# Rejecting the Doctrines of Grace



## Blue Tick (Nov 7, 2006)

What do you think about people who are professing Christians and have studied the DOG and reject them? For instance guys like Hunt,Bryson, and Caner. They have studied reformed soteriology and they believe it is heretical. Additionally, I have friends who have studied and don't want anything to do with the reformed faith.

The point I want to make is someone who has study reformed soteriology.


----------



## Ravens (Nov 7, 2006)

My Prediction: A 13 page thread by November 10th.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 7, 2006)

I believe they will be judged, but cannot conclude they will be damned.

Many who study reformed soteriology and reject it do so based more on personal feeling and preference than practical conviction. What I mean is, they simply don't like it, but yet when asked if salvation is by grace alone apart from any works or merit in men, they will confidently say amen.

In their heart of hearts they agree with Calvinism, but they simply do not understand nor are they willing to understand and simply claim mystery when pressed.


----------



## Blue Tick (Nov 7, 2006)

JDWiseman said:


> My Prediction: A 13 page thread by November 10th.



If this does not come to pass you maybe considered a false prophet.


----------



## BertMulder (Nov 7, 2006)

> Titus 3:10 (King James Version)
> King James Version (KJV)
> Public Domain
> 
> ...



This would certainly apply to anyone in a leadership position in the church. In any case you would apply the procedure of Matthew 18 (if he is a fellow church member)



> 15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
> 
> 16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
> 
> ...


----------



## elnwood (Nov 7, 2006)

Blue Tick said:


> What do you think about people who are professing Christians and have studied the DOG and reject them? For instance guys like Hunt,Bryson, and Caner. They have studied reformed soteriology and they believe it is heretical. Additionally, I have friends who have studied and don't want anything to do with the reformed faith.
> 
> The point I want to make is someone who has study reformed soteriology.



What do I think about those people? Well, I think that they're incorrect and would benefit from studying the scriptures more. (Did you have something more specific in mind? Like their salvation?)

On a side note, Steven J. Lawson has just published a large book called Foundations of Grace (not yet available from Amazon) which goes from Moses all the way through the New Testament pointing out where you see the Doctrines of Grace throughout scripture. I flipped through it a few days ago and it looks excellent. It would probably be good for those who think Calvinism is based upon the misunderstanding of a few isolated passages.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 7, 2006)

I rejected calvinism for many years because of ignorance and misrepresentation of Calvinistic postions that were taught to me by "whiskey" Baptists(those who believe eternal security but reject the rest). For me the turning point came back around 97 to 98 when I began to get a hold on point 1. When I grasped the truth of that the rest fell into place. That's why when I present the 5 points to another person I always start with total depravity and try and get them to prove it wrong. I try and get them to show me where man has anything good in him whatsoever. I stress the truth of spiritual death that is in all unsaved sinners.


----------



## Theoretical (Nov 7, 2006)

Total Depravity (not merely the casusal "are you a sinner" stuff) is a good starting place - especially since it seems to be the clear distinguisher between the confused and intellectually inconsistent Christian and the true semi-Pelagian/5-point Arminian. If the person grasps and truly holds to Total Depravity, then not holding the other points is merely an inconsistency that can be addressed. Not holding to T, though, means there are serious problems with the person's view of the Doctrine of Man.


----------



## gregbed (Nov 7, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> I rejected calvinism for many years because of ignorance and misrepresentation of Calvinistic postions that were taught to me by "whiskey" Baptists(those who believe eternal security but reject the rest). For me the turning point came back around 97 to 98 when I began to get a hold on point 1. When I grasped the truth of that the rest fell into place. That's why when I present the 5 points to another person I always start with total depravity and try and get them to prove it wrong. I try and get them to show me where man has anything good in him whatsoever. I stress the truth of spiritual death that is in all unsaved sinners.



