# Has anyone heard of Curtis Hutson



## Bern (Nov 10, 2009)

I've just read an article by Curtis Hutson called "Why I Disagree with all 5 points of Calvinism."

Why I Disagree With All 5 Points of Calvinism

Has anyone heard of this guy? From what I can gather, he believes in free will to choose Christ, but also believes eternal security, and that we are kept by God's power afterward. What is this position called... its not really Arminianism is it? 

He mentions how some verses are distorted by Calvinists, such as verses that indicate Christs death was for the whole world, and that God wills men everywhere to be saved. I've heard the reformed viewpoint on these verses, but sometimes even I think they sound like a bit of a stretch.

Anyone got any thoughts?


----------



## KSon (Nov 10, 2009)

Bern,

Hutson was a hero in the Fundy Baptist world for many years. He took over as editor of Sword of the Lord, a hardcore fundy publication, after John R. Rice (the founder, and a fundy hero in his own right) retired from the position. To this day, in the Jack Hyles vain of IFB, he is lauded as an uncompromising proponent of what certain parts of IFB considers truth: Arminianism, legalism, and the evils of Calvinism and modern Bible versions. 

If you think I am overstating the esteem in which he was held (and still is by many), I offer this for your perusal:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJQ4TcoHwZk&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Curtis Hutson Day - Part 1 of 7[/ame]


----------



## Bern (Nov 10, 2009)

Thats ridiculous. Surely he holds the same sort of beliefs as Tozer.... 

Call me stupid.. actually don't  But I'm not really sure what "fundamentalist" is when applied to Christians. In what respects does it differ from reformed teaching? Are all fundamentalists arminian? (even though they hold to eternal security)


----------



## YXU (Nov 10, 2009)

Eternal security is a false doctrine held by them. We believe in the perseverance of the saints. Someone who lives continuously in wickedness cannot be secured by his mere former confession of faith.


----------



## Southern Twang (Nov 10, 2009)

I attended his son's church for about two years when I was in college:

Middle Tennessee Baptist Church ?Where Old Time Religion is not a thing of the past?

His dad was deceased by the time I attended, around 2004-2006. That church is the most hardcore dispensational, premillennial, one, two, or three point Calvinist (I forget at the moment) church I had ever attended in my nonreformed Baptist days.

The son is an in your face kind of preacher. They would usually know when mormons were there for the service. On one occasion a mormon family left during the service because the preaching would shift to being centered on refuting mormonism.

To their credit, they ran (and probably still do) a bus ministry that picked up kids all around Murfreesboro (a city of 100,000 south of Nashville). They would also engage in door to door witnessing. Their zeal for the Lord, though often times misplaced, outdoes that of most Reformed churches.


----------



## BertMulder (Nov 10, 2009)

From the video, seems like a lot of people worship him....


----------



## KSon (Nov 10, 2009)

Bern said:


> Thats ridiculous. Surely he holds the same sort of beliefs as Tozer....
> 
> Call me stupid.. actually don't  But I'm not really sure what "fundamentalist" is when applied to Christians. In what respects does it differ from reformed teaching? Are all fundamentalists arminian? (even though they hold to eternal security)



As to the term "fundamentalist", one must differentiate between one who holds to the core tenants, or fundamentals, of the faith and one who subscribes to what has become the fundamentalist "movement", typically Independent Fundamental Baptists. Historically, the former was a cohesive response to the encroachment of post-modern liberal thought within Christianity. The latter is awash in rigid standards, born in great measure from their Dispensational premill view that everything in this "world" is bad and getting worse every day.


----------



## MMasztal (Nov 10, 2009)

About 20+ years go, my then office manager, a legalistic Baptist type who knew I attended an OPC, gave me that pamphlet.

As I recall, I was less than impressed with the "scholarship" that went into Hutson's mini-tome.


----------



## Mushroom (Nov 10, 2009)

> What is this position called... its not really Arminianism is it?


Not classic Arminianism, but perhaps a neo-arminianism closer to semi-pelagianism.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 10, 2009)

*On Fundamentalisms*

Bern,

"Fundamentalism" has a different meaning in the US than in Britain. In Britain, it is more or less equivalent to evangelical, but in the US it is more nuanced. Originally, all those who withstood the modernist/liberal theology were loosely called Fundamentalists (see Harry Emerson Fosdick's famous sermon, "Shall the Fundamentalists win?"). In the 1950s, a major split occurred. Harold Ockenga, Billy Graham, and some others articulated a strategy of engagement and dialogue with liberals. This was the "new-evangelicalism." Those who disagreed kept the name "Fundamentalists." In general, the split was detrimental to both sides, as the new evangelicalism struggled to keep orthodoxy (i.e. Fuller Seminary) and the Fundamentalists hardened into a strongly separatist and anti-intellectual stance.

