Dr. Eric Hankins is the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church, Oxford, Mississippi. He is the author of the much-discussed Traditionalist Statement and was central to the Calvinism Task Force appointed by Dr. Page, which reported at the Houston Annual Meeting. This is part 4 in the series. Read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.
In this final post, I offer a response to the second question Nathan Finn puts to Traditionalists in his recent essay in the Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry. Finn asks, “Who are the New Calvinists, and what have they done?” (68). Finn understands the preamble to the Traditional Statement (TS) to be insinuating that New Calvinists (NCs) are theologically rigid in places where Southern Baptists (SBs) are flexible and that they are anti-missional hyper-Calvinists. He counters with the assertion that NCs are actually theologically diverse and passionate about missions. If Finn’s analysis is correct, then he is right to wonder why Traditionalists are so alarmed. Unfortunately, Finn both misses the point of the preamble and fails to characterize adequately New Calvinism. The preamble is not charging NCs with insisting on only one brand of strict Calvinism. Instead, it is making the point that all the adjustments Calvinists have had to make across the years to keep the system from becoming hyper-Calvinist and anti-missional are reasons why SBs have historically resisted Calvinism and ought to continue to do so.
Since Finn’s answer to his own question is inadequate, let me put into evidence the answer of a New Calvinist Finn mentions, John Piper. Who are the NCs? Piper says they are passionate about the authority of Scripture, the centrality of the gospel, and the glory of God as these things are described by John Calvin, which is to say, as these things are understood through the lens of theistic determinism. Piper begins his answer by describing how NCs respond to tragedies like 9/11. Instead of a god who was either too weak or not good enough to stop those events, the God of NCs has a bigger plan. What Piper does not spell out, as he does in other places, is that God meticulously foreordained the events of 9/11 so that they could not have been otherwise. He determined to be most glorified in that destruction as the elect learn to be most satisfied with even that “frowning providence.” The Bible is the story of a determining God. The gospel is the story of God’s determination of the destiny of every person with respect to Jesus Christ: some are in, most are out. The glory of God, deterministically enjoyed by some, is the central reality of the Bible, the gospel, and the Christian life. These are the beliefs of the New Calvinists.
What have they done to draw the criticism of people like me? Piper himself acknowledges that Calvinists are often negative. He proposes three reasons why this is the case. First, because of the powerfully coherent nature of the system, it tends to appeal to rigorous minds, serious intellectuals who often are not the warmest, friendliest people. They don’t suffer fools gladly and are impatient with those who can’t or won’t acknowledge Calvinism’s internal consistency. Second, they are sometimes angry that they went so long without recognizing the doctrines of grace in the Scriptures or without being taught them in their churches. In a real sense, their churches and pastors failed them, and they are justifiably upset and justified in their efforts to correct those problems. Third, a New Calvinist sometimes comes off as overbearing because he has been graciously enabled and now is passionately overwhelmed by the truths that teach that he “has been awakened from the dead, like being found at the bottom of a lake and God, at the cost of his Son’s life, brings him up from the bottom, does CPR, brings him miraculously back to life, and he stands on the beach thrilled with the grace of God.” Piper goes on to say that the negative impression that people get from this passionate advocacy is sometimes due to the sinfulness of the Calvinist but also “to people’s unwillingness to see what is really there in the Bible.”
Piper’s is the correct answer to Finn’s question. A strong motivation for the production of the TS is that NCs often come off as arrogant, angry, and cocksure that their deterministic soteriology accounts for the totality of the biblical data. To Piper’s answer, I would give a little tweak and some further application to the SB context. My tweak would be to make as clear as possible that what ultimately defines a New Calvinist is his commitment to theistic determinism. Not just an emphasis on the Bible, but an emphasis on a deterministic reading of the Bible. Not just an emphasis on the gospel, but a deterministic understanding of the gospel. Not just as an emphasis on the glory of God, but a deterministic understanding of the glory of God.
The coherence of Calvinism is the coherence of determinism. Biblical texts that don’t fit the system are marginalized or reinterpreted to fit it. A variety of shims are inserted into the system to soften or hide the jolting but necessary demands of determinism. These fixes (Amyraldianism, single predestination, “duty faith,” God’s two loves, His two wills, compatibilistic freedom, “mystery, paradox, antimony,” etc., etc., etc.) actually destroy the coherence of determinism, even though they are well-intended—they are crafted to rescue the character of God, the plain-sense meaning of many biblical texts, and a legitimate rationale for taking the gospel to every person. In the past, most SBs were willing to live with these “adjustments” because Calvinists didn’t push determinism hard and so we weren’t highly motivated to hammer out our specific response to them. But that’s changed. NCs are actively promoting this approach to theology, and Traditionalists are no longer going to give them free passes on its problematic affirmations and implications. NCs are going to have to spell out, in a compellingly coherent manner, how determinism fits with our passion about the fact that anyone can be saved. So far, no such articulation has been provided. If NCs can’t offer an acceptable explanation, then we will either have to return to the detente that has characterized the SB relationship to Calvinism in the past or find a way to sublimate the best of both soteriological approaches while dropping determinism as a theological presupposition.
The supposedly overwhelming beauty of Calvinistic determinism is, in fact, disturbing to most SBs. We are not interested in a God who drowns us all for the sin He foreordained that we commit and then resuscitates a few of us for His own glory. This is not a straw man; this is not misrepresentation. This is what John Piper thinks is at the core of biblical soteriology. NCs make this work by keeping the attention on those who “[stand] on the beach thrilled with the grace of God” and off of all the dead people at the bottom of the lake who will never have an opportunity to be anywhere else. Well, I see dead people. And we are going to talk about them. We are not troubled by the claims of Calvinism because we don’t understand them. We are troubled by the claims because we do. Finn is correct in pointing to the concern raised in the preamble to the TS that NCs are pressing for the “radical alteration” of a “long standing arrangement” (68). NCs want to move their deterministic soteriology from the periphery to the center, which means that the idea that anyone can be saved will be replaced with the idea that only some have been meticulously foreordained for salvation while all others are without hope. This has never been at the heart of SBC evangelism and missions, certainly not since the crafting of the first BFM and the formation of the Cooperative Program. We have always resisted this view, and we will continue to resist it. That’s our old problem with New Calvinism.
Our problem with the Traditionalists and their criticisms of the so-called Calvinism, really Sovereign Grace, is the same with much of what our New Calvinists set forth, namely, that neither group knows their Sovereign Grace views very well. Just consider this: Dr. John Thomas, who as accused of being a Hyper Calvinist by some of his contemporaries, won the first convert of the Modern Missionary Movement, Krishna Pal, and the latter was baptized by William Carey, a five point Calvinist. Why? Because Thomas went insane with joy at seeing the first convert after 14 years of ups and downs which… Read more »
Piper’s explanation of why Calvinists are often seen as arrogant is one of the most arrogant things I have read in a very long time. I’ve witnessed that in a few SBC churches that had Calvinistic pastors. The results were ugly.
Arrogance is certainly not a trait exclusive to Calvinists.
Nether is being overbearing and/or rigid, btw.
I have to agree, and I’m a Calvinist. What a silly defense of arrogance.
Yea, BillMac, while I haven’t taken the time to evaluate Pipers full context of comments, on the surface (from Eric’s analysis) I gotta agree that he seems to justifying ungodly behavior in a, to use your term, in a silly way.
I don’t believe that John Piper is arrogant or that his explanations are arrogant.
The arrogant person is the one who will not accept the Word of God.