It took a while for point "L" (limited atonement for lurkers) to fall, but fall they will if you keep at trying to harmonize them with each other and scripture. "L" fell as I considered the nature of the atonement and asked myself did I believe it was a real transaction or merely symbolic.


doing my part to keep JDWiseman from a stoning


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 7, 2006)

gregbed said:


> It took a while for point "L" (limited atonement for lurkers) to fall, but fall they will if you keep at trying to harmonize them with each other and scripture. "L" fell as I considered the nature of the atonement and asked myself did I believe it was a real transaction or merely symbolic.
> 
> 
> doing my part to keep JDWiseman from a stoning



For me L was the easy one. Even Arminians believe that the Atonement is "limited" to those who believe.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 7, 2006)

A proper (reformed) understanding of total depravity is requisite for believing the gospel of Jesus Christ. Only when a man sheds every ounce of his self-righteousness does he flee to a righteousness outside of himself, and proceed to find it in the 2nd Adam.



> Q72: What is justifying faith?
> A72: Justifying faith is a saving grace,[1] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit [2] and word of God,[3] whereby he, *being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition*,[4] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[5] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[6] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[7]
> 1. Heb. 10:39
> 2. II Cor. 4:13; Eph. 1:17-19
> ...


 
For people that reject total depravity, they need to understand their sin, and the only remedy for their sin, otherwise we should not consider their persons a part of Christ's church. For people that accept the T, but are somewhat inconsistent (Amaryaldianism comes to mind), we need to show instruction that their doctrines are inconsistent.


----------



## Blue Tick (Nov 7, 2006)

elnwood said:


> What do I think about those people? Well, I think that they're incorrect and would benefit from studying the scriptures more. (Did you have something more specific in mind? Like their salvation?)
> 
> On a side note, Steven J. Lawson has just published a large book called Foundations of Grace (not yet available from Amazon) which goes from Moses all the way through the New Testament pointing out where you see the Doctrines of Grace throughout scripture. I flipped through it a few days ago and it looks excellent. It would probably be good for those who think Calvinism is based upon the misunderstanding of a few isolated passages.



Yes, I would say their salvation. Are they saved?


----------



## reformedman (Nov 8, 2006)

I have some experience with a fellow worker on this. He is a fundamental baptist(accepts only preserverance). He will agree with all points after spending about 1 1/2 to 2 hours talking on the issue, but when you wait 1 week without bringing it up, he forgets everything we discussed and goes back to ardentally defending whatever the fundamental belief is. 

I noticed one thing that has taught me very seriously to consider whenever speaking on any doctrinal subject and that is; never to say this or that doctrine pertains to this or that group. It seems childishly simple but unfortunately I fell for it quite a few times because it can be carelessy done in the smallest and simplest of ways.

For example, it's best without a doubt, to explain the concept of man's sin and the reasoning behind the seperation of God and man, and never to mention that the name of it is Total Depravity because when he discusses it with someone else, it comes to the surface. I'm not trying to hide anything but labelling things is not as necessary as understanding the truth.


----------



## BJClark (Nov 8, 2006)

Blue Tick;




> What do you think about people who are professing Christians and have studied the DOG and reject them? For instance guys like Hunt,Bryson, and Caner. They have studied reformed soteriology and they believe it is heretical. Additionally, I have friends who have studied and don't want anything to do with the reformed faith.
> 
> The point I want to make is someone who has study reformed soteriology.



I pray for them, because deep down they are still trying to work their way to heaven on some level.

I think they struggle seeing God for who He really is, GOD who can do whatever He chooses, even choosing those who will go to Heaven and those who won't. 

I believe they don't want to see God as anything but loving, after all how could a loving God choose some and not others?? How compassionate is that? They don't see that as God's Grace.


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Nov 8, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> I believe they will be judged, but cannot conclude they will be damned.
> 
> Many who study reformed soteriology and reject it do so based more on personal feeling and preference than practical conviction. What I mean is, they simply don't like it, but yet when asked if salvation is by grace alone apart from any works or merit in men, they will confidently say amen.
> 
> In their heart of hearts they agree with Calvinism, but they simply do not understand nor are they willing to understand and simply claim mystery when pressed.





I'm in basic agreement w this.....


