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

[JamesL]

Your discussion with James is remindful of the book of Job. Job and his friends had a nice, neat theology of God all set-up...and then disaster hit...and their concept of God was turned around. God has a way of doing that to us.

Along similar lines, this book from Presbyterian pastor Ben Patterson adresses our rigid theological concepts of God and our practical experiences with Him which put our concepts in a bind

Deepening Your Conversation with God: Learning to Love to Pray (Pastor's Soul): Ben Patterson: 9780764223518: Amazon.com: Books

 

[MennoSota]

Like maybe I didn't write in post #71....

"As a matter of fact, GETTING BACK TO THE TOPIC OF THE ORIGINAL POST, I took Hankins to task on this issue only a couple of days ago. I told him it's a shame that people will go to Seminary, and waste all this time and money getting a doctorate, and have nothing to show for it other than philosophical meandering

Of course, he disagreed. He seems to think that philosophy is the epitome of deep, substantive study."

Yeah, I changed to context of the conversation, and on top of that left no clues for anyone, right?

Honestly, I'm through if all you want to do is character assassination. I've been intentionally not responding in a manner which would make you curl up in a closet and cry.

That sort of restraint is no small feat for me.

LOL, you give yourself way too much credit for what you might do. You come across as prideful and denigrating of others you disagree with. Feel free to leave.

 

[MennoSota]

This is true and I believe it is a very real danger with Calvinism (more so than with non-Calvinism within the SBC). I say this not as an affront to Calvinists but because where non-Calvinism is sometimes vague Calvinism often arrives with a dangerous precision.

I agree with you.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

Too often we try to ascribe “scholarship” to certain viewpoints and render the opposing position as somehow ignorant. I’ve even seen it posted here than those who reject Calvinism just have not yet matured into that knowledge

.

Then again......what if that is exactly the situation?
When that comment is offered it many times is quite accurate, Moreso with the rank and file.
Is it okay if that is the case to make the observation and declare it...without being rude or arrogant.?
What if that is the exact condition.

I think this is what Hankins was pointing to when he spoke of those who insult others by degrading their position as less than scholarly.

or perhaps he is defending those with a lack of diligence in their study.?

There are many who reject things like Calvinism and Penal Substitution without somehow becoming less scholarly than those who accept those doctrines.

There are scholarly people who are flaming apostates like Shelby Spong.

I just don’t think it fair to say one camp contributes more scholarship than the other. The key to your statement is "biblically sound" doctrine, so I think if we are honest we admit that this means doctrine we believe to be biblically correct (hence our "camp" produces the best).

I have been in both kinds of church in most every state....night and day difference that is mostly apparent without much investigation.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Revmitchell,

I have never seen a post more full of garbage as this one. The pure arrogance and obnoxiousness is so over whelming it sticks clean through the computer screen.

just read your own posts and you will see many examples.

 

[Iconoclast]

You will not find a Calvinist SBC Church in this area.

where in Georgia are you, I will find you one or two

 

[Iconoclast]

SheepWhisperer,

He even designed and instituted "election" and "predestination" but those doctrines don't mean what many think they do.

Most have it wrong? but you understand it?

.

He gives us the freedom to choose to believe and obey Him and the freedom to reject Him,

Actually no...romans 8:7

but God alone controls the consequences of all of our choices now

,

man is in control, but God is an interested spectator?

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

Of course, we should all know that "the LIfe" is Jesus Christ. But here's another note about the above verse that I just noticed: Before the semicolon, it addresses a group by using the plural pronoun "you". After the semicolon it uses "thou", which is singular. In other words, God was giving the invitation for all of them, but it was up to each individual to choose. Someone will say that is Arminianism and some will say it is "works" but it's not: It's faith.

This was not an "invitation, but a command to a typically redeemed people.

 

[Iconoclast]

What is going to happen is you are going to split the SBC over a secondary doctrine that is nothing more than fuel for egos. Look how simple Jesus made The Gospel. Look how complicated y'all try to make it. The most effective soul winners in SBC history either intentionally avoided these controversies or at worst stayed on the fringe of them.

wrong...the SBC started with Calvinists...

 

[Reformed]

This is true and I believe it is a very real danger with Calvinism (more so than with non-Calvinism within the SBC). I say this not as an affront to Calvinists but because where non-Calvinism is sometimes vague Calvinism often arrives with a dangerous precision.

I have been perusing this thread, but was going to sit out commenting until now.

Can you provide examples of this "dangerous precision" you mention?

 

[JonC]

Then again......what if that is exactly the situation?

When that comment is offered it many times is quite accurate, Moreso with the rank and file.

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

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

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

 

[JonC]

wrong...the SBC started with Calvinists...

The early leadership was Calvinistic. Both Johnson and Howell (the first two presidents of the Convention) were Calvinists (this can be seen clearly with Howell in his letters against the hyper-Calvinistic anti-missions movement). If I remember correctly, J.R. Graves was a non-Calvinist (he was anti-Calvinist because of his Landmarkism but he also based election on God seeing "end to end").

This is why I find the anti and hyper Calvinists so alarming. "Traditional" seems to mean denying the Calvinistic SBC churches a voice (Hankins letter and the push from the Traditionalist side was to redefine the statement of faith in such a way that would exclude Calvinism).

 

[JonC]

I have been perusing this thread, but was going to sit out commenting until now.

Can you provide examples of this "dangerous precision" you mention?

Yes.

We have Calvinists who hold a type of theology that fills in the blanks to what Scripture has left unanswered, sometimes to the extent of denying Scripture itself. Here are a couple of examples:

There are some who will tell you that for three hours on the Cross God abandoned Jesus by withdrawing His actual presence in such a way that Jesus experienced what the lost will experience at Judgment. Not only can this be refuted simply by Scripture, but such a detailed explanation is nowhere to be found in Scripture itself.

