First Baptist Church, Oxford, Miss.
In the weeks preceding this year’s John 3.16 Conference (see ad to right), SBCToday will post interviews with each person scheduled to speak at the Conference.
The following interview is with Dr. Eric Hankins, pastor of First Baptist Church, Oxford, Miss., who is the author of “A Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation” (see May 30 post) and the Resolution on the Sinner’s Prayer, a heavily edited version of which passed at the SBC in New Orleans last year.
Ed.’s note: Readers may be interested to know that Dr. Hankins’ Sinner’s Prayer resolution was offered for consideration in five state Baptist conventions last fall, and it passed overwhelmingly. The state Baptist conventions of Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Louisiana passed the resolution verbatim. The SBCT (Texas) passed an edited version as part of a resolution on evangelism.
Q: How has the invitation to speak at the conference impacted you?
A: It has certainly challenged me to work toward a very clear articulation of what I believe about soteriology vis-à-vis New Calvinism. Amorphous generalities about topics like election, the effects of the Fall, and the extent of the atonement will no longer suffice. We must be able to speak with specificity about what we believe. I am quite honored to be speaking alongside some very sharp and passionate men who want to see the gospel clearly and powerfully proclaimed.
Q: How important is this Conference in light of the current climate within the SBC, and what result(s) do you hope to see from the Conference?
A: I think the conference is tremendously important. New Calvinists have communicated their vision for soteriology voluminously. No stone has been left unturned. They have several conferences and organizations for fellowship, interaction, and transmission of their views that are very effective. Traditionalists don’t have anything like that organization and, therefore, the impression is that there aren’t any other real players in this debate. For too long we have been in a defensive posture, talking about what we don’t believe but failing to offer any constructive statement of what we do believe. This conference hopefully will continue the process of crafting a fully orbed soteriology that takes seriously God’s love for every person expressed through His desire to save every person, convictions that New Calvinists do not share. I believe these are core principles of Southern Baptist passion for missions and evangelism that must be maintained.
Q: How important is your assigned topic — “Who Are The Elect?” — to the total content of the Conference?
A: Pretty important. If John 3:16 means what I think it means, then election cannot mean what New Calvinists think it means. If God loves the world, then He cannot have pretemporally chosen some and not others salvation, unless “love” has lost all its normal meaning. That’s why New Calvinists twist themselves into pretzels over the word “world” and “whosoever.” Their view of election has no room for a felicitous reading of John 3:16.
Q: Regarding your assigned topic, what do you hope your presentation will accomplish?
A: New Calvinists use the issue of election as much as anything to effectively neutralize any opposition. I think Southern Baptists have been afraid of the term because we are scared it really might mean what New Calvinists say it means. I will be challenging us to embrace the term fully and proudly. It is a powerful expression of God’s true desire to save all while taking seriously God’s creation of a world that includes real freedom. Unfortunately, New Calvinists have mangled the meaning so significantly that they actually have it running at cross-purposes with its meaning in Scripture. They import a foreign philosophical determinism into every election text, which results in the readings they want, not the author’s intent. I’ll be trying to bring a corrective to that.
Q: How important is your assigned topic within the broader SBC conversation regarding Calvinism?
A: I think election as much as anything will test New Calvinism’s commitment to unity in the SBC. We are in sharp and irreconcilable disagreement over what election means. There is no mediating position. Either everyone is savable or only some are savable. Someone is right and someone is wrong. In the past, we have granted one another liberty in this secondary matter; but recently, New Calvinists have taken to calling anyone who disagrees with them on these matters “heretics” and “deficient.” We are accused of departing from our foundations, watering down the gospel, and rejecting the clear teachings of Scripture. Also, because of their rigidly deterministic view of election, New Calvinists look down their noses at altar calls, promiscuous offers of the gospel, and the sinner’s prayer. Since real freedom doesn’t exist, appealing passionately to the lost as though their response matters smacks of disingenuity. So fearful are many that a non-elect person will be falsely converted and so convinced are many that the elect will be saved with or without our preaching that they are spending more time fussing about technique than engaging the lost with the gospel. I believe that a correct view of election includes a robust view of freedom and is actually a basis for strong appeals for the lost to respond in faith to the gospel.
I would love to go to this year’s John 3:16 Conference! But I cannot. I do agree with Dr. Hankins. Great article!
God bless,
John G.
Notice to ALL commentors:
This will not be tolerated regardless from whom it comes:
“As long as Hankins is willing to misrepresent his brothers in Christ to prove his point, unity will be an impossibility in the SBC, at least between Hankins and Calvinists.”
The one who made this comment has earned moderation status for the time being.
If we cannot deal substantively with the issues at hand and refrain from attacking the motives of the author, then this editor/moderator would prefer that you not comment here at all.
Please stay on topic and do not impugn the motives of your siblings in Christ.
This applies to ALL of US. — Norm
That is an odd comment considering Dr. Hankins statements in the interview. Do Calvinists disagree with us on election? Yes. Do Calvinists lock words like election (and sovereignty for that matter) into a determinist straight-jacket? Yes. Do Calvinists believe that not all men are savable? Yes. Are Calvinists determinists? Yes. Does it appear to others that Calvinists twist themselves into pretzels over certain passages and words? Yes. Do Calvinists call others heretics? Yes, some do indeed. Do Calvinists look down on alter calls, sinner’s prayer, etc.? Yes, some do,
I don’t see how that comment towards Dr. Hankins is warranted. Unless Calvinists have changed their views, everything above is not a misrepresentation of them at all.
“Do Calvinists believe that not all men are savable? Yes.”
This is not accurate. Calvinists believe that all people are savable. However, they also believe that it is God who saves whom He will and that God has made a decision not to save all people (and made this decision before He created the world).
Basically, there are two conflicting positions regarding salvation. They are that (1) all people are savable and will be saved (Universalism) and (2) all people are savable but all will not be saved (Calvinism, Arminianism, etc.). The discussion within the “all will not be saved” group is the manner in which those to be saved are identified and how they come (or are brought) to salvation.
Rhutchin: You have left out a third position, the Baptist one. Some falsely believe that Trads must be universalists if they believe what the Holy Spirit of God inspired in 1 John 2.2, and that is that Jesus is the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. Trads believe that the propitiation must be appropriated by a response to the Gospel. This position, of course, opens the ‘God’s sovereignty / Man’s responsibility’ discussion. And off we go … again … as it has been for the last several hundred years to the universal satisfaction of no one. — Norm
Here’s what both Cals and Trads agree upon regarding the extent of the atonement:
1. Jesus died sufficiently for the sins of everyone. He suffered the wrath of God for every sin and sinner.
2. The offer of the atonement is to be extended to every person thus ruling out hyper-Calvinism.
3. The only people who actually receive the atonement are those who respond to the gospel in repentance and faith thus ruling out universalism.
At this point comes the disagreement: what was the purpose of the atonement? Trads and 4 point Cals would say that it was to make atonement possible for everyone. 5 point Cals take it a step further to say that the atonement was ALSO intended to definitely save some. This is why they might prefer the term “definite atonement.”
Cody,
I can’t speak for all Calvinists. But for me I’ll say,
You: “1. Jesus died sufficiently for the sins of everyone.”
Me: Agree.
You: “He suffered the wrath of God for every sin and sinner.”
Me: Disagree.
Your point #2, I agree.
Your point #3, I disagree. We don’t get to “receive the atonement.” The atonement actually accomplished what was intended.
Blessings brother.
Les. Is your point 1 an affirmation of 1 John 2.2? If so, it does not square with your point 2. Of course, I expect to get a reformed answer from a Presby such as yourself, which may mean your efforts here on this Baptist blog are futile — Norm
Norm,
My point 1 is that the cross work of Jesus is infinitely valuable. It could save all if that was the intent. As to 1 John 2.2, we did the “world” thing last week.
Point 2. The offer to save is real. If anyone will repent and believe they will be saved.
I don’t know about futile. Never know. You all might change my mind. I should always be ready to be corrected.
How can you state that we may change your mind when you have previously stated you have no intent of coming “back into the fold”? — Norm
Les,
If stated this way: “He suffered the wrath of God for every sin and sinner”
Well, I am a Tradationalist and can disagree this sentence same as you. The atonement isn’t primarily a numerically quantitative thing, and only secondarily so when pressed in application.
