Dr. Danny Akin’s Article on Calvinism

[mandym]

"...However, some issues in the Bible are more obscure. There is often a mystery and tension to what we find when we examine all that the Bible says on some subjects. This is clearly the case when it comes to understanding God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in salvation.

Unfortunately, there is more heat than light in many instances with shrill voices and unhealthy rhetoric — on both sides of the issue — getting too much attention. On one side you hear people saying that God hates the non-elect and damns babies to hell. They say that Jesus was a Calvinist and that Calvinism is the Gospel. On the other side you hear voices stating that Calvinism is heresy and that Calvinists do not believe in missions and evangelism. Some even suggest that the Southern Baptist Convention could split over this issue, though I am convinced this will not happen.

I believe we need to tone down the rhetoric. We need to seek biblical balance, theological sanity, and ministerial integrity in the midst of this discussion. Let me attempt to set the playing field for this important issue and then make some theological and practical suggestions as we work together for the glory of God and the cause of Christ."

So Dr. akin said we need to town down the rehtoric when it comes to things like "Calvinism is the gospel", "God hates the non-elect", and "God damns babies to hell".

 

[mandym]

Later in the 17th century, followers of Calvin would systematize his theology and go beyond what Calvin himself taught. This system would ultimately be codified through the now famous acrostic TULIP.

So the TULIP has nothing to do with John Calvin

The reality is that the SBC has included “Five-Point Calvinists” and “Modified” Calvinists from the start. It should be stressed here that, from a denominational standpoint, in this discussion there is no “right or wrong.” Southern Baptists have always been diverse in many regards, and the theological realm is no exception.

There has always been a diversity of Baptists in the Convention not just cals.

According to this view, God, in grace and mercy, has chosen certain persons for salvation. Those who hold this view believe that His decision is not based on human merit or foreseen faith, but in the goodness and providence of God’s own will and purposes. Many would add, however, that the electing purpose of God is somehow accomplished without destroying human freewill and responsibility. Accordingly, no one is saved apart from God’s plan, and yet anyone who repents and trusts Christ will be saved. The French theologian Moise Amyraut (1596-1664) referred to this as God’s secret or hidden decree. There is an admitted tension in this position, but a tension that need not be viewed as contradictory.

So the difference between the Cal and non-Cal view of election need not be viewed as contradictory according too Dr. Akin.

http://www.baptisttwentyone.com/2012/06/dr-danny-akins-article-on-calvinism/

 

[GBC Pastor]

So the difference between the Cal and non-Cal view of election need not be viewed as contradictory according too Dr. Akin.

In terms of keeping peace in the SBC I would agree with this sentiment. However, in theological terms both sides could be wrong, but they cannot both be right. There is certainly a contradiction between the two views.

 

[12strings]

So the TULIP has nothing to do with John Calvin

-I wouldn't say it has nothing to do, with John Calvin, but He certainly did not codify the 5 points. He wrote volumes in over 20 commentaries and a mulit-volume "Institutes of the Christian Religion." well after he was dead, some of his followers decided to distill what they believed were Calvin's teachings on soteriology down to 5 points...actually it was in response to the 5 points put forward by Arminius...so the 5 points of armininism came first.

There has always been a diversity of Baptists in the Convention not just cals.

Yes, exactly right.

So the difference between the Cal and non-Cal view of election need not be viewed as contradictory according too Dr. Akin./QUOTE]

-Here I believe Akin is not exactly saying this...He is saying that Everything you have quoted here (the additional belief in Free-will in addition to belief in God's unconditional election) is what some CALVINISTS believe...He is saying he recognizes the tension, but simply leaves it there...From what I know of Danny Akin, I believe this actually describes HIS position. Some hardcore calvinists will try to explain away free will and explain why it does not exist.

-To explain further:
*Normally, someone who looks at this issue and arrives at a non-cal position accepts free will but rejects unconditional election...they accept either a "foreseen faith" view of election, or a "Corporate" view of election, both of which disagree that God chose certain individuals for salvation.

*Normally, a Calvinist will do the opposite: Accept unconditional election, then procede to explain why free will is not true.

Akin (I believe) is saying:
-The Eternal choice of God of certain individuals for salvation seems to be the best view, Foreseen faith and corporate views of election are not convincing.
-That All men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel is also scriptural, and whosoever believes will be saved.
-I can't reconcile these, but believe the both.

