words (but who has time to read every article at Soteriology 101?) but we can see the op has done well.

Well, done, @Carbon