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

[JamesL]

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

In the paper he wrote about election:
"He has elected an eschatological people whom He has determined to have for Himself"

I've said before that election is an eschatological hope. But I think he's off the mark when he determined that election is corporate, not individual. It's both.

He later includes Israel's corporate election, and how it's individually realized, so it's hard to completely nail it down from that paper.

 

[JonC]

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.

I think it depends on our expectations and what we will really consider from within each camp. For example, between the “Calvinism” of Mohler and the “Non-Calvinism” of Hankins I tend towards Mohler’s position. This does not mean Hankins is shallow. Or to extend it out a bit more, while I may disagree with his conclusions, John Wesley was not a dud when it came to “doing theology”. Martin Luther was not a slouch either, and he rejected believer’s baptism (something I view as evident through even an elementary reading of Scripture).

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. 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.

There are many who reject things like Calvinism and Penal Substitution without somehow becoming less scholarly than those who accept those doctrines. I greatly appreciate the work of Jonathan Edwards, for example. Yet I believe his position favors the moral government theory (which I associate more with Arminianism) than penal substitution. I love learning from D.W. Moody sermons, and the writings of A.W. Tozer. I appreciate and have grown by reading C.S. Lewis. And there are Reformed scholars like N.T. Wright who, like Edwards, hold views slightly off the main stream Calvinism.

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).

 

[JonC]

In the paper he wrote about election:
"He has elected an eschatological people whom He has determined to have for Himself"

I've said before that election is an eschatological hope. But I think he's off the mark when he determined that election is corporate, not individual. It's both.

He later includes Israel's corporate election, and how it's individually realized, so it's hard to completely nail it down from that paper.

I agree. And I remember you talking about election as an eschatological hope (N.T. Wright also insisted on this point). I also agree that election is both corporate and individual. I think people miss the boat on both sides (insisting on one or another). That said, I only skimmed his paper and need to read it more carefully.

 

[JamesL]

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.

That's good stuff.
And what happens when people aren't acutely aware of their own intellectual frailties, is they become uncharitable toward the shortcomings of others.

I've been guilty of it, for sure.

But even worse is the prideful attitude some display toward "the god of" their opponents. I just ran into a guy who said he would abandon Christianity if Calvinism's god turned out to be the true version (paraphrased).

And I've seen that from every "side", and that mentality has grown roots with many seminarians.

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.

For sure, I've never heard of a strategically designed infiltration and takeover such has been accused. I think guys in seminary are so anxious to get vocational that they're just not thinking about differences.

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.

It's really sad. I think people join these committees and treat it like a bake sale committee.

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.

In other words, you started leading before the gate opened

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.

That would be ideal, imo.

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.

For sure.

 

[JamesL]

I agree. And I remember you talking about election as an eschatological hope (N.T. Wright also insisted on this point). I also agree that election is both corporate and individual. I think people miss the boat on both sides (insisting on one or another). That said, I only skimmed his paper and need to read it more carefully.

From what I've seen, a good many Southern Baptist Traditionalists are still framing their arguments about election from the Calvinist/Arminian paradigm (elected unto being saved from hell), and siding with Arminians.

Others are moving toward a view of election for service, thus still individual and not eschatological. I think they're really grasping at straws by taking a few biblical instances of people being "chosen" for a task or ministry, then transferring it into election passages.

 

[JonC]

From what I've seen, a good many Southern Baptist Traditionalists are still framing their arguments about election from the Calvinist/Arminian paradigm (elected unto being saved from hell), and siding with Arminians.

Others are moving toward a view of election for service, thus still individual and not eschatological. I think they're really grasping at straws by taking a few biblical instances of people being "chosen" for a task or ministry, then transferring it into election passages.

The more I consider it, I would much rather see a believer come to either position having arrived at their conclusions through careful study of Scripture than I would to see the normal doctrinal shallowness and theological apathy that plagues our churches today.

 

[JamesL]

The more I consider it, I would much rather see a believer come to either position having arrived at their conclusions through careful study of Scripture than I would to see the normal doctrinal shallowness and theological apathy that plagues our churches today.

Amen to that. I've said before that even if I agree with someone's doctrine, I have to respect how they got there.

 

[Reynolds]

It was interesting "debate" to listen to. It demonstrated the arrognce in our Calvinistic theologians. Even the opening prayer was arrogant. I also learned you can be a 3 or 4 point Calvinist. In my opinion, you can not be a 3 or 4 point Calvinist. Unless you hold all 5 points, you hold an indefensible position.you hold a house of falling cards.