Eric, “NCs make this work by keeping the attention on those who “[stand] on the beach thrilled with the grace of God” and off of all the dead people at the bottom of the lake who will never have an opportunity to be anywhere else. Well, I see dead people. And we are going to talk about them. We are not troubled by the claims of Calvinism because we don’t understand them. We are troubled by the claims because we do.” Indeed! Intellectual honesty is a must in this conversation. And Piper has now provided the evidence to finally put… Read more »
Traditionalist are New Universalist and this view has never been been the heartbeat of Southern Baptist missions at least not since we started the cooperative program and we have resisted this new Universalism and we will continue to resist it and it ought to be so.
Most trolling comment I have seen on this site in a long time. The fact that you make it anonymously makes it all the more trolling. I disagree with a lot of the rhetoric that comes from the Traditionalist camp, but I will not stand by and see men like Rick Patrick, Eric Hankins, Tim Rogers, and Brad Whitt (among many others) be labelled as Universalists. They are men who believe and proclaim the Gospel and who believe that people who do not know Jesus are going to hell. They are evangelists, disciplers, and passionate followers of Jesus. To call… Read more »
Ryan, I will not return in-kind and speak to you by calling you names while decrying what you define as inappropriate behavior seems a little hypocritical so I won’t do it. That’s exactly my point no I do not think they are universalist all I did was merely took a definition upon it to them and then argued against the definition that I defined that’s exactly what Eric does I was making a point Made. In fact I simply rearranged Eric’s wording in his article…used his tactic of defining what others believe and then arguing against what I say they… Read more »
Tarheel, I think you need to tone down your rhetoric. You can be direct without being disrespectful.
calling people universalists is not a path to productive discussion.
You can do better.
Yea, As I said I was making a point…that one can ( mis) define someone else’s view and then argue against that definition….
Remember the thread a week or so ago where several of the Calvinist persuasion were desperately trying to convince people that they were arguing against positions the hold and They continued to do so.
This article continued on that vein.
*positions we don’t hold…
Just dial it back a bit.please.
Tim Rogers? The man who called me on the phone angrily and repeatedly calling me an “idiot” because I challenged him about his defense of proven, unrepentant liar Ergun Caner? He’s a passionate discipler of Jesus? Really?
Tarheel,
It is comments like yours that seek to define to your own liking (always in the negative) that sow the seeds feeding the fire. We are NOT Universalists – nor New Universalists.
This type of tone and rhetoric must stop!
If you disagree, do so being intellectually honest.
Like I said above I know you’re not universalists but if y’all get to define what we believe and then argue against it why can’t we do it? I was making a point…. Point mate
*made not mate
A Reformed definition is in order. John Samson writes: “Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God’s predetermination and meticulous providence is “compatible” with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced …i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God’s sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11)… In light of Scripture, (according to compatibilism), human choices are exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about… Read more »
I posted that on purpose not because I necessarily believe it but because I was using absurdities to illustrate absurdity.
In other discussion threads and in the opening post traditionalists have taken to defining what we believe and then arguing against their on definition … I was simply illustrating how fallacious that can be.
Bull.
Guys. Enough.
Ok, Dave.
It’s not bull…. I’ve never outside of this post identified those who disagree with me universalists….I’d did it only to make a point. In fact in other threads i’ve argued that we are brothers and sisters in Christ and I’ve argued that these are not points that need to divide us but they are dead set on it….. In fact Eric Hankins helped write, heartily affirmed, and signed the calvinism study committee report document stating that these issues were not points that we should divide over yet he still writes blogs saying we should divide on it. In another comment… Read more »
Guys High pitch rhetoric, name calling, and absurd statements are certainly not limited to the Cal/Trad discussion in SB life. Being the old kid on the block, I heard the same type of thing in the inherency discussion, the Evangelism verses Social Action discussion, and the Millennial arguments. Hence I am not surprised, aggravated, but not surprised. The subjects change and the people change but the attitude remains the same. I agree with Martin Luther…”If I were God and I created the world, and the world treated me like it treats Him, I would kick the wretched thing to pieces”.… Read more »
The link on why Cals are so negative kept crashing my browser.
If it does yours, here is another that might work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm6s8AuZouI
John Piper said that some Calvinists who are rude might be rude because they take an intellectual position and have poor people skills. Some might be rude because they are unsaved. Some might be considered rude because they are so passionate about what they believe, but are not socially adept at communicating.
Some not all.
To paint all of any group because of some is bearing false witness.
It is improper and un-Christian.
Once again, Eric Hankins nails the whole issue to the wall. The man has great insight and intellect, and he can spell it out so clearly that even I can understand it.
David
Funny. It is my understanding that Tarheel is not a Calvinist, if my memory of what he has said on the issue at other times is correct. It is obvious that he was merely making a rhetorical point, i.e., for the sake of argument. I would not go out on a limb like that, however, as Christians are supposed to refrain from such tactics. Just think of a Hyper Calvinist being the founder of the American Race Track Chaplaincy, and yet such was the case with Dr. Ernest R. Campbell (cf. Who’s Who in Religion. 2nd. edn. Chicago: Marquis Pubs.,… Read more »
Dr. Willingham,
I think he/she is a Calvinist. I’m pretty sure that he/she has said that before.
Tarheel, are you a he or a she?
David
David is right…I’m a Calvinist.
You know I’m a male…I’ve identified myself as such on numerous occasions….
what color is your hair?
Graying. 🙂
Bleached blond?
Maybe he doesn’t have hair.
Tarheel,
Do you have facial hair? mustache? goatee? full beard? nose hair too long? etc….
David
Do you have facial hair?
Of course. It’s a Calvinist requirement, isn’t it?
mustache?
Yes.
goatee?
Such as it is. It’s grayling too.
full beard?
I wish. ;-). I can’t grow one. 🙁
nose hair too long?
Hold on let me ask my wife.
Ugh, she says- sometimes, yes. Lol
The comment about knowing I’m a male was directed at volfan.
Are you over 6 feet tall, or under?
He might be neither.
Just under 6 foot.
Tarheel
Are you mineral, vegetable or animal?
Oh sorry, I thought we were playing 20 questions 🙂 🙂
I’m a human…but I can also be a bit of an animal. 😉
(no further elaboration on that will be forthcoming).
parsonmike,
“bleachedblond”?; his hair could look like mine, back when I had hair–black, kinky, and thick-:). Inasmuch as he won’t identify himself, we really don’t know. Giving the rhetorical bombshells that he love to drop on this site, it would appear that he would at least reveal his name.
Tarheel
A million puns come to mind, but I will resist.
There is no pain like the pain of un-given pun!!
Tarheel,
lol
David
Philosophy is a poor place for Christians to argue out their differences. Words like determinism, compatibilism, and libertine free will are philosophical terms usually employed by people who do not place God the Father of Jesus the Son of God in highest esteem like MOST passionate Calvinists [like John Piper] or most passionate Traditionalists [like Eric Hankins]. And when try to fit Biblical truths into philosophical categories, it can be like fitting square pegs into round holes. For example, most Trads I know seem to be libertarian free will type people. But do any of them doubt the Word of… Read more »
Parsonsmike
Very good point (paragraph one May 5 8:59)
Mike,
“And furthermore, I would think that any person who has even looked into this idea would not wish to cause division by arguing over philosophical terms when the Bible is clear; men often do freely what God has predetermined them to do.”
Exactly right brother. Our Trad brothers agree with compabitalism even if they don’t like to admit it.
Les,
And if they admit this truth, which the Bible starkly reveals, then one of their main objections to predestination simply disappears: For if God can predestine the free will choices of men, why couldn’t He predestine their choice in election as well!
Les,
I don’t believe God HAS to predestine that choice. I believe that any person, whosoever, to whom God reveals His glory to in the face of Jesus Christ will desire God above the world and above him or herself.
No human goes to Hell if they believed in their earthly life that Jesus is indeed the crucified risen Lord of all.