 

[Yeshua1]

In terms of keeping peace in the SBC I would agree with this sentiment. However, in theological terms both sides could be wrong, but they cannot both be right. There is certainly a contradiction between the two views.

perhaps its due to BOTH the determined and permissive Wills of God being at work here?

he DOEs and WOULD desire that ALL be saved, provided basis for that thru the death of Christ, but also has to determine who will be saved by that act, as we cannot freely choose based upon our own sinfulness?

 

[GBC Pastor]

he DOEs and WOULD desire that ALL be saved, provided basis for that thru the death of Christ, but also has to determine who will be saved by that act, as we cannot freely choose based upon our own sinfulness?

So if I understand you correctly...God desires that all be saved...has the final determination in who will be saved...but is not powerful enough to cause that which He desires...the salvation of all?

Is that really what you are trying to say?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So if I understand you correctly...God desires that all be saved...has the final determination in who will be saved...but is not powerful enough to cause that which He desires...the salvation of all?
=Is that really what you are trying to say?

No, it isn't, no one is speaking of God's inability or lack of power here except you. You mention God's inability on this thread....no one yet has. Since you mention them first here: What do you then feel to be the limits of God's power?

 

[Yeshua1]

So if I understand you correctly...God desires that all be saved...has the final determination in who will be saved...but is not powerful enough to cause that which He desires...the salvation of all?

Is that really what you are trying to say?

Nope!

God desires that all would come to christ and become saved, but also knows that their very sinful natures would precluse this, so then he steps into determine that those saved by hos mercies and grace will come to chrsit to get saved!

He loves all people in a general sense, he created them all, but has a specific personal love towards those in a Covenant relationship with him!

 

[GBC Pastor]

He loves all people in a general sense, he created them all, but has a specific personal love towards those in a Covenant relationship with him!

But who puts them into a covenant relationship?

I'm sorry but I just can't follow this line of thought.

If God chooses those who will be in covenant relationship with Him...and as you have said He desires all people to be saved...then one of two things must be true since we know that not all people are saved...either:

1) God doesn't really desire all people to be saved even though His word says He does.

or

2) God desires all people to be saved and has complete control over salvation but somehow cannot accomplish that which He desires.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

But who puts them into a covenant relationship?

God, who else?

I'm sorry but I just can't follow this line of thought.

That is obvious

If God chooses those who will be in covenant relationship with Him...and as you have said He desires all people to be saved...then one of two things must be true since we know that not all people are saved...either:

1) God doesn't really desire all people to be saved even though His word says He does.

or

2) God desires all people to be saved and has complete control over salvation but somehow cannot accomplish that which He desires.

That is a false dichotomy, as the answer is.......... neither of those statements are true.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Ok HeirofSalvation: Since you chose to jump into a conversation you weren't involved in...I would love to hear how this is a false dichotomy...because simply denying something doesn't make it so...And if it is possible you can leave the tone of arrogance and the insults out of your response...they don't interest me nor bring glory to Christ...and as I have in no way used them towards anyone in this thread I think it is more than a little out of place

 

[jonathan.borland]

Ok HeirofSalvation: Since you chose to jump into a conversation you weren't involved in...I would love to hear how this is a false dichotomy...because simply denying something doesn't make it so...And if it is possible you can leave the tone of arrogance and the insults out of your response...they don't interest me nor bring glory to Christ...and as I have in no way used them towards anyone in this thread I think it is more than a little out of place

Hey GBC, most of them will say that God desires all [of the elect] to be saved. But then they have some disagreement on how to interpret Jesus' feelings at others' unwillingness:

Matt. 23:37 ¶ “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Ok HeirofSalvation: Since you chose to jump into a conversation you weren't involved in...

Yours is Post no. 11....in a "conversation" which did not, at that point even exist.....In a forum such as this, all are presumably invited to respond and inject themself at will. I have a question for you....At precisely what point or post were you personally invited to join what appears to be your private conversation?

I would love to hear how this is a false dichotomy...because simply denying something doesn't make it so...

You would not (in fact)

"love"

to hear how that is a false dichotomy.....I will not do your homework for you. You have attempted to engage in some form of deductive argument already, (a Reductio ad absurdum) it is also flawed in that it poses a false dichotomy....I need not attempt to convice you of how it poses a false dichotomy, it is enough, for my purposes, that it be challenged on that basis and any thinking individuals will think it through themself. I will give you this hint though.....It has something to do with my first post about "power" having nothing to do with the subject....HINT HINT, WINK, WINK.

