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

[MennoSota]

You twist what is said into lies. Neither congregation is arminian. They are traditional.

Others here state that the traditional belief of the SBC is Calvinist.
It seems that you are referring to whatever tradition you created. If not Calvinist, nor Arminian, then it seems you're a semi-pelagian. In any case, your tradition is less about scripture than it is about the comfort of your feelings.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Revmitchell,

Synergism = a pejorative

An accurate description of error held by you and others who would subvert the truth.

Arminianism is a catch all word for reformed folks to refer to anyone who is not reformed.

Or Arminianism is a word to those who try and oppose truth denying they are arminians, because they plead the 5th...osas

Neither are credible and both are not very nice.

Both are descriptive and useful.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

There are instances where a lack of knowledge indicates a lack of study,

I was speaking of this primarily.I have been in churches where people who profess to be Christians for years are not familiar with their bibles which i find disturbing and not glorifying to God at all.

and perhaps even a failure on the part of the church to rely on indoctrination without understanding, or worse yet, to ignore doctrine all together. I grant this may be true in some cases.

If it were only a few cases that would be sad, but it seems to be more than a few cases....

But insofar as the issue of Calvinism and non-Calvinism as discussed here goes, this is not the case.

I might be differing with you here....

I say this for several reasons. First, as @JamesL pointed out, this issue does not hinge on Scripture itself but on philosophy and that applied to interpretation.

I think it does indeed hinge on scripture.

We need to keep in mind that the Doctrines of Grace, or the Five Points of Calvinism, as Calvinism itself is not a complete soteriology but rather a response to an erroneous view of predestination. It is an interpretation of Scripture combined with a reasoning out of the workings of God not specifically revealed in Scripture to focus on a specific challenge.[/QUOTE]

You look at it that way. Others myself included see it differently.yes it was a response...a response to error that today is being celebrated as "another truth", or if these Traditionalists have their way...they would call the truth error and error truth....

JONC....people grow and mature at different levels.....but revealed truth is just that ...Revealed TRUTH...it is not going to change.
The "differences" come about for many reasons, but one reason is not that truth changes.
God desires that once we are saved, that we come to KNOW truth and go into all the world with it making disciples.
I do not see where we are to drift around tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. Eph4;
1 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

If unsaved people come into a church and offer the perspectives of the natural man, they are going to be mostly devoid of biblical truth.
If unsaved false professors walk the aisle and make false professions of faith, then are told they are "saved'...they are still going to be goats who the pastor tries to train to make believe if they were sheep what they should say and do, but will have no internal root and eventually will become scandalized....
For a time new Christians in a false teaching church will be hindered and actually be instructed to fight against the truth, which looks like there "traditionalists are trying to do...organize a goat stampede to rid the SBC of those evil Calvinists who come into the church and speak of historic teaching which is not in vogue in Goatville Baptist.

Which brings me to my second point. If we hold Calvinism as if it were Scripture itself then we either elevate man to the level of God or we view Scripture as less complete than SBC doctrine would allow. I find neither acceptable

.

You speak of only two possibilities here..let me add one more.
What if the confessions of faith come to these scriptural conclusions on the various topics, and Calvin did not exist. We would call these teachings something.....maybe bible truths?....The problem is a Mormon will claim he also has bible truth??...
Because someone makes a claim does not mean it is so. The labels are etablished. I and 5 other Cals were recently thrown off a message board because those in control hate anything calvinistic at all...they censor and delete posts, then Put you on a "coffee break" so you can no longer communicate with those on that forum
They cannot handle the truth as it comes out so they censor it.
They fear calvinists will show up in their doctrinally defective churches and bring change, or biblical reform.
Instead they want to have the adults read through little lifeway booklets and never really study much of the bible at all.

Some on this forum say Cals infiltrate and cause division....when in reality the truths offered rise to the top...

But this takes us to my third point. If we do believe that Scripture is deficient and man must rely on a divine special revelation to fill in the blanks, then we are back at a gnostic type of faith – that is a hidden knowledge as a mark of maturity with God revealing knowledge exponentially as the convert grows.

Scripture is not deficient, but we are dependent on the Spirit to open truth. This is not Gnostic, but biblical.
So claim to be Christians but are simply offering carnal philosophy rather than any bible based teaching or a philosophy derived from scripture itself....Leighton Flowers failed on here in he failed to show up in a meaningful way on the romans 9 debate, for this very reason. His posting was that of the imaginary objector that Paul spoke about in Romans 9...Archangel, and Aaron, and many others pointed this out to him...and were given infractions to try and silence them.