----------



## Blue Tick (Nov 8, 2006)

BJClark said:


> Blue Tick;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a good point. It does appear that they are trying to work their way to heaven.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 8, 2006)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> A proper (reformed) understanding of total depravity is requisite for believing the gospel of Jesus Christ. Only when a man sheds every ounce of his self-righteousness does he flee to a righteousness outside of himself, and proceed to find it in the 2nd Adam.
> 
> 
> 
> For people that reject total depravity, they need to understand their sin, and the only remedy for their sin, otherwise we should not consider their persons a part of Christ's church. For people that accept the T, but are somewhat inconsistent (Amaryaldianism comes to mind), we need to show instruction that their doctrines are inconsistent.



Good point. I wonder how far we could take this. Is rejection of Total Depravity a rejection of the saving gospel?

The Eastern Orthodox Church openly disagrees with the doctrine of Total Depravity. Should they be considered anathema?


----------



## elnwood (Nov 8, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> Good point. I wonder how far we could take this. Is rejection of Total Depravity a rejection of the saving gospel?
> 
> The Eastern Orthodox Church openly disagrees with the doctrine of Total Depravity. Should they be considered anathema?



Are they Pelagian, or Semi-Pelagian? I think Pelagianism is definitely heresy because it says that man does not necessarily need Christ.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 8, 2006)

ChristopherPaul said:


> Good point. I wonder how far we could take this. Is rejection of Total Depravity a rejection of the saving gospel?
> 
> The Eastern Orthodox Church openly disagrees with the doctrine of Total Depravity. Should they be considered anathema?


 
If you reject the T, you reject the gospel, for it by necessity follows that you see some righteousness in yourself, and hence salvation hinges on your righteousness, not the righteousness of Christ Alone. It is YOU that needs to take the last step (or the first depending on how you look at it, or who you ask). This essentially make man the savior, not Christ. That is why the Solas are SO important.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 8, 2006)

Jeff_Bartel said:


> If you reject the T, you reject the gospel, for it by necessity follows that you see some righteousness in yourself, and hence salvation hinges on your righteousness, not the righteousness of Christ Alone. It is YOU that needs to take the last step (or the first depending on how you look at it, or who you ask). This essentially make man the savior, not Christ. That is why the Solas are SO important.




I don't know about that Jeff. Before I was a calvinist I preached and believed that peaople were dead in sin but I didn't have a complete understanding of just HOW dead! I never believed I had any righteousness in myself whatsoever. I just didn't understand how bad the will was affected. I guess I was semi-pelagian doctrinally, but I never had any illusion for a moment that I had any righteousness in myself outside of Christ.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 8, 2006)

I think brothers we need to be careful at throwing out the condemnations. We reformed do our best to think consistently. Arminians do not. It is the sad state, at least in the American church, to not wrestle with the difficult questions. It's possible for an Arminain to trust in Christ alone and yet not fully understand the implications of how that affects him. Thankfully, inconsistency is not teh unpardonable sin. Otherwise we have to write off most of the early and medieval church to eternal judgment. To focus on whether man is a sinner and the freedom of the will really won't work to change their mind. Even we believe in human responsibility. You have to force them to go to the Scriptures to reconcile their anthropology with their Christology. Arminians have no problem acknowledging a general sovereignty of God over "nature" even though they defend a freedom in man as a rational being. They acknowledge some depravity though not total. They acknowledge that God knows the future, yet he can't violate free will. But all these inconsistencies fall apart when we consider the life of Jesus. What if the people in Jesus day exercized their free will to not crucify Him? How did God account for that possibility so it didn't happen and His plan came to pass? How did God account for the billions of free wills while fulfilling the many OT prophecies? If man was not totally depraved, then why did Jesus have to be incarnate as a whole man? If the will of man is still intact then why must it be renewed? Did Jesus actually accomplish what the Father sent Him to do? Who did the Father give to the Son? What do the concepts of redemption, purchase, and propitiate actually entail? Do the prayers of Christ for His own ever go unanswered by the Father? If Christ is doing the will of the Father in interceding for His own, then how could the Father ever deny a prayer of His beloved Son for His people? If a man can fall away, is it because Christ failed to intercede for Him? Or was the Father unable to answer the prayers of his Son? If the Father cannot answer the prayers of His only begotten Son, then how can we trust him to answer our prayers? 