Mike, it is surprising to me that you warn of using philosophical rhetoric in making a case for or against an issue like this, when you then go on to use it to argue against libertarian freedom. Seems strange. Also, the Acts 2 passage is easily explained if one makes the appropriate distinction between God’s determining something (in a biblical sense) and determinism (in a philosophical sense). God can plan to do something or bring something about without removing man’s libertarian freedom. Any non-calvinist could happily deny compatibilism so long as he doesn’t make the categorical error of assuming that… Read more »
Braxton,
The question concerning compatibilism against libertarian free will has a sharp distinction after one is saved, don’t you think? I don’t know of any in the SBC who would argue against “once saved, always saved.” However, if one has true libertarian free will doesn’t that person have the means through which they can be truly saved one day and then “choose” to walk away from the faith and no longer be saved.
It would seem, regardless of where the line in the sand is about free will prior to salvation, all in the SBC are compatibilists post salvation.
Nate, I guess, I’m not tech-savy enough to figure out how to post a response to your question below. There was no reply button under your text. You said, “However, if one has true libertarian free will doesn’t that person have the means through which they can be truly saved one day and then “choose” to walk away from the faith and no longer be saved.” I love answering this question, because it demonstrates why I am not a 1 point calvinist even though I affirm eternal security. It’s also very simple, intuitive and makes sense of scripture. On compatibilism/calvinism,… Read more »
Braxton, When there are so many replies you have to just go to the last reply button, so you replied to me. Thanks for the answer. I understand your analogy, but I think you only affirmed my position (which wasn’t exactly Calvinistic by the way). I merely pointed out that a “once saved always saved belief” had to relinquish libertarian free-will after salvation. Your analogy of the inoculation, while deft, is never spoken of when sharing the gospel. In other words, nobody says, “as soon as you confess Christ you will give up your libertarian free will, are you good… Read more »
Nate,
Thanks for the civility which is so often lacking in these dialogues.
I don’t think you give up your libertarian freedom upon being saved. it sounds like you thought I was conceding that. I merely said that even if that were the case it would not support calvinism which requires compatibilism to be true prior to and after salvation. But this should not be taken to imply that I think compatibilism is true after salvation. Blessings!
Discuss the post. Do so in a reasonable manner. I’m tired of this nonsense.
Dave, You are right. I just saw this instruction from you. I joined in the fun ’bout Tarheel’s hair, but if I had read your instruction first, I wouldn’t have. I would respect your right to remove my hair comment. Regarding this post, I have been so impressed with Dr. Hankin’s post on this subject. I happen to share his soteriology and very much appreciate his ability to communicate my views on this subject far better than I could, or most traditionalist(or whatever we are suppose to be called) could. I also love the irenic spirit in which he refutes… Read more »
Dwight,
Thank you! Well stated!
Dwight
Your comments are never mean-spirited.
Dwight, “The notion that God assigns people to hell without them having a choice, or being able to exercise their will in the matter is a serious and dangerous misreading of key text(s) in Scripture.” It is a “dangerous misreading of key text(s) in Scripture.” And if that is what Calvinists believed I would stand with you to refute it. But that i snot what Calvinists believe. “Since Calvinist believe that God has already determined that God has assigned that certain people go to hell, in some kind of arbitrary, cold, non-calculating fashion, who then is inspired to know who… Read more »
Les
The word “snot”…is that a Freudian slip. 🙂
DL,
“But that i snot what Calvinists believe.” Well, either I am snot, which is possible, or more likely Trads think Calvinism is snot.
But the truth is more simple. “But that is not what Calvinists believe.” 🙂 and good catch.
Les
Sorry my brother, I just could not help myself
DL, I know. A bit of levity among brothers can only help. Besides, I was predestined to make that slip.
Les,
Certainly ~some~ Calvinists believe that all men are condemned in Adam and really don’t have a choice. But there are many SBC Calvinists who do not go to that place. They believe that people are condemned when they sin themselves.
Thus the do have a choice, and they choose to sin and rebel against God and are rightly condemned.
Some of those, but not all, hear the Gospel. Those that never hear remain condemned justly for their own sins.
Mike, my point is what Calvinism actually teaches. There may indeed be some Calvinists who believe man has not real choice. But that is not what true Calvinism teaches. Mine is an appeal that non Calvinists accurately portray what Calvinism actually teaches.
Dr. Dwight
You have hit on a very disturbing problem. You are so very correct that young pastors are very influenced by well know men. This I think is problematic. The celebrity concept has led many young pastors “astray” depending on one’s theology. Far too often i hear a person say so and so says as opposed to what scripture says when delineating a position.
Any type of group thinking that has a central celebrity leader is dangerous.
I do not have a solution just a problem.
D.L.
You are quite right that there is a problem anytime young pastors take to doctrine because some celebrity pastor or speaker promotes it.
We can hope and pray that all of young pastors of various backgrounds seek after the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
peace,
mike
parsonsmike
AMEN!
Amen, mike.
Dwight, You said, Since Calvinist believe that God has already determined that God has assigned that certain people go to hell, in some kind of arbitrary, cold, non-calculating fashion, who then is inspired to know who those people are? – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/a-response-to-dr-nathan-finn-part-4-the-new-calvinists-by-dr-eric-hankins/#comment-238522 Gosh, golly, gee, brother, be part of the solution of unity, not a pusher of division. No Calvinist says God uses a cold calculating way to determine election. Why do you enter the discussion with your fists up? But to answer the overall thrust of your question: ONLY GOD knows. God knows all things, including the… Read more »
Parsonsmike, It is always my goal to be a man of peace, and to pursue unity, not division. But, if Calvinist believe that God predestines persons for hell without any regard to their freewill factoring into the equation–wouldn’t that mean that He assigned them to hell in a cold, noncalculating, arbitrary fashion? My expressing it that way was not my intent to enter this discussion with my fist up, but to discuss this matter in a way that common people will understand it. If Calvinism continue to grow in the Black Church Community, I will feel compelled to eventually address… Read more »
Dwight, Three things. One. You assigned your reasoning to others as if it were their reasoning. It was inflammatory. Second, You lumped all Calvinists in one big pot. Many SBC Calvinists believe in an age of accountability where as man does use his free will to rebel against God and earn condemnation. Three. IF God did do it that way, do you think He would do it a cold way? So you disagree with a doctrine. As you know i disagree with some of yours. But i am sure you do not like it when people make false accusations against… Read more »
Here is what Calvinism teaches about God’s decree and relation to man’s will: From the London Baptist Confession 1689 on God’s Decree. “God has decreed in Himself from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things which shall ever come to pass. – Yet in such a way that God is neither the author of sin nor does He have fellowship with any in the committing of sins, nor is violence offered to the will of the creature , nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken… Read more »
Dwight, “Since Calvinist believe that God has already determined that God has assigned that certain people go to hell, in some kind of arbitrary, cold, non-calculating fashion, who then is inspired to know who those people are? Just as the moderates could not tell us which parts of the Bible are inspired, and which parts are not; the Calvinist cannot tell us which persons God has assigned to hell, and those he has not. That position in my judgement, is only not true to Scripture–it would be a nonstarter from my vantage point as it relates to missions and evangelism.”… Read more »
Lol! It appears that mike, les, and I were cross posting and in agreement in doing so….
“I am also seeing a younger generation of Black Pastors gradually shift toward Calvinism.”
Mr.Dwight, you can send em a thank-you-note right here…http://reachrecords.com/contact
IMHO this right here has opened up more unlikely white folks’ eyes to hip-hop than anything.
I for the life of me can’t follow Dwight’s reasoning here….is he saying its a bad thing that some pastors are becoming Calvinists and f it continues he’s gonna have to do something? Along those same lines I don’t get the hand wringing over the Calvinists coming out of Southern seminary.
I just can’t wrap my head around that.
