Calvinism and the SBC (a 2013 discussion between Hankings and Mohler)

[JonC]

"Theology and the Future of the Southern Baptist Convention" discussion with Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and Dr. Eric Hankins. I haven't seen it on this forum (and apologize if it's a repeat, it is several years old) but found it interesting.

For those who don't know or are not SBC, the discussion was over Calvinism within the SBC. One of the most interesting points, to me anyway, was Mohler's comment that so much of the "restless" in the "Young, Restless, and Reformed" may be a reaction to weak doctrine in the local church.

Anyway, I found it interesting and thought both brought up good points about Calvinism and non-Calvinism within Christianity as a whole (the SBC in particular).

 

[JamesL]

Hankins: "even with a PhD in theology, I had never worked that through" [soteriological positioning]

Makes me respect "scholars" even less than I already did before

 

[JamesL]

Mohler: "it's disingenuous to act like we're shocked" [that people embrace an opposing theology which fits comfortably within the Baptist Faith and Message]

I couldn't agree more

 

[JonC]

Hankins: even with a PhD in theology, I had never worked that through

Makes me respect "scholars" even less than I already did before

When I was in seminary the Calvinism vs. Non-Calvinism debate was more of an undergraduate issue. I remember several interesting debates and discussions as an undergraduate but by the time we hit graduate studies most of us had gained enough insight to realize the divide was more philosophical (and that applied to interpretation) than it was an argument over Scripture itself. I remember the debates in seminary were more along the topic of the nature and love of God.

So I can understand why some would not work out their soteriology in terms of Calvinism (which doesn't mean they have not worked out their soteriology). For most evangelical Christians (and most Southern Baptists....since he is a SBC pastor) a firm stance revolving around Calvinism is not high on the priority list.

That said, some of his comments did make me wonder as well (his definition of Arminianism centering on a rejection of eternal security, for example).

 

[JamesL]

".....realize the divide was more philosophical (and that applied to interpretation)....

Absolutely. And that's probably the one thing which dishearetens me the most about this argument at seminary/scholarly level.

People who have doctorates seem more concerned with a philosophical view of the implications than they are what the scriptures teach.

That kind of mentality should never pervade the thinking of a so-called scholar

 

[Yeshua1]

When I was in seminary the Calvinism vs. Non-Calvinism debate was more of an undergraduate issue. I remember several interesting debates and discussions as an undergraduate but by the time we hit graduate studies most of us had gained enough insight to realize the divide was more philosophical (and that applied to interpretation) than it was an argument over Scripture itself. I remember the debates in seminary were more along the topic of the nature and love of God.

So I can understand why some would not work out their soteriology in terms of Calvinism (which doesn't mean they have not worked out their soteriology). For most evangelical Christians (and most Southern Baptists....since he is a SBC pastor) a firm stance revolving around Calvinism is not high on the priority list.

That said, some of his comments did make me wonder as well (his definition of Arminianism centering on a rejection of eternal security, for example).

What is interesting is that many persons seem to not like the term calvinism itself, and yet when you press them on what they believe, many would line up more with its basic tenets than against them.
Also, many seem to equate "bad calvinism: as being a high end one such as Hyper cal, but those seem people tend to make even "5 pointers" as being Hyper, which we are not!

 

[JamesL]

What is interesting is that many persons seem to not like the term calvinism itself, and yet when you press them on what they believe, many would line up more with its basic tenets than against them.
Also, many seem to equate "bad calvinism: as being a high end one such as Hyper cal, but those seem people tend to make even "5 pointers" as being Hyper, which we are not!

Most SBC Traditionalists are what I call "Calvi-lite"

Holding a soft (or watered down) view of Total Depravity, and a soft view of Perseverance of the Saints, and then rejecting the sovereignty aspects of the Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace, and flat rejection of Limited Atonement. Like a chiastic structure.

Very inconsistent, to say the least.

