Preliminaries
There is a new term going around called Provisionalism. There are many who say that it is simply a repackaging of Semipelagianism. The problem is that Calvinists have so misused the label that the mere accusation can be easily scoffed at and dismissed without analysis. However, Semipelagianism is a real heresy and there really are Semipelagians. As such, we must at least consider the possiblity, while, at the same time, don't assume that it is true. Just because someone calls something Semipelagian, it doesn't mean that it is, but just because people throw the label around casually, doesn't mean that it isn't. What we must do is be very clear about what Semipelagianism is, and then see if Provisionalism matches.
I’m going to approach this question through two levels of
analysis: Analysis of the 5 points of
the Arminianism/Calvinism debate and assessment of centeredness. But
first, let us define terms.
Semipelagian is an ancient heresy that was developed after
the church’s rejection of the teachings of Pelagius at the Council of Ephesus.
It was, itself, rejected in turn at the Synod of Orange which is the synod that
declares Arminianism (then known as Semi-Augustinism) as orthodox. In essence,
Semipelagianism teaches that each human is born with the innate capability of coming to God,
but that faith in God is sufficiently difficult that it generally requires God’s help
to accomplish. So, while divine intervention is often needed (indeed usually needed), it is not technically necessary.
Provisionism is a more recent perspective developed by
Leighton Flowers. Now Leighton Flowers argues that while divine intervention is
needed, it can be accomplished direct intervention. As such, the
need for such intervention arises from circumstances rather than from human nature. It is therefore not technically necessary, though it is practically necessary. Are
these positions basically the same?
At this point, it is important that this is my first attempt to
write about Provisionism, so if I am inaccurate with this assessment, I ask for
Provisionists to correct me. This applies not just to this paragraph, but for this
entire post. However, I feel that it is important for us to seriously explore
this issue.
So, since both Semipelagians and Provisionists believe that
divine intervention isn’t necessary, but is simply needed, and that this is the
clearest line of demarcation between Arminians and Semi-pelagians, does this
make Provisionism a new form of Semipelagianism? Like I said earlier, I’m going to analyze this on
two fronts. First, on the issue of the 5 points of the Arminian/Calvinist
debate and secondly from the perspective of a theological center.
Election and Conditions
I’ve made a comparison between the Arminianism (The FACTS)
and Semipelagianism here: http://evangelicalarminians.org/mg-how-is-arminianism-different-from-pelagianism/.
One of the things that I insist is that Arminians and Semipelagians differ for
more than just on depravity. They may agree with us on the other 4 points, but
they differ in terms of why, and how they understand them.
A good example of this is in regards to election. We
agree with Semipelagians that salvation is conditional, but for us, that
condition is something completely unmeritorious: faith. To the Semipelagian
though, faith is more a reliance on God for support towards moral living. Being
a good person is too high a bar, but striving to be a good person with God’s
assistance is enough for salvation. The condition of salvation remains that
moral living though.
Here, Provisionists seem to take neither view. Instead, they
seem to take the view that salvation is conditioned upon belief. It is
important to stress that belief and faith are not the same thing. Faith is a
relational word while belief is an epistemological word. They do have some
cross over, but there are key differences.1 If I say that I have faith in my
wife, it would imply that I think she exists and is my wife. If I say that I
have faith in my wife it means I trust her on rely on her. Provisionists seem
to think that what is necessary is that we believe or think that Jesus is the
Christ, rather than the Arminian view that we must trust in Jesus as the
Christ. Lieghton Flowers at one point said in his conversation with Brian
Abasciano, “I don’t think it takes a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to
allow people to believe 2+2=4. Nor do I believe that it takes some supernatural
miracle of God within the nature of man… for them to believe that Jesus is the
Son of God.” (https://youtu.be/g4rMIt34ka4?t=2690
at 45 minutes). These are not the same views on faith.
But it isn’t the same view as the Semipelagian. The Provisionist
isn’t saying that we need God’s assistance to live a good life and it is by
that good life that we are saved. Rather, they seem to be saying that we simply
have to mentally accept the proposition that the gospel is true. So in this
regard, I have to say that Provisionism, while in error, is different than
Semipelagianism.
Total Depravity, Atonement for All, and Freed to Believe
by Grace
For these three issues, I don’t see much difference between
the Provisionist and the Semipelagian. Both reject the belief in Total
Depravity, yet both also believe that humans still need God to save them.
The Semipelagian believes that God has to help them live morally while the Provisionist
believes that God has to present to them the gospel. However, they both accept that
it is an environmental problem rather than a nature problem.
When it comes to prevenient grace, they both argue that God
does help people before salvation, but this grace isn’t necessary. The only
real difference between them here is what they think the condition of salvation
is, and thus what kind of help they require.
Mind you, these are the principal differences between the
Arminian and these two positions, and this is makes it very easy for them to appear
to be the same position to us.
The third one, Atonement for All is something that all (Semipelagianism, Provisionism,
and Arminianism) really have in common. Quite frankly, Atonement for All is so
Scripturally obvious that I know only of one theology that has ever dared to
question it, so this is unsurprising. I don’t know though what the Provisionist
theory of atonement is though, so how that measures up with Semipelagianism,
I’ll have to leave to future assessment.
Security in Christ
This one is interesting because it is here that the Provisionist
jumps onto the other side of the Arminian position and embraces the Calvinist
point of view. I, for one, find this move to be fascinating since I consider Perseverance
of the Saints to be one of the weak points of Calvinism, scripturally speaking
(though psychologically, it appears to be an asset). Now while I insist that
Arminians and Semipelagians differ on this issue as well (specifically security
being grounded in Christ as opposed to being grounded in the perseverance of
our works), it is here that the strongest line between the Provisionist and
Semipelagian can be drawn.
One can only ask, is this simply a different flavor of
Semipelagianism, or an actually legitimately different position. To the Arminian,
this is hard to say. It is exactly on this point that 4-point Arminians differ
from 5-pointers like me. This is more of an issue that the logic of Calvinism
forces upon its believers; non-Calvinists are simply free to follow the
Scripture where it leads. One could say this is true of Semipelagianism as
well. So considering that the logic that forces the position onto the Calvinist
isn’t there for the Provisionist, the
question becomes: why do Provisionists hold this position at all? I will
pick up this question again when I look at the issue of theological centers.
Preliminary Conclusions
So, when analyzing the 5 points, are Provisionists Semipelagian? I would say it is inclusive. The similarities are obvious, and it is certainly true that they are closer to Semipelagianism that Arminianism is. But then, so are many Catholics: there is a bit of room there. The unusual stance of holding Perseverance of the Saints is especially interesting, showing that there is a least something else happening here. I think we need to go at least a little deeper, which I will in the next post.
________________________________________________
1. It is important to understand that words have semantic range. The phrase "believe in" can both mean "have faith in" and "believe that it exists". This is the root of the confusion that I am attempting to clarify. So if I say, "I believe in Santa Claus", I don't mean, "I have faith in Santa Claus" but rather, "I think Santa is real". However, if I said, "I have believe in my wife" I would mean "I have faith in my wife". That said, "believe", as far as I am aware, only really takes on this meaning when followed by 'in'. The base notion of 'believe' is more tied to epistemology, and when we are trying to talk about nuanced theological ideas, strict syntax and vocabulary are to be preferred.
