Why You Can't Call Provisionists Semi-Pelagian | Dr. Leighton Flowers | Soteriology 101

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, discusses the disingenuous name-calling some Calvinists resort to when they call Provisionists Semi-Pelagian.

Check out the full video here:

Check out Adam Harwood's article here:

DOWNLOAD OUR APP:

Or @soteriology101 on Twitter

Please SHARE on Facebook and Twitter and help spread the word!

[cecilspurlockjr.]

Thank you brother Leighton. It is about time you said this to these slanderers, White and Cooper. Their slanderous behavior just goes to show how either deceitful they are or that they simply haven't listened to what you've said while condemning you for what you've said at the same time .
GOD bless you

[bornagainbeliever]

On a funny side note… although I’ve been saved for over 4 decades (former Catholic), it wasn’t until my daughter became reformed in last couple years, that she informed me I’m a pelagianist… I asked her what she meant by that and gave me a smart alec answer back… lol! All I knew was that I was saved by Gods grace and I was born again. I have a relationship with my Heavenly Father….To this day I really don’t get using all the “titles” - I just know I’m saved, and so thankful to God for His mercy and Grace and for opening my eyes🙌🏻🙏🏻 thank you Leighton for all you do, and breaking everything down to where it’s comprehensive! God bless the Soteriology 101 Team!

[cvent]

Thank you again Dr. Flowers. I too am a visual learner and your examples truly help me understand verses so much more clearly, biblically as the Spirit intended. I agree that those men should be ashamed of themselves for the divisiveness they spread. As the Bible informs us in James 3:1: "My brethern, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation."

[DamonNomad]

That's true. The biggest fundamental difference between "Pelagians/semi-Pelagians" and Provisionists, Calvinists, Arminians, or any other soteriology is that the latter groups actually exist! To be a "Pelagian" one would have to affirm all 14 of the points of "Pelagianism" as listed by Augustine and his cronies. Even to be a "semi-Pelagian" would require one to affirm at least 7 of the 14 points, as "semi" literally means "half". There has never been a documented case of any individual or group affirming more than 3 or 4 of the points, including Pelagius himself, who only half affirmed one of the 14 and fully rejected the other 13. The term, with or without the "semi" is nothing but an insult used as an intimidation tactic, in the same way that various flavors of hardcore Communists in Soviet Russia used to scream "Fascist!" at each other over minor disagreements within their system (but even more ridiculous because fascists actually existed while "Pelagians" never have).

[lancesteinke]

This is a very useful conversation for Christianity that I think the category of “pelagianism” has hindered people from having properly for a long time. It’s getting ridiculous, and I’m glad that it seems like it might be coming to an end.

[steventhompson]

Dr. Leighton Flowers, you presented your message very clearly and appropriately by Scripture. Regarding the differences between Provisionism and Arminianism, I agree with you that there is no regeneration or partial regeneration that must occur first before a sinner can hear the Gospel and repent and believe in Lord Jesus. I also understand your position that God works though many different means to bring a sinner to himself, including humans as they present the Gospel and call people to believe in Lord Jesus. And I see nothing wrong in that understanding that would in any way diminish the saving grace of God.

My understanding is that the Spirit's role, as the Gospel is preached, is more than just standing by as the inspired Gospel is preached, but rather, that the Spirit takes a more active role as the Gospel is preached to make it living and active to those who are receptive to listen to the Father (John 1:8-9; John 6:44-45; John 16:7-12; Revelation 3:20; Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12). True, not all the Scriptures mention the Spirit as the Gospel is preached, and not all the Scriptures mention the Gospel when discussing the work of the Spirit, just as not all the Scriptures mention repentance as necessary aspect of faith to be saved, even as not all Scriptures mention faith as necessary when the Scriptures discuss repentance. Therefore, in the full context of all the NT Scriptures, my impression is that the Spirit is always active in the world, filling all things, and is active with the Word as it is preached to make the call or invitation to salvation alive in the hearts and minds of those who are receptive.

[climatematters]

Pelagius wasn't even a 'Pelagian' and the whole issue has been competently debunked by Dr. Ali Bonner. I can't understand why people still get tied up with such a non-event!?