And if it is possible you can leave the tone of arrogance and the insults out of your response...they don't interest me nor bring glory to Christ...

You know already that it is

possible

, (are the signifigantly more Christ-like than I ALWAYS so intellectually dis-honest I wonder??)
Don't play rhetorical games with words when you are already clearly outclassed. That being said.....I admit and own unequivocally my often "arrogant" demeanor. It is a struggle which is VERY hard for me to control...I am extremely impatient with what are perceived by me to be sophomoric arguments....You must understand, the first post I ever saw from you was a Straw-man about God not having the "power" to accomplish a certain thing.....Your initial question about why you are guilty of a "false dichotomy" centers on this.

I do own and admit, that I often portray a "tone" which is less than utterly humble and it is not always particularly "God-glorifying"....this is because I have very little patience for logically fallacious arguments and your initial post to Yeshua was the very definition of it.....that being said: Search please, your own purposes in making your statement about this, as it might be equally un-productive (at least as arriving upon truth is concerned) as it might be a form of "well-poinsoning" in that you have merely pointed out the obvious: Namely, that I often sound like an arrogant Arse....but it still does not negate either the truth or falsehood of any of my possible claims....and it fails to answer how God's "power" or ability is in any way involved. You are pointing out personal flaws in order to deflect from your.....by my count:

3 Informal logic fallacies:

1.) Straw-Man
2.) Well-Poisoning
3.) Shifting burden of Proof

I leave it to you to GOOGLE those, and respond, as I will not do your homework for you.

and as I have in no way used them towards anyone in this thread I think it is more than a little out of place

Debateable itself....but, you have answered none of my questions....I have already tacitly posed many of the answers to your post, when I pointed out to you that YOU, YOU ALONE, YOU (as a corporation of one), YOU, as an Independent moral agent, mentioned God's "power" to accomplish a thing....it is not upon the onus of Yeshua to whom you posed that idea to answer....it is upon you to explain what you think God's Power to be.

You are a "Pastor"....at least acc. your screen-name....and as such, I would assume that the hard-working people from whom you extract your salary, no doubt, have a right to an elder capable of holding his own ground against a formally-non-educated Prison-Guard such as myself...I would maintain that the hard-working people from whom you extract your salary, can expect you to be able to figure out for yourself how your un-solicited and un-warranted reference to God's "Power" is even remotely relevant to the questions heretofore posed.

 

[TadQueasy]

How can posting a message on a public MESSAGE board be jumping into a conversation that did not include someone? If you want a private conversation then do so through email or private messages.

 

[12strings]

one of two things must be true since we know that not all people are saved...either:

1) God doesn't really desire all people to be saved even though His word says He does.

or

2) God desires all people to be saved and has complete control over salvation but somehow cannot accomplish that which He desires.

There are actually more problems with this verse than you have stated, and no matter what one's theological position on election the problems remain:

1. "God desires all to be saved." (This is biblical)
2. Not all are saved. (this is also biblical)
3. For a Cal, God for some purpose we do not understand, desires all men to be saved, but actually chooses only to save some. (imperfect illustration: God sees everyone drowning, and throws life rings to only some.)
4. For a non-cal, God Desires all to be saved, but has GREATER desire to respect their free-will. (imperfect illustration: A Dad sees his toddler running in the street, and begs him to come back, but does not physically remove the child from danger because that would violate the child's free will).

Admittedly, both of these scenarios are disturbing...but both must deal with facts #1&2.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Yours is Post no. 11....in a "conversation" which did not, at that point even exist.....In a forum such as this, all are presumably invited to respond and inject themself at will. I have a question for you....At precisely what point or post were you personally invited to join what appears to be your private conversation?

I was invited into the conversation in post #5 when Yeshua1 offered his opinion on something I had previously stated.

Based on that opinion which he offered I asked for further clarification in trying to understand his point of view. (Please note I said "his" point of view).

I will not do your homework for you.

My mistake. I thought you were actually attempting to debate when you joined this conversation, had I known you were merely trolling I would have ignored you.

Don't play rhetorical games with words when you are already clearly outclassed.

