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

[Reynolds]

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.

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.

 

[Reynolds]

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

I know the SBC started with Calvinists. It also started with anti segregation racists.

 

[MennoSota]

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.

To summarize:
Calvinists read their Bible and attempt to systematize what they read.
Arminians read their Bible and make up an interpretation based upon how they are feeling at any given moment.

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

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

 

[JamesL]

To summarize:
Calvinists read their Bible and attempt to systematize what they read.

And in the process of systemizing, have a tendency to embrace only part of scripture and reject a substantial portion

Arminians read their Bible and make up an interpretation based upon how they are feeling at any given moment.

And in the process of making emotional heads or tails, have a tendency to embrace only part of scripture and reject a substantial portion

 

[MennoSota]

And in the process of systemizing, have a tendency to embrace only part of scripture and reject a substantial portion



And in the process of making emotional heads or tails, have a tendency to embrace only part of scripture and reject a substantial portion

You're just pointing out human nature. You do the exact same thing.

Which is better? Inductive Bible study or feelings Bible study?

Feelings is much more prone to heresy and producing disappointment with God.

 

[Yeshua1]

You're just pointing out human nature. You do the exact same thing.

Which is better? Inductive Bible study or feelings Bible study?

Feelings is much more prone to heresy and producing disappointment with God.

Guess many would feel better having their understanding of the Bible based upon what to them seems what God should be doing!

 

[JonC]

To summarize:
Calvinists read their Bible and attempt to systematize what they read.
Arminians read their Bible and make up an interpretation based upon how they are feeling at any given moment.

To summarize, some Calvinists and some non-Calvinists study their Bibles with every attempt at accurately representing the truth yet arrive at different doctrines based on their reasoning out of Scripture. Unfortunately there are also some people who study Scripture through the lens of their theologies (and their own presuppositions). Even more unfortunate are those who don't study at all.

 

[JonC]

It also started with anti segregation racists.

This does correspond to the current situation (not in substance but in method). The SBC was not started to protect slavery or segregation (although this is what some people seem to think). It was started because they (wrongly) believed the issue of slavery should not exclude churches from an association. Just like now, the conclusion was not to separate from those churches but in practice (in choosing missionaries) their actions proved contrary to their words.

Here we have non-Calvinists saying they do not want to divide over Calvinism while dividing over Calvinism.

 

[MennoSota]

To summarize, some Calvinists and some non-Calvinists study their Bibles with every attempt at accurately representing the truth yet arrive at different doctrines based on their reasoning out of Scripture. Unfortunately there are also some people who study Scripture through the lens of their theologies (and their own presuppositions). Even more unfortunate are those who don't study at all.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Reformed]

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.

Since I came into this discussion late, I'm going to bow out of this thread. However, I'll leave with this final comment. Synergism (better known as Arminianism) is alive in well in many Baptist denominations, including the SBC.

Peace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Revmitchell]

Synergism = a pejorative

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

Neither are credible and both are not very nice.

 

[Reynolds]

This does correspond to the current situation (not in substance but in method). The SBC was not started to protect slavery or segregation (although this is what some people seem to think). It was started because they (wrongly) believed the issue of slavery should not exclude churches from an association. Just like now, the conclusion was not to separate from those churches but in practice (in choosing missionaries) their actions proved contrary to their words.

Here we have non-Calvinists saying they do not want to divide over Calvinism while dividing over Calvinism.

The resurgence of Calvinism is the dividing force. The traditionalists just want left alone and not be yapped at constantly about our doctrine. The SBC was founded over the issue of slavery. It was the convention of racists during the civil rights movement. There are still quite a few racist churches in the SBC. I remember my grand father telling me the stories of the SBC churches in our county during the civil rights movement. Most of the pastors were in The Klan. One of them was the leader of The Klan, well, the figure head leader; the Sheriff was the real power holder.
In this area, I can not think of one SBC church that has over 10% black membership 75% of the churches have 0% black membership.
It caused a ruckus at one of the SBC churches a few years ago because some black people came to a funeral there.