I don’t look to southwestern and say “there are a lot of noncalvinists coming out of there…we gotta address that!”
Though it resulted in a lot of bickering, I think Tarheel did have a point. Hankins goes long on claiming NCs’ entire system boils down to determinism, but this is hardly found in his links (by the way, there is a big difference between a natural disaster like a tornado and a human act of aggression like 9/11). He then claims that traditionalists were okay with Calvinists in the past because they did not push determinism as much, but now, despite all the “adjustments” like 4 pointers, 2 wills of God, etc., NCs are actually pushing determinism more. Where is… Read more »
Honestly, I kinda object to the New Calvinist label….I am not sure from whence it hailed…but I think it’s now being used to marginalize Calvinists in potraying those who hold to reformed theology as peddling some strange and foreign new doctrine. It’s goes hand in hand with the comendering of the idea of baptist (even southern baptist) tradition by non Calvinists as if they have a sole right to it.
In other words, what I believe is not “new” and it fits well within church tradition as a whole as well as SBC tradition.
Tarheel This is not our first rodeo as SBs debating Calvinism. It has a long history. For the most part it has been amiable. One of the men whose scholarship I respect most is my brother-in law and he is a Calvinist. I am not. He and I have had many discussions, but still have a strong friendly respectful relationship. I think historically that has been the case in the SBC. The “New” Calvinist I believe came on the scene with more aggression and was readily met by “New” Trads with equal aggression and the fire was lit. Now we… Read more »
As i re read the OP, i was struck by attacking mode it was written in. That in lacking compassion and being rude, some NC’s are in error is sad, for it is sad that some trads are in error in people skills as well. To attack all because some are wrong is, well… wrong. To attack others based on mis-characterizations of doctrine when the truth is, most Trads hold much of the same beliefs, is wrong. That some NC’s believe “in a God who drowns us all for the sin He foreordained that we commit and then resuscitates a… Read more »
For those of you who understood the point I was attempting to make, thank you. Parson, thank you for pointing out the attack mode of the OP. I was truly just trying to illuminate with absurdity the absurdity I saw in the OP. I should have posted an explanation for the rhetoric sooner, perhaps in the same post – but at the same time in order to make the point, I felt it was necessary to let it sit. I’ll try to be more thorough in the future. This medium doesn’t always detect sarcasm….had we all been in the same… Read more »
In discussing that post… Eric says, “what ultimately defines a New Calvinist is his commitment to theistic determinism. Not just an emphasis on the Bible, but an emphasis on a deterministic reading of the Bible. Not just an emphasis on the gospel, but a deterministic understanding of the gospel. Not just as an emphasis on the glory of God, but a deterministic understanding of the glory of God.” I would propose that hat defines all true Calvinists is what I quoted at 7:47pm. See there. Further, I do see what Tarheel was trying to do. But as has been the… Read more »
The terms we use Cal, Trad, etc. plus philosophical terms in as much as possible must be dropped. Like buzz words, they will always mean different things to different people. This is a major problem in the discussion of this and other subjects. Descriptive statements will be the only way the discussion can move forward, and even with that it will be difficult. In a graduate seminar at Okla. Univ. in Philosophy, the Prof. pointed out how terms have a signifiant difference in that setting than what I experienced in Seminary. At times it was almost like not having studied… Read more »
Les,
Universal Atonement is technical term and is defined in the book Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue (edited by E. Ray Clendenen and Brad J. Waggoner) in this manner (p285):
The belief that Christ bore the wrath of God for all persons indiscriminately. It is held by all evangelicals except for five-point Calvinists. Not only is it thought to make sense of biblical passages like John 3:16 and I John 2:2, but it is also thought to warrant the free offer of the gospel to all persons.
Ron, I’m well aware of the definition. My point still stands relative to penal substitution. Thanks brother.
Les
“The belief that Christ bore the wrath of God for all persons indiscriminately” is called universalism and is heresy because, if so, then everyone is saved since God has no wrath left for anyone, including unbelievers. If Jesus bore everyone’s punishment, then everyone is saved since God has no punishment left for anyone.
John,
The belief that Jesus died for the sins of everyone in the world is not universalism, and it is not heresy. The Bible says that Jesus died for the sins of everyone in the world. And, just because His death is sufficient to cover all the sins of every person, doesn’t mean that they all have to be saved. Why? Because, the Bible tells us that people have to receive this gift of salvation from God.
David
No where does it say receive the gift, it says nothing about accepting Christ. Repent, believe and confess, yes.
And saying “it’s not universalism” doesn’t make it not universalism. It makes salvation into accepting and sinners are condemned not for sin, but for not accepting.
Dan, Salvation is a gift from God. People receive gifts. One does not earn a gift. One takes the gift that someone offers to them. Thus, salvation is most certainly a gift. And yes, the way we receive God’s gift of salvation is to repent and believe….to surrender to Christ in faith. Universalism is the teaching that everyone is saved. I do not believe that. I know of no Traditional, Southern Baptist that does believe in Universalism. About sinners…..sinners are condemned for their sins…and, their rejecting, or not accepting, is a sin. Are you saying that someone, who believes that… Read more »
Volfan, i do not think you’re a universalist or a heretic….I think you preach the gospel of Christ and I’m looking foward to your buying me a cherry coke and Krispy Kreme doughnut ( I like the boston creme ones) at the convention. Sincere query …. In order to defend a universal atonement and not be a Universalist don’t you have to argue that the atonement is not sufficient/incomplete because it does not accomplish all that God intended for it to accomplish …. As in if Christs death was to atone for everymans sin – yet somehow it doesn’t work… Read more »
Christ’s atonement does accomplish what it’s meant to accomplish….to save all the people, who will believe, who will repent and put their faith in Jesus and His atoning death.
There’s no failure to His death just because a lot of people don’t get saved. The ark of Noah was a huge success, even though most of the people would not listen to Noah’s preaching and repent. The ark still worked….floated…and, the people in the ark were still saved from the flood. It worked just fine.
David
“Christ’s atonement does accomplish what it’s meant to accomplish….to save all the people, who will believe, who will repent and put their faith in Jesus and His atoning death. There’s no failure to His death just because a lot of people don’t get saved. The ark of Noah was a huge success, even though most of the people would not listen to Noah’s preaching and repent. The ark still worked….floated…and, the people in the ark were still saved from the flood. It worked just fine.” I told ya we agree on more than you think.. I agree with what you… Read more »
Tarheel,
Yes, we do agree on more than we disagree. And Tarheel, you’re almost there, my friend. You’re very close to the truth!
🙂
David
I’m already been set free by the truth I pray that you will one day walk in the truth. 😉
Volfan007, please tell me you don’t live in Arkansas
The Bible says that every inclination of people’s hearts are only evil all the time (Gen. 6:5), that the human heart is desperately sick and beyond (natural) cure (Jer. 17:9), that we are slaves of sin (Rom. 6), that natural (unsaved) people cannot accept the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14), that we are “dead in sin” (Eph. 2:1), etc. Therefore, every example of someone accepting Christ is an example of God’s sovereign grace giving life to otherwise dead hearts, before they believe (1 John 5:1). As for Esau, God says He hates Him (Malachi 1:2, Romans 9:13). It doesn’t… Read more »
“I see dead people.” Priceless! We must continue to explore the nature of God’s love for the reprobate. Is He feeding His attribute of wrath by pouring condemnation upon those powerless to accept Him? Or is He demonstrating His love by “taking away the sins of the world” so that all enjoy the genuine freedom to accept Him and live?
People are “dead in sin” (Eph. 2:1) and so are not free to accept Him. That’s why the Bible no where states that people have a will that is free to accept or reject God. It says the opposite.
Did God love Esau?
John,
On the contrary, the Bible is full of people making the decision to follow Christ, or not…..full of examples.
