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

[Reynolds]

If you mean through inference (b/c God's sovereignty is not mentioned there) that God has his dominion mediated through his vice-regents, I will readily acknowledge this mediation. But that was not my point nor is this a place that teaches directly God's sovereignty. And even if you wanted to argue that it was, this is not passive authority but God's active sovereignty in creation as well giving natural law as well as positive laws to A&E, and then promising them deliverance when they fail in their mediatorial role. Not to mention that Gen. 1-3 is where God's eternal and sovereign decrees are initiated. You can't get much more active sovereignty than that.

Now, I was thinking more of passages that actually mention the attribute of God's sovereignty, such as Isaiah 46:10-11:

10 I declare the end from the beginning,
and from long ago what is not yet done,
saying: My plan will take place,
and I will do all My will.
11 I call a bird of prey from the east,
a man for My purpose from a far country.
Yes, I have spoken; so I will also bring it about.
I have planned it; I will also do it.

Notice both having authority and exerting that authority. It is never the former without the latter.

God is sovereign in every passage. A passage need not mention the fact to be subject to it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Think that he is affirming that those elect peoples are caused and due to their own 'free will" election!

 

[Yeshua1]

Can you show 1 place in Scripture that speaks of God's sovereign authority without also his direct action and providential control? God's sovereignty is often veiled in terms of having authority. But Scripture always includes with it the active use of that authority.

PS--I shudder when I consider starting to post here again after a long hiatus.

"Should I stay or should I go?"

Welcome back! And you are correct, in that the scriptures indicate that God salvation is due to Him being proactive towards us, and not in the passive/permissive mode!

 

[Yeshua1]

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).

I agree with you that those such as a Moody/Tozer/Luther et all have all written some good works, and that none of us have nailed down perfectly as aspects of Christian theology proper, but would stil lhold that the authors who wrote in the reformed, and also calvinistic baptist circles, on the whole, seemed to have produced much meatier and weighty writings concerning the theology of Christianity!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

The scriptures affirm that there is no contradiction between the Will of God and of sinful man, but it states to us that is due to God being over all fully in control..
This need to have Mankind accorded full free will is due to the need to have sinners afforded the 'real choice" to accept/reject Christ!

 

[SheepWhisperer]

The word "sovereign" is not in the King James Bible; I don't know about the other versions.It is often used to mean that God controls every little detail of existence, event to the point of controlling man's will. God did create all things and He has power and authority over all things. He even designed and instituted "election" and "predestination" but those doctrines don't mean what many think they do. God is almighty.

The Bible says that :"a man's heart deviseth his way but the Lord directeth his steps". He gives us the freedom to choose to believe and obey Him and the freedom to reject Him, but God alone controls the consequences of all of our choices now, and at the Judgement Day. I know the following verse was written to the Jews but, it was also written "for our admonition", the doctrine is the same throughout the Bible and God hasn't changed........

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

The word "sovereign" is not in the King James Bible; I don't know about the other versions.It is often used to mean that God controls every little detail of existence, event to the point of controlling man's will. God did create all things and He has power and authority over all things. He even designed and instituted "election" and "predestination" but those doctrines don't mean what many think they do. God is almighty.

The Bible says that :"a man's heart deviseth his way but the Lord directeth his steps". He gives us the freedom to choose to believe and obey Him and the freedom to reject Him, but God alone controls the consequences of all of our choices now, and at the Judgement Day. I know the following verse was written to the Jews but, it was also written "for our admonition", the doctrine is the same throughout the Bible and God hasn't changed........

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.

None of us while sinners cam freely accept Jesus and get saved, as our very natures are as enemies of God!

 

[rlvaughn]

Eternal security. They hold to total depravity and eternal security. Also, they hold to original sin.

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.

 

[JonC]

I agree with you that those such as a Moody/Tozer/Luther et all have all written some good works, and that none of us have nailed down perfectly as aspects of Christian theology proper, but would stil lhold that the authors who wrote in the reformed, and also calvinistic baptist circles, on the whole, seemed to have produced much meatier and weighty writings concerning the theology of Christianity!

I suspect what you really mean here is that you like both the substance and topics offered by those with whom you share a common theology. If not, then your comment may change when exposed to the "meat" and "weight" of others who disagree with those five points.

The problem I see with your statement is that it tends to diminish the works of those who are not Calvinists. It assigns works as coming from a theologically deep, rich, and scholarly camp based on a soteriological distinction, and by virtue of that assignment leaves other works as coming out of a inferior (based on depth and scholarship) group.

The evangelical works of John Rice; the textual criticisms and hermeneutical views of Gordon Fee; the scholarship praised by Theodore Beza of James Arminius; the work of N.T. Wright and Karl Barth (both reformed but not exactly Calvinists that’d fit in our camps); the apologetics of C.S. Lewis; the commentary of Adam Clarke; or men like R.A. Torrey and those already mentioned (John Wesley and D.L. Moody)….these were not the wandering ideas of shallow men espousing shallow theology. And then we could go into the work of the General Baptists, or what would be even more fun would be to examine the “shallowness” of Anabaptist theology.

Like you, I tend to trust those who believe like me in the things I view as important. So I understand where you are coming from. But I think that we make a critical error when we limit the effectiveness of God to one soteriological distinction.

 

[Yeshua1]

I suspect what you really mean here is that you like both the substance and topics offered by those with whom you share a common theology. If not, then your comment may change when exposed to the "meat" and "weight" of others who disagree with those five points.