But Hankins acknowledged that "non-Calvinist" theology in the SBC has always revolved around Calvinism

 

[JamesL]

I wish Hankins would have talked more, though

 

[JonC]

Absolutely. And that's probably the one thing which dishearetens me the most about this argument at seminary/scholarly level.

People who have doctorates seem more concerned with a philosophical view of the implications than they are what the scriptures teach.

That kind of mentality should never pervade the thinking of a so-called scholar

I agree.

Something else that I noticed in the interview is how the two (probably more Mohler….I also wish Hankins’ contributions more extensive) held to their positions. Mohler made the comment that all soteriological positions are deficient by nature. It is important, IMHO, that we come to terms with this fact and hold our views firmly but only to the extent that this realization allows.

Within the SBC it seems that the arguments turned ugly more at the pastoral level. When Pratt was nominated for the IMB he faced the charge of “Calvinism” with the unwarranted expectation that such a position excluded a heart for missions. On one hand we had concerns of young Calvinist pastors splitting churches by insisting the congregation adopt their theological position, but on another we had anti-Calvinistic pastors.

I do not know, but I hope that many of these arguments came from outside of SBC academics because they do express poor scholarship. I wonder if it is not that we so often look, and perhaps feel a need to find, an enemy within.

 

[JonC]

Here's a paper where Hankins expresses his concerns and view (from 2015...a little later than this interview):

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbtm/08-1_087.pdf

 

[Yeshua1]

Most SBC Traditionalists are what I call "Calvi-lite"

Holding a soft (or watered down) view of Total Depravity, and a soft view of Perseverance of the Saints, and then rejecting the sovereignty aspects of the Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace, and flat rejection of Limited Atonement. Like a chiastic structure.

Very inconsistent, to say the least.

But Hankins acknowledged that "non-Calvinist" theology in the SBC has always revolved around Calvinism

Many wish to have eternal security of the saints, and yet to have that established, they would have to hold to other points also!

 

[JamesL]

Many wish to have eternal security of the saints, and yet to have that established, they would have to hold to other points also!

If they see security through a Calvinist viewpoint, they really need the whole shootin' match through the same viewpoint. I agree

 

[Yeshua1]

Here's a paper where Hankins expresses his concerns and view (from 2015...a little later than this interview):

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbtm/08-1_087.pdf

He seems to just be repackaging classic arminian theology, around the term of it being the Baptist package of sotierology!

We can read the scriptures and never find the term Trinity in it, not Bible, but are the truths not there yet?
And How can God will to save all persons by the Cross, and yet find more lost than saved it would seem?
And why this fixation on free will still?

 

[Yeshua1]

If they see security through a Calvinist viewpoint, they really need the whole shootin' match through the same viewpoint. I agree

I am not saying that only Calvinists are saved, but just that if one wants to hold to say 3 points, have to hold really to all 5!

 

[JamesL]

I am not saying that only Calvinists are saved, but just that if one wants to hold to say 3 points, have to hold really to all 5!

I understand what you're saying.

I'm just saying that I've interacted with enough people who identify as "SBC Traditionalist" that I can see a watered down version of the T and P

Total depravity is "rejected" in favor of a mere propensity toward sin inherited from Adam, a so-called sin nature. But that's not really a rejection, just trying to soften it and make it more palatable. But it's ambiguous, and nobody wants to get specific as to what constitutes a nature or how to define it.

Then a light version of Perseverance of the Saints is embraced, and a feeble attempt to change it to "Preservation". But that's nothing but an attempt to male it less about what a man is doing and more about what God is doing in a believer.

But that's nothing but an attempt to bookend a philosophy which appeals more to emotional understandings of sovereignty and responsibility

 

[JonC]

He seems to just be repackaging classic arminian theology, around the term of it being the Baptist package of sotierology!

We can read the scriptures and never find the term Trinity in it, not Bible, but are the truths not there yet?
And How can God will to save all persons by the Cross, and yet find more lost than saved it would seem?
And why this fixation on free will still?

