Featured Loyal Opposition/Traditional soteriology

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Yet saying it doesn't make it so.

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

Thanks

 

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

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