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

[JamesL]

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.

Are you suggesting that there are Armenians who aren't Arminian? And visa versa?

 

[Reynolds]

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.

And auto correct makes it wrong every time.

 

[MennoSota]

I like doing that to people

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

correct

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.

Where we likely disagree is in regard to corporate election. Unless, by corporate, you are referring to the whole body of Christ, I will likely disagree with the notion of infant baptism as a corporate "holding tank" until confirmation. Such a concept is not supported in the church.

Beyond that, we may likely find agreement. I recognize God's covenant of grace as the overarching umbrella to all other covenants.

 

[MennoSota]

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).

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.

 

[MennoSota]

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.

Why would someone argue against that? It's obvious that God is active. He holds the entirety of Creation in His hands and directs it all. A passive God is never to be found in scripture.

 

[MennoSota]

Shows you may not know what "met" means

James, your cryptic comments are of little value and humorous to only yourself. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

 

[JamesL]

Where we likely disagree is in regard to corporate election. Unless, by corporate, you are referring to the whole body of Christ, I will likely disagree with the notion of infant baptism as a corporate "holding tank" until confirmation. Such a concept is not supported in the church.

Beyond that, we may likely find agreement. I recognize God's covenant of grace as the overarching umbrella to all other covenants.

By corporate/individual election, I believe all three must be emphasized, and maybe defined/clarified.

First, election. I don't believe election refers in the least bit to being saved from hell, coming to faith in Christ, or even chosen for service. Election refers specifically to being chosen as a joint-heir with Christ, chosen to be predestined to an inheritance.

Corporately, "we" (all believers) have been chosen as heirs of God. Predestined to an inheritance among the saints.

Individually, however, not every believer will qualify.

While "we" are children of God through faith, some will become sons through being led by the Holy Spirit. Distinction must be drawn between a child and a son.

Again, I'm happy do get scripture into it and hash it out, but not in this thread.

 

[MennoSota]

Individually, however, not every believer will qualify.

While "we" are children of God through faith, some will become sons through being led by the Holy Spirit. Distinction must be drawn between a child and a son.

These two comments seem non-sensical.

 

[JamesL]

James, your cryptic comments are of little value and humorous to only yourself. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Context:

I said I have never "MET" a Calvinist who was a theologian.

GreekTim even quoted me. Then he turned around and said that shows I haven't "READ" much theology

So I simply commented that he must not understand what "MET" means

It's not cryptic if you're following along - AND if you pay attention to the EXACT words I'm using.

 

[JamesL]

These two comments seem non-sensical.

Start a thread and let's hash it out

 

[Greektim]

Context:

I said I have never "MET" a Calvinist who was a theologian.

GreekTim even quoted me. Then he turned around and said that shows I haven't "READ" much theology

So I simply commented that he must not understand what "MET" means

It's not cryptic if you're following along - AND if you pay attention to the EXACT words I'm using.

Except I was commenting on philosophers and theologians in your comment. Every theologian worth his salt deals in the realm of philosophy on some level. If you are unaware of this, then you've not read much theology.

 

[JamesL]

Except I was commenting on philosophers and theologians in your comment. Every theologian worth his salt deals in the realm of philosophy on some level. If you are unaware of this, then you've not read much theology.

I know.
But without that critical inclusion of the word "met" you assessed that I possibly haven't read much theology.

 

[Yeshua1]

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

There is no contradiction as per the position of God, just us, due to our finite mind and understanding!

 

[Greektim]

I know.
But without that critical inclusion of the word "met" you assessed that I possibly haven't read much theology.

Again, no. You said in #74, "LOL... The only problem is that philosopher does not equal theologian." The problem with that is that theology needs and makes use of philosophy. And most philosophers dabble in the realm of theology, at least natural theology. For you to not know that tells me you have read little theology, at least theology that has substance. It's ok, I tend towards biblical studies and biblical theology too.

 

[JamesL]

Again, no. You said in #74, "LOL... The only problem is that philosopher does not equal theologian." The problem with that is that theology needs and makes use of philosophy. And most philosophers dabble in the realm of theology, at least natural theology. For you to not know that tells me you have read little theology, at least theology that has substance. It's ok, I tend towards biblical studies and biblical theology too.

But did you place that statement in the context of post #71 ?

Where I said of my short exchange with Hankins:
"Of course, he disagreed. He seems to think that philosophy is the epitome of deep, substantive study"

 

[MennoSota]

Context:

I said I have never "MET" a Calvinist who was a theologian.

GreekTim even quoted me. Then he turned around and said that shows I haven't "READ" much theology

So I simply commented that he must not understand what "MET" means

It's not cryptic if you're following along - AND if you pay attention to the EXACT words I'm using.

Sure it's cryptic. You change the context of the conversation and expect others to notice your play on words.

 

[MennoSota]

Start a thread and let's hash it out

That's okay. You strike me as a person who is not honest.

 

[JamesL]

Sure it's cryptic. You change the context of the conversation and expect others to notice your play on words.

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.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

What "sovereign" means is no one controlled God.

Absolutely right: no one or no thing can control God. No one controlled Him when He said "Jerusalem Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thee....but thou would not". No one controlled Him when His Spirit dealt with Felix as the man "reasoned of temperance, righteousness and judgement" but then chose to put it off. God's design and choice is to give men the choice to accept Him or reject the drawing of His Holy Spirit on their hearts. The word "sovereign", by any definition, isn't in the King James Bible. I reject it. The Bible says that God is the Almighty: and the command to "choose life" or suffer His consequences is part of His Almighty design.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Revelation 1:8

 

[JonC]

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.

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.