Loyal Opposition/Traditional soteriology

[JamesL]

I figure you had the mods delete it so you could escape having to actually present God's word rather than whine about others. You can ask the mods what they did with the thread I created so you could present your theology.

I did. I was terrified that you would expose me as a fraud


Actually, I saw it. But it was doomed.
They don't allow threads about specific BB members.

Try making one about doctrine, not me.

 

[JonC]

Loyal Opposition at SBC Today is a full, unedited version of Eric Hankins’s keynote address at the annual Connect 316 Banquet held June 13, 2017.

SBC Voices discussion of the address can be found HERE.

I think one problem here is that he is dealing with the SBC as if it were prescriptive of local church doctrine rather than descriptive of what they hold as a common belief necessary for fellowship and joining together for kingdom work.

SBC soteriological tradition has always been more open than Hankins is pretending it to be. There has never, not even one time, been a SBC that rejected all, or even the same, Calvinistic points because there has never been a SBC leadership that represented the exact soteriological views of every church that belonged to the Convention in such a narrow manner.

I’ve pointed to the Calvinism of R.B.C. Howell in his letters against the extreme Calvinism of the anti-missions movement churches. At the same period in time we had J.R. Graves who was non-Calvinistic (he based God’s preordination in election on a pre-knowledge, God knowing “end from end”).

The problem, as I see it, is that people on both sides of the issue here are wanting to narrow down what it means to be SBC and exclude the doctrines of the other group. One (some Calvinists) seem to want to do this at a “grass-roots level” by changing the doctrine of the local churches. Others (some non-Calvinists) want to do this by changing the climate of the SBC itself from a leadership level (which would ultimately exclude either Calvinistic churches or the active participation of Calvinists within the Convention).

I think that ultimately there may be a split over the issue, and I hope that the split is the departure of the “forceful, sneaky” Calvinists along with those who would follow Hankins in discriminating against Calvinistic churches by denying them either a voice or an active, equal role in SBC leadership.

This discussion (within the SBC....not on this forum) may be an indicator that the SBC has outgrown its purpose as a Convention.

 

[MennoSota]

I did. I was terrified that you would expose me as a fraud


Actually, I saw it. But it was doomed.
They don't allow threads about specific BB members.

Try making one about doctrine, not me.

It was about doctrine and what you believe. Sigh...I suspect we'll never know.

 

[MennoSota]

I think one problem here is that he is dealing with the SBC as if it were prescriptive of local church doctrine rather than descriptive of what they hold as a common belief necessary for fellowship and joining together for kingdom work.

SBC soteriological tradition has always been more open than Hankins is pretending it to be. There has never, not even one time, been a SBC that rejected all, or even the same, Calvinistic points because there has never been a SBC leadership that represented the exact soteriological views of every church that belonged to the Convention in such a narrow manner.

I’ve pointed to the Calvinism of R.B.C. Howell in his letters against the extreme Calvinism of the anti-missions movement churches. At the same period in time we had J.R. Graves who was non-Calvinistic (he based God’s preordination in election on a pre-knowledge, God knowing “end from end”).

The problem, as I see it, is that people on both sides of the issue here are wanting to narrow down what it means to be SBC and exclude the doctrines of the other group. One (some Calvinists) seem to want to do this at a “grass-roots level” by changing the doctrine of the local churches. Others (some non-Calvinists) want to do this by changing the climate of the SBC itself from a leadership level (which would ultimately exclude either Calvinistic churches or the active participation of Calvinists within the Convention).

I think that ultimately there may be a split over the issue, and I hope that the split is the departure of the “forceful, sneaky” Calvinists along with those who would follow Hankins in discriminating against Calvinistic churches by denying them either a voice or an active, equal role in SBC leadership.

This discussion (within the SBC....not on this forum) may be an indicator that the SBC has outgrown its purpose as a Convention.

It sounds like the SBC should just merge with the Evangelical (Evanjellyfish) Free Church so that local churches can just do whatever they want as long as they affirm Jesus atonement for sinners. Such a loose connection allows for nearly anything at the local level. It is there where the splits occur.

 

[JonC]

It sounds like the SBC should just merge with the Evangelical Free Church so that local churches can just do whatever they want as long as they affirm Jesus atonement for sinners. Such a loose connection allows for nearly anything at the local level. It is there where the splits occur.

I think the SBC has a good standard as it is. (I would not advocate a looser association)

 

[Reynolds]

there are several key points where it argues a philosophically inconsistent position.