These are questions you must force them to go back to the Scriptures about. Even though an Arminian would patently deny this, their system logically makes Christ (and the Holy Spirit) a failure, and destroys the perfect inter-Trinitarian fellowship. So we must build from what they agree with us about, and help them reason through it, with meekness, gentleness, and love.


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 8, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> I don't know about that Jeff. Before I was a calvinist I preached and believed that peaople were dead in sin but I didn't have a complete understanding of just HOW dead! I never believed I had any righteousness in myself whatsoever. I just didn't understand how bad the will was affected. I guess I was semi-pelagian doctrinally, but I never had any illusion for a moment that I had any righteousness in myself outside of Christ.


 
Did you believe that you had the righteousness to make the righteous choice to choose Christ? While you may not have phrased "free-will" in this sense "self-righteousness", that is exactly what it is, and that is exactly why the Westminster Divines included a clear understanding of Total Depravity as requisite for saving faith.

One could also look at this from a CoW vs. CoG standpoint. Under the law as a CoW, man always seeks to save himself through works. This is the case until a man recognized that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING he can do to "recover" himself from his lost condition (as the WLC puts it). It is only at this point can a true understanding of the unconditional gospel (i.e. Christ fulfills ALL of the conditions necessary) be attained, and hence saving faith.

One could also parallel this to a sick man vs. a dead man. A sick man will always strive to get better using his own methods, but a dead man must rely on the resurrection power of Christ to raise him form the grave unto life.

There are many reformed references to these ideas, I wish I had time to look them up and post them, but I am afraid that is not the case. I hope this explanation helps.

BTW, I was a believer in my own righteousness at one point.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 8, 2006)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I think brothers we need to be careful at throwing out the condemnations. We reformed do our best to think consistently. Arminians do not. It is the sad state, at least in the American church, to not wrestle with the difficult questions. It's possible for an Arminain to trust in Christ alone and yet not fully understand the implications of how that affects him. Thankfully, inconsistency is not teh unpardonable sin. Otherwise we have to write off most of the early and medieval church to eternal judgment. To focus on whether man is a sinner and the freedom of the will really won't work to change their mind. Even we believe in human responsibility. You have to force them to go to the Scriptures to reconcile their anthropology with their Christology. Arminians have no problem acknowledging a general sovereignty of God over "nature" even though they defend a freedom in man as a rational being. They acknowledge some depravity though not total. They acknowledge that God knows the future, yet he can't violate free will. But all these inconsistencies fall apart when we consider the life of Jesus. What if the people in Jesus day exercized their free will to not crucify Him? How did God account for that possibility so it didn't happen and His plan came to pass? How did God account for the billions of free wills while fulfilling the many OT prophecies? If man was not totally depraved, then why did Jesus have to be incarnate as a whole man? If the will of man is still intact then why must it be renewed? Did Jesus actually accomplish what the Father sent Him to do? Who did the Father give to the Son? What do the concepts of redemption, purchase, and propitiate actually entail? Do the prayers of Christ for His own ever go unanswered by the Father? If Christ is doing the will of the Father in interceding for His own, then how could the Father ever deny a prayer of His beloved Son for His people? If a man can fall away, is it because Christ failed to intercede for Him? Or was the Father unable to answer the prayers of his Son? If the Father cannot answer the prayers of His only begotten Son, then how can we trust him to answer our prayers?
> 
> These are questions you must force them to go back to the Scriptures about. Even though an Arminian would patently deny this, their system logically makes Christ (and the Holy Spirit) a failure, and destroys the perfect inter-Trinitarian fellowship. So we must build from what they agree with us about, and help them reason through it, with meekness, gentleness, and love.


