PROVISIONISM? | FSI Discussion

The FSI Group Discusses Provisionism as found here:

Or Venmo @kevin-thompson-418

See the FSI Announcement video here:

See the original video on Ephesians 4 here:

Purchase the Original PowerPoint slide decks used in our other videos here:



Check out our Audio podcasts on iTunes Podcast or Soundcloud:

PLAYLISTS:
8 ‘A’s of Salvation” (pre-requisite salvation considerations before other inferences can be entertained)
“Christian Cognition” (learn about the things that affect data processing other than “the facts”)
“Full Stature Initiative” (follow presentations and group discussions of the Book of Acts)
“Acts 13:48” (videos that address this so-called “Calvinist proof text”)
“Calvinist Infiltration” (videos that address Calvinist infiltration into non-Calvinist churches)


BTF Uses the following Equipment and software to produce videos:
Camera: Sony Handycam FDR-AX53
Microphone: Sennheiser AVX Digital Wireless Mic System with Countryman H60W6TSR H6 Omnidirectional Wireless Headset; Shure SM7B, Rode NT1
Audio: Focusrite Scarlett 2i4
Video Editing Software: Final Cut Pro X,
Video Recording Software: Wirecast by Telestream, Zoom
Visual Aids: MS PowerPoint, Logos Bible Software

[leightonflowers]

Thanks for the discussion. I've decided to make notes publicly as I listen:
1) Many on both sides of the theological isle agree with you about labels and I agree with many of those concerns. It's like calling your church "non-denominational" but that becomes a label itself even if that is not the intention of those who are non-denominational. The danger of not naming your approach is that others will name it for you, ie Fundamentalism, Kevinism, etc... I'd rather the focus be on God's provision for all. Maybe that's wrong, okay, but it's secondary. And it should be noted...anyone on either side of our soteriological divide using a label to be lazy and give up thinking for themselves is obviously in error, but don't assume that someone willing to use a label is doing this...

2) Being "Ideological" is based on or relating to a system of ideas and ideals, which you all are also presenting whether you think you are or not. Even if you claim that your approach is not based on a 'system' then that itself is a system or a way of approaching the issues. So, approaching these things by saying we 'approach these things without an ideological approach' then that itself becomes your ideology. And how do I reference that approach shorthand without spending 20 minutes explaining it? Some might say, "I approach this like Kevin" which becomes "Kevinism" bc he is the popularizer of this "non-ideological" approach even if Kevin hates that. I have no problem with someone saying something like, "I don't like the limitation of labels but generally I agree with the propositions of Provisionism." No issue there.... Later you say its not an ideology but 'a way of being, ' but that "way" is going to be disputed and thusly labeled whether you want it do or not. It seems to be a necessary evil, if you will. That being said, if you wish to deny those label until your death bed then I won't fault you. I'd just rather spend more time on the substance behind the label than on arguing over the presence of the labels.

3) On the Limited Atonement point... Honestly this came across as mostly a technical or semantical issue. In other words, it seems a bit Nit-picky. That may be a more significant issue to you than it is to me, I'm fine with that. Nick used the word "Pedantic" and I think that is a good word to describe Kevin's intro to this issue. I could be wrong on that point, but I'm just giving you my honest reply as I listen to this... after thinking it over I may reconsider changing some of my semantics, who knows? That can be a benefit to friendly/brotherly critiques. 🙂

***So, I'm 54 minutes in and I'm not really finding anything of significant substance. Labels and semantics seems nit-picky to me, to be honest. I enjoy pushback but thus far this seems inconsequential. Please don't take that as a personal or harsh insult. I'm saying this with respect and I understand these points may be more significant in your mind, but I'm just giving my honest feedback as I listen.***

4) Your critique of the Traditional Statement being reactionary is fair. I'm not the author of it, but I agree this not an ideal starting point, which is ONE of the reasons I didn't want to continue to be called a "traditionalist" but more open to being associated with "God's PROVISION for all." So, you're actually hitting on a point that led to the label "provisionism." This is also one of the reasons I wrote the book "God's Provision for All" that doesn't even mention Calvinism but establishes a positive presentation of what we believe rather than a reactionary approach.

I appreciate the critique, but I do hope it becomes more substantive in the future... Blessing brothers!

[truth_merchant]

This is not a definition of limited atonement Mr Kevin. That's a very reckless conclusion about provisionism. There is no hint of determinism or predestination in this point by Mr. Flowers.😔🙏📖

[rachelmendez]

That discussion on labels and propositions in the beginning was super edifying. Thank you!

