Loyal Opposition/Traditional soteriology

[Iconoclast]

Eric Hankins declares this;

It offers no answer to the problem of evil except that God is the cause.

This is a wicked falsehood as posted. Hankins cannot show this anywhere as no one believes this wicked statement.

 

[JonC]

Obviously I have a bias as I interact with this attack by Eric Hankins so I will acknowledge that up front.
You are correct in what you say, and I am sure there are sincere Christians caught up in the middle of this mess.
To avoid division in any Church...love has to be present. I do not believe doctrine needs to divide, but I have been interacting with some in the comment section and they ascribe Calvinism to Satan.

To be honest, brother, most of the actual SBC members couldn't care less. This is sometimes because of a shallowness of doctrine, but it is also sometimes because of a depth of doctrine that is not defined along this soteriological distinctive.

Many of us just watch an think "what a waste of our money and time" and wonder if the Convention is worth it. And then we look at the people reached through the SBC ministries and decide it is....for now.

 

[Iconoclast]

To be honest, brother, most of the actual SBC members couldn't care less. This is sometimes because of a shallowness of doctrine, but it is also sometimes because of a depth of doctrine that is not defined along this soteriological distinctive.

Many of us just watch an think "what a waste of our money and time" and wonder if the Convention is worth it. And then we look at the people reached through the SBC ministries and decide it is....for now.

I have learned much in the last couple of years firsthand. It is sad when any church remains shallow in belief...probaly deficient in service.

After publishing “Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism,” the next logical question for me was: Well, if I’m not a Calvinist (or Arminian) then what am I? If I don’t subscribe to 2, 3, or more points of Calvinism, if I don’t subscribe to determinism, if I don’t believe in the exegetical legitimacy of Federal Headship, the covenant of works, etc., if I think Calvinists have completely missed the point of biblical election, then what do I believe about how people are saved? ]

He did not know what he believed but he was sure what was wrong with the historic beliefs?

 

[JonC]

He did not know what he believed but he was sure what was wrong with the historic beliefs?

It is a weird comment - it comes off like he's saying "After I published a series about framing our theology outside of Calvinism and Arminianism I realized I needed to form an opinion on the subject".

I think his point was to address issues he saw within the historic SBC position and suggest a framework in which to work. N.T. Wright did something similar with his NPP (he brought up issues he had with the Reformed position, offered opinion but no real solution, and sought dialogue). Here, as with Wright, I do think that there is room for dialogue and perhaps even some refining (but probably not at the Convention level).

 

[Revmitchell]

The problem, as I see it, is that people on both sides of the issue here are wanting to narrow down what it means to be SBC and exclude the doctrines of the other group. One (some Calvinists) seem to want to do this at a “grass-roots level” by changing the doctrine of the local churches. Others (some non-Calvinists) want to do this by changing the climate of the SBC itself from a leadership level (which would ultimately exclude either Calvinistic churches or the active participation of Calvinists within the Convention).

I am not sure how you came to that conclusion but the Traditionalist statement was a response to sneaky cals and the push to make the SBC nothing but Calvinist.

I don't think the cals which want to make the SBC mostly or all cals knows what they are asking for. It would split the SBC and leave them with the minority. The average SBC church does not know or unnerstand the typical soteriology of calvinism and neither do they want to. If anyone told them that they need to believe that God chooses some to never be saved they would walk away from the whole thing.

 

[JonC]

I am not sure how you came to that conclusion but the Traditionalist statement was a response to sneaky cals and the push to make the SBC nothing but Calvinist.

I don't think the cals which want to make the SBC mostly or all cals knows what they are asking for. It would split the SBC and leave them with the minority. The average SBC church does not know or unnerstand the typical soteriology of calvinism and neither do they want to. If anyone told them that they need to believe that God chooses some to never be saved they would walk away from the whole thing.

I there are two reasons I came to that conclusion. First is the report that some Calvinists have misled local church leadership for the purpose of changing the doctrine if that church. It seems that people who would resort to such things hold a posistion that Calvinism is the doctrine SBC churches should hold. But you are right that I may be reading this part wrong as I have never met such a Calvinist.

The second reason is certain. The change that Dr. Hankins and Dr. Steve Gaines advocate (the comment of a universal atonement) excludes by statement of belief some Calvinists both are claiming they don't want to exclude.

 

[Iconoclast]

Revmitchell,

I am not sure how you came to that conclusion but the Traditionalist statement was a response to sneaky cals and the push to make the SBC nothing but Calvinist.

This label you and others use is not accurate. The Cals desire the truth of God to be exalted and that is what is happening.