 

[Yeshua1]

To summarize, some Calvinists and some non-Calvinists study their Bibles with every attempt at accurately representing the truth yet arrive at different doctrines based on their reasoning out of Scripture. Unfortunately there are also some people who study Scripture through the lens of their theologies (and their own presuppositions). Even more unfortunate are those who don't study at all.

There are also Calvinists who see it as being the Gospel itself, and so would see ONLY Calvinist as teaching/preaching the real Gospel, and would see all others as "suspect" Christians, as they would see only God honoring the real gospel , while "tolerant" Calvinists like myself , while do seeing Calvinism as best theology regarding salvation, so see others as legit in Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

Synergism = a pejorative

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

Neither are credible and both are not very nice.

Please remember that there are divisions even among us calvinists, as some would be seen, as myself, as being"too tolerant"

 

[Yeshua1]

The resurgence of Calvinism is the dividing force. The traditionalists just want left alone and not be yapped at constantly about our doctrine. The SBC was founded over the issue of slavery. It was the convention of racists during the civil rights movement. There are still quite a few racist churches in the SBC. I remember my grand father telling me the stories of the SBC churches in our county during the civil rights movement. Most of the pastors were in The Klan. One of them was the leader of The Klan, well, the figure head leader; the Sheriff was the real power holder.
In this area, I can not think of one SBC church that has over 10% black membership 75% of the churches have 0% black membership.
It caused a ruckus at one of the SBC churches a few years ago because some black people came to a funeral there.

No need to divide over this issue though!

 

[Revmitchell]

Please remember that there are divisions even among us calvinists, as some would be seen, as myself, as being"too tolerant"

and those who would accuse you of that are too arrogant.

 

[Yeshua1]

and those who would accuse you of that are too arrogant.

I just find it ironic that havie at times harder times dealing with certain calvinists than non cals on issues!

 

[JonC]

Since I came into this discussion late, I'm going to bow out of this thread. However, I'll leave with this final comment. Synergism (better known as Arminianism) is alive in well in many Baptist denominations, including the SBC.

Peace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The issue is that synergism, while a characteristic of Arminianism, is not Arminianism itself. But you do bring out another problem with the debate within the SBC. Terms are being loosely used and poorly redefined (synergism, to varying degrees, is indeed present in many SBC churches but Arminianism is contrary to SBC doctrine).

This problem goes beyond the SBC also (probably everything we are dealing with exceeds SBC boundaries). I've read many articles about the Arminianism of Anabaptist theology. Don't miss that!!! Anabaptist theology, which rejects the view of Atonement both Calvinism and Arminianism hinges upon (the Penal Substitution John Calvin articulated and John Wesley strongly defended), is being called "Arminian" because of its synergistic nature. Likewise we see just about any type of soteriological determinism referred to as "Calvinism".

Another interesting error people make in labeling others is to call Open Theism "Arminian". I think that it may be of that trajectory (just as Arminianism is of Calvinistic trajectory), and I believe both share a common understanding of the mode of Divine Knowledge (a pre-knowledge of events). But it is pretty lazy to use "Arminianism" and "Open Theology" interchangeably.

This vagueness is a type of laziness (perhaps apathy...or misunderstanding) that is not helpful at all.

 

[JonC]

The resurgence of Calvinism is the dividing force. The traditionalists just want left alone and not be yapped at constantly about our doctrine. The SBC was founded over the issue of slavery. It was the convention of racists during the civil rights movement. There are still quite a few racist churches in the SBC. I remember my grand father telling me the stories of the SBC churches in our county during the civil rights movement. Most of the pastors were in The Klan. One of them was the leader of The Klan, well, the figure head leader; the Sheriff was the real power holder.
In this area, I can not think of one SBC church that has over 10% black membership 75% of the churches have 0% black membership.
It caused a ruckus at one of the SBC churches a few years ago because some black people came to a funeral there.

I think if you take the time to look closely you'll find Protestants across the board that were members of the KKK and held racist ideas. Some of this we have to chalk up to a different worldview (sin, and wrong, but we can't pretend then was now).

For an example, read George Whitefield on why slavery is a good thing.