[darrennelson]

It seems to me that one cannot arrive at the three other kinds of knowing without going through propositional knowledge. In any relationship, knowledge starts propositionally – by learning a person's name, what they do, where they live, " etc. Over time, we gain deeper kinds of knowledge about the person, but those deeper types can't be achieved apart from the initial propositional. In the same way, theology must start with simple truth statements about God, Christ, faith, soteriology, etc. with the goal of having those propositions being as biblical as possible. That is all good doctrine is, and we are called to that many times in the Word of God. Propositional knowledge, admittedly inferior to the other types, is still unquestionably useful and necessary in any theological understanding we possess. A person who uses a self-described label – even if it conveys only what they believe propositionally – is still helping us engage with them in a fruitful way.

[truth_merchant]

Based on this logic i shouldn't call myself a Christian because that is based on a set of assumptions. The problem is not the different titles but rather the consistency of the assumptions with the scriptures. For this to be a meaningful discussion they needs to be a critique of the provisionalist assumptions not the existence of a title in it self. Very disppointing discusson so far...

[rosstemple]

Perfection is a heart attitude, not a place we land on.

[lolersauresrex]

Man I was hoping someone would say that Christianity is a reaction to reality as such! Thank you!

[rp-lopez]

Thanks for a great discussion. Just from an optimization standpoint for your long-time listeners though, I think your videos would really benefit from a 4-kinds-of-knowing disclaimer timestamp. Even if it's just two timestamps, like Disclaimer and Main Discussion. This is cuz I sometimes find myself listening to a drawn out 10-15 minute discussion on many of your videos on the limitation of propositional knowing before the heart of the content is actually discussed. I'm already very familiar with the concept, thanks very much to you, but I don't need to be reminded every video especially when it's just a repeat of the same talking points. It'd be a different story if you were bringing up a new psychological case study on the 4 kinds of knowing, but if not I'd really like to know when the main discussion starts so I don't have to fast forward so much

[huntsman]

You totally should have had Leighton on this conversation. That would have been awesome.

I guess I'm confused. Flowers didn't say atonement "saves" you, but provides a path to salvation. Is atonement not the payment for us? It it not the life of Christ sacrificed on our behalf? His purchase of us?

[caman]

i get what theyre saying, but at some point, if u dont have hours and hours to talk to someone, u have to have a brief synopsis of what u believe and teach. there IS a group who actually does what yall are talking about. they have NO creeds, NO confessions, no "isms". they just "simply believe the bible". they are "non denominational" etc. they are called the "churches of christ"...however they are in grave error.

[ACTSVERSE]

Leighton's biggest mistake was to divorce soteriology from an overall belief statement about God, like the Baptist Faith & Message, or some larger statement about the nature of the God and the gospel. As a result, you have Mormons, and JWs, and Calvinists all claiming to be "Christian" and who think soteriology is a branch that can be neatly severed from an overall theology of God. This was a huge error. Claiming we are all "brothers and sisters" only holds true if we are actually "brothers and sisters in Christ". I don't believe many Provisionists believe Christian cults exist, let alone are knowledgeable as to how to identify them.

[sharonlouise]

This was so good that I listened to it twice. I might even listen again! Thanks

[Apollos.]

@30min re: "the blood" I think we need to give a little grace. The video you reference is only like 30min long. He has many other videos expounding and going deeper on the topic.
Although I agree precision in out word are important. Appreciate BTF.

[QuinnBoone]

Nick's wheels in his head are always turning....

[tedtuttle]

ok kevin instead of PROVISIONISM I'll just call it God provides for those who believe & trust in Jesus as the Bible provides to humans. Better ? NO ISM feel ok now? you r teaching an ism I'll call it whateverism in other words how some one reads & interprets the Bible is whatever they think it is trying to teach u on how to be more like Christ.

[ravissary]

3:35 this was my comcern... your critique is fueled by a need to appear neutral to calvinists. This is reactionary framing.

Also im coming back to this video alnost a year later... Leighton wrote a great, winsome, rational response but you just doubled down on these errors.

Its not like Leighton or any of us aren't in error on SOMETHING but how can iron sharpen iron if you arent even accurately oriented to the blade you're sharpening? Holding it off kilter blunts the blade, it ruins it. These critiques are fundamentally inaccurate if those being addressed aren't consulted so as not to talk past them.
Otherwise this is indeed just empty propositional nonsense. Just random lynching of a stranger for a crime that didn't occur... just "nicer". Yes i get that's very hyperbolic.

[davejohn]

Nick, please share all the miracles you have experienced and daily answers to every prayer ? Yeh, thought so, just another talking head with zero participatory knowledge.

[scottrobinson]

Nice job taking the speak out of your brothers eye. You guys are scrambling eggs here, you are not “helping” like you think you are…