One problem that I’ve seen in the “debate” is that it is often presented as “Calvinism vs. Arminianism”. This is a defective view as the opposite of Calvinism is not Arminianism (Calvinism existed prior to Arminianism and in a climate where other non-Calvinistic positions were popular). There are other positions that are not Calvinism and not Arminianism.

Maybe it would be better to come up with different terms depending on the context. For example, Mohler is right that the belief common to SBC churches excludes Arminianism (but not all free-will theologies). Also, in the context of Arminianism and Calvinism, there is a great degree to which Arminianism itself revolves around Calvinism. This is one reason I would welcome a Calvinism vs non-Calvinism within the “Baptist Only” section of this forum.

The differences between Calvinism/Arminianism and non-Calvinism can go even further. Mohler mentioned that Anabaptists generally consider themselves Reformed (they are, in fact, Protestant even if they were not formerly Catholic as these types of churches joined the Protestant movement). But there are differences. Anabaptist theology is often considered Arminian on one hand, but on another they differ because that theology does not revolve around Calvinism (as does Arminianism). They cannot be termed either if you consider their view of the Atonement and the role Penal Substitution plays in both Calvinism and Arminianism.

I do not know why so many want to concentrate on Calvinism when it comes to defining their doctrine. You know, before Calvin no one used the term (and it was coined for Calvin's view of Communion against Luther's....not soteriology). Too often the term itself only muddies the water.

 

[JamesL]

I agree.

Something else that I noticed in the interview is how the two (probably more Mohler….I also wish Hankins’ contributions more extensive) held to their positions. Mohler made the comment that all soteriological positions are deficient by nature. It is important, IMHO, that we come to terms with this fact and hold our views firmly but only to the extent that this realization allows.

I've been hesitant in the past, to embrace doctrine systematically, because of that. We're trying to comprehend the incomprehensible, fathom the unfathomable, and understand the One who sits higher than the heavens. Every system of doctrine runs into difficulty in the face of scripture, and we'd all be wise to acknowledge it more.

Within the SBC it seems that the arguments turned ugly more at the pastoral level. When Pratt was nominated for the IMB he faced the charge of “Calvinism” with the unwarranted expectation that such a position excluded a heart for missions. On one hand we had concerns of young Calvinist pastors splitting churches by insisting the congregation adopt their theological position, but on another we had anti-Calvinistic pastors.

I agree. So much talk about Calvinist takeovers and hidden agendas from Calvinist seminary grads not revealing themselves in full (Hankins spoke to that issue). I really think some of that goes back to the seminaries, too.

I've asked, though, who are all these inept people who are making up "pastor search" committees? Who keeps appointing people to look for pastors, when the people have no idea about doctrines which differentiate?

Systemic failure, I suppose.

I do not know, but I hope that many of these arguments came from outside of SBC academics because they do express poor scholarship. I wonder if it is not that we so often look, and perhaps feel a need to find, an enemy within.

I think there's just a general philosophical air pervading society at large, and it's become impossible to get people back into a "scripture first" mindset. And they're going in and out of seminary unchanged (except that they've learned languages, history, and business modeling)

 

[JamesL]

....Anabaptist theology is often considered Arminian on one hand, but on another they differ because that theology does not revolve around Calvinism (as does Arminianism). They cannot be termed either if you consider their view of the Atonement and the role Penal Substitution plays in both Calvinism and Arminianism....

That's a very good point, and one that gets little to no consideration.

 

[Yeshua1]

One problem that I’ve seen in the “debate” is that it is often presented as “Calvinism vs. Arminianism”. This is a defective view as the opposite of Calvinism is not Arminianism (Calvinism existed prior to Arminianism and in a climate where other non-Calvinistic positions were popular). There are other positions that are not Calvinism and not Arminianism.