And yes, God did love Esau. In fact, God chose to bless Esau and his descendants, the Edomites. But, compared to the way He chose to bless Jacob, it looked like He hated Esau. But, He didn’t literally hate Esau. He still loved Esau.
David
“but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation, and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness” Malachi 1:3
The bible is full of people making the decision to follow or not follow Christ, but it’s also clear about God’s stance toward Esau.
Luke, Okay, Esau had many children and grand children, which was seen as a sign of God’s blessings, back in that day. Genesis 36 Esau was blessed with a lot of livestock….so much so that he had to separate from Jacob….and went to Edom. Genesis 36 And, the Edomites were blessed by God…..just not nearly as blessed as Jacob and his children. Luke, this kind of language is called a degree of comparison…it’s just like when Jesus told people that they couldn’t follow Him, unless they hated their mother and father and brothers and sisters. Do you believe that God… Read more »
I think “hate” is being used here in the form of Middle Eastern hyperbole, not in an absolute sense. It merely refers to degree of love, much as the New Testament does. That fact that our 21st Century, western European culture uses the word “hate” in a pejorative and absolutist sense does not mean the people 2000+ years ago in Middle Eastern culture were obligated to do so.
John
Sure God blessed Esau….common grace benefits all.
Special Grace is extended to all those who believe.
A compromis…if “all” means “all”, then “hate” means “hate”.
Adam!
I totally laughed out loud at that one.
David,
“On the contrary, the Bible is full of people making the decision to follow Christ, or not…..full of examples.”
And Calvinists agree there are such examples. Why? Because we affirm that man must make a choice with his will.
Les,
I was answering John.
David
Oops David. Didn’t realize it was a private back and forth. Carry on brother.
Les,
It’s not that. It’s just that I was just answering John. So, I wasn’t sure why you were telling me that.
No problem.
David
David, no problem here. The reason I even commented was to point out that Calvinists also believe what you were stating to John. It appeared you were saying that about people choosing Christ as if Calvinists don’t also believe that.
Blessings brother and fellow MABTS alum.
Yes, people make a choice. The only way they can choose for Christ is if Christ first chooses them. “No one comes to the Father . . . ”
“We love because . . . ” we first choose to? No. Because God first chooses to love us. But He doesn’t choose to love everyone. Some, like Esau, He hates. No matter what you want to do with the word “hate”, it means that He doesn’t love all equally.
Rick, your answer is here:
“What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.”
Eric, what qualifies as a “legitimate rationale for taking the gospel to every person?” Which Southern Baptist Calvinists who have any scale of influence in SBC life “push determinism hard?” How about even those less influential? Do you have names? Blogs? How about evidence of influence that is reason enough for Traditionalists to “hammer out our specific response to them?” NCs are going to have to spell out, in a compellingly coherent manner, how determinism fits with our passion about the fact that anyone can be saved. Why do certain Calvinists who hold such a position of determinism owe you… Read more »
There is only one legitimate reason for taking the Gospel to every person. The reason is because the Gospel is for every person. Otherwise it would not have been called the Gospel (good news).
Don,
i disagree.
The only legitimate reason is because God told us to.
Eric said, NCs are going to have to spell out, in a compellingly coherent manner, how determinism fits with our passion about the fact that anyone can be saved. – The only ones who can be saved are those God has foreseen being saved. Could be everyone else alive. Could be no more. Prudent guess is somewhere in the middle. Fact is we are not to worry about how many God saves, rather we are to seek to be obedient as the Spirit leads us in proclaiming the Gospel. The fact is unless God has foreseen them being saved, they… Read more »
once again, ‘foresee’ is a term that does not work in eternity, where our concept of time has no meaning
Mike,
It seems we have different ideas as to what the Gospel is. Here’s briefly my definition.
1. God loves you
2. You are a sinner
3. Christ died for your sins
4. Christ was buried
5. Christ was raised 3 days later for our justification
6. Those who believe the above are saved (Mk 16:16)
7. Those who don’t are damned (Mk 16:16)
Where do we disagree?
We don’t.
Mike,
I thought you were a 5 pointer. I didn’t think a 5 pt. would tell someone that Christ died for their sins up front, because they don’t really know if He or not.
Don,
i got an early appt. and its after 1 am.
some other time bro.
I don’t know a Calvinist who claims to know who is in and who is out. So when the Gospel is proclaimed it’s proclaimed in the manner in which you describe. It’s a person’s ability to respond that is determined in the mysteries of God’s wisdom. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand. Haven’t you ever given the perfect explanation of the Gospel to a person and watched them was away? What went wrong? You told them the right things. They understood intellectually what was said to them. They were simply uninterested. Why? Because it takes more… Read more »
Christ rose from the dead because death did not have the power to hold Him.
‘He is Risen’
Alleluia
words like ‘justification’ are difficult to comprehend and can confuse,
but to the people of the first century,
the words ‘He is Risen’ were received with a sense of wonder and awe at the mighty power of God over the enemy ‘death’.
To whomever might answer, I am sincerely attempting to understand Calvinist theology by asking this question. I’ve asked it before, but perhaps not clear enough to get a clear answer. Here’s the question: Do Calvinist generally believe that God assigned people to hell without their will factoring into the equation? ParsonMike stated that a certain ilk of Calvinism believe that persons earn their rebellion before the age of accountability, therefore their wills did factor into the equation. But, is that group the norm, or is it generally a belief of Calvinism that God assigns the non elect to hell on… Read more »
Dwight, I will try to succinctly answer. You asked, “When God elected the elect, did He do it based on His foreknowledge of the will that they would exercise of given a choice; or was this decision made by God to elect certain without their wills having anything to do with it?” No, God’s election and choosing of some out of the whole of humanity deserving of eternal destruction, was not because God looked down thru time to see who would exercise a given choice. God’s choosing *some* for eventual and certain salvation out of the whole of humanity (who… Read more »
Here is a great explanation of the doctrine of predestination…. Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7In him we have redemption through… Read more »
Dwight, Thanks for asking. Some C’s believe that men are born condemned. Original sin and federal headship and all that. Many believe, as i do, that no one is condemned before their own personal sin at an age where God deems them accountable under the Law. Very few of them believe that rejection of the Gospel is what damns them [if any]. Most of them do not know why God chooses one sinner over another. you asked, When God elected the elect, did He do it based on His foreknowledge of the will that they would exercise of given a… Read more »
Don,
Where we disagree is that you said the Gospel is for every person and that is the only legitimate reason for us taking it to every person.
The only legitimate reason is because Jesus told us to go and preach Him to all the world.
That is what I am doing through my church. What they are doing through our own missionaries and in giving to various SBC missionary endeavors. Whether those who hear, and not all do, see it as good news is not up to us as ministers of the Gospel.
“NCs want to move their deterministic soteriology from the periphery to the center, which means that the idea that anyone can be saved will be replaced with the idea that only some have been meticulously foreordained for salvation while all others are without hope. This has never been at the heart of SBC evangelism and missions, certainly not since the crafting of the first BFM and the formation of the Cooperative Program. We have always resisted this view, and we will continue to resist it. That’s our old problem with New Calvinism.” Again definitions are important. “[T]he idea that only… Read more »
It’s not just you.
If the heart of NC is determinism, what was the heart of Old Calvinism? In the BNC (before new calvinism) era, were Calvinists less deterministic?
I think they (TSers) seek to distinguish “news” from the “olds” because there is no way to deny a rich Calvinistic history in the SBC, the modern missions movement manifested in numerous heros of the faith from yesteryear so they have to purport that we are following, advocating, and teaching something “new”. IMO, This is a political strategy to marginalize those who hold to a more reformed theology than they do.