[robbycooke]

Thank you so much for the clarification. I am now a provisions.

[MarkRidlen]

I think the big problem is that people are still placing too much weight in what church councils decided about things. Protestants want to have their cake and eat it too. If "pelagianism" means that a church council decided that this view was wrong, our argument should not be that we don't fall into that group (we may not... that's not the root issue), but rather we should be protesting the use of church councils to decide truth. It is a form of argumentum ad populum. The same council that decided the canon of scripture also affirmed the practice of infant baptism. So I think we should try to re-establish biblical authority.

[SimplestSimple-ws]

This is how the term semi-pelagianism was used historically:

"Semipelagiani: semi-Pelagians; sometimes also Demipelagiani; a term probably originating in Protestant works of the sixteenth century as a reference to those who ground predestination in the divine foreknowledge of something achieved or performed by individuals, whether works or faith. By extension the term can refer to the synergistic proponents of the late medieval theory of the performance of proportionate merit (meritum de congruo, q.v.) prior and preparatory to saving grace. By further extension, the term can mean the non-Augustinian writers of late patristic controversy. "

Also read this:
"synergismus: synergism; i.e., a working together; the term συνεργός (synergos) is frequently employed in the Pauline literature to indicate a “fellow worker” or “coworker” in the propagation of the gospel ... The Arminian view, however, supposes not only the cooperation of the will with Word and Spirit but also the ability of the will to apply or attach itself to grace. **In the Arminian view, the will is the effective ground of salvation. This perspective is not only synergistic but also fully semi-Pelagian.**"

Quotes are taken from Richard A. Muller's Dictionary of Latin and Greek theological terms. (Btw he also has an article on this word) Richard Muller is a world renowned historian and his works on reformation history is the scholarly standard. To my knowledge Dr. Flowers has never engaged with Dr. Muller's work he has only interacted with pop-level Calvinist theologians who are critiqued in their own circles like James White and John Piper. It would be interesting to see Dr. Flowers cope with Muller's work, his works on Freedom, Necessity and Providence should also be a refresher for Dr. Flowers who has mostly engaged with Edward's Neccessitarian views. Historically speaking none of the Reformed Orthodox were determinists.

Flower's theology Proper is also weak, he isn't a Classical Theist as far as i know. While the entirety of Christian church has been Classical Theist.

[vitaignis]

Take a look into Van Oort's research into Augustine and Manichaeism. If Calvinists or Lutherans are able to call anyone who disagrees with them Pelagian, we have more than grounds to call them semi-manichaen or full blown manichaen. And we have the research backing the claims.

[m]

These conversations are so frustratingly pointless with Calvinists and Lutherans. At the core is the philosophical disagreement about free will anchored by their concept of the fall--that man is totally depraved.

[grahamb]

WOW! That was so clear a Calvinist could understand it! Nice job Bro. Flowers.

[fighterxaos]

Plenty of Calvinists do throw out the term "semi-pelagian" out a lot I notice. 😂

[annakimborahpa]

Great rebuttal replete with appropriate visual aids. Please permit the following regarding Dr. Jordan Cooper:
1. Labeling:
If it wasn't that name-calling is singled out as punishable behavior by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:22) which seemingly would include the hurling of misnomers in a pejorative sense, this labeling practice sounds temptingly like fun. Can any such labeling be employed in an playfully ironic way, particularly if there is an attempt to be 100% accurate with the facts? Regarding this video, let's try it on in syllogism form as perhaps an example of 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander.'

