So there is what I believe is most accurate to call a new movement that has come in response to certain theological issues and debates as of lately. We've seen it before with the Lordship Salvation controversy and the Free Grace theology movement as well as in the case of the Open Theist debate that started up in the 80s with Richard Rice's book on the Openness of God. However instead of dealing with the central focus on the knowledge of God and the process of salvation as it pertains to works and faith, we are now entering a general soteriology movement that aims itself to mostly combat against Calvinism as opposed to some of the other soteriological positions (though there has been debates between the two as there is still the issue of the debate on total inability). With this, a question must then be put forth: How do we engage with Provisionism and what does it mean to begin with?
This is what we aim to accomplish because some might be familiar with it and others may not be. The goal of this article is to comment on the origins of the Provisionism movement, discuss the doctrines that it emphasizes on, determine if it would be considered orthodox, heterodox or heretical under the position of the Episcopalian/Anglican tradition and then to assess a response of concerns and even list some pros/cons of the theological movement's affirmations. It will not aim to be a critique that aims to use polemics, but will instead focusing on giving a graceful examination in light of tradition, the bible and reason. So if you are looking for some kind of heated throwing of metaphorical knives or a challenge request to debate some Provisionists, then you will be disappointed as they will not be found here.
To begin, let's start with the founder of the movement: Leighton Flowers.
Dr. Leighton Flowers is a theologian, apologist & evangelist who serves as an Adjunct Professor of Theology for Trinity Seminary. Leighton Flowers has been involved in studying theology for years as he at least first received his Bachelor's Degree in Applied Theology at Hardin-Simmons University in 1997. He eventually got his Doctorate in 2017 at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is not just a simple layman, but a well educated individual who has done research and studies with the seminary degrees to support it. However, there is also an element to him where he used to be a Calvinist until he eventually left and departed from that position. Enter around the year 2014 when there was the explosion of a new channel called "Soteriology 101" and the conversation it soon led to the development of our discussion today.
Leighton Flowers was not satisfied with the solutions Calvinism had to offer and was trying to also look for alternatives to the Wesleyan or Arminian perspective of the soteriology debate as there were other different views as well. He was interested in an earnest goal to interpret scripture correctly, which is what I hope is the mind of all Christians regarding their perspectives. There is a detailed analysis of his story that you can refer to which is entitled "The 5 Points That Led Me To Leave Calvinism." Leighton ultimately sums up his reason in 5 points, which include the following:
POINT #1: I came to realize that the “foresight faith view” (classical Wesleyan Arminianism) was not the only scholarly alternative to the Calvinistic interpretation.
POINT #2: I came to understand the distinction between the doctrine of Original Sin (depravity) and the Calvinistic concept of “Total Inability.”
POINT #3: I realized that the decision to humble yourself and repent in faith is not meritorious. Even repentant believers deserve eternal punishment.
POINT #4: I accepted the fact that a gift doesn’t have to be irresistibly applied in order for the giver to get full credit for giving it.
POINT #5: I came to understand that sovereignty is not an eternal attribute of God that would be compromised by the existence of free moral creatures.
These are of course his reasons and everybody has other reasons. So we at least understand Leighton Flowers coming out of it. However, what was it that he would affirm as being the theology to go for? It would be something called Traditionalism. You might be saying "I thought he was the founder of Provisionism?" He is, but this seems to be the first name that was used. In one lecture he gave at Texas Baptists entitled "Calvinism: Is There A Better Option?" he gives us his definition as follows:
"By predestination we mean the predetermined redemptive plan of God to justify, sanctify and glorify whosever freely believes. All people are created with equal value as image bearers of God. Because God desires mercy over justice and self-sacrificially loves everyone, He has graciously provided the means of salvation to every man, woman, boy and girl. No person is created for damnation, or predetermined by God to that end. Those who perish only do so because they refused to accept the truth so as to be saved."
It does seem like a very good idea and this of course is called Traditionalism in light of the Southern Baptist apologetic since this is the church that Leighton is involved in. However, with that in mind, he was planning for a more self-encompassing and inclusive label for all other denominations and ideas. So he eventually explained that "Dr. Eric Hankins wrote a statement which references the “traditional” beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention over the last 75-100 years. The label “Traditionalist” was used by some to distinguish our view from the more recent resurgence of Calvinistic beliefs within the convention. We recognize the shortcomings of this label which is why some prefer the term Provisionalism." Here is where we now encounter the beliefs under the new name.