Many of us view the New Calvinists as the militant, aggressive types, who are out to “convert” everyone to Calvinism, and who would say something like: “If you’re not a Calvinist, then you’re not preaching the true Gospel.”
David
David do you believe that the New Calvinists and the Traditionalists are both preaching the true gospel?
Scotty,
Yes. We just differ in the particulars of the Gospel….in the gray areas of the Bible. But yes, I do believe that Calvinists are preaching the true Gospel….as am I.
David
David,
Ok, but do you really believe that most Calvinists are like that?
Might also be that what you perceive as militant and trying to convert is simply pastors and teachers and theologians who are faithful to what they believe and proclaim it boldly?
Might you also admit there are some militant anticalvinists who seek to silence, marginalize and essentially (if not literally) kick us to the SBC curb.
Tarheel,
Yes, I know of many militant, aggressive, New Calvinists. I have met them face to face. My friends and family have dealt with them, in their Churches. Yes, I have met, and know of, many.
Also, I know many regular ole, Evangelistic Calvinists….who are my friends, BTW. I respect their ministry, and have them preach in the Churches I’ve pastored.
David
So do I. Yet, there are many Traditionalists who say that the gospel the Calvinists preach is a perversion of the gospel and presents an unworthy view of God. Let us agree that the main focus ought to be a discussion of issues and not a response of outrage that someone has said something mean about us. Then we can dispense with all the rhetoric about how mean each of us can be.
Tarheel,
I saw this quote this morning by Trevin Wax:
“The Calvinists are always talking about ministry and mission; the non-Calvinists are always talking about Calvinism.”
Now I know it’s always not best to say always, but in the post he is talking about general observations. I think he is right. Ironically we Calvinists also end up talking about Calvinism when we respond (me included) to the incessant posts about Calvinism by non Calvinists. 🙂
That statement by Trevin Wax was insulting to all of us, who are not Calvinists. And, it’s simply not true. Most of the people that I know, who are talking about Calvinism…including me…are doing so, because we feel like it’s been thrown into our face. And, we’re being portrayed as Semi Pelagian heretics, who aren’t preaching the true Gospel. So, I disagree with Trevin Wax….WE would NOT be talking so much about Calvinism, if it weren’t being shoved down the SBC’s throat, and all of us, Non Calvinists, feeling like we’re being put down and set aside, because we’re not… Read more »
David and Les, To clarify, that quote from my blog is a summary of multiple conversations with Traditionalist pastors who were giving their perception of online conversations and blogs. It was not in reference to Calvinists or non-Calvinists offline. I included it to show, perhaps one reason why younger Southern Baptists who are non-Reformed are less likely to engage in the Calvinism controversy: they find the Calvinist blogs and websites pastorally helpful. If we were to move to offline conversations, I think that quote falls apart quickly. I’ve met plenty of Calvinists who want to talk about Calvinism all the… Read more »
Trevin,
Thanks for the clarification. It really looked to me….from your article….that Calvinists were more interested in ministry and missions than Non Calvinsts.
That kind of idea was insulting and mystifying, and I don’t see that as the truth, at all.
I appreciate your clarification.
David
Thanks Trevin. I assumed you were talking about online conversations. Hence my comment about our responding to “posts” about Calvinism. Thanks again brother.
Les
David, I agree with you. Thankfully, Calvinists and nonCalvinists are all committed to ministry and missions. I was exploring why nonCalvinist young pastors frequent Calvinist blogs and websites, and that’s the context for the quote. I went back and added a note to the post to make sure people don’t take that quote out of context.
Thank you, Trevin. God bless you, Brother.
David
I don’t think it will work, but I think we (Calvinists) should consider no longer responding to things like this. We simply aren’t going to gain acceptance by talking this through. If you think we are being wronged, perhaps it is better to take Paul’s advice and just accept it. Every article in this series (and indeed every Calvinism related article ever published here) has a huge comment stream and no movement. Non-cals are just as suspicious of Cals as they have ever been. Maybe it’s time we just let it go.
Bill Max, you may be right. It is difficult though to constantly have the Calvinist view misrepresented and not to at least attempt to correct the misrepresentations. But it should be done, if at all, in a kind way. At least here there is wide latitude to make those corrections, if done in a kind way, without getting banned.
Sorry Mill Mac. Hit the x instead of the c on the keyboard.
Bawahaha….and in your apology for typing “Bill Max” you typed “Mill Mac”…..
:-).
I hope the grammar snobs/nazis are taking the morning off, my friend.
Good grief! What is wrong with my iPad this morning? Sorry again Bill Mac!!
I understand your point, BillMac. Little to no (much closer to no) movement is made. You’ve certainly made a point with considering.
But, I also think Les is making an important point….distortions and in some cases intentional deceptions and efforts of marginilization are hard to ignore.
I admit, I’m just not sure how to balance it.
And Cals are just as dismissive of non-Cals as they ever have been. And you are correct, there has been no movement. I guess we’re just predestined to disagree.
That….Or I’m using my free will to actually believe the bible. 😉
(that was posted with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, much like I assume your little quip was.). 🙂
An appropriate assumption (but I’ll refrain from the emoticon).
That us why, Bill, I seldom engage in these.
If you watch these, there is a small group of commenters who have an insatiable desire for unproductive discussions of Calvinism – both pro and con.
Ok….I’ll go first.
If the anti/non cals stop posting provocative OP’s …. I promise to stop arguing against the posts in the comments.
I further will stop posting about Calvinism altogether if the anti/non cals stop posting comments and OPs concerning the issue.
Tarheel,
I used to think the same. But honestly, it is fruitless. I have come to think that if Calvinists simply stop defending themselves incessantly, we will all be better off. Nothing new is ever said in these conversations. The same back and forth, the same misunderstandings, the same strawmen (from both sides). It never ends, it never gets resolved, it never moves forward. Never. I frankly don’t think we are capable of discussing this to any perceivable benefit.
Of course, I tend to agree Bill.
I’ve seen productive POSTS. But I’ve yet to see a productive discussion.
You guys make the mistake of presuming that the universe of all who read these pieces and who might be influenced are the handful of regular commentators.
It is odd that Calvinists are considering leaving the field that for so long was dominated by our Calvinist friends.
Eric, In your earlier response to Nathan Finn, you attempted to remove any suspicion regarding intentions behind the Traditional Statement by asserting that “no attempt has been made at any level (not even at the local church level as far as I know) to adopt the statement formally.” I posed several questions to you in a previous comment under your third guest post, but have not yet received a response. I regret the need to press you on this issue, especially in a public forum. However, I believe that your statement is demonstrably inaccurate. Not only was an effort made… Read more »
Dr. Quarles
Aside from Louisiana College do you know of places where this has been done. I ask because, as concerning as the situation is for Louisiana Baptist, that is a Louisiana issue. I am quite content to let the folks there handle it. I am concern about the broader scope and how it might affect me in Montana.
Blessings my brother
D. L., I do not have direct information about similar efforts at other institutions or agencies, so I must refrain from addressing that. I hope and pray that the terribly unhealthy dynamics that led to the events at Louisiana College are unique to Louisiana. Some of these dynamics are contrary to historic Baptist principles (and I have in mind at the moment issues of polity, not soteriology) and I tend to doubt that the effort could be replicated in other states. However, I am still a bit shocked by the outcome in Louisiana. I did not expect what occurred there… Read more »
Dr. Quarles
Thank you for your response. I know only what other people know about the situation at LU. This is indeed sad and from what little I know should not have happened. I truly grieve for the Professors and families as well as the College because of these events.
Please know, that i will put you and the school on my “Seven day prayer list”. I know you are busy and I want to respect your time, hence you need not respond beyond what you have said. For that response again I say ‘thank You”.