This must be the prison guard in you here...no doubt garnered from a career in which you can run your mouth at those who are not in a position to shut you up. Which further reveals itself in a board such as this where you can puff yourself up and act superior from the safety of your computer.

3 Informal logic fallacies:

1.) Straw-Man
2.) Well-Poisoning
3.) Shifting burden of Proof

These are the fall back positions of anyone who has no ability to actually engage in thoughtful debate of the topic.

I would assume that the hard-working people from whom you extract your salary, no doubt, have a right to an elder capable of holding his own ground against a formally-non-educated Prison-Guard such as myself...I would maintain that the hard-working people from whom you extract your salary, can expect you to be able to figure out for yourself how your un-solicited and un-warranted reference to God's "Power" is even remotely relevant to the questions heretofore posed.

Bitter much?

There are actually more problems with this verse than you have stated, and no matter what one's theological position on election the problems remain:

1. "God desires all to be saved." (This is biblical)
2. Not all are saved. (this is also biblical)
3. For a Cal, God for some purpose we do not understand, desires all men to be saved, but actually chooses only to save some. (imperfect illustration: God sees everyone drowning, and throws life rings to only some.)
4. For a non-cal, God Desires all to be saved, but has GREATER desire to respect their free-will. (imperfect illustration: A Dad sees his toddler running in the street, and begs him to come back, but does not physically remove the child from danger because that would violate the child's free will).

Admittedly, both of these scenarios are disturbing...but both must deal with facts #1&2.

12strings: Thank you for a thoughtful and intelligent response. I certainly agree that there are "tensions" that must be dealt with in either view.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

GBC:

The Onus of the point is that you are IMO creating a false dichotomy by making it an "either/or" situation....you initially made the statement that God would not have the "power" to save whom he desires...and suggested that that was according to Yeshua.

.but is not powerful enough to cause that which He desires...the salvation of all?

Is that really what you are trying to say?

Whether it was intentional or not....this created a Straw-Man...When you bring something up for the first time, and then ask:

"Is that REALLY what you are trying to say"...it makes for a straw-man.

You must understand that it is a rather harsh implicit accusation of heresy to suggest that Yeshua would doubt God's power.

 

[Iconoclast]

There are actually more problems with this verse than you have stated, and no matter what one's theological position on election the problems remain:

1. "God desires all to be saved." (This is biblical)
2. Not all are saved. (this is also biblical)
3. For a Cal, God for some purpose we do not understand, desires all men to be saved, but actually chooses only to save some. (imperfect illustration: God sees everyone drowning, and throws life rings to only some.)
4. For a non-cal, God Desires all to be saved, but has GREATER desire to respect their free-will. (imperfect illustration: A Dad sees his toddler running in the street, and begs him to come back, but does not physically remove the child from danger because that would violate the child's free will).

Admittedly, both of these scenarios are disturbing...but both must deal with facts #1&2.

Sorry 12 strings....

this is not biblical at all.

1. "God desires all to be saved." (This is biblical)

This is not taught in the bible at all.

3. For a Cal, God for some purpose we do not understand, desires all men to be saved, but actually chooses only to save some. (imperfect illustration: God sees everyone drowning, and throws life rings to only some.)

No again...God sees everyone as already dead,already drowned....jumps in pulls out a multitude,quickens them, gives them life,

 

[agedman]

Sorry 12 strings....

this is not biblical at all.


This is not taught in the bible at all.



No again...God sees everyone as already dead,already drowned....jumps in pulls out a multitude,quickens them, gives them life,

Thank you Icon, you got to the points before I did.

God never promised to save everybody.

God has no obligation to save anybody.

God divinely chooses for His own purpose who His sheep are, and all the rest are unknown to Him; Christ said "I never knew you."

Just because "God is Love" it doesn't mean that "God does Love." God hated Esau.

 

[12strings]

Sorry 12 strings....

this is not biblical at all.
This is not taught in the bible at all.

No again...God sees everyone as already dead,already drowned....jumps in pulls out a multitude,quickens them, gives them life,

1 Timothy 2:3-4: This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

1. Sorry Icon, I'm going with the Apostle Paul on this one. (btw, "all men" in greek there means "all & Men")

2. I realize that illustration is inadequate, but I used it because it is one that is often used by people. Your illustration much better describes the biblical situation.