First, it is supposedly neither Calvinist nor Arminian, and supposedly seeks a way to detach from the paradigm of those two arguing positions. But every point of argumentation revolves around TULIP. That's inconsistent

Regarding the doctrine of Total Depravity - The Calvinist doctrine hangs on and understanding of the doctrine of Original Sin. That we are "In Adam" by virtue of being physical descendants of his. That we receive a nature that is fallen and leaves us utterly depraved and devoid of any capacity to move toward God. There have been many philosophies put forth to relieve the emotional tension of babies dying and going to hell.

The traditionalist view may be one of the most inconsistent of all. Supposedly, we receive some kind of nature from Adam. What exactly is a nature? That's not Define anywhere. I have asked the go to traditionalist (Adam Harwood) on this issue and could not get a clear answer as to what constitutes a nature. However, they have determined that whatever this nature is, it makes everyone do bad things - even babies. So there's that part.

Connected to the issue of original sin and total depravity, we have the guilt and condemnation of man. Their position is that God condemns no one until that person reaches an age where they know right from wrong and then willfully do wrong.

The toddlers know right from wrong. if you tell a toddler don't touch the cookies, they will wait for an opportunity to be left alone in the room and then eat the cookies. Because they know it's wrong. If you tell a toddler to put that such-and-such back on the table, they will try to put it on a chair. or on the kitchen counter. Or in front of the fireplace. Anywhere except for you told them, and a fight will ensue. if that's not willful disobedience, I don't know what is

So you have this so-called nature which makes everyone do bad things, and God condemns people the very first time they do bad things wilfully, but babies doing willfully bad things are not punished by God. it's an inconsistent philosophy, driven by emotionalism.

Regarding the Perseverance of the Saints - many attempts have been made to delineate between perseverance and preservation. It's not the man persevering it's God preserving him....ok. however, it has been noted that it is a distinction without a distinction.

All of the New Testament passages about falling away or interpreted the same the exact way as a calvinist would. Jesus' words of knowing a tree by its fruit are taking the same exact way as a calvinist take them.

there are other philosophical inconsistencies to. Maybe if I have some more time home I'll lay down a few more

Do you think Jesus did everything His parents told Him when He was 2 years old? How about when He was 1 year old?

 

[InTheLight]

I figure you had the mods delete it so you could escape having to actually present God's word rather than whine about others. You can ask the mods what they did with the thread I created so you could present your theology.

I saw that thread and knew it would be deleted. It's against the board's rules to have members as topics of threads.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[MennoSota]

I saw that thread and knew it would be deleted. It's against the board's rules to have members as topics of threads.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

Good to know. I use Tapatalk to post so I haven't read the fine print.

 

[JamesL]

Do you think Jesus did everything His parents told Him when He was 2 years old? How about when He was 1 year old?

The better question would be...what does scripture say?

And a close second...am I obligated to give an answer which fits into your theological paradigm?

The bible doesn't answer this question directly. Nor are we told whether everything they told Him to do was in keeping with His Father's will.

So any definite answer would be speculation. Not that I mind speculating, but I would never get into a fight over it, and wouldn't mind if someone came to a better answer.

Start a thread with it. It might be fun.

 

[JamesL]

It was about doctrine and what you believe. Sigh...I suspect we'll never know.

You can rest assured. If God wills, you will.

 

[Iconoclast]

Back to the OP...from the article;

Before this encounter, I would have described myself, like probably most Southern Baptists, as a three point Calvinist. But, even with a Ph.D. in Systematic Theology, my soteriology wasn’t particularly well-delineated. In the wake of that troubling encounter with the layman, I began to dig deeply into the substance of Calvinism and quickly discovered two things: I had never been anywhere close to being a real Calvinist, and I had huge problems with Calvinism—all five points

Here he claims to Have a PH.D. in systematic theology and does not grasp that a so called 3 pt calvinist is someone who is yet without understanding.
I find this disturbing as he has written it....He cannot really articulate the position without making a strawman...

 

[Iconoclast]

Calvinists construct their soteriology on a foundation of philosophical determinism.

Here is goes for the strawman approach suggesting Fatalism...which no cal believes.

Since God meticulously determines everything that happens such that there is no contingency, that must include each person’s eternal destiny. Everything else about Calvinist soteriology flows from this.

He suggests a god who is not in control of all things? contingency??

Everything else about Calvinist soteriology flows from this. So, when they use words like election, love, all, freedom, and faith, they mean something fundamentally different from what I mean when I use these words. It does no good for Southern Baptists to say we believe basically the same things about soteriology. We mean very different things.

Yes...Calvinists see what scripture declares and view it as God has revealed it. You Eric start with man as one of your speakers, Leighton Flowers is known for as a champion of man centered theology and carnal philosophy, not bible based exegesis. We saw his failure in the romans 9 debate and his 24/7 opposition to the truths we know as Calvinism.

