Featured Loyal Opposition/Traditional soteriology

I don't see how there can be a sustained opposition by the route they're going.

Its philosophically inconsistent position. As long as it wasn't publicized, it couldn't be scrutinized to the extent it will be.

If they turned to hermeneutics, exegesis and interpretation they would have an upper hand, imo

 

In this article this Hankins reveals that he doesn't have a grasp on theology. It's no wonder the layman calvinist tore him up even with his PhD or whatever degree he had it didn't help him when it come to Bible truth.
Most foundational errors and theology come from a wrong view of scripture and a wrong view of sin and the fall.
he's guilty of both and he'll be exposed and very soon as any calvinist could make mincemeat of his statements his opposition to truth it's reminds me a little bit of the rebellion of Korah in the Book of Numbers

 

there are several key points where it argues a philosophically inconsistent position.

First, it is supposedly neither Calvinist nor Arminian, and supposedly seeks a way to detach from the paradigm of those two arguing positions. But every point of argumentation revolves around TULIP. That's inconsistent

Regarding the doctrine of Total Depravity - The Calvinist doctrine hangs on and understanding of the doctrine of Original Sin. That we are "In Adam" by virtue of being physical descendants of his. That we receive a nature that is fallen and leaves us utterly depraved and devoid of any capacity to move toward God. There have been many philosophies put forth to relieve the emotional tension of babies dying and going to hell.

The traditionalist view may be one of the most inconsistent of all. Supposedly, we receive some kind of nature from Adam. What exactly is a nature? That's not Define anywhere. I have asked the go to traditionalist (Adam Harwood) on this issue and could not get a clear answer as to what constitutes a nature. However, they have determined that whatever this nature is, it makes everyone do bad things - even babies. So there's that part.

Connected to the issue of original sin and total depravity, we have the guilt and condemnation of man. Their position is that God condemns no one until that person reaches an age where they know right from wrong and then willfully do wrong.

The toddlers know right from wrong. if you tell a toddler don't touch the cookies, they will wait for an opportunity to be left alone in the room and then eat the cookies. Because they know it's wrong. If you tell a toddler to put that such-and-such back on the table, they will try to put it on a chair. or on the kitchen counter. Or in front of the fireplace. Anywhere except for you told them, and a fight will ensue. if that's not willful disobedience, I don't know what is

So you have this so-called nature which makes everyone do bad things, and God condemns people the very first time they do bad things wilfully, but babies doing willfully bad things are not punished by God. it's an inconsistent philosophy, driven by emotionalism.

Regarding the Perseverance of the Saints - many attempts have been made to delineate between perseverance and preservation. It's not the man persevering it's God preserving him....ok. however, it has been noted that it is a distinction without a distinction.

All of the New Testament passages about falling away or interpreted the same the exact way as a calvinist would. Jesus' words of knowing a tree by its fruit are taking the same exact way as a calvinist take them.

there are other philosophical inconsistencies to. Maybe if I have some more time home I'll lay down a few more

 

On this point I agree.

He has stated, and written, that he was working on his doctorate in theology and had not even worked through a soteriological position. Uh...what ?? I mean, that sounds like a guy who got his degree from a mill. But he didn't. He "studied" at SWBTS and NOBTS.

He has said that his first confrontation with Calvinism was against a professor of his (somewhere around 1999 I think), and then his first confrontation outside of seminary was with a layperson in his church "some years later", and only then started to study this issue and comes out this traditionalist statement in 2012

I don't know of the year of this confrontation with a lay person in his church, but I think it was after he was proclaimed to be "doctor of theology" and then had to go and start studying it?

And this is the face of a New Revolution? or Reformation, or whatever they think it is.

 

I've already addressed a couple of the inconsistencies regarding the T and the P of TULIP. However, their argumentation against T seems to be more philosophical - and their appeals to scripture seem more anecdotal and don't really prove anything.

Their argumentation against P amounts to nothing but a refusal to say they agree. I think there was a thread here not too long ago, we're someone tried to argue that there was a difference between perseverance and preservation. Though there might be, what the traditionalist explains is no different. That's similar to somebody saying " I don't believe in democracy, I just think the majority ought to decide". They cannot create separation by merely denying that their viewpoint is the same.

Their strongest scriptural positioning, by far, are the center 3 - U, L, I

Concerning Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace, They actually have a viewpoint which has more scriptural support than the Calvinist's view. But they have two fundamental flaws in the argumentation. First, they are trying primarily to argue from a philosophical viewpoint instead of from scripture. The second is that in their philosophical argumentation, they are trying to disconnect one tenant of Calvinism and argue against that. In my opinion, that is futility at work. Why? Because the calvinist system is philosophically consistent through and through, from beginning to end.

If they do not seek a philosophical understanding of the tulip, and how all of the points are necessarily interwoven, they will utterly fail at their arguments about individual points

With Limited Atonement, they have their strongest biblical support. But there again, they are failing to recognize how the doctrine of limited atonement fits into the overall calvinist scheme. If they neglect the overall philosophy, they will lose

the younger generations are thinkers. Hankins rightly said to me that they are getting their rear ends kicked. He wrongly attributed it to the notion that traditionalists aren't willing to do the deep thinking. but you can't out-think someone you don't understand. (In fairness, though, many Calvinists don't understand the philosophical underpinnings)

Now, that's not to say some of those who were once Calvinists never understood it. Many do. But apparently they aren't passing along a complete understanding to those who they are teaching. They're teaching younger people to make emotional appeal to one point or another

 

Basically, he disputes reformed viewpoint, and wants to make sure no baptist holds with it!

 

while it's true, the reason you disagrees is that it doesn't fit his idea of good and evil and justice and right and wrong.

And I think that's the failure of most who embrace and anti calvinist position.

I used to be a Calvinist, and before that and Armenian, and now I'm neither. And one thing I have never been concerned with is how this view or that view seemingly "portrays" God. I care what the scriptures say.

So if the scriptures teach that God is a monster and he controls everybody on strings like a puppet, so be it.

Just as a balancing point, and not to try to inflame a debate over this one issue, if the scriptures portray God as being at the behest of man, so be it.

But the traditionalist seems to maintain that any view of God must be philosophically palatable. In other words, I've either got to like Him or I don't want anything to do with Him.

I read where someone actually wrote that if he was to find out the god of Calvinism was the true God, he would have been in the Christian faith. Now, I don't believe that person was a Traditionalist in the Southern Baptist Convention, but that's the sentiment I detect

I'm convinced if they don't stop arguing philosophy, they will lose.

 

You are a master at complaining about others not using scripture while you never use scripture yourself.

Share exactly what you believe and all the verses that confirm your belief...or...stop complaining. You are merely presenting your philosophy with no biblical support. That makes you a hypocrite of the 1st order.

 

Just as soon as I find Eric Hankins name in scripture, I'll quote the scriptures when I'm talking about him.

Tell me again...How do you say his name in Greek?

 

You deflect and refuse to share your views and attach them to scripture. You are no different than the "philosophers" of which you complain.

 

I haven't refused anything.

I have already told you... If you want to have a doctrinal discussion, with scriptural debate, start a thread and put a subject in it.

But don't come into a thread which is talking about philosophical differences between two competing camps, and expect a scriptural debate about doctrine.

 

You run from the request.

I have created a topic just for you.

 

All that, for lil ol me?
Gimme a minnit

 

It takes less than a minute to go philosophy free.

 

So....
Where's this new thread you've been bragging about?

 

I figure you had the mods delete it so you could escape having to actually present God's word rather than whine about others. You can ask the mods what they did with the thread I created so you could present your theology.