However, Fundamentalism is still not a monolithic movement. Major dividing lines are Calvinism (from Calvinist to Finneyan Pelagian), revivalism, Bible translations (KJV Only), expository vs. revivalistic preaching, and issues of personal conduct. Most Fundamentalists are united against drinking, smoking, non-Christian education, and contemporary Christian music. Fundamentalism is overwhelming Dispensational and many follow a Keswick (crisis) theology of sanctification. Until very recently, almost all have followed a single-pastor-with-deacons Baptist polity. 

In recent decades, there has been a major surge of scholarship, expository preaching, Calvinism, elder rule, progressive dispensationalism and progressive sanctification (in the form of nouthetic counseling). Several major Fundamentalist institutions are now approximately where John MacArthur is. In fact, these Fundamentalists exhibit much angst over the fact that they seem to have more in common with many non-Fundamentalists than some of their Fundamentalist friends.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Nov 10, 2009)

Just the fact that he would allow himself to be carried into a meeting on a throne probably tells you all you need to know...


----------



## Grillsy (Nov 10, 2009)

Ah, yes I see you too have stumbled across Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven! you will find many such enlightening articles on that site.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 10, 2009)

Bern said:


> Thats ridiculous. Surely he holds the same sort of beliefs as Tozer....
> 
> Call me stupid.. actually don't  But I'm not really sure what "fundamentalist" is when applied to Christians. In what respects does it differ from reformed teaching? Are all fundamentalists arminian? (even though they hold to eternal security)



Historically speaking the fundamentalist movement in the United States (where the term first was used- c.r. JI Packer's Fundamentalism and the Word of God) does apply to all Christians who held to the basic (i.e. ecumenical) doctrines of the Christian faith. In all reality a Roman Catholic could have been considered a fundamentalist for holding to the virgin birth and the innerancy and infallibility of Scripture. However that term did not last long and quickly began to be associated with a group of persons identified as ''fundamentalists''. These group of persons were the beginning of the neo-evangelical (Billy Graham, Christianity today, Bill Bright, CCC, Carl H. Henry, etc...) movement and were mostly baptistic, arminian and congregational though there were of course exceptions and crossovers.

-----Added 11/10/2009 at 08:57:15 EST-----



Bern said:


> Thats ridiculous. Surely he holds the same sort of beliefs as Tozer....
> 
> Call me stupid.. actually don't  But I'm not really sure what "fundamentalist" is when applied to Christians. In what respects does it differ from reformed teaching? Are all fundamentalists arminian? (even though they hold to eternal security)



Also Tozer, while an excellent preacher, was not reformed by any stretch of the imagination... though we may appreciate his sermons  Tozer fits the deffinition of a fundamentalist perfectly if you just rid of the negative connotation given to this word. Tozer is to fundamentalism what Gill is Hyper-calvinism. yeah if we were to be intellectually honest you would have to say they were but they are very useful to read and to consult and were amazing men used by God in their days.


----------



## Bern (Nov 11, 2009)

Its not suprising that unbelievers are confused about the church, when there are so many conflicting websites out there, just arguing with each other. Its very hard explaining to an arminian or semi pelagian that "world" does not actually mean "world" etc etc, let alone explaining the differences to a non Christian if they ask you.

I think most Arminians see the Reformed as jumping through hoops and distorting words in the bible to make the scriptures fit in with their system of theology, and I can understand why they think that. Reformed doctrine does only appear to be held by people who are more "intelligent" (I hesitate to use that word here) or scholarly... what about the more simple folk who read the bible plainly... how do they get on?


In the article I read, Hutson mentioned that nowhere in the bible is mans inability to respond to the gospel call taught. Now he obviously believes in original sin, but it seems he also believes that the Father drawing all men to Himself IS the gospel call (at least I think thats what he was saying, if I understood it correctly). I've got a list of the common scriptural references that the reformed use to defend TULIP, but I can see why Arminians don't believe they exclude the possibility of man responding.

What passages in the bible clearly teach mans inability to respond to the gospel call?


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 11, 2009)

Bern said:


> Its not suprising that unbelievers are confused about the church, when there are so many conflicting websites out there, just arguing with each other. Its very hard explaining to an arminian or semi pelagian that "world" does not actually mean "world" etc etc, let alone explaining the differences to a non Christian if they ask you.
> 
> I think most Arminians see the Reformed as jumping through hoops and distorting words in the bible to make the scriptures fit in with their system of theology, and I can understand why they think that. Reformed doctrine does only appear to be held by people who are more "intelligent" (I hesitate to use that word here) or scholarly... what about the more simple folk who read the bible plainly... how do they get on?
> 
> ...



Matthew 22:14 14 For many are called, but few are chosen." 

A distinction between the inward and outward call.

ESV 1 Peter 2:8 and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

Disobedience to the call, or stumbling at Christ, is due to being "destined."

John 6:44 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 

John 6:37-40 7 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." 

Obviously, if all that the Father give do indeed come, then those who do not come were not given. Also, outside of the Father's giving (drawing), no one is able to come. 

2 Corinthians 4:3-6 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 

Satan himself is active in the blinding of the unbelievers (compare parable of sower) and his work is overcome only through a particular inward light, which doesn't really make sense to equate with the outward call.


----------

