According to Widipedia’s classical definition
The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means “Jealous” “play-acting”, “acting out”, “coward” or “dissembling”. The word hypocrite is from the Greek word ὑποκρίτης (hypokrites), the agentive noun associated with υποκρίνομαι (hypokrinomai κρίση, “judgment” »κριτική (kritiki), “critics”) presumably because the performance of a dramatic text by an actor was to involve a degree of interpretation, or assessment.
Alternatively, the word is an amalgam of the Greek prefix hypo-, meaning “under”, and the verb krinein, meaning “to sift or decide”. Thus the original meaning implied a deficiency in the ability to sift or decide. This deficiency, as it pertains to one’s own beliefs and feelings, informs the word’s contemporary meaning.
To be a Southern Baptist one must take this on as a necessary mode of appearance. The SBC cannot decide on what it believes. Each side claims that soteriological matters are of utmost importance, they at the same time admit that it isn’t. Each side says that the Bible teaches their side, but at the same time allows that the other side may also be right.
At the end of the long fight over inerrancy, what was washed under the bridge during the flood of the conservative resurgence was the authority of Scripture which ground inerrancy. You see, it does not matter if it could be proved that the Bible is without error as historically transmitted if the things that it claims cannot be established as truth within its own context. Never mind the history of transmission, the message, that is the doctrines it contains, if left to matters of opinion, undermine the very reliability for authority begged by the arguments for inerrancy.
Questions need to be asked. If both sides are claiming their soteriology is the doctrine of Scripture, both cannot be right. That leaves one in the camp of false teaching, which is a quaint, mealy-mouthed way in today’s environment of can’t we all get along tolerance-speak, heresy. Just so as to not be accused of bandying about terminology too loosely, here is what I am getting at. The Scripture makes no allowance for false teaching. To say that opinions are doctrine is at the same time to say they are not. At least not in the Biblical mandate to not go beyond what is written. Anyone can hold opinion, but no one can teach it as doctrine. To draw the lines a little tighter, in the matter of the Calvinist/Arminian debate (yes, that is what is at issue no matter the denials from the anti-Calvinist side) within the SBC, each claims their soteriology as the correct one as a matter of truth derived from Scripture. As Hankins claims, this is not a matter of secondary importance, doctrines which make little to do, but the very foundation of the traditions and the faith once and for all delivered to the saints:
The following is a suggested statement of what Southern Baptists believe about the doctrine of salvation… Every generation of Southern Baptists has the duty to articulate the truths of its faith with particular attention to the issues that are impacting contemporary mission and ministry… We believe it is time to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology… We believe that most Southern Baptists, regardless of how they have described their personal understanding of the doctrine of salvation, will find the following statement consistent with what the Bible teaches and what Southern Baptists have generally believed about the nature of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
There is no escaping the conclusion, Hankins believes, and rightly so, there is only one biblical soteriology. All others are false. And if the doctrines of salvation are not primary, what are? If defection from them is not heresy, then what is? Though someone might be tolerated for believing in error, teaching error is quite a different animal, prowling about seeking whom it might destroy. If Paul admonished Timothy saying:
Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
that teaching falsely leads to iniquity by destoying the hearer. If even eschatological matters were the subject of such condemnation, what more attention should be paid to matters soteriological? If Paul could condemn the circumcision party practice as being anathema, in Galatians, adding to Christ’s finished work, isn’t it then paramount to secure other soteriological doctrine which could cause error destrucive to the faith? Paul condemned vain arguing as sinful and as marking out those who were and were not Christ’s. But if the doctrines espoused by Hankins are no more right than those he opposes, they are vain babble and just as destructive as any other heresy.
Paul didn’t exclude arguing by the way, in fact he instructed Timothy to contend for the faith and to silence those who oppose the doctrines and traditions handed down to him. So, contrary to Hankins, it is only right to advance one doctrine as exclusive and opposed to another. Which is in fact what he is doing even though he denies it.
The real question for the SBC, one which has haunted it since it opened the door to the Arminians more than a century, is does it believe what it says it does, or not? If it can accept as doctrine equilateral opinions of men, it really fits the definition of hypocrisy, a system ever halting between two opinions never coming to the truth and unstable in all it dealings.