The problem I see with your statement is that it tends to diminish the works of those who are not Calvinists. It assigns works as coming from a theologically deep, rich, and scholarly camp based on a soteriological distinction, and by virtue of that assignment leaves other works as coming out of a inferior (based on depth and scholarship) group.

The evangelical works of John Rice; the textual criticisms and hermeneutical views of Gordon Fee; the scholarship praised by Theodore Beza of James Arminius; the work of N.T. Wright and Karl Barth (both reformed but not exactly Calvinists that’d fit in our camps); the apologetics of C.S. Lewis; the commentary of Adam Clarke; or men like R.A. Torrey and those already mentioned (John Wesley and D.L. Moody)….these were not the wandering ideas of shallow men espousing shallow theology. And then we could go into the work of the General Baptists, or what would be even more fun would be to examine the “shallowness” of Anabaptist theology.

Like you, I tend to trust those who believe like me in the things I view as important. So I understand where you are coming from. But I think that we make a critical error when we limit the effectiveness of God to one soteriological distinction.

Agreed, I was thinking more in the quantity of the works over the years, as while those who had a different viewpoint have had some good works, its seems that the sheer bulk of good works came from this position.

 

[JamesL]

The scriptures affirm that there is no contradiction between the Will of God and of sinful man, but it states to us that is due to God being over all fully in control..

The second half of your sentence just brought the contradiction.

This need to have Mankind accorded full free will is due to the need to have sinners afforded the 'real choice" to accept/reject Christ!

That's not true at all. The issue of Fatalism vs Free Will is not exclusive to Christianity. For that matter, it's not even exclusive to religious thought in general. Many atheists go round and round against each other over the issue of fatalism and free will. It's nothing but a philosophical argument, regardless of one's religious persuasion or lack thereof

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.

His exact words to me were "We are getting our rear-ends handed to us by Reformed guys are simply more willing than we are to do the hard work of deep thinking about most important thing in the universe"

This was part of a FB discussion in the context of his keynote address at a dinner during this year's SBC annual meeting

 

[MennoSota]

The word "sovereign" is not in the King James Bible;

Just another reason to jettison Mr James less accurate version. [emoji41] [emoji57] [emoji33]

 

[MennoSota]

The second half of your sentence just brought the contradiction.


That's not true at all. The issue of Fatalism vs Free Will is not exclusive to Christianity. For that matter, it's not even exclusive to religious thought in general. Many atheists go round and round against each other over the issue of fatalism and free will. It's nothing but a philosophical argument, regardless of one's religious persuasion or lack thereof

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.

His exact words to me were "We are getting our rear-ends handed to us by Reformed guys are simply more willing than we are to do the hard work of deep thinking about most important thing in the universe"

This was part of a FB discussion in the context of his keynote address at a dinner during this year's SBC annual meeting

Hankins told you the truth. Listen up.

 

[JamesL]

Hankins told you the truth. Listen up.

LOL... The only problem is that philosopher does not equal theologian.

I've said before that every single Calvinist I've ever met has been a great philosopher. But not a single one was ever a theologian

 

[MennoSota]

LOL... The only problem is that philosopher does not equal theologian.

I've said before that every single Calvinists I've ever met has been a great philosopher. But not a single one was ever a theologian

LOL, that's just your philosophical opinion.

 

[JamesL]

LOL, that's just your philosophical opinion.

It's actually been revised a little bit. I've met about a half-dozen on this board

 

[JamesL]

LOL, that's just your philosophical opinion.

Just look at two of the biggest hot button issues in the SBC today:
1) Determinism vs free will
2) is faith a decision

Those are two of the most basic elements of Philosophy 101

And we have people going to seminaries and getting doctorates, who pretend like these two issues are the epitome of theology

What's that supposed to mean? That an Associates level philosophy class is equivalent to a ThD?

What a joke

 

[MennoSota]

Just look at two of the biggest hot button issues in the SBC today:
1) Determinism vs free will
2) is faith a decision

Those are two of the most basic elements of Philosophy 101

And we have people going to seminaries and getting doctorates, who pretend like these two issues are the epitome of theology

What's that supposed to mean? That an Associates level philosophy class is equivalent to a ThD?

What a joke

They are biblical discussions based upon biblical text.
What you seem to do is call the debate philosophical so that you can ignore the debate and pridefully look down on those having the discussion.

 

[Reynolds]

The word "sovereign" is not in the King James Bible; I don't know about the other versions.It is often used to mean that God controls every little detail of existence, event to the point of controlling man's will. God did create all things and He has power and authority over all things. He even designed and instituted "election" and "predestination" but those doctrines don't mean what many think they do. God is almighty.

The Bible says that :"a man's heart deviseth his way but the Lord directeth his steps". He gives us the freedom to choose to believe and obey Him and the freedom to reject Him, but God alone controls the consequences of all of our choices now, and at the Judgement Day. I know the following verse was written to the Jews but, it was also written "for our admonition", the doctrine is the same throughout the Bible and God hasn't changed........

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.

What "sovereign" means is no one controlled God.

 

[JamesL]

They are biblical discussions based upon biblical text.
What you seem to do is call the debate philosophical so that you can ignore the debate and pridefully look down on those having the discussion.

Hardly the case. Peek in on this FB discussion:

Tom Ascol

This is the president of Founders Ministries, who holds a doctorate, going on a philosophical rant about Jesus raising Lazarus. Many who replied hold doctorates also. By and large, the discussion (120+ replies) was purely philosophical. Virtually no one even cared to present what was actually in the text.

Are you going to tell me I have ignored this debate?