Blessings my brother
Dr. Quarles,
i posted your paper, “What do Southern Baptists Believe about Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility in Salvation” on the SBCOpenForum’
http://sbcopenforum.com/2014/05/03/what-do-southern-baptists-believe-about-divine-sovereignty-and-human-responsibility-in-salvation/
May God continue to use you in North Carolina and wherever else he might send you.
His blessings,
mike
Chuck Quarles,
I’m pretty sure that I went to Mid America Bapt. Seminary with you. Did you attend Mid America in the 1980’s?
David
I would like to respond to Dwight McKissac’s question. The Calvinists with which I am familiar would argue that people are condemned to hell because they will not repent and believe. They would also argue that no one will be saved unless they repent and believe. That is what the Bible says. Scripture also says that our sinful nature is expressed in our non repenting and non believing because that is what we choose. The difference in our views is in understanding why someone chooses against their nature and against the preference of their mind and heart? The Calvinist says… Read more »
Scotty, It is incorrect to say that “the non-calvinist argues that without any help from God different than His help for all people ‘they just do.'” That’s semi-Pelagian and Finn himself has argued that such a charge is not applicable to Traditionalists. Our view is that the Spirit working through the preaching of gospel is absolutely necessary for salvation. The question is whether or not one is making a libertarian response or a compatibilistic response. I am prepared to defend the implications of saying that we have libertarian freedom to respond. I am asking that Calvinists do the same. When… Read more »
Eric, I specifically did not say there was no help given by God, but that it is given only in a general rather than a specific way. In what way, in your view, is “the working of the Spirit through the preaching of the gospel absolutely necessary” in a specific way for one person? Do you believe that God gives spiritual help to one person that He does not give to all? If you don’t, then how have I misrepresented your position? And if you don’t then what explanation would you give for why one repents and believes and another… Read more »
Scotty, We believe that the Holy Spirit is calling and convicting people thru the amount of light that they have(creation, conscience, Gospel). Also, we believe that men really do have to make a choice in salvation….to respond or not respond to the light and conviction of the Holy Spirit. And, it’s a real choice. Whereas, a lot of Calvinists believe that a person is regenerated before they get saved. Thus, they have to be saved in order to get saved. Brother, irresistible grace would do away with whether people really have a choice in salvation, or not. Because, according to… Read more »
Volfan, No greater truths have ever been spoken. I got my laugh for today when you said Calvinist believe that you have to be saved in order to be saved. The whole “choice” matter or lack thereof–iresistable grace and limited atonement are two facets of Calvinism that I find most unbiblical and unpalatable to a Baptist tongue. Question: Where were the Calvinist in the SBC prior to the launching of the CR in ’79. I don’t recall this being an issue back then. This must have been an issue simmering all along, but what factors are now driving it to… Read more »
Dwight,
There were many people in the SBC, who were Calvinists, before the CR. They were evangelistic, and didn’t wear Calvinism on their sleeves. They weren’t out there trying to convert everyone to Calvinism. Really, the group that was trying to convert the SBC was very small. The Founders organization was the only one that I knew of that was aggressively trying to take over the SBC.
David
Okay. I believe people have to repent and believe as surely as do you. I believe that a person must make a conscious choice in that and that God demands such a choice and He does not repent and believe for them. I believe all people have to make a real choice and that they actually do make such a choice. I believe that choice is described in the Bible – “there is none who seeks after God” and “we have turned every one to his own way.” I will ask you, Does the Holy Spirit call and convict people… Read more »
SCotty, Yes, it’s the working of the Holy Spirit on the heart that brings a lost man to repentance and salvation. But, it’s also very true that the person has to make a choice….to respond, or not to respond….to the working of the Spirit. I don’t believe that God irresistibly overwhelms a person to make the choice to be saved, in some arbitrary fashion…..while, some ole boy, who lives next door, is just living in a sinful condition, and never really and truly has any opportunity…not a real chance….of being saved, because God arbitrarily chose to NOT irresistibly call him.… Read more »
Volfan007 Thank you for the statement May 6, @11:46. This is so very true. I was/am surrounded by Calvinists. The people I love most on this earth are Calvinists. I am not. We have always had Cals in the convention. While there has been discussion we were able to work side by side pre-CR. I know the mechanics of why that has changed. However, I do not understand the mind-set that brought about those mechanics. Any help to the question, “why is it seen as necessary to tighten the belief lines on this subject except the same old “they are… Read more »
Scotty,
You asked, “Does the work of the Holy Spirit actually make the difference in a person’s response to the gospel or not?”
Brother that is the yet unanswered question by Tradistic brothers. David did not answer it and neither has anyone else.
I think I know why. For Tradistic brothers the answer has to be the human will is the difference maker. The human will is the final difference maker.
Dr. Eric Hankins, Thanks for another masterful explanation of the issues and defending what Traditionalists (aka non-Calvinists; Moderate Calvinists) believe. Notable quotes by Hankins: “What ultimately defines a New Calvinist is his commitment to theistic determinism. Not just an emphasis on the Bible, but an emphasis on a deterministic reading of the Bible. Not just an emphasis on the gospel, but a deterministic understanding of the gospel. Not just as an emphasis on the glory of God, but a deterministic understanding of the glory of God.” “In the past, most SBs were willing to live with these “adjustments” because Calvinists… Read more »
Yes, it was quite masterful.
Well, at least we can agree the OP was masterful….but mastering of what is where we disagree.
A few thoughts: 1. If the problem is that the New Calvinists are promoting their beliefs more than in the past, is Eric telling them in essence to “believe whatever you want in private, but don’t talk about it?” While he and the traditionalists can and should promote their beliefs? 2. Must all non-traditionalists be calvinists? Is there a place for those who, after examining the 3 primary views on Election (Individual Unconditional Election to Salvation, Election conditioned on foreseen faith, and Corporate Election) believe that Unconditional election to salvation makes the most biblical sense…without knowing how exactly it all… Read more »
Andy, Good questions. 1. I am calling on Calvinists either to offer a coherent explanation of how compatibilism fits with the Southern Baptist emphasis on the belief that anyone can be saved or to stop talking about how compellingly coherent it is (as Piper does above) or to concede that they don’t really believe that anyone can saved. 2. I think there is room for flexibility. I am just trying make clear the implications of one’s affirmations. If you are saying that you want to affirm Unconditional Election in the Calvinist (compatibilistic) sense and “man’s real choice to receive or… Read more »
Eric,
How about answers to your questions in light of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000?
Seems you want answers from your perspective while asking for them from a Calvinist perspective. But maybe I’m wrong. If you could answer the following question, maybe we could better grasp what you are looking for.
Eric, what kind of explanation would you accept as coherent of outside of the Traditionalist position of “how compatibilism fits with the Southern Baptist emphasis on the belief that anyone can be saved?”
One more question, Eric.
Why didn’t you challenge Mohler face-to-face when they were talking about these issues recently at SBTS?
By the time you and Mohler sat and talked theology the Traditional statement had all ready been out for a time. Mohler is one of the most prominent Calvinist voices in the SBC, he was on the Calvinism committee, and a drafter of the current BFM. What a great opportunity to share your concerns with him.
Eric, I have a question re your #1. You say that you are calling on “Calvinists either to offer a coherent explanation of how compatibilism fits with the Southern Baptist emphasis on the belief that anyone can be saved or to stop talking about how compellingly coherent it is (as Piper does above) or to concede that they don’t really believe that anyone can saved.” Webster defines coherent as: “logical and well-organized : easy to understand: able to talk or express yourself in a clear way that can be easily understood” Which part of that definition are you referring to?… Read more »
Also Eric, I’m aware that Piper used the word coherent in the link you provided. He used it in the context of describing all of the doctrines of grace, not with reference to any one part of the doctrines of grace.
Thanks brother.
I was young … Now I am old. I read The Institutes (Vol 1 & 2) translated from German (early sixties). Have read some on John Knox. Not sure how much I understand.