 

[Iconoclast]

Calvinism suffers from massive exegetical, theological, and philosophical problems that translate into massive problems in faith and practice. Calvinism impugns the character of God

Unfounded assertions...Strawmanfest...show what you say is true without bearing false witness.

 

[HankD]

Do you think Jesus did everything His parents told Him when He was 2 years old? How about when He was 1 year old?

Well we will never know for sure until we walk together again in the cool (Heb - Ruach-Spirit) of the evening.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hankins mentions that the Baptist faith and message is weak on calvinism.
Yes it is because it was written to be a compromise document ....to allow goats go come in with the idea that if we get them in,maybe they will hear truth and make some progress.
Using Finneys new measures they have many goats in among the assembly.
The goats thinking they have free will pick and choose what they would like to believe instead of dealing honestly with the texts.
So a doctrine of compromise that remains vague on the harder issues,is just what the doctor ordered.
Eric Hankins does not want those pesky Calvinists coming in and disturbing the weak lifeway booklets...and actually opening the scriptures up.

 

[JonC]

Hankins mentions that the Baptist faith and message is weak on calvinism.
Yes it is because it was written to be a compromise document ....to allow goats go come in with the idea that if we get them in,maybe they will hear truth and make some progress.
Using Finneys new measures they have many goats in among the assembly.
The goats thinking they have free will pick and choose what they would like to believe instead of dealing honestly with the texts.
So a doctrine of compromise that remains vague on the harder issues,is just what the doctor ordered.
Eric Hankins does not want those pesky Calvinists coming in and disturbing the weak lifeway booklets...and actually opening the scriptures up.

I agree with you in part. The Baptist Faith and Message is weak on Calvinism but the reason is because the churches within the Convention did not deem Calvinism a doctrine to divide over, not to allow unChristian churches in the Convention (you are forgetting that it is the local church, not the SBC, that determines church doctrine).

 

[Yeshua1]

while it's true, the reason you disagrees is that it doesn't fit his idea of good and evil and justice and right and wrong.

And I think that's the failure of most who embrace and anti calvinist position.

I used to be a Calvinist, and before that and Armenian, and now I'm neither. And one thing I have never been concerned with is how this view or that view seemingly "portrays" God. I care what the scriptures say.

So if the scriptures teach that God is a monster and he controls everybody on strings like a puppet, so be it.

Just as a balancing point, and not to try to inflame a debate over this one issue, if the scriptures portray God as being at the behest of man, so be it.

But the traditionalist seems to maintain that any view of God must be philosophically palatable. In other words, I've either got to like Him or I don't want anything to do with Him.

I read where someone actually wrote that if he was to find out the god of Calvinism was the true God, he would have been in the Christian faith. Now, I don't believe that person was a Traditionalist in the Southern Baptist Convention, but that's the sentiment I detect

I'm convinced if they don't stop arguing philosophy, they will lose.

Being that God is fully in control over salvation itself, why would we even doubt that truth?

 

[Iconoclast]

I agree with you in part. The Baptist Faith and Message is weak on Calvinism but the reason is because the churches within the Convention did not deem Calvinism a doctrine to divide over, not to allow unChristian churches in the Convention (you are forgetting that it is the local church, not the SBC, that determines church doctrine).

Obviously I have a bias as I interact with this attack by Eric Hankins so I will acknowledge that up front.
You are correct in what you say, and I am sure there are sincere Christians caught up in the middle of this mess.
To avoid division in any Church...love has to be present. I do not believe doctrine needs to divide, but I have been interacting with some in the comment section and they ascribe Calvinism to Satan.

 

[Iconoclast]

Eric Hankins says;

Calvinism suffers from massive exegetical, theological, and philosophical problems that translate into massive problems in faith and practice. Calvinism impugns the character of God.

He and others cannot demonstrate this and Calvinism gets introduced into any assembly people enjoy the scriptures being fully taught. This kind of rhetoric appeals to goats and weak defective believers.
I am not saying that to be harsh. Test it for yourself. Ask a traditionalist to explain the teaching and you will discover that 8 out of 10 cannot begin to enter into the discussion.
The problem is in his lack of understanding.

He continues;

It makes nonsense of the biblical assertions that God loves everyone, that Christ died for the sins of everyone, and that anyone can be saved.

This is his philosophy and yet it confuses it is biblical teaching

It obliterates any concept of a well-meant offer of the gospel.

Not at all...the gospel is preached in all the world.It is only in his mind that this takes place.

 

[HankD]

Being that God is fully in control over salvation itself, why would we even doubt that truth?

Arminians don't.

They view God as giving all men the ability and power to choose that which He has provided for all.

Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

No I am not a follower of Arius or Calvin for that matter.
I have to many disagreements with either.

Doctrines of grace sounds better than attaching a man's name to a body of beliefs.

HankD