So we now encounter what is essentially the TULIP of Provisionism which would be PROVIDE. I do find it interesting that there are 7 points which to me can fit within a Christian theme of the number 7 as it relates to the days of the week and many other similar elements. It does affirm several points which can be found among others. However, the only one that I can see sparks a serious debate worth engaging in is the points regarding sin. In the Articles of Affirmation & Denial on Soteriology101, we read the following in Article Two:
"We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.
We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty (?) before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel."
There is mostly concern out of the concept of the rejection of the doctrine of Original Sin and thus if Provisionism rejects this doctrine. So far, in my reexamination of the doctrines, it's not as clear. He does seem to at least to be against the ideas of what he calls "Augustinian Original Guilt" while also affirming the following statement in his video on What Is Provisionism: "We believe that people are sinful, they’re fallen, but they’re still responsible; meaning, they’re still able to respond to Gods appeal to be reconciled." So some Calvinists have used this language to still affirm Original Sin and therefore Original Guilt. In fact, I remember encountering one person who was against Calvinism and after saying the the words "we believe that people are sinful and they are fallen creatures," I am met with "I don't believe in that Calvinist garbage." So the words can still evoke a similarity between Calvinists and Provisionists to the point of reconciliation.
One side note I will add on the Original Sin question is that I do think it would be very harmful to the case to paint Augustine as if he is somebody who should be discredited or viewed as coming up with an idea that may be considered harmful. Though I would argue there were others like Clement of Rome, Cyprian of Carthage, Tertullian and others who would've agreed with Augustine, I think the main thing to be careful of is to avoid saying statements which could lead to a false understanding or view of Church History. Especially as it relates to the Ecumenical Councils, which would be affirmed by all Protestants, including the Council of Ephesus. Though I am curious if Flowers, while disagreeing with Augustine, does still view Augustine as a saint who is a brother in Christ.
So the question than comes about to ponder on if Provisionism is orthodox, heterodox or heresy? I would argue that it would be on the tipping point scales between orthodox & heterdox believes. I would of course say heterodox in general, but just because it may be different from other orthodox views under my creed in the 39 Articles or the other historic creeds of early Christianity, doesn't mean I would consider throwing all Provisionists, including Leighton Flowers, to the heresy circle. I think we need to be more fair and not engage in the polemics involved by some of the online internet Calvinists in critiquing Leighton and others in his camp.
I will begin with my examination of the Pros of Provisionism. First, it offers another systematic approach to soteriology apart from the other options that will certainly go down in theological history. Some will have a tough time trying to come up with new ideas of theology in a systematic approach. Mind you, this is only a soteriological view and not a full on system like Methodism or Anglicanism, there is still an achievement to be viewed by Leighton Flowers here. It shouldn't be a surprise though considering again his educational background that has been demonstrated.
Another example of a benefit in Provisionism is that it offers an alternative to equally teach the same gospel message affirmed by Christians for centuries. The one phrase that has been said before is that "Calvinism is the Gospel" and to a degree, this is true. So is Wesleyanism, Arminianism and at this point, Provisionism also the Gospel. It teaches a message of grace which affirms salvation much in the same way other views have taught. This would be something that can be demonstrated too as I have gone street preaching before with others who weren't Calvinists and either affirmed Wesleyan, Tradtionalism Southern Baptist Soteriology, and something closer to Provisionism at the time. All affirmed the same message and preached the same gospel in harmony and unity.
That being said, there is some Cons to this (as all views have both pros/cons including Calvinism shockingly enough). The first of these is that with it being fairly recent and new, it's getting tough to define it and with it's inclusionary aspect to be able to incorporate others into it that aren't Southern Baptists, it can lead to a confusion on matters. I do think this is easily able to be resolved by more content from other authors on the subject. So far, Flowers' books entitled "The Potter's Promise: A Biblical Defense of Traditional Soteriology" & "God's Provision For All: A Defense of God's Goodness" are two good resources that help defend and explain the ideas as well as the articles on Soteriology101. But I do think more is needed on this, especially more besides Leighton Flowers.