 

[JonC]

It was interesting "debate" to listen to. It demonstrated the arrognce in our Calvinistic theologians. Even the opening prayer was arrogant. I also learned you can be a 3 or 4 point Calvinist. In my opinion, you can not be a 3 or 4 point Calvinist. Unless you hold all 5 points, you hold an indefensible position.you hold a house of falling cards.

When Mohler spoke of affirming at least 3 points he was referring to the "abstract of principles" and what they affirmed of the five points. I think it important to remember the dialogue is within the SBC (if we look at historical Calvinism, for example, it also falls apart when blended with Baptist theology).
Abstract of Principles – The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Also, exactly how much Calvinism is a house of cards (remove one they all fall) depends on how you substantiate each point. If you focus entirely on a hyper version of Penal Substitution Theory then everything boils down to a legal transaction....and you are right, remove one point and the whole thing crumbles. I agree (I think you'd agree, anyway) that Calvinism itself supposes such a position, but Calvinism also supposes a covenant theology to the extent of infant baptism and a relationship between Church and state denied by Baptist theology.

 

[Calv1]

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

Evidence please? Those with Doctorates, what you guys are berating, that is those who have actually STUDIED Scripture in Greek, Hebrew, have lived their lives studying and teaching, those are Calvinists, and they are not philosophical, Arminians are. I've yet to see a Calvinist/Arminian debate where the Calvinist drowns their opponent in scripture, and the Arminian responds with PHILOSOPHY "Well if that verse is true, then your God would be......".

Arminianism is a heresy, it's closer to Rome than to any Reformation Theology, it is learned with many envious of our study, and it's sad that human reason has taken over the Church. From the Reformation until the late 1800's, until German Higher Criticism caused many to doubt Holy Scripture, Reformed Theology WAS the Reformed Church, sure you had schisms, but God's sovereignty over all things was never questioned.

Today we have those who have never read the Reformers out teaching, preaching, and debating. We live in a post biblical world.

 

[JamesL]

Evidence please?

Here is a paper "Four implications of Calvinism"
Four Implications of Calvinism
Look at section 3 on Free Will. It's nothing but a philosophical argument. And that is exactly what I see coming from scholars. Seminary professors. Bible teachers.

And it's sad because there are other issues besides Free Will vs. Sovereignty which are treated this way. Original sin, Total Depravity and Age of Accountability are treated this way many times.

Those with Doctorates, what you guys are berating, that is those who have actually STUDIED Scripture in Greek, Hebrew, have lived their lives studying and teaching, those are Calvinists, and they are not philosophical, Arminians are. I've yet to see a Calvinist/Arminian debate where the Calvinist drowns their opponent in scripture, and the Arminian responds with PHILOSOPHY "Well if that verse is true, then your God would be......".

I never said DEBATE, I said ARGUMENT

Arminianism is a heresy, it's closer to Rome than to any Reformation Theology, it is learned with many envious of our study, and it's sad that human reason has taken over the Church.

Ummm...
I'm not sure why you have a beef with saying philosophy has pervaded scholarly argumentation, when you're saying human reasoning has taken over the Church..?
Are there no scholars making up this "Church" ??

From the Reformation until the late 1800's, until German Higher Criticism caused many to doubt Holy Scripture, Reformed Theology WAS the Reformed Church, sure you had schisms, but God's sovereignty over all things was never questioned.

ok..?

Today we have those who have never read the Reformers out teaching, preaching, and debating. We live in a post biblical world.

Can you reword or clarify?
It seems you're saying that because men aren't reading men, the bible has been jettisoned

 

[JamesL]

Here's an interesting read, too.

http://ancientbaptist.com/vance_calvinism_and_the_baptists.pdf

 

[Revmitchell]

Evidence please? Those with Doctorates, what you guys are berating, that is those who have actually STUDIED Scripture in Greek, Hebrew, have lived their lives studying and teaching, those are Calvinists, and they are not philosophical, Arminians are. I've yet to see a Calvinist/Arminian debate where the Calvinist drowns their opponent in scripture, and the Arminian responds with PHILOSOPHY "Well if that verse is true, then your God would be......".

Arminianism is a heresy, it's closer to Rome than to any Reformation Theology, it is learned with many envious of our study, and it's sad that human reason has taken over the Church. From the Reformation until the late 1800's, until German Higher Criticism caused many to doubt Holy Scripture, Reformed Theology WAS the Reformed Church, sure you had schisms, but God's sovereignty over all things was never questioned.

Today we have those who have never read the Reformers out teaching, preaching, and debating. We live in a post biblical world.

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. This is what calvinism does, it make one believe they are above others and more special. I have news for ya, when it take arrogance to make one be convinced of a doctrine then the foundation is not biblical.

