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

[MennoSota]

I do not know anyone who believes saying a prayer or incantation will save them.
The only pure Armenians I know are Pentecostal and even they believe the prayer without "Lordship" is merely words.

I can point you to an SBC pastor who teaches such a view. He has a church full of people who are bound in their sins and keep sinning openly whom he declares that they are saved because he heard them say the prayer and the prayer saves.

That's just viewing the prayer as your means of salvation. It's an incantation. A magic set of words. Many preachers teach this method of salvation with the most prominent person being Billy Graham.

 

[Reynolds]

I can point you to an SBC pastor who teaches such a view. He has a church full of people who are bound in their sins and keep sinning openly whom he declares that they are saved because he heard them say the prayer and the prayer saves.

That's just viewing the prayer as your means of salvation. It's an incantation. A magic set of words. Many preachers teach this method of salvation with the most prominent person being Billy Graham.

That is an instance of bad theology. He is not a good Armenian or Calvinist. If he was a good Armenian, he would be teaching they lose their salvation when they sin. What he is, is a mixed up greasy grace preacher.

Billy Graham does not teach what you say. He teaches repentance and turning from sin. Maybe in his very old age he said something like what you say, but it is not what he taught.

 

[JonC]

It's not a secondary doctrine when so many will be in hell because they thought saying a prayer was their special incantation that they needed to do to be saved.

While I have heard people mention the use of a "prayer" in such a way, this is not an issue within the SBC (it is contrary to SBC doctrine, although many SBC churches do use the "sinners prayer" as an affirmation or explanation)...or any legitimately Christian church, for that matter (when churches look to an incantation as invoking salvation, they have gone far beyond anything that could be called "Christian").

 

[JonC]

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

Many I know of would fit this bill. That said, I am comfortable referring to several as theologian (F.F. Bruce is one of my favorites, and while he was Calvinistic he did not, IMHO, allow his philosophy drive his theology....although we all allow certain influences, probably by necessity).

The proof of your conclusion (that this is a philosophical rather than scriptural issue) can be seen in the theories of atonement (and how this drives the way in which many hold to a Calvinistic soteriology). Luther's Substitution/Satisfaction theory differs from Calvin's Penal Substitution theory without varying on Scripture itself (the difference is in the philosophy). Take away Penal Substitution and the form of Calvinism held by many on this forum falls apart. So while I adhere to a Calvinistic soteriology, I also see that the type of Calvinism some hold hinges on very weak philosophical ideas.

 

[JamesL]

While I have heard people mention the use of a "prayer" in such a way, this is not an issue within the SBC (it is contrary to SBC doctrine, although many SBC churches do use the "sinners prayer" as an affirmation or explanation)...or any legitimately Christian church, for that matter (when churches look to an incantation as invoking salvation, they have gone far beyond anything that could be called "Christian").

I've seen it as a mixed bag - not necessarily from one church to another, but in each church.

Somebody will give an invitation, a 1 minute elevator pitch, and it almost always culminates in "if you say this prayer, God will hear and you'll have eternal life forever"

But if you accuse him of this incantation, and force him to explain, he'll usually concede that the prayer doesn't make God forgive.

But how many hear his elevator pitch, and how many hear the full version?

 

[MennoSota]

I've seen it as a mixed bag - not necessarily from one church to another, but in each church.

Somebody will give an invitation, a 1 minute elevator pitch, and it almost always culminates in "if you say this prayer, God will hear and you'll have eternal life forever"

But if you accuse him of this incantation, and force him to explain, he'll usually concede that the prayer doesn't make God forgive.

But how many hear his elevator pitch, and how many hear the full version?

Those who are elect hear the true message. Those who are destined to remain in sin hear the elevator music.

 

[Reynolds]

Those who are elect hear the true message. Those who are destined to remain in sin hear the elevator music.

The Spirit can use an Armenian preacher to lead the elect to salvation, yet you complain constantly about him. I don't get it.

 

[MennoSota]

The Spirit can use an Armenian preacher to lead the elect to salvation, yet you complain constantly about him. I don't get it.

God can use a donkey. The means by which God adopts a person is myriad. This is why Paul rejoices that the gospel is preached...even if the motives are faulty.
You seem to be teaching the end justifies the means. The end may still be a person being adopted by God, but the means can lead to years of faulty theology causing much struggles that could have been avoided by properly understanding God's word.

 

[JamesL]

Those who are elect hear the true message. Those who are destined to remain in sin hear the elevator music.

And what about those who aren't destined to remain in sin, yet aren't among the elect?

 

[JamesL]

Many I know of would fit this bill. That said, I am comfortable referring to several as theologian (F.F. Bruce is one of my favorites, and while he was Calvinistic he did not, IMHO, allow his philosophy drive his theology....although we all allow certain influences, probably by necessity).

I had in mind those I've met personally, whether through online discussion or face-to-face encounters.