----------



## Blue Tick (Nov 8, 2006)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I think brothers we need to be careful at throwing out the condemnations. We reformed do our best to think consistently. Arminians do not. It is the sad state, at least in the American church, to not wrestle with the difficult questions. It's possible for an Arminain to trust in Christ alone and yet not fully understand the implications of how that affects him. Thankfully, inconsistency is not teh unpardonable sin. Otherwise we have to write off most of the early and medieval church to eternal judgment. To focus on whether man is a sinner and the freedom of the will really won't work to change their mind. Even we believe in human responsibility. You have to force them to go to the Scriptures to reconcile their anthropology with their Christology. Arminians have no problem acknowledging a general sovereignty of God over "nature" even though they defend a freedom in man as a rational being. They acknowledge some depravity though not total. They acknowledge that God knows the future, yet he can't violate free will. But all these inconsistencies fall apart when we consider the life of Jesus. What if the people in Jesus day exercized their free will to not crucify Him? How did God account for that possibility so it didn't happen and His plan came to pass? How did God account for the billions of free wills while fulfilling the many OT prophecies? If man was not totally depraved, then why did Jesus have to be incarnate as a whole man? If the will of man is still intact then why must it be renewed? Did Jesus actually accomplish what the Father sent Him to do? Who did the Father give to the Son? What do the concepts of redemption, purchase, and propitiate actually entail? Do the prayers of Christ for His own ever go unanswered by the Father? If Christ is doing the will of the Father in interceding for His own, then how could the Father ever deny a prayer of His beloved Son for His people? If a man can fall away, is it because Christ failed to intercede for Him? Or was the Father unable to answer the prayers of his Son? If the Father cannot answer the prayers of His only begotten Son, then how can we trust him to answer our prayers?
> 
> These are questions you must force them to go back to the Scriptures about. Even though an Arminian would patently deny this, their system logically makes Christ (and the Holy Spirit) a failure, and destroys the perfect inter-Trinitarian fellowship. So we must build from what they agree with us about, and help them reason through it, with meekness, gentleness, and love.




Yes, Patrick you are correct we need to be sensitive and not condemn people for their lack of understanding. I would like more compassion in this area of my own heart. Thank you for the gentle rebuke.


Therefore, maybe my question was somewhat vague so let me clarify.

In regards to men like George Bryson, Dave Hunt, and Ergun Caner who are very HOSTILE to reformed doctrines, are we to consider them brothers? It seems these men have studied Calvinisim and reject it completely. So, in essence are they not worshipping an idol? Have they made an imaginary god in their minds?


Dave Hunt " What love is this'' Calvinism Misrepresentation of God 

George Bryson "The darkside of Calvinism

Ergun Caner - Calvinist Jihad http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.503


----------



## Arch2k (Nov 8, 2006)

armourbearer said:


> The problem is that no evangelical rejects the "T," but they offer different rational explanations of it. Many evangelicals accept Toplady's "nothing in my hands I bring, simply to thy cross I cling." They might confuse the nature of the "cling," but it does not negate the fact that the cross is what they are clinging to.


 
Interesting that you bring up Toplady. He has a good take on this subject.

The "god" of Arminianism 

See link below for more articles from Toplady (but I'm sure you've read them Rev. Winzer  )



Blue Tick said:


> In regards to men like George Bryson, Dave Hunt, and Ergun Caner who are very HOSTILE to reformed doctrines, are we to consider them brothers?


 
My careful answer is no (if indeed they are all hostile toward total depravity). 

See http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/Arminianism.htm

For many articles on Arminianism.

Especially The “god” of Arminianism is Not Worshippable .

There is much more at stake here than just being "nice" or recognizing "inconsistency".


----------



## BJClark (Nov 8, 2006)

This is actually the reason my brother-in-law left our church body, my sister grasped it, understands and accepts it, but he continues to wrestle with God over this truth.


----------



## caddy (Nov 8, 2006)

Amen to this brother !

Exactly my thoughts as well. It hit me around 3 years ago. I just was not exposed to this simple yet profound teaching. Upon first reading it, it was so harsh to me, but as I read more and more, the Lord began to convince me of the utter truthfulness of the Reformed Faith. 

You are right on target concerning point one: Total Depravity. Explain that concept to the fullest and most people began to see some obvious problems with their own inabilities given its truthfulness. 







Blueridge reformer said:


> I rejected calvinism for many years because of ignorance and misrepresentation of Calvinistic postions that were taught to me by "whiskey" Baptists(those who believe eternal security but reject the rest). For me the turning point came back around 97 to 98 when I began to get a hold on point 1. When I grasped the truth of that the rest fell into place. That's why when I present the 5 points to another person I always start with total depravity and try and get them to prove it wrong. I try and get them to show me where man has anything good in him whatsoever. I stress the truth of spiritual death that is in all unsaved sinners.