I don't think the cals which want to make the SBC mostly or all cals knows what they are asking for

In the last few years I have been in a few southern baptist churches.The level of bible knowledge is very low, and I believe is dishonoring to our Lord. I will give an example....
Adult SS....they are using the lifeway booklet...a woman says...I never noticed that there were so many boats there in the water? this discussion lasts 25 minutes, on why do you think there were so many boats there? No spiritual discussion whatsoever, no clue or discussion on Kingdom matters at all.

. It would split the SBC and leave them with the minority

.

Goats who walked the aisle will leave as truth enters in.

The average SBC church does not know or unnerstand the they want to. typical soteriology of calvinism and neither do they want to.

Thisis both true and disgraceful all the way around.

If anyone told them that they need to believe that God chooses some to never be saved they would walk away from the whole thing.

maybe you have a verse or a quote that says this???

 

[JonC]

I am not sure how you came to that conclusion but the Traditionalist statement was a response to sneaky cals and the push to make the SBC nothing but Calvinist.

I don't think the cals which want to make the SBC mostly or all cals knows what they are asking for. It would split the SBC and leave them with the minority. The average SBC church does not know or unnerstand the typical soteriology of calvinism and neither do they want to. If anyone told them that they need to believe that God chooses some to never be saved they would walk away from the whole thing.

I believe the issue is simply one of diverse understanding. When you, for example, determine that Calvinism believes God "chooses some to never be saved" you are using a view of double-predestination that is typically foreign to SBC Calvinists but you are addressing it to that group.

The topic should be open for discussion within the SBC, and it is with some. But here are others who are not so tolerant - on both sides. Here we have the Traditionalists who want to adopt language into the SBC statement of faith that no Calvinist could in good conscience affirm. And they are saying this while at the same time saying they don't want to exclude Calvinists from the SBC. This is dishonest and, I believe, an attempt to make the SBC hostile to Calvinism.

At the same time, you are right that some have tried to "sneak" Calvinism into churches. And, as the attacks on @Skandelon proved a couple of years ago on this site, many Calvinists are no better at dialogue and tolerance in Christ than are some of the Traditionalists.

 

[Reformed]

Thanks.
In his book Born Guilty Harwood writes, "we become transgressors who are guilty and under condemnation for our sin only when we attain moral capability and first commit--knowingly commit--a sinful thought, attitude or action" (p. 4). As you point out this is a problematic teaching within this system when in fact small children knowingly do wrong (and we know they know) -- yet these are exactly whom Harwood is trying to exonerate.

Thankfully, many in the Monergist camp, as well as in the Synergist camp reject such nonsense. This is the same view Pelagius held, that infants are born tabula rasa or blank slate.

 

[Revmitchell]

I believe the issue is simply one of diverse understanding. When you, for example, determine that Calvinism believes God "chooses some to never be saved" you are using a view of double-predestination that is typically foreign to SBC Calvinists but you are addressing it to that group.

Sorry but that is just not true.

 

[JonC]

Sorry but that is just not true.

Yet saying it doesn't make it so.

Since you are making the claim that most Calvinists within the SBC affirm "double predestination", please substantiate your claim.

Thanks

 

[Revmitchell]

Yet saying it doesn't make it so.

Since you are making the claim that most Calvinists within the SBC affirm "double predestination", please substantiate your claim.

Thanks

Every cal believes in double predestination. If you believe that God predestined some to believe you cannot help but believe that He also predestined some not to believe. Some cals do not like to characterize it in that way but it is true none the less.

It cannot be true that some are predestined to believe and all the rest are not predestined to not believe. Its just not possible.

 

[JonC]

Every cal believes in double predestination. If you believe that God predestined some to believe you cannot help but believe that He also predestined some not to believe. Some cals do not like to characterize it in that way but it is true none the less.

It cannot be true that some are predestined to believe and all the rest are not predestined to not believe. Its just not possible.

That's like saying every non-Cal believes man saves himself (you should know better) . The difference is predestination as an activity of God.....btw.

Personally, I do agree with your logic regarding double predestination.

 

[Iconoclast]

The fall of man assured that men would be condemned it's only Mercy that God Saves anyone out of the pile of condemned Humanity

 

[SovereignGrace]

The fall of man assured that men would be condemned it's only Mercy that God Saves anyone out of the pile of condemned Humanity

However, when ppl stray from the doctrine of Original Sin, affirm that Adam's guilt was not passed onto his posterity, ppl's theology goes awry. Its viewable on this, and other forums.