2. The preliminary work:
A. According to his Wikitia (An Encyclopedia of Verified Editors) page, "As an orthodox Lutheran, [Dr. Jordan] Cooper has been a defender of sacramental theology, including the doctrines of baptismal regeneration and the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion, and the practice of infant baptism."
B. As a confessional Lutheran, Dr. Cooper upholds the original Unaltered Augsburg Confession of 1530 composed by Martin Luther's disciple Philip Melanchthon that later became part of the authoritative Book of Concord of 1580. Its Article X reads: "Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed (communicated) to those that eat in the Lord's Supper. And they disapprove of those that teach otherwise."
C. However, Philip Melancthon later revised this work in 1540 and 1542. It became known in English as the Altered Augsburg Confession and the 1540 version received John Calvin's signature. Melanchthon's revised Article X now reads: "Concerning the Lord's Supper, they teach that 'with' bread and wine are truly exhibited the body and blood of Christ to those that eat in the Lord's Supper."
D. The chief difference between the two versions of the Augsburg Confession in Article X is: (1) the Lutheran sacramental union understanding of the Lord's Supper versus (2) the Reformed symbolic understanding of the Lord's Supper. This is the hot-button issue that earlier stalemated the 1529 Colloquey of Marburg attended by Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli which first divided Protestantism between Lutheran and Reformed. The Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper prevailed in Switzerland and later in the Church of England (Anglicanism) and in the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian).

3. Three syllogisms:
A. If (1) Dr. Jordan Cooper as a confessional Lutheran upholds the Unaltered Augsburg Confession of 1530, but (2) its author Philip Melanchthon changed its teachings, particularly regarding the Lord's Supper, in the Altered Augsburg Confession of 1540/1542 as his final thoughts on the matter, then (3) can Dr. Cooper properly be labeled a Semi-Augsburgian?
B. Or, if (1) it can be proven that Philip Melanchthon was not in his right mind when he wrote his Altered Augsburg Confession while his Unaltered Augsburg Confession retains the true and precise meaning, but (2) still acknowledging that Philip Melanchthon was of two minds on the matter, particularly regarding the Lord's Supper, then (3) can Dr. Cooper properly be labeled a Semi-Melanchthonian?
C. Since:
(1) Dr. Cooper upholds the Lutheran teaching of sacramental union in the Lord's Supper that appears to be closer to the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation than it is to the Reformed symbolic teaching, can Dr. Cooper be labeled a Semi-Catholic?
(2) However, if the opposite is true and the Lutheran teaching of the Lord's Supper is closer to the Reformed teaching than it is to the Catholic teaching, can Dr. Cooper be labeled a Semi-Reformed?
(3) And finally, if the Lutheran teaching on the Lord's Supper is equidistant between both the Reformed teaching and the Catholic teaching, can Dr. Cooper be labeled a Semi-Reformed Catholic? After all, Dr. Gavin Ortland, a Calvinist Baptist with whom the Lutheran Dr. Cooper is in fellowship with, extols the 'catholicity' of Protestantism.

4. My final recourse regarding 1-3 above is Job 42:6 (KJV): "Wherefore, I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes."

[PETERJOHN]

An accusatory nature is often the mark of those who come under the sway of a religious spirit. There is also a focus on law keeping by Calvinists who seem to think the world can be saved by moral behavior. Excellent discussion, brother.

[granthollandvideos]

I'm too far gone, . I get happy when they call me this. By the accounts of his enemies, even Augustine, he was Godly and Christ like man. They also admitted he didn't believe the things they said of him. They simply told on themselves to be untrue in conduct. They had to wait for a friendly pope and his death to get a heresy accusation to stick. .

[a.k.]

God forgives when and why He chooses to forgive and no man has any control over that. The faith-choice of man does not extract God's forgiveness against God's will. The choice to trust in Christ for one's salvation *HAS NO LITERAL OR LOGICAL POWER* to save an individual. Any assertion to the contrary is rooted in _figurative language_ and does not represent the literal truth of what transpires when God saves an individual. It is God who makes it possible for a person to trust in Christ for salvation both by opportunity and by ability.

[kirin]

When your mother cooks a feast, sets the table, and places a plate of food before you, you are not a participant in the meal's provision because you decide to pick up the fork and eat it. Why insist that your mother force feed you to give her the credit that belongs only to her?

[jeffreybomba]

Something to disarm the conflation of choices. Who establishes the definition of saving faith, God or man? When someone professes faith, who is the judge of that heart? God! And scripture states repeatedly that He is seeking humble and contrite hearts. Therefore, not all who “chose God”, say Lord Lord, and dunk themselves into water, are chosen by God! God does not choose wolves in sheep’s clothing, even if they hang out at church.