If it is stated this way:
“Christ suffered the wrath of God for sin and sinners.” (Rom. 5:8, 8:3; 2 Cor. 5:21)
I can agree. Certainly you can agree with it stated this way as well, right?
I can also agree with your statements:
“We don’t get to “receive the atonement.””
Amen. We receive Christ. Receiving Christ means we receive the benefits of the atonement.
Do you agree?
“The atonement actually accomplished what was intended.”
Amen, I agree with this as well.
So where is the difference between us?
See? There is all sorts of fun to be had with how we word things.
Jonathan,
Amen. It seems we do have some common ground. Praise God as He brings us all closer together.
Norm,
“How can you state that we may change your mind when you have previously stated you have no intent of coming “back into the fold”?”
Because I really have no intent. But I’ve obviously changed my mind before. I was once a post credo only immersionist. Now I am a post credo immersionist/affusionist AND a paedo affusionist. I didn’t set out with an intent to become that.
I once was a dispy premill. Now I’m a post mill guy. We should all be willing to change if we can be convinced that our position might not be the correct or only one.
Inasmuch as Rick Patrick noted that, since Calvin was instrumental in the murder of Servetus, and thus it was reasonable to even more carefully scrutinize Calvin’s other convictions — well, I guess that since you have no issues with the mode (immersion, affussion) or candidate (paedo) of baptism, then I am skeptical of other doctrinal matters upon which you comment. You are a Presby by conviction, and I find it odd, to say the least, that as a baby-baptizing Presby you continue to chime in on a blog for SBs. — Norm
Les,
Of course we have common ground. We are Christians. Christians by and large can affirm general Christian statements.
The issues of uncommon ground will always be in the details, not the generalities. :)
I think the NT stresses togetherness more than agreement on every point of non-essential doctrine.
This is much to the chagrin of people like John MacArthur, who thinks that you, as a Calvinist, in order to be self-respecting, ought to be a pre-trib dispensationalist and that all these things (i.e. agreement with John MacArthur on every point of doctrine) are “essentials” to Christianity.
The doctrine of Church (global) unity is, whether we like it or not, is one of the most enumerated points in the NT.
God bless,
Johnathan Pritchett
Jonathan,
“Of course we have common ground. We are Christians. Christians by and large can affirm general Christian statements.”
Amen. As you know, from the comment streams very much common ground seems scant.
I like KM. I cut my Christian teeth on his cassette tapes (yes, I’m that old) back in the early 1980s. Later I went to I think 7 Shepherd’s conferences. I was greatly blessed. I even went after I defected to the PCA.
And yes, I know he is dogged on agreement with his views, though I am long time friends with one of his former associates (yes, a Baptist) who does not agree in totatality with JM. And JM does not make fellowship and cooperation with him dependent on total agreement.
I have great respect for him though I differ with him on several doctrines.
We even had him preach at our PCA church a few years ago and would again.
Blessings brother.
Jonathan,
I even said yesterday at 2:45pm in reply to Ben,
““agreeing that nobody is saved unless they hear the gospel, that all who want to be saved will saved, and that the proof of our election is faith in Christ but disagreeing over how one becomes elect”
This is actually a great way to say it. I would think all could rally around that. The rest is “in-house” differences.
I’ve said before that at the end of the day, the Reformed and Traditionalists (the vast majority in both groups) present the gospel the same way. Take EE for example. Is there anyone in either group that couldn’t use the EE gospel presentation? I don’t think so.
Both groups call people in one on one and in large group settings to repent and believe in Jesus. Right?”
There really is much common ground on the gospel.
les
My point about the JM example is that perception of what is essential counts.
Is church unity important, and what should unity look like? These are important questions.
What Traditionalists don’t want in the SBC is a “JM and your church” kind of unity.
I.e. You aren’t self-respecting Calvinsts, but I’ll preach in your church anyway, you you’ll like it because I am John MacArthur.
Calvinists can not toss about the David Platt rhetoric about other SBC’ers, and then expect us to be happy when he (or they) graces us with his presence at events we pay for when that demeanor is not appreciated.
That’s not real unity. So when you say “Praise God as He brings us all closer together” I say amen.
This togetherness needs to be Biblical though. The problem has been that the perception among us Traditionalists is that the rhetoric from the “New Calvinists” in the SBC has a vision of togetherness being either 1) we all become Calvinists, or 2) We’ll disparage you and cooperate with you anyway at the same time if it suits us.
That won’t suffice. More to the point, it won’t, in the Biblical sense, suffice.
Fellas, let me clarify a few of my statements. Because I wrote this on my iPhone waiting for Lifeway to open, I didn’t phrase point 3 as I usually do. What it should say is: the only people who enjoy the benefits of the atonement are those who respond to the gospel in repentance and faith.
Les, in point one my second statement is a restatement of my first. I think they mean the same thing. Let me also flesh out what I mean in point one. What I mean is that the death of Jesus, because He is God, is sufficient to pay for every sin anyone ever commits if He so pleases. Because Jesus is infinite, He suffered for an infinite amount of wrath. I think this is bound up in His deity. In an impossible hypothetical, if God forgot to account for a sinner who wanted to be saved, Jesus wouldn’t have to go back to the cross to pay for it.
I’ll also restate my belief of what the actual point of difference is which is the purpose of the atonement. Did God intend for the cross to make salvation possible for everyone or did He also in addition intend to definitely save some?
Thanks Cody. Blessings.
Norm,
“I find it odd, to say the least, that as a baby-baptizing Presby you continue to chime in on a blog for SBs.”
I get that. But as I’ve said before, I do have an interest in the happenings of SB. For one, you all are brothers and I have great love in my heart for you all. My greatest mentor and friend in ministry to this day is a SB pastor. I have instructions for him to preach at my funeral.
Second, as I have said, I partner with SB churches in mission work.
Third, I have not said before, but My mom, mom-in-law brothers-in-laws and their families are all SB. I always worship with them when visiting them in Alabama.
So, odd? maybe. But not for me brother. And contrary to what some here think, and maybe contrary to some of my past comments, I am trying always to be graceful and kind when commenting. I have no agenda to try to turn any SB towards the paedo view and don’t bring it up.
Just want to participate towards peace and resolution in a denomination I love and in which have wonderful family, friends and partners
Fair enough, Les. However, your stated motives for commenting here does nothing to allay my concerns given your inclusivistic views/pactice on baptism. As such, the rest of your doctrinal comments/statements deserve increased scrutiny. — Norm
Norm,
“As such, the rest of your doctrinal comments/statements deserve increased scrutiny.”
And I can’t say that I blame you. So scrutinize away. We ought all should be able to have our views scrutinized and be able to defend the. But again, regarding the ordinances, I am not here to discuss them nor to prosletize regarding them.
Les
“We ought all should be able to have our views scrutinized…”
“We” being all SBs, or “we” being all Presbys. That’s where it makes no sense to me for you to be commenting here. We are not Presbys, and you are not SB. You are not here to discuss the ordinances, eh? Well, recently you noted that you would be willing to discuss paedo-batism were the blog’s topic on baptism. How about you write a potential blog post for us in defense of baptizing babies? I will give it strong consideration for posting here – unedited! — Norm
Norm,
““We” being all SBs, or “we” being all Presbys.”
“We” being all Christians. Right?
Yes, I said I am willing to discuss it if it’s brought up and you approve of the discussion. But I do not come here to bring it up of try to pursuade anyone to my view.
As to writing a post, perhaps. I’ll think on that. Though there has been much already written on that by peple much more capable than I. But I’ll think on it.
Last though, I have no interest in trying to pursuade anyone here to my expanded view on baptism. But I do care deeply for my SB brothers and hope to see greater unity on the gospel.
Just today on that other blog, a SB non-Calvinists reiterated his view that Calvinists preach another gospel. Those are “accursed” words. Neither group should say such a thing. And I’m aware that some Cs have said or intimated such. That should not be brothers.
Well, Les. I didn’t ask you to persuade anyone toward paedobaptism, per se, but only to defend it thru a blog post from your hand for all to see here. A week or two ago you said you were here for iron to sharpen iron. It seems inconsistent for you to be so willing to offer reformed opinions that apparently are meant to persuade (iron sharpening iron), but are unwilling to at least post your defense of paedobaptism. You are selective on what doctrines warrant your comment. And as far as trying to bring unity among SBCers, how can a Presby hope to do that? Why not visit PCUSA blogs and work on that unity thing?
“Expanded view on baptism” sounds so progressive. I say the NT is narrowly definitive on the matter and precludes infants. — Norm
“Calvinism is repulsive to many people who claim to be Christians. But as Charles Spurgeon said, Calvinism is nothing other than biblical Christianity. Thus if you do not affirm Calvinism, you do not affirm biblical Christianity. If you call yourself a Christian, then you are obligated to affirm and promote Calvinism, and to denounce and refute Arminianism.”- Vincent Cheung
Gee, what does that say about folks like me who denounce and refute both calvinism and its off-spring arminianism?
Norm,
“It seems inconsistent for you to be so willing to offer reformed opinions that apparently are meant to persuade (iron sharpening iron), but are unwilling to at least post your defense of paedobaptism.”
Well, I’ve never been credited with perfect consistency. But I didn’t say I was unwilling. I said I would think about it.
“You are selective on what doctrines warrant your comment.”
Yes, I cannot nor do I want to comment on everything.
“And as far as trying to bring unity among SBCers, how can a Presby hope to do that?”
I don’t know. Stranger things have happened.
“Why not visit PCUSA blogs and work on that unity thing?”
They’re boring and generally a lost cause. That’s why the PCA came out from among them.
“Expanded view on baptism” sounds so progressive.”
That doesnt surprise me. Sometimes I’m a progressive sort of guy. I know it’s hard for you guys to wrap your brain around it. I understand that.
Les
Thx for almost answering my questions and concerns, Les.
We have no difficulty wrapping our brains around why you are here, and also why you don’t want to talk about paedobaptism.
How long will you ‘think about’ writing a defense of paedobaptism for us to see? So that we don’t forget the offer, then, whenever you comment here, I plan to ask you about it.
BTW: If progressive means leaving the SBC and becoming a baby baptizing Presby, then you can have that brand of progressivism. — Norm
Norm,
“Thx for almost answering my questions and concerns, Les.”
What did I not answer? I admit I could have missed something.
“We have no difficulty wrapping our brains around why you are here, and also why you don’t want to talk about paedobaptism.”
Norm, I’m beginning to think you don’t believe what I’m telling you. That maybe you think I have some ulterior motive I’m hiding from you. Is that the case?
And why exactly do I not want to talk about paedobaptism other than what I’ve said?
“How long will you ‘think about’ writing a defense of paedobaptism for us to see? So that we don’t forget the offer, then, whenever you comment here, I plan to ask you about it.”
I don’t know. But it will not bother me for you to keep asking everytime I comment if that’s what you want to do.
“BTW: If progressive means leaving the SBC and becoming a baby baptizing Presby, then you can have that brand of progressivism.”
I would expect nothing less of you brother.
Thanks brother.
Norm,
You said, “We have no difficulty wrapping our brains around why you are here…”
I get the impression you don’t really want me commenting here.
Brother, if that’s the case, just say so. This is your blog. If you tell/ask me not to comment here anymore, I’ll stop.
Thanks brother.
Les
“Some falsely believe that Trads must be universalists if they believe what the Holy Spirit of God inspired in 1 John 2.2, and that is that Jesus is the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. Trads believe that the propitiation must be appropriated by a response to the Gospel. This position, of course, opens the ‘God’s sovereignty / Man’s responsibility’ discussion.”
“World” here consists of depraved people (despite Pink’s issues which I still don’t understand). Christ is the propitiation for sin, thus all the sins of the world (all depraved people). That does not tell us who actually gets their sins propitiated. Even Calvinists believe that the propitiation must be appropriated by a response to the Gospel. The problem concerns those actions necessary to enable a response. Is the mere preaching of the gospel sufficient to gain a response or are people so depraved that they cannot response to the gospel without God’s appropriation of grace (as Calvinists/Arminians say)?
World, here does NOT mean the elect only, as some say. Been there. Established that. T-shirt was overpriced.
And, one cannot remove the word “whole” from “world.” That Greek word for whole means that nothing was missed. It’s an all-inclusive term.
I’m not interested in the monergism v. synergism discussion, here. I am, of course, the latter.
“World, here does NOT mean the elect only, …”
Agreed. World consists of reprobates until God separates out the elect regardless what method He uses.
Well, “in theory”, you are only half-right. Calvinists will affirm any man could be saved by the cross, but the distinction is without much difference in the sense that you want to misread my statement. I was not speaking in that sense.
According to Calvinism, if God in eternity did not choose to apply the benefit of the cross to a particular person, then that particular person IS NOT saved by the cross. There are lots and lots of these particular persons in the world, and as such, they are NOT savable since God has not chosen for the benefits of the cross to be applied to them. This is the necessary consequence of the Calvinist view. As such, in this sense:
“Do Calvinists believe that not all men are savable? Yes.”
As a Calvinist, rhutchin, you do not believe all men are savable because you do not believe all men were individually chosen to receive the benefits of the cross.
Traditionalists also believe God saves and does not save whom He will. The people He wills to save are those who respond to grace with faith and to not save all people, namely, those who reject the Gospel (and made this decision before He created the world).
“As a Calvinist, rhutchin, you do not believe all men are savable because you do not believe all men were individually chosen to receive the benefits of the cross.”
As a Calvinist, I say that the cross, by itself, saves no one else all would be saved. Even you require a response by a person in reaction to the cross before he/she is saved. The cross allows God to save whom He will by whatever method He chooses. All men are savable because the propitiation for their sins is available to all (depraved people always reject the propitiation per Calvinist/Arminian theology necessitating God’s enabling by grace). So, the discussion is the about the manner in which that propitiation made available by the cross is appropriated by individuals in order to gain salvation.
You are simply restating a sense that is out of sync with my meaning.
In the sense I stated it, Calvinists, including you, do not believe all men are savable.
Other discussions are not relevant then, since they too would also be out of sync with the sense in which I made the statement.
Now, if you wish to discuss some other sense in which all men are savable, that is fine, but it does nothing to overturn the earlier comments in the sense they were given.
Find me one Southern Baptist so-called New Calvinist who describes his beliefs the way that Eric Hankins has described them in this interview. Surely, there’s numerous written statements out there from Southern Baptists describing their affirmation of Hankins’s definition of “New Calvinism”?
Sure, David Platt. … he fits most of that.
So David Platt has called people who disagree with him as heretics? And Platt believes you don’t need to preach the Gospel in order for the elect to be saved? And Platt doesn’t believe in missions or evangelism?
I said “most of that” and did not say “all of that .” This in response to Jared mostly pertaining to the theological affirmations Calvinists hold, that Dr. Hankins outlined, that I reiterated right above Jared’s post.
Next time read more carefully my words without making assumptions about what the word “most” consists entails. …
Okay then…
Johnathan,
I’m sorry I did not fully grasp your statement. It was my fault.
So we are together and I understand you, on these three points that I brought up, you don’t think David Platt represents what Dr. Hankins is saying.
The reason why this is important, is because these three thoughts (aggressively labeling others as heretics, not believing in preaching in order for the elect to be saved, and not believing in missions) are three commonly repeated inferences from Calvinist beliefs.
This is what I am responding to. I do not find these labels to be consistent with anyone within the SBC who are Calvinists.
(I may be right. I may be wrong. If I were wrong, I would want to be shown specific individuals teaching these things. I have asked many times and not been shown one. If right, that there are no SBC Calvinists teaching or believing such things, would it not be right of me to object to these things continuing to be said? SBC Calvinists absolutely reject these three things. Its frustrated to continue to be labeled by the things rejected.)
Well, he doesn’t meet two out of three.
As for calling folks heretics, well, I guess it depends on what constitutes calling people heretics.
As I see it, he fits that given his Verge rant as I explained below.
And Platt believes you don’t need to preach the Gospel in order for the elect to be saved? And Platt doesn’t believe in missions or evangelism”
Hankins neither said nor even implied any of this.
Nor did I for that matter.
As for him calling people heretics…well…
Should be good.
I do hope that Traditionalists will work to have more conferences, publications, and so forth scattered around to help solve these defensive postures and organizational problems. And, contrary to the opinion of some of the Traditionalists I have talked to over the past few months regarding these things, they are problems. Just saying “we have the SBC” is not enough, because no, we don’t have the SBC…especially in regards to SBC publication output, speaker line-ups at SBC events, key leadership positions, etc. that prompted this movement in the first place.
Eric’s concise statement is an absolute masterpiece:
“If God loves the world, then He cannot have pretemporally chosen some and not others for salvation, unless ‘love’ has lost all its normal meaning.”
Eric keeps the focus on doctrine and not personalities. There is no room in this debate for character assassinations. It’s really quite simple:
The Calvinist view of God’s election conflicts with the Traditionalist view of God’s love.
My former pastor, a Calvinist, would gently nudge me about my ‘non-Calvinistic’ stance. He once told me that my problem was that I was looking at soteriological matters from the perspective of God’s love and that I should consider such matters through the lens of God’s glory. I am not sure it is appropriate to rank God’s attributes, and I am certain that his love and glory are not mutually exclusive. The Bible is replete with assertions of our glorious God, but is also states: “God is love.” — Norm
“I am not sure it is appropriate to rank God’s attributes, and I am certain that his love and glory are not mutually exclusive. ”
Thanks Norm. This is exactly my conclusion.
Your last statement may actually address the core theological issue of this debate. Traditionalists find the Calvinistic theology of love as unloving or unfair. Calvinists find the Traditionalistic theology of love incomplete, especially when considering the New Testament in light of the Old.
“If God loves the world, then He cannot have pretemporally chosen some and not others for salvation, unless ‘love’ has lost all its normal meaning.”
The Universalists say something like this (or wish they did) in arguing that “love” means that God will save all people. The problem with God “choosing” those who are saved gets into issues of omniscience (sorry but it is part of the equation), depravity, and election (not to mention the role of grace).
To get to the conclusion above can be logically challenging.
Actually, here rhutchin, I can find some agreement with what you are saying, but I think this is an effect of the nature of an interview discourse.
The language is slippery. But that is the case for everyone.
See, I can say, “God loves everyone without exception”, and also say “not everyone will be saved”, and even say “God has indeed pretemporally chosen to save ‘some’ and not others for salvation”, and go even further in saying that who gets saved gets into issues of omniscience, depravity, and election. Dr. Hankins can as well, same as you can say those things.
Words can be slippery that way, and it all depends on what we mean when given the chance to hash it all out.
However, Dr. Hankins is giving an interview, not a theological discourse, so we will have to wait and see how he fleshes these things out in full detail, but we have a fairly good idea how already.
In any case, you know his theology, so you know that he is no universalist, and you have a general idea of how he believes things work.
In any case, “To get to the conclusion above can be logically challenging” is not at all the case, especially considering what we know he generally meant.
Perhaps there’s not room in the SBC for Anti-Calvinists, Anti-Traditionalists, and the vast majority in the middle like me who simply desire to live and let live while banding together for the cooperative efforts of the SBC.
Ben: I share your sentiments regarding banding together for cooperative SBC efforts, but I also agree with Amos, the prophet who noted that two cannot walk together in disagreement. Our next posted interview will speak to this aspect of the matter. Thx, — Norm
Norm,
How are two SBC’ers–agreeing that nobody is saved unless they hear the gospel, that all who want to be saved will saved, and that the proof of our election is faith in Christ but disagreeing over how one becomes elect–precluded from walking together in the cooperative efforts of missions and education?
Perhaps that does describe the two of us. Has a bridge been built? If so, may our tribes increase. I appreciate you, Ben, even though we’ve not agreed on all matters. Blessings, Norm.
Ben,
“agreeing that nobody is saved unless they hear the gospel, that all who want to be saved will saved, and that the proof of our election is faith in Christ but disagreeing over how one becomes elect”
This is actually a great way to say it. I would think all could rally around that. The rest is “in-house” differences.
I’ve said before that at the end of the day, the Reformed and Traditionalists (the vast majority in both groups) present the gospel the same way. Take EE for example. Is there anyone in either group that couldn’t use the EE gospel presentation? I don’t think so.
Both groups call people in one on one and in large group settings to repent and believe in Jesus. Right?
Thanks Ben.
Even Presbyterians could rally with SBCers on that matter, Les? — Norm
Norm, I think so…with this caveat: “nobody is saved unless they hear the gospel.”
I, along with probably many SBCers note some exceptions such as infants and the severely mentally challenged.
Les: Your earlier agreed with and liked Ben’s comment, which included cooperative, SBC efforts. Surely you are not considering coming back into the fold? — Norm
Well, I still work with and partner with SB churches and (to the chagrin of many) I’m still ordaned SB.
But I have no plans to comeback into the “fold” so to speak as a pastor or staff…at this time.
I actually said above about Ben’s comments:
“This is actually a great way to say it. I would think ALL could rally around that. The rest is “in-house” differences.” (all caps added to “all”)
I was referrng to “all” of you who are active in SB churches.
I was referring to this comment by you:
“Ben, Your comments @1:23pm: Like and agree.”
Norm,
“I was referring to this comment by you:
“Ben, Your comments @1:23pm: Like and agree.””
Oh I see. Well, that was a “like” as on FB and a general agrement. But I’m also perfectly willing to cooperate with SBers in missions if they will coperate with my organization. And in fact several have.
I have a Haiti mission trip March 27 with one SB church and a non-denominational church. A different SB curch in May, and so on.
And do you think that SBs will object if you want to baptize an infant child of a couple who became Christians as a result of the missions effort?
And Norm,
Thanks for allowing me to be here and your patience with me.
Les
“And do you think that SBs will object if you want to baptize an infant child of a couple who became Christians as a result of the missions effort?”
They would and they should object. But our church partner in Haiti is a Baptist church. I’ve even been promised that on one of my trips I’ll be allowed to baptize some of his candidates…in the Caribbean…by immersion. I can hardly wait!
So the SB partners we have should never face the infant thing in Haiti with us. The Baptist church partner there oversees and conducts the baptisms.
We simply help Baptist churches in Haiti care for orphaned and abandoned children.
I’m really not as bad (being a RE in a Presby church) as some here might think.
I don’t think you’re ‘bad,’ Les. But about baptizing infants? Hmmm…
Norm,
“I suspect my patience will have to be that of Job as I await your answer to my question.”
Did I miss one? I thought I had responded to your questions.
Les
Yes. As you might expect, this post today has kept me busy. I posted that comment and then deleted it when I saw your answer.
Typing as fast as I can.
Here is a portion of a comment that has been deleted, and whose author is now in moderation.
Dial it back, brothers! — Norm
“…You’ve certainly shown yourself to be anything but a model of charity, humility and wisdom.”
Ben Simpson is my kind of Baptist.
Ben,
Your comments @1:23pm:
Like and agree.
“so he doesn’t have to come right out and say it (though one can tell he wants to)”
“Please stay on topic and do not impugn the motives of your siblings in Christ. This applies to ALL of US”
Can’t say I’m surprised, but in less than an hour, you’ve shown that no, it clearly doesn’t apply to ALL of US.
Point taken. Comment will be edited. — Norm
P.S. I was at lunch when that comment posted.
Glad it was quoted before deleted. It wasn’t impugning a motive. It was observation. He’s come dangerously close to saying it, and his followers have said it.
I stand by that comment.
Brother Simpsen, I do agree with your simply desiring to live & let live while banding together for the cooperative efforts of the SBC. I have been an SBC member for 30 years. Leave the Calvinism & Traditionalism arguments out of the picture! YES! But when one group pushes, argues every time they blog, & trys to push or force their agenda on others NOT willing to agree with them, those efforts should be countered. Compliance with teachings that a person feels are wrong for the sake of unity is wrong. I do NOT enjoy having to encounter argumentive individuals on any blog. The purpose of the SBC is something that I believe in strongly. Great! But to allow the SBC to become a springboard for doctrines that I deem wrong is NOT right.
There is room for all believers in the SBC! Just do not let one group with different agendas to push their theology on others! Whether Calvinist or Traditionalist, let all of us work together for the goals of the SBC, not the agendas or goals of just a select group who want to rule!
God bless,
John G.
Dr. Hankins,
“Who are ten Southern Baptist pastors and seminary professors who represent this “New Calvinist” perspective?”