Some have narrowed down their theories to the point that they deny God can actually forgive man (God must exercise wrath on each sinful act, regardless as to where that wrath falls). This is a skewed view of Penal Substitution, but it is also an error that often creeps into Calvinistic circles.

Another example is the anti-missions movement. This was something I mentioned that Howell fought early in his ministry at the SBC. These Calvinists rejected active evangelism because one could find themselves witnessing to a non-elect person, urging them to believe in opposition to God's will. Or consider Daniel Parker's two seed theology (as an extreme view).

As I say this, please keep in mind that I am Calvinistic and I do believe in Penal Substitution. But I also believe that there are those who hold right views wrongly.

 

[Reformed]

Yes.

We have Calvinists who hold a type of theology that fills in the blanks to what Scripture has left unanswered, sometimes to the extent of denying Scripture itself. Here are a couple of examples:

There are some who will tell you that for three hours on the Cross God abandoned Jesus by withdrawing His actual presence in such a way that Jesus experienced what the lost will experience at Judgment. Not only can this be refuted simply by Scripture, but such a detailed explanation is nowhere to be found in Scripture itself.

That's a minority view that some Arminians hold to, so it is not an exclusive Calvinist error.

Some have narrowed down their theories to the point that they deny God can actually forgive man (God must exercise wrath on each sinful act, regardless as to where that wrath falls). This is a skewed view of Penal Substitution, but it is also an error that often creeps into Calvinistic circles.

I am not aware of any Calvinists, Presbyterian or Baptist, who hold this view.

Another example is the anti-missions movement. This was something I mentioned that Howell fought early in his ministry at the SBC. These Calvinists rejected active evangelism because one could find themselves witnessing to a non-elect person, urging them to believe in opposition to God's will. Or consider Daniel Parker's two seed theology (as an extreme view).

As I say this, please keep in mind that I am Calvinistic and I do believe in Penal Substitution. But I also believe that there are those who hold right views wrongly.

Hyper Calvinism is difficult to quantify, since there is no agreed upon dictionary definition. John Gill is often criticized as being a Hyper Calvinist, but there is little proof to go on. I do know of Calvinist churches that do not embrace the Fundamentalist brand of evangelism that permeates most Baptist churches. I am acquainted with some Baptist (and Presbyterian) churches that believe the highest form of evangelism is preaching the Gospel. They do not believe that the Gospel should only be preached to the Elect, but you will seldom find them doing street meetings or handing out tracts. I have yet to come across a church that actually believes they should only preach the Gospel to the Elect. In fact, I am convinced that accusation is often a boogeyman charge against Calvinist churches. That said, some Calvinists do not have a high sense of urgency when it comes to personal evangelism, but is that really a Calvinist problem or a general Christian problem?

 

[JamesL]

)This is why I find the anti and hyper Calvinists so alarming. "Traditional" seems to mean denying the Calvinistic SBC churches a voice (Hankins letter and the push from the Traditionalist side was to redefine the statement of faith in such a way that would exclude Calvinism).

He has said almost as much plainly.
I don't agree with the Calvinist's conclusions, but I think there is no warrant for saying we should be removing every Calvinist from entities supported by CF, or demanding that Traditionalists be represented proportionately different than they are now on seminary staffs.

 

[JamesL]

....or perhaps he [Hankins] is defending those with a lack of diligence in their study.?

He did say they're getting their rear ends handed to them because they're not willing to do the work necessary to do deep thinking.

But honestly, what I've seen is that almost all the work isn't really work at all. I told him people who smoke pot are some of the deepest thinkers I've met

And they're not working. They're lighting a joint and getting dizzy . And pondering.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The closest Calvinist churches I know of, two counties over, are drying up and withering. The fast growing SBC churches are not Calvinist. Problem is you throw labels on them and accuse them of being shallow and corrupt in doctrine.

The point I am making is all churches are struggling. Some are struggling more than others in other parts of the nation, but Christianity is growing everywhere but here in America.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Thanks! That tracks with Missionary Baptists here (total depravity, conditional election, general atonement and eternal security). Since we only attach the name free will to the Free Will Baptists, I wondered if these might be a slightly different tribe.

Even some of the UB's, and most of the ORB's, don't seem to hold to anything other than the 'P'. They believe babies are born innocent.

 

[JonC]

, but is that really a Calvinist problem or a general Christian problem?

All of what I am speaking of can be applied to other theologies as well. Calvinism lacks the vagueness that others have within the SBC and lends itself more (if abused) to denying truths based on the perciseness of what it affirms. Arminianism could present the same issue, but we are dealing with SBC theology (which excludes Arminianism). The non-Calvinists (SBC) seem to hold, as a whole, a less precise doctrine in opposition to the points of disagreement.

 

[JonC]

He has said almost as much plainly.
I don't agree with the Calvinist's conclusions, but I think there is no warrant for saying we should be removing every Calvinist from entities supported by CF, or demanding that Traditionalists be represented proportionately different than they are now on seminary staffs.

And that is, I believe, a problem within the SBC. I recently watched one of Leighton Flower's interviews and he said the exact same thing - no one wants to remove Calvinists from the SBC, but at the same time the complaint is the Convention's use of language that would include Calvinists over the exclusive language of unlimited atonement. It's like me saying I'm not a racist as I hang a "whites only" sign in my shop window.

The problem is that we have on one side a group who makes too much with too little Scripture and another group that makes too little with so much Scripture. The majority are in the middle but they are not so loud.

 

[Greektim]

Founders (Nettles) recently did some posts that is about the historic Calvinistic roots of the SBC: Founders Ministries