Arminian or Provisionist??

I only use the term "Arminian" as a self-description because it still communicates to many that a person is theologically opposed to the distinctive tenets of the Augustinian-Calvinist side. 

For many years, I was unaware that I was technically NOT a historic Arminian, especially one who would identify today as a "Reformed Arminian" because I do not ascribe to their understanding of Total Depravity. 

Whatever "depravity" means it does not mean total inability! The early church knew NOTHING of this concept/idea. 

I am more than happy to wear the so-called "Provisionist" label which is a term I am indebted to Leighton Flowers for introducing me to. I am also indebted to Dr. Flowers for helping me to see why I am not technically an Arminian. 

So on the one hand, I want to communicate to as many people as I can as to why I so strongly oppose the tenets of Augustinianism/Calvinism as they came out of Gnosticism, Stoicism, Platonism, and Manichaeism (also Gnostic). If using the term Arminian is useful for that purpose, then I will use it. In a general sense, I am an Arminian, at least in a popular usage/understanding sense. 

I am also interested in being technically accurate in my use of language (having taught English for more than 20 years in 3 different universities), and so I can also say that in another sense I am NOT an Arminian in that I do not believe what early, historic Arminians believed about their understanding of Total Depravity. 

I have to admit that I really like the distinction/label of "Provisionist" as it clearly captures what the Apostolic and ENTIRE Primitive Church believed when it comes to soteriology. God provided for the salvation of every man, woman, and child who has ever lived. And it is His will that none would be lost but that they would freely accept His offer to believe and to be saved. No one has ever been excluded or will be excluded from that well-meant offer. 

That is why I won't argue with Reformed Arminians. Yes, they believe as the other Magisterial Reformers (and Augustine before them) that mankind was/is dead and unable to respond to God positively. They believe that 'prevenient grace' needs to come and 'awaken them' (or resurrect them) from that state of spiritual/volitional deadness. But the reason I won't argue with them is that ultimately they believe in the same Loving God that the Apostolic Church testified to. We agree on far more than we disagree upon. And the most important thing is that we agree on exactly what I despise in Augustinian/Calvinism, what is demonic. 

On another side, I am in full agreement with my Reformed Arminian friends who maintain that salvation can be walked away from. Many modern "Provisionists" seem to affirm 'Once Saved, Always Saved'. Another doctrine that NO ONE in the Early Church believed. 

And please don't get me wrong; I wish that the "Once Saved, Always Saved" doctrine was true. Who wouldn't? The problem is, it is simply NOT Biblical, and no one in the early Church taught it after the Apostles died. No one. Yes, some will try to cherry-pick quotes from different Early Church Fathers to supposedly support it, but whenever those people read ALL of that particular writer's work, they can see they are abusing the evidence. It is that simple. 

It is kind of like the doctrine of the "Pre-Tribulation Rapture". I would also want that doctrine to be true. Who wouldn't? But NO EARLY CHURCH writer, including personal disciples of the Apostle John himself, believed that Christians somehow got 'airlifted' out of the tribulation at the end of the age. Many of them wrote about, in detail. I recently heard a well-known Christian voice 'claim' that Ephraim the Syrian, a 4th century Church Father, taught the doctrine. The problem is...he did NOT. If one goes back and looks at his overall writings, one will see that a single quote was ripped out of context. 

So am I an Arminian? Yes and No. Am I a Provisionist? Yes. But NOT, when it means affirming "Once Saved, Always Saved". And I won't fight with people in either camp because what we agree upon is what is important. The very character, the very nature of who God is, and His heart in love to have provided for and to desire the salvation of all of humanity.