Now this response is not full of scripture. In fact it is exactly what it is responding to. No scripture, lots of personal reason, and a whole lot of venom. The difference is my post is not hypocritical. I did not claim that those who disagree with me do not use scripture and then fail to use scripture. But I am sure you can live with that in your overwhelming arrogance.

 

[Reynolds]

This is one of those issues I see as damaging to the SBC. Jesus made The Gospel simple. "Follow Me."
The issue will split the SBC if it continues. To get a job preaching in a church around here, a Calvinist would have to lie. A couple did. They got fired when found out.

 

[JonC]

Here is a paper "Four implications of Calvinism"
Four Implications of Calvinism
Look at section 3 on Free Will. It's nothing but a philosophical argument. And that is exactly what I see coming from scholars. Seminary professors. Bible teachers.

This is exactly the issue (or, at least, the angle of the issue). They are philosophical arguments reasoning out how God's Sovereignty reconciles with human choices. If we were to remove the philosophical argument then we would have a biblical presentation of a Sovereign God exercising divine providence over created beings created with the ability to freely choose. Scripture does not try to reconcile free-will against divine sovereignty. The problem, IMHO, is that the argument assumes God's will to be like man's will and God's reasoning/planing to be like man's reasoning/planing.

 

[Revmitchell]

If we were to remove the philosophical argument then we would have a biblical presentation of a Sovereign God exercising divine providence over created beings created with the ability to freely choose. Scripture does not try to reconcile free-will against divine sovereignty. The problem, IMHO, is that the argument assumes God's will to be like man's will and God's reasoning/planing to be like man's reasoning/planing.

Or you might have someone's personal interpretation

 

[MennoSota]

This is one of those issues I see as damaging to the SBC. Jesus made The Gospel simple. "Follow Me."
The issue will split the SBC if it continues. To get a job preaching in a church around here, a Calvinist would have to lie. A couple did. They got fired when found out.

That's a sad comment. No one should have to misrepresent the Bible in order to preach in a church. If a church will not hire someone who takes God's sovereignty as being true, what kind of churches do you have in your area? I can't imagine they find the church at Berea admirable.

 

[JamesL]

That's a sad comment. No one should have to misrepresent the Bible in order to preach in a church. If a church will not hire someone who takes God's sovereignty as being true, what kind of churches do you have in your area? I can't imagine they find the church at Berea admirable.

As JonC pointed out...
The problem comes from a philosophical misunderstanding that God's sovereignty and human freedom must be reconciled in full.

Scripture presents both, and makes no attempt to lay them one on top of the other.

So in the minds of most, one must be at least partly jettisoned for the other to be so

That's the whole issue - less philosophy, more scripture

 

[SovereignGrace]

This is one of those issues I see as damaging to the SBC. Jesus made The Gospel simple. "Follow Me."
The issue will split the SBC if it continues. To get a job preaching in a church around here, a Calvinist would have to lie. A couple did. They got fired when found out.

Well, here where I live at, there isn't a Reformed church within miles. Guess what? These churches that hold to free will ain't flourishing. My F-I-L church has 15 members on their books, and several times they have only enough there to have a few songs and prayer and then they leave. There's a Separate Baptist church that I have a monthly appointment, and many times I have preached to less than 9 ppl. Then there's a church about 1 minute from me who had a pastor fleece them. Then I work with a guy who stepped down from asst. pastor of a FWB because he was having an affair. I reckon he was restored to fellowship, but he's no longer asst-pastor. Then there's a FWB church about 30 minutes from my house that is looking for their 3rd pastor in 3-4 years. My home church, which is a free will Missionary Baptist has between 30-45 every Sunday.

Also, sin is running rampant here. Drugs out the yin-yang, ppl stealing to feed their drug addiction, phone scams seem like an almost every day occurrence here, too. So, don't focus solely on us Calvinists. You guys have even more problems with church growth than others.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Evidence please? Those with Doctorates, what you guys are berating, that is those who have actually STUDIED Scripture in Greek, Hebrew, have lived their lives studying and teaching, those are Calvinists, and they are not philosophical, Arminians are. I've yet to see a Calvinist/Arminian debate where the Calvinist drowns their opponent in scripture, and the Arminian responds with PHILOSOPHY "Well if that verse is true, then your God would be......".

Arminianism is a heresy, it's closer to Rome than to any Reformation Theology, it is learned with many envious of our study, and it's sad that human reason has taken over the Church. From the Reformation until the late 1800's, until German Higher Criticism caused many to doubt Holy Scripture, Reformed Theology WAS the Reformed Church, sure you had schisms, but God's sovereignty over all things was never questioned.

Today we have those who have never read the Reformers out teaching, preaching, and debating. We live in a post biblical world.

I'd like to send you a PM. Can you enable it so I can? Thanks in advance.