And this would be an unbiblical view of Christian maturity. Scripture defines the mark of maturity as a Christ-likeness, not an accumulation of knowledge.

It is not either or, but both and....either person can error this way.

And an Arminian who loves like Christ loved is as about as mature as any Calvinist could hope to become.

I am attending a church that has many such persons in it right now due to providential circumstances.... we are trying to help and come alongside these people and see if we can overcome some differences...as we believe they are believers....it is a mixed situation....

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 1:30 AM Pacific.

 

[Reynolds]

Others here state that the traditional belief of the SBC is Calvinist.
It seems that you are referring to whatever tradition you created. If not Calvinist, nor Arminian, then it seems you're a semi-pelagian. In any case, your tradition is less about scripture than it is about the comfort of your feelings.

I am using the terminology in the video this thread is about. Did you watch it?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Interesting. Thanks. What those ORB's believe on innocent babies would appear to contradict their official stance in their articles of faith.

The ORB's are not the ORB's of years ago. They have let freewillism take them down a road that their forefathers, if they knew how they were now, would be rolling in their graves faster than a drill bit.

 

[MennoSota]

I am using the terminology in the video this thread is about. Did you watch it?

But, as both men mention, the term traditionalist is an inaccurate statement.

It is more accurate to call yourself a semi-pelagian. You may cringe at the term because "traditionalist" somehow sounds more kind, but in reality the term defines nothing. If I am to call you a traditionalist, then I will think of you as being a member of the Roman church where tradition trumps the Bible.
No, semi-pelagian is a far more accurate term.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The Church is in decline in USA, Canada, and most of Europe. The significant growth is in Africa, and former Communist countries.

There is growth in the USA, but the growing churches are persecuted by the theologians of the dying churches.

The reason why dying churches are dying is because there aren't enough theologians to go around. Trust me, around here the ones who are considered 'preaching men', have a theology 1/2" thick.

 

[SovereignGrace]

But, as both men mention, the term traditionalist is an inaccurate statement.

It is more accurate to call yourself a semi-pelagian. You may cringe at the term because "traditionalist" somehow sounds more kind, but in reality the term defines nothing. If I am to call you a traditionalist, then I will think of you as being a member of the Roman church where tradition trumps the Bible.
No, semi-pelagian is a far more accurate term.

Skandaleon(or however you spell it) calls himself a 'traditionialist', and he's a hardcore semi-Pelagianist.

 

[JonC]

You twist what is said into lies. Neither congregation is arminian. They are traditional.

Maybe the Calvinists should change their name to historic (as the complaint is that the group is returning to the Abstract of Principles). We have historic SBC (Calvinism) and traditional SBC (non-Calvinism).

 

[Iconoclast]

Maybe the Calvinists should change their name to historic (as the complaint is that the group is returning to the Abstract of Principles). We have historic SBC (Calvinism) and traditional SBC (non-Calvinism).

They do call it the Founders movement.

 

[JonC]

The reason why dying churches are dying is because there aren't enough theologians to go around. Trust me, around here the ones who are considered 'preaching men', have a theology 1/2" thick.

I agree that shallow and non-existent theology is a huge issue, but I think that the reason churches are dying is that they have abandoned their First Love. I've seen pastors preach strong doctrine and hold studies that no one attends. I am beginning to think that this is a heart issue more than it is a head issue.

 

[MennoSota]

Maybe the Calvinists should change their name to historic (as the complaint is that the group is returning to the Abstract of Principles). We have historic SBC (Calvinism) and traditional SBC (non-Calvinism).

Great point in that groups often "rebrand" their names to highlight positive and distract from negative.
How many Baptist churches have changed their name to a nature theme?
Eagle Brook, Meadow Lands, Aspen Hills, Great Lakes, etc., just to avoid the social negatives associated with Baptist.
It is no surprise to hear two leaders try to rebrand.

 

[MennoSota]

I agree that shallow and non-existent theology is a huge issue, but I think that the reason churches are dying is that they have abandoned their First Love. I've seen pastors preach strong doctrine and hold studies that no one attends. I am beginning to think that this is a heart issue more than it is a head issue.

...beginning to think? Jon, that has been the issue since day one of the fall.
Greeky, touched on the ordinance of God. It is worth reminding that God is working out His Providence regardless of the degree a person holds. God can take the ignorant saint and preach deep truth.
My prayer should be that God might move me to deeper truth as He walks me toward the cross.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 1:30 AM Pacific.