Provisionism VS Arminianism

What is the nature of fallen man?

Although everyone involved in this discussion rejects the "I" of TULIP ("irresistible grace"), there is disagreement regarding what kind of grace is needed for a person to become a regenerated Christ follower. This conversation is focused upon the nature of prevenient grace as the Holy Spirit works on man prior to his exercising faith.

Is man’s nature such that he needs a prevenient, supernatural, internal working done on him to be able to respond to the Gospel? Is the Gospel itself sufficient to make this possible? Does arminian total depravity have more in common with Calvinism than provisionism, and does Provisionism avoid the charge of Semi-Pelagianism?

These questions, and more, are sure to be addressed in this discussion.

[Soteriology]

I enjoyed this conversation. Thank you Tim for hosting!

[chaplaindavidoutingthechri]

Great convo. Definitely appreciate Dr. Flowers for the best and most accurate representation of scriptural truth regarding no biblical evidence of total inability. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Faith comes by hearing the Gospel. There’s no evidence that the Spirit needs to do anything additional than inspiring the Holy Writ and filling believers to preach it.

[TheProvisionistPerspective]

1:18:37 Maybe I’m just not far enough into the broadcast and I know a couple of responses have been done, but I feel like we’re still waiting on positive evidence for “Total Inability” 🧐

[yvonnedoulos]

Thoroughly enjoyed this dialogue! Thank you for offering this as a way to understand different positions with our brothers and sisters in Christ!

[gatlas]

In Arminianism Prevenient Grace is divine enablement by God’s Holy Spirit inspired Word AND his Spirit by an internal work which frees the will.
Additionally, Prevenient Grace is given to persons via Christ’s work for them.
In Provisionism the freedom of the will is inherent and not gracious in the Arminian sense and not flowing from Christs work for the person.

[peterfox]

19:42 Yes this is very true. I like the way you put that. Once I realized (it was pointed out by a friend) I was errantly assuming the implications to be their affirmations, discussions became more civil and more accurate.

[JohnQPublic]

This is a spectacular video that everyone should watch.

[Richard_Rz]

Great content, A+!!

My biggest take away were the huge brain Arminians who just couldn't see past their MONSTROUS claim of Total Inability with no commensurate MONSTROUS evidence. (Or proof of the implausibility of an alternative). These guys can provide mountains of evidence for other doctrines but this one slips through as it is baked in the cake prior to evaluation. Quite eye-opening.

[jamesbarksdale]

Loved this discussion! I once heard a Jewish man say that wherever there are three Jews there are four opinions. I don't think they have a corner on that market. You are dealing with a question that doesn't have an answer, at least, this side of heaven. This doesn't make it unimportant. I'm reminded of the church's struggle to comprehend the Trinity. Although the early Jesus-followers believed in it, they didn't have the adequate terminology to explain it until centuries later. And even then it was inadequate. There's nothing I can add to your discussion that would clarify things anymore. But I would say this: I think the church in the West has failed to understand that the New Testament writers were thoroughly Jewish in their theology, and has not taken that into account when discussing a topic such as this one. I'll throw this out for consideration: Paul said to the Athenians that in God we live and move and have our being. We do not exist apart from God. In Genesis we learn that after God formed man from the dust of the earth he breathed into him and he became a living being. In one sense we all have the Spirit of God within us, believers or not. Humanity had everything they needed in the Garden of Eden, even immortality. All they had to do was remain in fellowship with God. But they chose not to. This led to physical death. But it did not destroy their ability to continue to choose for or against God. The Hebrew and Christian scriptures assume this throughout. The natural person has hostility towards God, but that does not mean that he or she cannot drop their hostility and choose God. They can because God has already breathed his Spirit into them. They are still people created in God's image - damaged, but not destroyed. The Spirit of God within them continues to draw them to the One who made them for himself. Call it what you will, the great mystery in all of this is that God's grace and human freedom work cooperatively, synergistically if you will, for the salvation of all who trust in the crucified and resurrected Savior, who died for the sins of the whole world.

[EulersIdentityCrisis]

Maybe a better analogy than the hammer would be a wall.
The Arminian believes the wall (TI) needs to be knocked down to begin a progressive work in the person.
Flowers doesn't believe there is a wall and so the work can begin immediately.
I wonder if all parties would agree with the assessment.
It may have been a moment like Dustin pointed out earlier where Flowers gets so focused on the point of contention that nuance is lost. Because I think the Arminians took the lack of the "wall" to mean a person could come to belief without any (additional?) work of the Spirit. But Flowers would say no, they can't believe if they haven't heard which would require a work of the Spirit.

[faithiestatheist]

Thanks for taking my question @2:25:27. I'm curious how many Christians agree that God can temporarily overtake our free will, even if he know we wouldn't make the choices he wants anyway.

[georgechristiansen]

So much of this debate hinges on the false premise that we can or need to pinpoint some particular moment of conversion. Cases like Lydia and even the disciples before the resurrection point to being partially blind, but clearly also faithfully following God to some degree.

[EspadaTriunfante]

Greetings. What I see is that both Arminianism and provisionalism are distortions of the clear truth about the impossibility of man to come to God. With or without prevenient grace, what man can receive from God is through the Holy Spirit Himself (Isaiah 49:1- Jeremiah 1:1-3, Galatians 1:15, etc.). Marcos Lopez - USA

[edseibert]

So much for the sovereignty of God. I guess He has to work the way some of these debaters insist. Perhaps He should consult with the dogmatics before He gets the job of helping us move closer to and serve the Living God. He is fulfilling His mission are we?

[peterfox]

I don't understand why Brian keeps on about wondering how specifically the Spirit convicts rather than discussing the underlying topic - an innate inability or not?

[DJSchiffner]

Amazing how similar the Arminian sounds to Calvinism. Wonder why?

[peterfox]

1:35:28 Andrew says "men are blinded to it" but it gets ignored.

That's the total inability that is being argued over. It seems the Arminian position is the Bible and other means are ineffective unless...something... And that "something" is never identified or shown in scripture to this point in the video. The argument continues to stray from that "something"

[peterfox]

I, too, am a little hesitant to use the Koran analogy because in Calvinism, of course a person can believe it because it's not God's truth.

But on the other hand, Calvinists insist we are incapable of having faith...in God. But somehow capable of faith in everything else.

I constantly hear from incredulous Calvinists "How can you choose to trust God???!?!!!" and my answer is "The same way we have faith in any teacher, idea, science, family member, friend - we weigh the evidence and make a choice to believe"

[michellehand]

51:19 I feel that Leighton's statements were totally ignored and accusations that had nothing to do with the argument were made. Maybe this is the "talking past each other" that was mentioned.

[yvonnedoulos]

From ~50:00-1:10, there seems to be a denial that the Holy Spirit is present in the Gospel presentation; that He must be ‘present’ along with the Gospel presentation.

Seems to me that may be where they are talking passed each other.

Still listening…