I also amended that later, to say I've met a handful of Calvinists here who are definitely theologians. You are one who seems bent on being molded by scripture, rather than having a philosophy drive your theology.

And though I haven't read him extensively, I have been genuinely impressed by Wright's willingness to re-evaluate suppositions

The proof of your conclusion (that this is a philosophical rather than scriptural issue) can be seen in the theories of atonement (and how this drives the way in which many hold to a Calvinistic soteriology). Luther's Substitution/Satisfaction theory differs from Calvin's Penal Substitution theory without varying on Scripture itself (the difference is in the philosophy). Take away Penal Substitution and the form of Calvinism held by many on this forum falls apart.

That's an interesting conclusion, well worth mulling over for a while.

So while I adhere to a Calvinistic soteriology, I also see that the type of Calvinism some hold hinges on very weak philosophical ideas.

Brother, i say this in all sincerity. Every believer in every camp would be wise to sit under your critiques.

 

[MennoSota]

And what about those who aren't destined to remain in sin, yet aren't among the elect?

Your question doesn't make sense. Please explain.

Are you referring to those for whom God has not yet chosen to save, but will in the future?

God tells us that not one person whom God has chosen will be left outside of the Kingdom.

Those who are adopted are elected to that adoption by God. Sovereignty and Grace combined. It's a beautiful thing.

 

[JamesL]

Your question doesn't make sense. Please explain.

I like doing that to people

Are you referring to those for whom God has not yet chosen to save, but will in the future?

chosen happened already, so this question is a bit off-the-wall

God tells us that not one person whom God has chosen will be left outside of the Kingdom.

correct

Those who are adopted are elected to that adoption by God. Sovereignty and Grace combined. It's a beautiful thing.

correct

For the sake of brevity, I'll offer a very brief explanation...without scripture proofs
Mind you, it's just a brief look.
And I won't debate it in this thread.

Predestination and Election in the NT cannot be understood apart from the OT concept of Salvation, which is eschatological. However, there are some distinctions.

Predestination and election relate primarily to the end, not the beginning. It's not a matter of being chosen to be saved from hell.

They also are not referring to our destination, but our destiny. They relate not to gping to heaven, but an inheritance once we're there.

Also, they are not only individual, but corporate - also with distinction. Though WE are the elect, you may not be and I may not be.

Salvation not only refers to where someone is coming from AND where they're going AND quality of life there, but every step of the process.

 

[JonC]

And though I haven't read him extensively, I have been genuinely impressed by Wright's willingness to re-evaluate suppositions

Great observation (and one that has hurt the theologies in both camps). Far too often we are simply not willing to re-evaluate our suppositions. The definitions that we come up with, and the workings we associate with certain passages of Scripture, form an interpretation that Christians sometimes become unwilling to revisit.

I've wondered if this is because of traditionalism (which is understandable) or if it is because, finding ourselves unable to rebuild what has been built by our forefathers, we adopt the suppositions as if they were Scripture itself (which would be unfortunate as it would mean we don't even recognize what we bring into Scripture).

As an example related to the OP, consider how some have argued against simple divine forgiveness on the grounds of Romans 3 (and other associated passages). The argument I am speaking of presents the "problem" of redemption being how God can be just and justfier as God's justice demands satisfaction (someone must be punished for every sin). What some have done is provide "proof-texts" without realizing their interpretation depends not on Scripture itself but on their preconceived ideas (e.g., sinful acts divorced from the actual sinner upon which God must exercise wrath in order to maintain His justness). And as evidence - the passage in Romans (Rm. 3:26) does not present this as a reason behind God's plan of redemption at all, but instead as a manifestation of God's righteousness (God is just and the justifier of sinners because God is a God of redemption).

 

[Greektim]

Uh what?

It made sense to me at the time... Must be all that July 4th root beer I was drinking.

 

[Greektim]

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

You have a passage of Scripture that says that???

My point is, whenever Scripture DIRECTLY speaks to God's sovereignty, it is an active sovereignty, not just having authority but using that authority.

 

[Greektim]

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

Shows how little theology you have read.

 

[JamesL]

Shows how little theology you have read.

Shows you may not know what "met" means

 

[Greektim]

The Spirit can use an Armenian preacher to lead the elect to salvation, yet you complain constantly about him. I don't get it.

I have to say it since it has gone on for so many posts now...

The misspelling matters. Aremenians are people from Armenia. Arminians are people espousing a theology from ole Jacob.

 

[Greektim]

Shows you may not know what "met" means

 

[Reynolds]

You have a passage of Scripture that says that???

My point is, whenever Scripture DIRECTLY speaks to God's sovereignty, it is an active sovereignty, not just having authority but using that authority.

The entire Bible speaks to Gods sovereignty. A Sovereign need not constly exercise his authority in every miniscule detail to be sovereign.