I have grand son, age 2. If he dies … Where does he spend eternity? I had another grand son who died at birth? Same question?
I have never believed in “C”. I believe they are both in the loving arms of the Master.
Troy
Troy, Regretfully some C’s and even some non-C’s believe children are condemned from conception. But many C’s believe, and the BFM affirms that those who die young are not condemned. Al Mohler believes that all those who die young are saved by the grace of God in sort of a special dispensation so that without faith they are covered by the blood of Jesus. My belief is similar in that I believe in an age of accountability where as God does not hold anyone liable for their sins until they are mature enough to to be accountable before the wise… Read more »
Anecdotal demonstration of my last comment: My current church is within the geographic area of SBTS. We have 4 Somewhat Calvinistic pastors (some more than others). We have a wide range of views on all 5 points among our church leadership, deacons, and membership. We have some members, and even one or two deacons who believe one can lose their salvation (one of these also seems to believe in unconditional election…go figure). One of our more vocal non-calvinist members will often joke with the Senior Pastor about calvinism and egg him on…but they are good friends and go on missions… Read more »
Andy, DL and I (maybe you too??) were having a discussion recently on another comment thread about that very thing that these issues should be dealt with at the local church level. It’s there that real friendships relationships and godly mentoring can take place. No matter how much some like to pretend that’s impossible on blogs even if you know the posters real name…. Only when it’s real relationships and not Internet relationships can real and constructive discourse take place. All the solutions being offered by the traditionalist including quotas and litmus tests on the national/state entity level etc. will… Read more »
Tarheel
Amen! Re. quotas etc. you are spot on, not only will they not work, there is no mechanical way to put it into place. Keep in mind I am not a Calvinist, but the Trads are going to have to be more serious than this if we are going to work this out.
On the subject of working it out, I have a deep feeling that this whole situation is going to turn out bad. I am the eternal optimist but just saying…
Andy, That’s the way it used to be in the SBC. But, whenever leaders and popular speakers start making statements to the effect of not being a Calvinist means that you’re not preaching the true Gospel; and, not being a Calvinist or Arminian means that you’re a Semi Pelagian(heretic); and where some New Calvinsts going into some Churches that aren’t Calviinist with the intent of changing them; and some other things taking place; then, it makes for division and strife. I pray that we can all just along with mutual respect and Christian love and forgiveness. I pray that we… Read more »
Which of our SBC leaders has said “if you’re not Calvinist you’re not preaching the true gospel?”
Not being a jerk, but include video or transcript please….because I’d like to address them personally if they are saying such ridiculousness.
I got to say I ask this because I read a lot of our Calvinistic leaders I’ve been to conferences and I’ve never heard or read such statement. If I’ve missed it I’d like to know when that was said and who said it.
Spurgeon, for one, said “Calvinism is the Gospel.” I head it repeated during my time at SBTS…I’ve also seen it on other discussion forums…not necessarily by SBCers, but it is out there nonetheless, and is simply not a helpful thing to say.
Other things I’ve heard “Said at Southern” (did you see what I did there? :-):
-“Paul was a calvinist”
-“Jesus was a calvinist”
-“I just don’t see how any intelligent person could have any other view” (paraphrase).
Andy, Spurgeon was not Southern Baptist. As for the comments made a Southern….Were these phrases uttered by students or by faculty? I as because I see a great difference between the two. My views have evolved (and believe it or not softened) since I was in school. i think that the normal course of the way it works…Typically, I think people do not hold to the “isms” later in ministry as firmly and harshly as they did when they were 20… I agree that in as much as it is said it is not helpful (I will add that Volfan… Read more »
I know Spurgeon was not SBC, the point is many SBCers have repeated his folly.
Statements were a mix of students and guest speakers (a semi-well-known speaker, I might add).
Also, if it is not SBCers (well, except students) saying these things then why all the angst toward SBC Calvinists? OK, Volfan is not offering proof to the accusation he levied….but you are mentioning some things…so I ask this; Are we wedded to whatever stupid thing Mark Driscoll might say or do next? Are we so mindless that we eat whatever Piper serves us without thought?? Do we not think for ourselves? Is there a thought that we embrace everything Keller, Sproul or Carson might say? For people who argue against people being “puppets” or “robots” the Traditionalists seem to… Read more »
To tarheel’s questions: No, no, yes, & yes I’m sure there are some who think that.
Curious…If, after a frank discussion of his views of Election, eschatology, social engagement, etc… a Calvinistic pastor honestly told a prospective search committee, “While I hold these particular views, and of course I believe them to be correct and hope some others will see what I see, these are not hills for me to die on, or views the entire church has to adopt or agree with.” …Would such a man still be accusable of “trying to change the church?” I only ask this because every prospective pastor has areas in which he probably disagrees with the church’s former teaching,… Read more »
agreed…. So long as it is not the primary or central focus – it is a given. It is all but certain there will be theological and pragmatic differences with a new pastors and their congregations. Several years agon, I think it has somewhat died down now, I rememeber reading and hearing about pastors “tearing up churches over music” because he and others in the church favored a style that others did not like….or “tearing up churches over ___________” The idea of tearing up churches is very subjective and is often in the “eye” of the teller of the break… Read more »
Volfan007
I truly share that prayer. God, grant that it may be so.
So out of question, how many of your churches, associations, and/or state conventions have had real dialogue about this? It should be worked out on a local level, but is that being tried?
My association has not, nor has my state, to my knowledge. They acknowledged the statement of understanding at the last convention, but nothing beyond a word in the state paper about it.
Anyone have experience with this being worked out somewhere besides blogs?
Luke The reason many associations and i assume states, tho I have no direct knowledge, have not dealt with this is because it is not a real problem for them. In my association (I am the DOM) we have both Cals and Trads, but there is no dissent over the issue. It is my sincere belief that there are some aggressive vocal Cals and some aggressive vocal Trads who talk much about it. However most pastors and churches want to accept the differences and work together. The real issue seems to be at the appointment level i.e. who will get… Read more »
David, all you did was assert what I said that I believed as if it was something in opposition. You then inserted a lot of other ideas that you believe suggest a rebuttal. You believe in the working of the Holy Spirit — what is it? What does that working actually work to accomplish? Inferences drawn and supposed implications thrown out again and nothing actually responded to. More comments from othes with “he said/he said” and “I am offended.” None of that means anything at all. I am done with this, too many comments to keep up with and I… Read more »
Hey, I understand we all have different opinions, but let’s get along and love one another. We can argue over who is right and who is wrong, but the bottom line still remains the same, God’s grace, will be only found through Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 2:8-9). Arguments and/or discussions like these, waist the time of a Christian, in my view. We fight over what, Jesus Christ being who He said He was? If lost people looked over these discussions, do you think they want to be a Christian? (Read over the discussions) In all of this, one question still remains… Read more »
“If you need something to talk about, try figuring out what we need to do to strengthen our Cooperative Program.”
We tried that one already…I think we decided it can’t be strengthened. 🙂
I went back and read and took notes on Piper’s The Justification of God, 2nd end, that is, with references to verses 9:22, 23. It was interesting to recall my assessment from having read his work several years ago. His problem is with the voice. The vessels prepared for honor is set forth in the active voice in the Greek, while the vessels unto dishonor are “fitted” by the use of the passive voice. The problem that seems to have bothered Piper, though he seems to give short-shrift to it, is the fact that the middle and the passive voices… Read more »
note predestination cannot be made logically consistent as Clark and Calvin argued.
These discussions reach a point pretty quick where any possible value is outweighed by the circles the discussion goes in.
Thank you, Dr. Hankins, for your series of posts. They have certainly been interesting and discussion-provoking. But, it’s probably time to move on for now.