What Is Provisionism?

Eric and Drew discuss what "Provisionism" is (and isn't), go over the PROVIDE acrostic from Soteriology 101, and discuss a Provisionist Statement of Faith from a fellow Provisionist brother and YouTuber

Time Stamps:
0:00 Intro
0:58 What Is Provisionism?
2:27 Eric's Perspective
5:00 Drew's Perspective
5:57 Anabaptist Roots
7:55 Provisionism is for Normal Christians
13:42 Unhelpful Comparisons
15:43 Intro to PROVIDE Acrostic
17:12 People Sin
17:25 Responsible
19:50 Open Door
20:18 Vicarious Atonement
21:06 Illuminating Grace
22:25 Destroyed
23:05 Eternal Security
25:45 In-House Disagreements
27:45 Calvinism & the Internet
32:10 Reviewing a Statement on Provisionism
53:56 Provided Graces
1:00:00 Irresistible Prevenient Grace
1:02:35 Free Will & Sovereignty
1:07:51 Conclusion

[garyknowlton]

I really enjoyed this episode. I'm a pastor of a home church, and am apart of the Free Grace camp. Last year I found Soteriology101, and just the other day I found this channel. Keep up the great effort, and gentle way you share the content. I really dig it!

[mannycano]

2 months late but good stuff enjoying while working from home and learning

[a.k.]

If there is no will, there is no identity. The two are intrinsic with one another. A will by definition is free, otherwise it isn't a will at all.

[kencritchley]

Thanks for this podcast. I have been looking for a podcast that explains provionism. I look forward to going through your series. However I do think you need a new acrostic :)

[pccj]

This was super good guys. I think I'm finding out it's okay to kinda sorta nuance Article 9 on the traditionalist statement lol. Thanks for this brethren.

[pccj]

I still think its so cool you guys went through that article.

[katebuss]

“Oops where’d my salvation go.” 😂 Great so far guys!

[jimpolite]

Need more content available. I am very intrigued with your points.

[lukegowdy]

Great episode. Not that it matters, but your description of your beliefs is the same as modern Arminians.

[leepretorius]

After having taught through to O, perhaps the acrostic can be improved on ‘R’ - Responsibility? Eg. Able to respond with humility and acceptance or with pride and rejection?

[zacharyharris]

Is there a short summary version that I could look at before deciding if I want to invest an hour going deeper?

[AidanAshby]

I'm finding it really difficult to find a video that doesn't take half an hour to start talking about what provisionism actually is

[heavenbound---]

The fact that babies die (wages of sins is death) refutes the idea that they are born innocent, you say that babies are born innocent so they don't need salvation is this a different way to be saved than adults?

[yakapo]

I believe in security and apostasy. I’ve witnessed seemingly devout believers depart from the faith. Were they truly born again? I’d say no. Did they depart from the faith? Yes.

[JRMusic]

I've perused your channel for the last few weeks and I thought it was worthwhile to put my thoughts here.

There's a lot of poorly conceived stuff here like the whole root fallacy "responsibility means I have an ability to respond." Discussions of liability or culpability go well back into the ancient period and are much less flat than that. Your point about all Christian's being monergists defies standard definitions and makes that whole distinction worthless, you can read Luther for instance on Justification to see that he's got a really roundly passive understanding of faith which would require you to distinguish how you conceive our coming to faith from that seminal reformer.

A lot of this I think stems from your own anti intellectualism, I've seen lots of scoffing at confessional theology and systematics which has been joined also with the accusation that Reformed people are somehow anti rational. Its sort of bizarre but I think it demonstrates an underlying issue in your theological system which I'll get to. But before that I just want to point out that you guys seem ignorant of the dangers around the NPP and its really odd to me that you're dismissing concerns about Wright as anti intellectual when you say you aren't all that aware of the NPP.

This video in particular raised some alarms about your doctrines of God. The statement "God's word reveals the truth perfectly as it is in his mind, " is about as staunch of a denial of the archetypal-ectypal distinction I think I've yet seen. You also seem to be either ignorant or in denial of basic things like the doctrine of analogy (you define what a gift is or what a sovereign is and seem to apply it freely to God without really regarding the deficiency of language to express God and his works). You seem also to deny simplicity, since I doubt you would say God is changing his essence by limiting his control over all things which is what you imply quite clearly when you reject Sproul's rogue molecule. I'm not saying all this ergo calvinism, I'm just deeply troubled by what seems to me to be an inversion of our theology where soteriology dictates how we conceive of and speak of God.

As a more minor point, but it's worth a mention, saying that the law is a grace is a flat misunderstanding of Paul. When he says the letter kills but the Spirit gives life in 1 Corinthians or when he talks about the function of the law in Romans 7 it would be a great disservice to our understanding of grace (which isn't best defined as a gift but as unmerited favor) to say that the law in its first or second use is a gracious thing. I recommend Luther's On the Letter and the Spirit to you on this point. This should also clarify your misunderstanding of the classical protestant view of the efficacy of the word.

Lastly, my concerns about your theology proper are further excited by your willingness to associate with that open theist Warren McGrew, I'm not sure if you guys are ministers or just layfolk, but if you're ministers especially you have a responsibility to reprove and rubuke false teachers or teachings. You seem more than willing to do it against calvinists whom you still deem brothers, so why the lack of comment on McGrew and his falsehoods?

[bkundrat]

Curious, you were frustrated by the "Together for the Gospel" conference because it was Calvinism. Did you have the same frustration with the "John 3:16" conference that use to exist? :)

[Brian_L_A]

Once Saved Always Saved?

Revelation 3:5 He who overcomes will be clothed in white garments. I will certainly not blot out his name from the book of life, but will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.

[danielcartwright]

I'm a free-willer, but I feel like there's a bit of double speak when you say that people can't take first steps towards God, but at the same time we're able to believe in God based on general revelation.

I predict the response that God took the first step by providing general revelation, and we are merely responders, but I don't think that that logic holds. General revelation is just the evidence that there is a creator based on the creation. The only way God couldn't have given natural revelation would have been to somehow create a deceptive creation that doesn't point to a creator. I'm not sure if that's even logically possible. If people "respond' to natural revelation, they are simply making a logical inference based on the creation, which seems more like a first step than a mere response.

[breannawilliamson]

I wouldn't say most CC churches today are like

[patcandelora]

So would an IFB church hold to provisionism