----------



## bookslover (Nov 9, 2006)

Theoretical said:


> Total Depravity (not merely the casusal "are you a sinner" stuff) is a good starting place - especially since it seems to be the clear distinguisher between the confused and intellectually inconsistent Christian and the true semi-Pelagian/5-point Arminian. If the person grasps and truly holds to Total Depravity, then not holding the other points is merely an inconsistency that can be addressed. Not holding to T, though, means there are serious problems with the person's view of the Doctrine of Man.



I think it was G. K. Chesterton (his mug would make a great Avatar, by the way [hint, hint]) who once cracked that sin (total depravity in this context) is the only Christian doctrine which is empirically verifiable.


----------



## Herald (Nov 9, 2006)

Blue Tick said:


> What do you think about people who are professing Christians and have studied the DOG and reject them? For instance guys like Hunt,Bryson, and Caner. They have studied reformed soteriology and they believe it is heretical. Additionally, I have friends who have studied and don't want anything to do with the reformed faith.
> 
> The point I want to make is someone who has study reformed soteriology.



John - first, I need to be careful of my pride. I was Arminian in my soteriology for nearly eighteen years. I will admit that I had an inclination to Calvinism, I just never pursued it during that time. Does this mean I wasn't saved until I became a Calvinist? No, I reject that line of thinking. How many individuals _understand_ theology prior to coming to faith in Christ? My guess would be not many. I believe that the process of sanctification includes theological knowledge. 

As far as your friends who you state have studied Reformed soteriology... Allow God to do His perfect work. As the Lord gives opportunity, talk to them about it. As you talk sprinkle your words with the love of Christ. This is an important truth to discuss. Don't allow it to digress to a heated debate. Allow the conviction on this matter to come from the Holy Spirit.



P.S. John, notice my avatar. I certainly believe in bringing more into the fold.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 9, 2006)

There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.

C.H. SPURGEON
A Defense of Calvinism


----------



## Ivan (Nov 9, 2006)

Blueridge reformer said:


> There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven.
> 
> C.H. SPURGEON
> A Defense of Calvinism



 and


----------



## JoshCasey (Nov 12, 2006)

I also thought of Spurgeon:

_ Speaking of Arminians, Whitfield said, “We are all born Arminians.” It is grace that turns us into Calvinists, grace that makes Christians of us, grace that makes us free, and makes us know our standing in Christ Jesus._

I think it's one of those things - while Total Depravity is indeed necessary to the entire Christian idea of salvation, but only grace can bring someone to realize that, or any of the other doctrines of grace.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 12, 2006)

I can answer for what I think of Dave Hunt: I would never trust his scholarship for any cult he has written on given how little he understands about the Reformed faith. I've never seen him be able to articulate it correctly. Either he is dishonest, lacks the mental capacity to understand it, has a reading comprehension problem, has never really read it, or only reads what others say about it.

Dr. White is a personal friend and mailed me a free copy of the "debate in a book" that he did with Dave Hunt on the subject. I'm glad that I had never wasted any time reading any of Dave Hunt's works over the years. I have Reformed friends that had held him in some esteem prior to his treatment on Calvinism. They were really disappointed.

I have my book in storage (Is it called _Calvinism: Two Views_?) Anyhow, what is least shocking is the obvious fact that Dave Hunt disagrees with the "headings of Calvinism". He's like the Rain Man "God is Love, God is Love, definitely God is Love..." and that's his basic argument throughout the book. The real shocker was the unmitigated Pelagianism that came out of some of the things that he wrote. At one point he states that God never commands anything of men that they are not able to obey.

So, in short:

1. With men like Dave Hunt, I don't have a great deal of respect for their scholarship and think they shouldn't be teaching people.
2. It's not my place to say if they're saved as the secret things belong to God.
3. I have less confidence that a man has received and rested on the Gospel when his public expression of the Gospel is mixed with rank heresy.
4. I think such men will be held accountable for those who they lead astray with a mixed Gospel.
5. There, but the Grace of God, go I. May he ever keep me from such error.


----------