I would like to know so that we could have a way of investigating their teaching to see whether they are calling those who disagree with them ‘heretics’ and whether they are teaching that the elect can be saved without preaching.
Seriously, you’ve used this term for quite some time, yet to my knowledge you have not presented a tangible list of individual pastors and professors whom you have in mind when you use this term. Please inform us who you are referring to?
This would be very helpful to also distinguish between those who are “New Calvinists” and those who are Calvinists, but you do not consider to be this ‘New’ version.
I do not find myself to fit in your description of the “New Calvinists” so I would be absolutely willing to join the crusade against them. I would support the firing of any seminary professor teaching that the elect will be saved without preaching.
I would love for you to make such a list available for us all to investigate their teachings. …
Grace and peace,
John Michael LaRue
My problem with this post is not that Hankins continues to come out against Calvinism. I don’t expect everyone to be a Calvinist and no one should be surprised that non-Calvinists have, and argue for, doctrines that don’t align with Calvinism.
The trouble is that the neo-Traditionalists keep complaining that their doctrines stand on their own and are not simply “against Calvinism”. Fair enough, but this article, and many like it, spends a lot of virtual ink talking about Calvinism. Neo-Traditionalists want to be taken seriously as a group that isn’t simply against Calvinism, but when everything they write keeps bringing up Calvinism, it is hard to take that seriously.
One other small quibble is the Hankins is clearly against “New Calvinism”. Again fair enough. But he seems to be conflating New Calvinism, whatever that means, with traditional Calvinism. I mean, do New Calvinists have a different view of election than traditional Calvinists?
There is no such thing as a neo-traditionalist. ‘New tradition’ is a contradiction in terms — Norm
Dr. Hankins,
Please define “New Calvinism” and give three examples of influential Southern Baptists who are New Calvinists.
According to “Paul’s Passing Thoughts” new or neo Calvinism is just the same old Calvinism.
In the past when Dr. Hankins was labeled semi-pelagian, he replied, “In this debate, the charge of Semi-Pelagianism is little more than a “bogeyman.” It’s a label that intimidates and confuses, and we emphatically reject it.”
So, when SBC Calvinists reject the charge of New Calvinism as little more than a “bogeyman” because it’s a label that intimidates and confuses, and emphatically reject it, will Hankins heed his own standard and stop using the term New Calvinism?
Mark:
Do you recall who used the term ‘semi-pelagian’ and where he presides, and what he stands for? And do you recall who all ELSE was called that? Our next posted interview will address this matter. — Norm
Norm,
I’m not sure what your questions have to do with the standard Hankins’ is calling others to hold to. If he is consistent, the answers to your questions do not matter for it is Hankins’ standard.
Interesting that you think an SBC seminary president calling other SBC seminary presidents, and many others, ‘semi-pelagians’ “doesn’t matter.”
Dr. Hankins speaks for himself.
I’m raising a related matter with you in hopes of your seeing your own apparent double-standard. — Norm
Norm,
Please, enough with the tu quoque. Also, I did not say that being called Semi-Pelagian by particular entity heads doesn’t matter. The context was your questions in reference to my original.
This is Hankins’ interview; his words, his standards. You are taking about double-standards and I am challenging a man to have integrity and stand by his words regardless of what someone else does.
Who gets the right to call someone out to a standard, then reject that standard for themselves because the one(s) called out did not respond accordingly? That’s called hypocrisy.
Note, I am not, at this point, called Dr. Hankins a hypocrite, but I will if he insists on applying labels to people who reject them. But he has not answered yet.
My point is this: You apparently want to hold Dr. Hankins to a standard that you apparently don’t believe would apply to the one who called his peers and others semi-pelagian. Further, you said the answers to my questions did not matter. Of course the answers matter — unless you believe such name-calling by a CP-funded entity head is okay. Will you decry as wrong what that entity head did?
Again, Dr. Hankins, whose integrity is not in question, may or may not speak for himself.
Brother Norm,
To call someone a Semi-Pelagian is to call them a heretic. One must not use the word “heretic” to call one a heretic. As you know.
Likewise, when David Platt has accused the majority of evangelicals, evangelicals including as this article notes the overwhelming majority of SBC’ers in five states, of using an “unBiblical” and “superstitious” prayer and phrases like receiving/accepting Jesus into your heart”, “invite Jesus into your heart”, having an evangelism that is “sinking sand”, “not the Gospel”, “disillusioned”, “dangerous”, “damning”, not the “Biblical Gospel”, etc.; this is simply another way of saying “some other Gospel”. Those who are accused of preaching “some other Gospel” are by definition “heretics”…just without Platt using the word. This wasn’t a generic rant against false Gospels, this was an attack on the majority of evangelicals, including a sizable chunk of the SBC. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPhEEzjU8xQ
This is why I say I stand by my comment about Platt. It was not impugning motive, but rather an accurate observation.
SBC Today has posted links to blogs and sermon videos and resolutions firing back at all this rhetoric from Platt.
Calling someone a New Calvinist which does not imply heresy is not at all the same thing as a seminary president calling other seminary presidents and pastors heretics. There is no place in the SBC for heretics. Christians should not cooperate with heretics.
Mark,
It gets a little confusing. Mohler used the term “New Calvinist” to refer to the movement. He used that term in the video with De Young where he said New Calvinism is the only place to go if you want to see the nations rejoice for Christ.
So, it seems to be an acceptable term in leadership circles.
“Twilight Zone Music” we need a dictionary for Calvinist “newspeak” and then we’re gonna need someone to keep it updated for us.
The term “New Calvinist” in this video represents a growing movement of younger (read under 40-45) pastors who are being compelled by their beliefs to serve Christ through sharing the Gospel both at home and abroad. Though I do not think it is the only place to go, it is one movement where pastors and missionaries are being stirred up to great fervor for missions, evangelism, and shepherding.
Mohler and Deyoung are most certainly not using the term to represent a movement committed to the aggressive spreading of Calvinism. There is no such thing. A conference such as Together for the Gospel has no “TULIP” teaching time. Never has. Never will.
So in this regards, the term does have an amount of acceptability among the leadership circles in the context in which it is being used. However, the context by which Hankins uses it, is completely foreign to the use of the term by individuals such as Mohler and Deyoung
So I take it you do not agree with Mohler that New Calvinism is the only place to go if you want to see the nations rejoice for Christ? Good for you!
“There is no such thing. A conference such as Together for the Gospel has no “TULIP” teaching time. Never has. Never will. ”
They do not need special TULIP time as all speakers/preachers are reformed and it is inherent in their teaching…… as are most of the attendees. Will Mahaney be speaking?
It bothers me when Hawkins makes comments against brothers in Christ, basically making Calvinist beliefs out to be lies. Although I do not feel that my non-calvinistic brothers fully understand the whole of salvation as presented in Scripture, I would never attack them. If salvation through Christ is proclaimed, then praise God! I certainly have my beliefs on a sinners prayer, alter call, etc, which I feel are contrary to the gospel as presented in Scripture, but I will not attack a brother in Christ. Hawkins claims that anyone who disagrees with a calvinist will be labeled a “heretic.” Bro. Hawkins, if this is your experience with a so-called “calvinist,” then you have found a very poor representation of one. People who claim this likely have no concept of reformed theology.
Says you.
Mr. Hawkins said “That’s why New Calvinists twist themselves into pretzels over the word “world” and “whosoever.” Their view of election has no room for a felicitous reading of John 3:16.”
I believe this to be false. Calvinistic beliefs line up just fine with John 3:16. Whosoever believes WILL be saved, but the Calvinist would say belief comes from God first. The Calvinist would say God does love the world, but He loves the elect in a special way to bring them to salvation, just as Israel is His chosen people and has a special love. So the Calvinist’s view of election does have room for what John 3:16 says, contrary to Mr. Hawkin’s belief.
Mr. Hawkins then says “Unfortunately, New Calvinists have mangled the meaning so significantly that they actually have it running at cross-purposes with its meaning in Scripture. They import a foreign philosophical determinism into every election text, which results in the readings they want, not the author’s intent. I’ll be trying to bring a corrective to that.”
This is a baseless claim implying that Calvinists do not follow the authors intent but rather import a foreign philosophical determinism into the texts on election. Basically he is claiming that Calvinist add to the Word of God. This is a very baseless claim and, as I see it, attacking, since the Bible warms us about adding or taking away from Scripture.
He then said “New Calvinists have taken to calling anyone who disagrees with them on these matters “heretics” and “deficient.”
Mr. Hawkins makes a generalization that all “New Calvinists” call anyone who disagrees a heretic or deficient. This generalization is unfounded and false. No “New Calvinists” I know have ever called anyone a heretic or deficient.
Aside from disagreements, we are called to love each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. Yes, we will have disagreements, but disagreements should not divide us unless they are unbiblical. I do not feel that Mr. Hankins fully grasps the concepts of reformed theology and the fullness of salvation through it, but he believes salvation through belief and faith in Christ alone, therefore I love him and will not attack him. We are brothers.
Thank you, Britt.
Thank you for you patience and understanding, Norm!
“I think election as much as anything will test New Calvinism’s commitment to unity in the SBC”
This is a very important point and I’m glad Dr. Hankins “gets” it. It’s the U in Tulip that is causing the division in the SBC. There is a litmus test now that only those who agree with Calvinists on the U are qualified for any position of leadership. We see this in the selection of seminary presidents, in the writers for curriculum and all throughout leadership now. We’re seeing calvinists hold up accepatable “nonCalvinists” such as Akin and the new guy at Midwestern but they are only acceptable because they will sign the Abstract of Prinicples and agree with Calvinists on the U. Those of us who disagree with Calvinists on the U are being pushed out and are unwelcome for any position of leadership.
Louisiana College is the most immediate Southern Baptist school pushing out professors for their position on this topic. Drs. Jason Hiles, Kevin McFadden, Ryan Lister, have all lost their job over this issue.
Knowing two of these men, they are far, far, far from hyper-active Calvinists. They most certainly believe in missions and evangelism. Most certainly believe in the need for personal faith in order for one to be saved. Most certainly believe that one can only have personal faith through hearing and receiving the Gospel. They have never come close to calling a brother within the convention with an opposing view on these matters a heretic.
Simply put, they do not represent anything ‘New’. Their only fault is that they are in fact Calvinists.
I haven’t exactly seen a similar case in recent time for three professors of the opposite persuasion being pushed out of a Southern Baptist school for this matter.
Can someone, anyone please tell me what doctrines New Calvinists believe that are not believed by run of the mill 5 pt. Calvinists?
There is no difference in belief, though often times there is a conflation between run of the mill 5 pt. Calvinists and the position that all 5 pt. Calvinist reject known as hyper-Calvinism.
By “New”, the only thing being differentiated is the fact that it comprises a growing number of 30-40 year old pastors. in that effect, its young pastors being targeted by the statement.
These 30-40 year old pastors believe the exact same thing as their predecessors, but do so in larger numbers, hence they are perceived as threatening.
I guess it would be interesting to find out if there is a difference in what NC’s & 5Pointers agree & disagree on concerning theology. But I would rather read again what the Biblicist/Tradionalists
believe. I have HEARD what the 5Pointers believe many many times.
John G.
Definition of a New Calvinist They are aggressive, Evangelists of Calvinism…make Calvinism a matter of fellowship…are completely obsessed with Calvinism and promoting it…. BUT, when you bring these things out, they just shove it aside with a “I dont know anyone like that” type of statement; or, a “prove it…name names” type of statement; and there’s a few other things they say to begin their denial of the existence of the New Calvinists.
Let the denials that New Calvinists exist in one, two, three…….
David
First rule of New Calvinists…you do not talk about New Calvinists. :)
A previous comment noted a Youtube video of Dr. Mohler citing “New Calvinists.” Perhaps his definition would suffice? — Norm
So if you were to meet a Calvinist who wasn’t aggressive about it and wasn’t consumed with it, but rather consumed with making disciples of Jesus and sharing the Gospel, you would find them to be acceptable?
I will agree with you that we don’t aggressive Calvinists or traditionalists.
What I fear is that everyone who ‘believes’ something is being labeled with a title that is reflective of ‘actions’, whether or not they are actually displaying those actions.
My guess is that some do not believe it is possible for someone to believe these things and not be aggressive. They think the two are necessarily inter-related due to their interactions with a small handful of those to whom they were inter-related.
The push back comes from the many to whom it is not the case. They get frustrated to be told that they are aggressive and believe things that actually reject (such as hyper-Calvinism). In their zeal to defend themselves against these labels that do not represent them, they get labeled all over again.
It IS a very real thing to be a happy Calvinist who loves Jesus and loves sharing the Gospel. I know many of them. They far outnumber any militant Calvinists I know. Its quite unfortunate that my experience is sometimes not others experience. I wish you could get to know these happy Calvinists and see them love the church, love unbelievers, love the Gospel, and love the convention.
“So if you were to meet a Calvinist who wasn’t aggressive about it and wasn’t consumed with it, but rather consumed with making disciples of Jesus and sharing the Gospel, you would find them to be acceptable?”
More than merely acceptable. I have been attending a church where the pastor is a Calvinist. Okay, so he is also my best friend as well, but he certainly more than exceeds that criteria. Enough for me to sit under his preaching (however much we disagree on this or that point, but that happens when I hear Traditionalist, Molinist, and Arminian pastors as well…)
“The push back comes from the many to whom it is not the case. They get frustrated to be told that they are aggressive and believe things that actually reject (such as hyper-Calvinism). In their zeal to defend themselves against these labels that do not represent them, they get labeled all over again.”
Well this kind of thing happens, and happens on both sides. As Dr. Hankins pointed out, the Semi-Pelagian charge was getting tossed around quite a bit after the Traditionalist Statement came out.
You are right Johnathan in that it happens on both sides.
I do think there is room for a slight distinction though. The main New Calvinist charge seems to be over the actions (read aggressiveness) of these individuals.
The semi-pelagian charge was over the belief. It would be similar to a charge of hyper-Calvinism. We can agree that both hyper-Calvinism and semi-pelagian is outside the bounds.
So what’s not wanted is A. wrong beliefs (hyper) and B. wrong practice (aggressiveness).
So if you said something like “What that man is teaching or writing seems to match up with hyper-Calvinism in that he’s teaching missions is not necessary” that would be something that all would need to read, think, and evaluate.
The issue is, despite many statements inferencing such, there haven’t been actual specific instances cited concerning this issue. Tenants of the heretical position of hyper-calvinism are being conflated together and being said seemlessly along with calvinism.
When this is done, the overwhelming majority (and by that I actually mean 99.9% since I have yet to see an actual instance of hyper-calvinism in the SBC), react negatively. SBC Calvinist reject these positions and find them abominable just as much as traditionalists. Of course, I’d expect you to get fired up about someone thinking you don’t need to preach the Gospel in order to be saved. I would to. If such a person actually existed and were exerting influence.
Agreed. I don’t ever assert all Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism, and even on this blog site, I am fair to Calvinism when I see it. I try to be fair to all theology, and the other day, that even included open theism.
I also don’t charge Calvinism as anti-missional. Onc can’t charge Calvinism with being anti-missional and being aggressively growing in number of adherents by way of either conviction among already-believers or even the conversion to Christianity from unbelievers under that theological tradition at the same time.
There are plenty of Calvinists like Robert Reymond, Vincent Cheung happy to carry the water for “hyper-Calvinism” (even if they don’t call it that).
I have no intention of saddling either you or my best friend with that label since it is rejected.
This too happens a lot on both sides. Rick Patrick wrote and article a week or two ago and someone in the comments repeatedly insisted he is Arminian when he rejects the label.
And you are right, there are a lot of Calvinists out there that fit this description, and they probably outnumber the militant ones in the larger scheme of things.
But they have never been the problem. The problem is that most of those happy Calvinists don’t write books, preach at popular churches, etc. Outside of Wright, Bird, and occasionally Carson and Moo, I can’t think of any generally “happy Calvinist” (as you call them) theologian, general author, pastor, etc. that can speak or write five sentences without disparaging perfectly orthodox alternative theologies to their own.
Read older Calvinist works, this disparaging (along with actual violence to boot) goes back to the beginning of dissent from the Reformed Magisterium.
While the violence is gone, the disparaging had only marginally gotten better in the 20-21 century, but has been returning to its roots as of late.
Like it or not, this is the Reformed tradition and its legacy.
“But they have never been the problem. The problem is that most of those happy Calvinists don’t write books, preach at popular churches, etc. Outside of Wright, Bird, and occasionally Carson and Moo, I can’t think of any generally “happy Calvinist” (as you call them) theologian, general author, pastor, etc. that can speak or write five sentences without disparaging perfectly orthodox alternative theologies to their own.”
Johnathan, my brother, I encourage you today to go read the Gospel Coalition blog. It is full of many men who would call themselves Calvinists. Read the last 100 blogs on that site and I highly doubt you’ll find any that are disparaging perfectly orthodox alternative theologies.
I think you might a very large overstatement there.
And its that overstatement that can be very frustrating. You basically said that outside of 4 men, every other author, pastor, theologian you know that is a Calvinist is a militant, aggressive one who has only one agenda.
Come now, this is simply not the case. Not at all.
This is the only blog I regularly read, as my time is limited on these things.
If given a little deference to hyperbole in my comments, my point stands.
I read lots of books (not blogs), and from the early Reformation forward, the trend in those works is to disparage other theology and those who affirm them.
It is no understatement at all, it is what it is.
I mean, the boogeyman himself Al Mohler, probably has less than 1% of all his writing on the topic. 99% of his prolific writing life has not at all been spent on this topic.
Read his last 3 months of blogs or listen to some of his podcasts. Listen to any of his sermons from SBTS in the last 5 years. You’re not going to hear TULIP or Calvinism brought up at all.
Its presented like this is the only thing that think about and write about. I’d say that’s not a very accurate picture of their lives and ministry.
Mohler is much more concerned with developing men and women who love Jesus, love the church, love the Gospel, and love the world. Sending out soldiers for Christ in truth arrayed is his heartbeat. Sending out those who will love the world by holding out the hope of Christ in the Gospel is his vision.
And I’d say that he is 100% committed to doing this alongside his Christian brothers and sisters in the SBC from both sides of the table. He has been consistently trumpeting that there is room for both in the SBC and that we need to be focused on such unity for the sake of the Gospel.
Al Mohler is committed to the Abstract of Principles. He has been very clear that he uses it as a litmus test to ensure only those who accept DOG are allowed on staff at Southern. His words can be found all over the Founders Ministry Web Site showing that he is on board with their agenda to Calvinize the SBC and he’s doing his part through his position at Southern.
Here’s just one quote from Al Mohler:
http://www.founders.org/journal/fj19/article4.html
Thus the great truths of the sovereignty of God and the doctrines of grace were incorporated within the heart of Southern Baptists’ first theological institution. Here was to be found no lack of doctrinal clarity and no ambiguity on the great doctrines which had united Baptists to this date. Sincere and earnest Southern Baptist who wish to understand the true substance of our theological heritage need look no further than the Abstract of Principles for a clear outline of the doctrines once most certainly held among us. Let there be no doubt that in the years to come Southern Seminary will be unashamedly and unhesitantly committed to these same doctrinal convictions as set forth in this incomparable document”
…
Here’s another link for anybody who doubts that Al Mohler has intentionally Calvinized Southern and his intention is to Calvinize the SBC
http://www.founders.org/stand.html
all over the internet you see Calvinists declaring that if they knew of any instances where Calvinists were declaring their intent to Calvinize the SBC that they would denounce them. What you do not find anywhere is Calvinists denouncing Founders Ministry or Al Mohler. Calvinist will defend Founders and Al Mohler and then complain that they don’t understand why Trads won’t just sit down and be quiet.
I don’t know the extent of your hyperbole.
But I do encourage you to read more then. If you only have ever read 4 ‘happy calvinists’ (opposite of aggressive, militant calvinists), I would conclude that you just haven’t read very widely among the contemporary authors.
No doubt, you’re probably very wide read within your field of interest, probably much more wide read than myself.
But I just find it quite over-the-top and most likely not truly representative of the individuals you read to say that they all fit in the aggressive camp.
I could offer a very long list of books and individuals who do not fit inside this description.
You’d find my book collection admirable I think. A wide variety of traditions, ranging a wide variety of fields.
Again, hyperbole aside, in many books on theology, since the Reformation, Calvinists can’t go five sentences without disparaging their theological opponents.
It is what it is. I’ve come to expect it. It is engrained in the tradition. My claims are not over-the-top at all. Of course, it is easier to see when one is not a Calvinist. When I was a Calvinist, I glossed over it in all the books as well. ;)
Challenge/riposte, polemics, etc. is all found in Scripture. The issue is where, when, to whom, and to what extent we bring these tools to bear.
As for Dr. Mohler, he has stuck his foot in his mouth aplenty. We all do it, he just has a bigger influence and range of audience than I do.
But yes, if getting the gist and hyperbole isn’t enough, and you need a literalism. I can also name more than four happy Calvinists who do not disparage their opponents.
They aren’t the norm though, not by a long shot.
Anyway, Kevin Vanhoozer seems a happly-go-lucky Calvinist. So does Sam Storms. Clinton Arnold as well, etc.
While they as much as anyone “misrepresent” their opponents as much as they get them right, (happens on both sides), they aren’t ugly towards them.
Okay then…
Read older Calvinist works, this disparaging (along with actual violence to boot) goes back to the beginning of dissent from the Reformed Magisterium.
While the violence is gone, the disparaging had only marginally gotten better in the 20-21 century, but has been returning to its roots as of late.
Like it or not, this is the Reformed tradition and its legacy.”
This is soooo true! Historically it comes and goes in waves and we are in one right now.
I am often thankful for those Founding Fathers of ours So we can actually publicly disagree with Calvinism and not be burned, banished or tortured for it!
David: Is Dr. Mohler a new Calvinist?
“David: Is Dr. Mohler a new Calvinist?”
Did you watch the video he is in with DeYoung? He says it is the only place to go if you want to see the nations rejoice for Christ. If you are gospel minded….etc, etc. We have to stand with old dead people if we want to preach the truth….
Norm, I only meant to provide a link!
Lydia, haven’t you heard Dr Mohler believes all SBC are Calvinist and therefore he meant the SBC when he said this. I was told this video offends me because I choose to be offended.
John Michael LaRue
“Mohler is much more concerned with developing men and women who love Jesus, love the church, love the Gospel, and love the world. Sending out soldiers for Christ in truth arrayed is his heartbeat. Sending out those who will love the world by holding out the hope of Christ in the Gospel is his vision.”
I agree whole heartedly. I love reading his blog. He has a zeal for the Gospel and for truth. Thats why I find it so interesting that he was concerned enough about the Trad. statement to call them out on the troubling views expressed in that statement.
A few determinists/calvinists have presented what I have sometimes seen referred to as “calvinist double speak”. This term is a reference to language that on its face appears innocent or unproblematic, until you dig a little deeper to what the person really believes about something. When you dig to this deeper level beyond the façade presented by the double speak language you discover something much more chilling. And it is these beliefs that determinists hold, that if they were shouted from the house tops and put out in the open would alarm and greatly concern most Southern Baptists.
While others have presented cases of this double speak in this thread, Britt provided two very good examples when he wrote:
“I believe this to be false. Calvinistic beliefs line up just fine with John 3:16.”
Actually they do not. Calvinistic beliefs when presented forthrighly **contradict** and deny the meaning of John 3:16. As the joke about calvinists on John 3:16 puts so well:
“How can u spot a Calvinist at a football game?
He’s the one holding the sign that reads John 3:16 may not apply to you :-)”
And that is just the point, a consistent calvinist does not believe that John 3:16 applies to all people. For the consistent calvinist, John 3:16 only applies to the preselected elect.
Britt then wrote:
“Whosoever believes WILL be saved,”
Here is a good example of calvinist double speak. They will say that “all who want to believe/or be saved, will be saved”. On its face, this seems innocent enough, and noncalvinists would agree with this statement as it stands.
But what is left out, what the calvinist actually believes is that ONLY THE PRESELECTED ELECT could and would want to believe the gospel. In their scheme, due to depravity, none of the reprobates (those chosen for damantion) could ever believe or want to believe. That is an IMPOSSIBILITY for the reprobates. On the other hand, due to irresistable grace, the preselected elect not only could believe, they will believe, they cannot not believe (irresistable grace causes them to believe). So some may want to claim that we can have unity based upon this statement, but it is a false and artificial unity because the deeper meaning beyond the façade of the presented language, is not at all what noncalvinists believe.
Britt then presented another example of this calvinist double speak when he wrote:
“The Calvinist would say God does love the world, but He loves the elect in a special way to bring them to salvation,”
Again, this seems not to problematic at first, when divorced from what calvinists/determinists really believe. They will say that “God does love the world”. But if double predestination is true and that is what consistent calvinists believe (i.e. that God preordains who will be saved and also who will be lost, as He preordains everything): then it is both false and misleanding to claim that “God does love the world”. If God chose most human persons to be damned, before they were born, chose every thought and belief and action that these damned from eternity unbelievers would experience (so that it was impossible for them to believe, and it was impossible for them not to sin and not to have unbelief and rejection of God). And then God condemned to hell for eternity what these folks thought and did (which God Himself had ordained in every detail). How can THAT be called “love” of these people. This is not love this is absolute hatred for these people. Not all determinsts are forthright about how God hates the reprobate.
Some are and will tell you what this entails about how God is to these people. Angus Stewart talking about God’s attitude towards “reprobates” (those chosen for damnation by God in eternity) says:
“This is talking about a will of God in reprobation to damn people forever for their sins in hell. That is hatred. There could not be a greater demonstration of hatred than that. Think about it. Any idea this is something less than hatred just will not do.”
Stewart is correct, what could be more hateful than what God supposedly does to reprobates?
Only by double speak can this treatment of these people be termed as “love for them.”
Some calvinists will even present double talk concerning those whom God reprobates by saying that God just “loves them less” or “loves the elect in a different way”.
Stewart says of this double speak on the part of other calvinists who are not as forthright as him that:
“If that is supposedly loved less I ask you what more could God do if He really hated them? To destroy people forever. To have indignation eternally. If that’s not hatred, I don’t know what hatred is.”
Again, Stewart gets the point: if God actually reprobates people/chooses them for damnation before birth and ensures that they end up being “reprobates”: this is in fact the most hateful thing that you could do to a person.
And yet according to consistent calvinism this is precisely what God does to most of the human race.
Again bring up this thinking out into the open to most Christians (including Southern Baptists) and their response to this is shock and revulsion. This is not at all what the Bible means when it says that “God is love”, that “God so loved the world that . . .”.
My point is that people need to get behind the façade, behind the double speak of the determinists, and consider what their statements really mean when viewed in line with their actual beliefs about things.
Robert
Robert:
As I have read from the hand of Calvinists — both from history and from today’s blogs — I suspect that there are some today who are not fully informed about all of Calvinisms tenets and are flocking to that which their peers are flocking. I think a percentage of the YRR crowd find it ‘chic’ to Calvinistic because that is the predominant wind blowing today. And I think certain seminaries have capitalized on that aspect for the sake of enrollment numbers. A related example might be my alma mater, SEBTS. When Driscoll was the ‘flavor-of-the-month,” he was invited to that campus several times to preach from behind the sacred desk in Binkley Chapel and to interact with students. Given recent issues w/Driscoll, the former flavor-of-the-month has left a bad taste in the mouths of many, and he hasn’t been back to my alma mater in more than four years. — Norm
I believe that a correct view of election includes a robust view of freedom and is actually a basis for strong appeals for the lost to respond in faith to the gospel.
While we disagree on what the “correct view of election” is we can agree on the importance of a strong appeal to the lost to respond to the gospel. Personally I think the discussion of the “U” flows better after a discussion of the “I”. But I’d be surprised if there is ever a conference with the theme “Resistible Grace”. Allright, just kidding on that last sentence. A little Calvinist humor.
Mike,
“we can agree on the importance of a strong appeal to the lost to respond to the gospel”
Amen brother.
Dr. Hankins – Thank you for your stand. I’m praying that the Lord will give you strength to run the course. Two statements you made particularly got my attention:
Your statement “New Calvinists have communicated their vision for soteriology voluminously. No stone has been left unturned.” Brother, there is no doubt that the reformed movement is effectively networked, both within SBC and with non-SBC entities. They have used blogs, social media, and snappy conferences to their advantage. They are masters at getting their message across, with a growing following of the 20s-30s crowd (a generation traditional Southern Baptists failed to attract). Reformed leaders develop plans and work their plans well. A wise man once told me there are only three types of folks in the world: those who plan to make things happen, those who make things happen, and those who wonder “What happened?!”. Unfortunately, majority Southern Baptists now rest in the latter category.
Your statement “I think election as much as anything will test New Calvinism’s commitment to unity in the SBC.” While I would dearly love to see unity around the message of the Cross of Christ, I just don’t see how two divergent views of soteriology can exist in a single denomination going forward. According to my old Webster, “Unity is a continuity of identity without deviation or change.” “Harmony is a pleasing arrangement of parts.” Harmony says to the diverse parts “let’s try to get along, even if it means change.” Unity says to the primary identity “let’s stick together, lest we change.” I was young and now I’m old … and during my journey I’ve come to discern what genuine unity looks like. What is unfolding within SBC is a compromise for the sake of harmony, not unity. Majority Southern Baptists can’t afford to be harmonious but unified when it comes to God’s plan of salvation.
Dr. Hankins,
I appreciate your stand and your interview.
I hope this year’s John 3:16 Conference will also be put into book form. The previous book, Whosoever Will by Allen & Lemke has been very popular, and very helpful.
David R. Brumbelow
Just to provide an alternative narrative to why there is quite the movement among younger Southern Baptists towards a gospel-driven Calvinism (I know many on here will not receive this, but I still offer it because some might not have considered such a position).
I think one of the reasons why we are seeing this movement is because this generation by God’s grace grew up in SBC churches NOT debating the inerrancy of Scripture, but fully receiving it as God’s Word. God is greatly to be praised for this. The last generation was consumed with defending the inerrancy of God’s Word. This generation did not have to fight that battle.
I am a product of my parents fighting for the Bible. I grew up in home that believed the Bible as true and taught it regularly.
Now my alternative narrative is that from this environment, there has risen up a host of young men and women who have feasted on the Scripture from such a strong, inerrantists foundation. I believe that the tenants of Calvinism best represent biblical faith. (Nuance and caveat that to the fullest extent. I think that the non-Calvinist SBC side is well within the bounds of historic Christianity. I call them brothers wholeheartedly in my church, in my convention, and in my world.)
I think that what we are seeing on a widespread plane in this generation is what occurred in my own life. Countless men and women grew up homes that loved the Bible because of the battle won in the SBC by the previous generation, and as a result, they’ve come to believe the tenants of Calvinism to be the most faithful exposition of the biblical faith.
(Again, I just want to clarify, I know that many disagree with me and think that Calvinism is not the most faithful way to describe biblical faith. I am expressly not calling anyone a heretic if they disagree with me. I don’t think other positions are the most faithful way of understanding God’s Word, but I think there is room to interpret things differently than I do and be a faithful committed Christian.)
An inerrantist’s preaching and teaching would include 1 John 2.2 – that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Further, your thesis is flawed in this way: many who fought for the scripture’s innerancy in the Conservative Resurgence were inerrantists, as were/are their children. Why were they not all Calvinists back then? True, some were. But most were not. It is therefore a fallacy to suggest that the fight for inerrancy leads to Calvinism. We weren’t Calvinists then; we are not now. It is utter lunacy to aver that the sons of inerrantists are neceessarily Calvinists.
Let me offer a different scenario. Vacuums demand to be filled. When the moderate/liberal professors were forced to leave, others — some of whom were/are Calvinists — helped fill that vacuum. Now, after a couple of decades of their teaching, the sons of the Resurgence (David Hankins begat Eric Hankins; Eldridge Miller begat Norm Miller, et al) are seeing the results of that teaching. Inasmuch as our fathers rejected JEDP, we sons are rejecting TULIP, and are doing so as inerrantists, and as the sons of inerrantists. — Norm
“My prayer is that the SBC would lovingly urge the Calvinists in its midst to either repent of their Satanic-inspired beliefs, or form a Convention of their own such as the liberals of a few years ago, or seek another group with which to align.”
Calvinists hold “Satanic-inspired beliefs/’
Well Ken is one of yours, non-Cals.
And you are a Presbyterian. Just a reminder about my offer for you to write a defense of paedobaptism for posting here. — Norm