Maybe it would be better to come up with different terms depending on the context. For example, Mohler is right that the belief common to SBC churches excludes Arminianism (but not all free-will theologies). Also, in the context of Arminianism and Calvinism, there is a great degree to which Arminianism itself revolves around Calvinism. This is one reason I would welcome a Calvinism vs non-Calvinism within the “Baptist Only” section of this forum.

The differences between Calvinism/Arminianism and non-Calvinism can go even further. Mohler mentioned that Anabaptists generally consider themselves Reformed (they are, in fact, Protestant even if they were not formerly Catholic as these types of churches joined the Protestant movement). But there are differences. Anabaptist theology is often considered Arminian on one hand, but on another they differ because that theology does not revolve around Calvinism (as does Arminianism). They cannot be termed either if you consider their view of the Atonement and the role Penal Substitution plays in both Calvinism and Arminianism.

I do not know why so many want to concentrate on Calvinism when it comes to defining their doctrine. You know, before Calvin no one used the term (and it was coined for Calvin's view of Communion against Luther's....not soteriology). Too often the term itself only muddies the water.

It is interesting though to see from the time of say the reformation forward, just how mean Biblical sound theology has come out from reformed/calvinistic/ and Baptist who held to most of those viewpoints, and contrast that with the theology, or lack of, among those who would be expressing more of the full free will aspect to salvation.

 

[TCassidy]

Every system of doctrine runs into difficulty in the face of scripture, and we'd all be wise to acknowledge it more.

Excellent point. When the finite mind attempts to comprehend the infinite, and systematize that comprehension, it seems obvious to me that inconsistencies will arise. I am dogmatic about only that which I can prove from scripture. In fact I preached a sermon earlier this year about "knowing" the bible is true, that God is real, and that heaven will be our home. I then said, "I don't know that. I believe it. I walk by faith not by sight." Made a lot of people think about what, and why, they are dogmatic about.

So much talk about Calvinist takeovers and hidden agendas from Calvinist seminary grads not revealing themselves in full (Hankins spoke to that issue).

I am not sure if "Calvinists" are hiding what they believe, or, like me, don't consider it a separation issue. I don't tell everybody I meet that I am a "Calvinist." (I do not self-identity as a "Calvinist." I am a Particular Baptist. My faith pre-dates Calvin by 1500 years.) If they ask I will tell them what I believe and why I believe it. Other wise, to me, it is not important enough to wear on my sleeve.

I've asked, though, who are all these inept people who are making up "pastor search" committees? Who keeps appointing people to look for pastors, when the people have no idea about doctrines which differentiate?

Good point. The most dangerous group in a church is a pulpit search committee. Most of them have no idea what they should be looking for.

When I met with the pulpit committee before taking my pastorate in San Diego, we sat around a conference table and they grilled me for over 15 hours. They asked me every question imaginable except one. They never asked me if I was saved. They had no clue what to look for in a pastor. And their last two choices were evidence of that. The guy before me lasted 11 months. The guy before him lasted 52 days. I was the 17th pastor in a 39 year old church. The first, founding, pastor was there for 12 years. The second for 11. That leaves 15 pastors in 16 years. Something was seriously wrong. It took me 5 years to fix it. And I was there just a couple months short of 27 years.

I tend to think the pulpit search committee is the problem, not the solution. In my opinion every pastor should be mentoring a younger man, preparing him to take over as senior pastor when the old pastor either resigns, retires, or dies. And it should be understood by the congregation that the "second man" will step into the senior pastor position when the senior pastor departs.

I worked with a young man right out of seminary for 15 years. When I retired it was understood that he would step up into the senior pastor position. Over about 3 months I slowly stepped back a little bit at a time and he slowly stepped up, assuming more and more of my responsibilities. For the last month I was just sitting in a pew. He was doing it all. When we moved east there was no transition at all.

Now, I understand that sometimes a young pastor will leave unexpectedly and the above will not have had time to be put in place. But that should be the exception to the rule.

We, as baptists, need to rethink many of our cherished traditions which have become a burden to the detriment to the ministry.

Think about it.