Another Con to this would be involved in the attempt to be avoiding unifying it under a particular church and trying to incorporate it with other churches outside of the Southern Baptist faith. To me, as a former Southern Baptist turned Episcopalian, I would see there can be one issue in mind in trying to use Provisionism in some denominations outside the Baptist tradition. For example, if there is the idea of affirming Provisionism regarding the providing of the free option and gift of grace to anybody willing to accept it, then what about the issue of infant baptism. Infant baptism is a practice affirmed by Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, certain "Northern Baptist" churches & Methodists. Though this then must consider the question on if one then affirms or rejects Baptismal Regeneration, which would affirm that Baptism is a sacrament which also brings about salvation? While I do not agree with this doctrine, this would be a good discussion on if Provisionism can have room for infant baptism and baptismal regeneration combined considering the R O I & E of the PROVIDE.
My main final point is going to be slightly towards Leighton Flowers, but mostly is aimed at the ones who have recently adopted belief of Provisionism that were inspired by Leighton Flowers. While Leighton has tried to encourage people to not dismiss Calvinists as non-Christians and has affirmed that Calvinists are still saved by their faith in Christ alone. However, the people seemed to have ignored this one video of Flowers and have continued to shout that Calvinists are heretics, non-believers and demons. I understand that some might find slightly similar tactics from those among the James White Calvinist group (one of which I am not a fan of in particular ever since the whole Divine Simplicity fiasco and his uncalled for attacks on the credibility of David Pallmann), this should still be noted as this is why I see two of these groups as essentially the same blood. My only hope is that Flowers can at least be more vocal in the response and holding some of these people accountable online. Especially if they are going to be representing Provisionism in their evangelism and apologetics. Which leads me to the final point of this.
Leighton is trying to use his ministry to do the following as noted in his Are Calvinists Saved video: to convert people out of Calvinism. I do think it's not a bad idea to encourage others to come over to your own perspective of things, which is why I would say it might be my wish for Flowers to leave the Southern Baptist Convention and join the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition. However, the issue is that there seems to be a desire to convert Christians from one adiaphora belief to another (by Leighton Flowers' own admission too as he sees this as a "secondary issue" that doesn't affect salvation). We shouldn't have this in our mind. Instead, we should consider the one principle that can fix these matters and help build the path to church unity. "The Middle Way" or "Via Media."
This is something that has helped bring an affirmation of unity among the Episcopalian Church which I have defined before in my old article entitled A Journey of Faith: My Testimony & Why I Became Episcopalian. In this principle however, it can affect our means of reaching to others in Christ and to bring converts as well. In an article by Winfield Bevins on The Anglican Compass entitled "Whatever happened to the Anglican Via Media?" we read that the Middle Way "allows us to synthesize great Christian truths into a central core, rather than focusing on extremes." Further in the article, we read the following:
"Anglicans have always tried to embrace the paradoxes of the faith through the via media. One of the best examples of this can be found in the life and ministry of John Wesley, who lived and died an Anglican priest. John Wesley’s unique Evangelical Anglicanism comes to light in his ability to find a synthesis between radical extremes and paradoxes, such as divine sovereignty and free will, evangelical and sacramental, and saving and sanctifying grace. To be an Anglican is to understand and to live in the tension of the paradoxes of the Christian faith by employing the via media. Perhaps the most practical way in which the Anglican Church lives in tension comes as it seeks to bring together a variety of dimensions of the Christian faith. At first, these may seem like opposing extremes, but in many ways these different streams are symbiotic and belong together... In many ways, Anglicanism offers a balanced faith that brings together the best of the Christian traditions. There is a unique balance of unity and diversity in Anglicanism through the via media and the importance of bringing together the different streams within Anglicanism, which include: Catholic, Evangelical, Broad, and Charismatic."
So with this in mind, that would be my main approach to this situation is that we should bring forth the unity of the church of our Lord through the means of not trying to convert people from Calvinism to Provisionism or Provisionism to Calvinist, but to instead bring unity through the Via Media towards Provisionist & Calvinist brothers & sisters in Christ. If Leighton ever responds to this, hopefully you are able meditate upon and ponder these issues in thought or response. To any other Provisionists reading this, I offer the same advice and would ask that you consider what I have said and the words of Leighton Flowers in the Are Calvinists Saved video among other things. We should try to avoid the infighting over non-essentials and if we debate, it is friendly, calm and in good spirit without intending to try and think of converting people from different perspectives of Christian belief, but offering an invitation like a bridge, to show unity among disagreement.
Prayer for the Unity of the Church
"O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Savior, the Prince of Peace: Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions; take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatever else may hinder us from godly union and concord; that, as there is but one Body and one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment