On radio show Sproul equates non Calvinists with humanists

[Choosethisday]

Yesterday, June 19th on RC Sproul's radio program he tried to tie non Calvinists with humanism in the Church. One can listen to this at http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/ ... june-2014/ at about minute 23:45 in the program. I have often listened to Sproul and although I don't agree often we should never want to close our minds to other views of Scripture. I have learned from this in the past and it is always good to examine one's assumptions in the light of Scripture. However, as I have listened to this series on Gods' sovereignty and Man's free will I have heard a number of places where Sproul subtly either misunderstood or misrepresented what non Calvinists believe. This has really bothered me but I persevered wanting to fully understand his arguments . However, yesterday as I was listening, near the end of the program, the announcer said something about the problem of Humanism in the Church and then Sproul began talking again. He clearly stated that "the invasion of humanism in the Church today, with respect to free will, is expressed in Arminian theology." I actually had to listen to the archives several times to really believe he would say this. To divide the Body in this way with all the external attacks we face is at least irresponsible and perhaps un-Christian. Are we entering another time of increasing intolerance, not just from the world, but from within?

[TheEditor]

Hi Choose,

I have listened to Sproul before. I found his stentorian delivery a bit off-putting. When I listen to a teacher and I rarely hear words like "this appears" or, "some feel this way", but rather terms such as "clearly" and "without question", then I start to get a little nervous. Then again, if you believe that God micro-manages the universe, then perhaps unequivical terms are a given.

Having said that, I am a little surprised, but not really. Being raised a third generation JW, I became inured to being called "cultic"; "not saved"; "not believing in Jesus", etc. But, hearing a teacher that supposedly is Christian divide the Body over matters such as this, is a bit disconcerting. What would he be angling at? Is he hoping to marginalize those that are not Calvinist-enough for his liking by blaming them for problems in the church as a whole? Doesn't he have enough faith in his Calvinist dictum to figure that God is having things exactly as He would have them? It is a puzzler.

Regards, Brenden.

[mattrose]

I'm sure Sproul means it very negatively

But, of course, there are defensible and good forms of 'humanism.'

I remember listening to a lecture by Roger Olson in which he defended Christian humanism very well (essentially the idea that we are not pond scum, but creatures made in the image of God). Too many theologies start with Genesis 3. Secular humanism is bad, but there is such a thing as Christian humanism. I am under the impression that God is a humanist in the latter sense.

[steve]

Sproul definitely misunderstands (or at least misrepresents) non-calivinists in his lectures. I have heard scores of them. He may not have much education outside his system. Or (since John Gerstner was his mentor) he may simply have been taught to be rude and unconcerned about integrity in making statements about people who don't agree with him. "He who is fully trained will be like his master."

However, we non-calvinists sometimes indicate that Calvinists worship an Islamic god, who determines everything, or that they sprang from the invasion of Neo-platonism or Manicheanism into the church. While our criticisms are correct, and historically defensible (while the equating of non-calvinism with humanism comes out of thin air—unless all the church fathers were humanists!) Calvinists probably also see our words about their views as unkind and insulting.

[jriccitelli]

Sometimes I have no alternative but Sproul on my truck radio in the morning, and although I enjoy his well tuned rhetoric on many theological topics, there is a constant ringing coming thru from his sickening repeated references not only to Calvin, but Edwards, Luther, Augustine and whatever GREAT theological thinkers (the greatest minds that have ever existed) he can come up with. Of course RC Sproul always separates himself from them by reminding us that he is not in their camp, since that is what we were all thinking.

I have noticed a strong adherence, reverence, and glorification of human theologians (their writings and commentaries) within the Reformed church, not much unlike the Catholic church’s own glorification of church fathers, writers, popes, saints etc. and the elevation of their doctrine to biblical status. Not also unlike the denominational, non-denominationals natural tendency also to put human teachers and mediators between them and God. After coming out of a cult I was a bit shocked at the elevated position pastors receive in Christendom. I would have thought they all read that scripture has taught and advised against elevating individuals to such elevated positions among people in the body of Christ and God.

Not every believer glorifies the pastor, and falls following the leader, in fact these may be the ones that probably don't show up anymore not wanting to follow some bumbling human, and hypocrite as if they were Gods own agents on earth.
I don't blame the layperson because they have trusted they were following the truth, and I don't necessarily blame the preachers who have been told in seminary and homiletics class that they will stand to give Gods words to the people every Sunday, as if their sermons were always without fail, always coming right out of the mouth of God Himself. Maybe I should blame the seminary professors who are paid to believe they are training Gods disciples by hammering the great church thinkers thinking into them class after class till everyone thinks like the great church thinkers. I could blame everyone who has heard at least one preacher say study and read and trust Gods word for yourself, and hasn't done so. But I should only blame myself for believing Gods word was enough, and that by believing you will be saved.
"Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind And makes flesh his strength' (Jer.17:5, 8:8, 9:4, Micah 3:11, Psalm 118:8, 119, 146:3, Isaiah 2:22, 30:1, etc.etc.)

Lord I wish there were alternatives to the simple basic radio sermons and elementary subject matter and style on radio broadcast bible teaching (and now I listen to podcasts/internet). I love learning all about church history and its teachers, but it becomes apparent, and thus I keep in mind: I am learning more from their mistakes.

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

I was similarly disappointed when I left the WT to find that the "free" Christians weren't so free after all. But I think it was because I was so irritated at the WT that at first I expected more from the church. Unfortunately, it is a human nature thing, not a "high control group" thing. They all like to divide, and drive down tent pins deep in the ground. They all like to tell others ,'Walk this way, snip off this, get rid of that, think this way.'

Regards, Brenden.

[Choosethisday]

jriccitelli
I also enjoy reading Church history and tracing the development, (I don't like using the word evolution), of denominations and Christian movements. A classical book which I found to be very insightful from somewhat different perspectives is From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya. This very long book follows the many people working to move the Kingdom forward over the many centuries. Reading their stories and seeing how imperfect they were, as I very much am, and yet how God used them and changed history was very inspiring. From the historical view it gave a personal perspective on how they were affected from the cultural and religious events of their times. Another source is the reader used for the Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. My wife and I coordinate the Perspectives classes here in the Vancouver area which means we go through the reader each year. In the classes we see how God has been moving History from the very beginning to redeem the World from the fall and how he has directed events to achieve this. This is still going on today and one can see His hand in directing historic events, including keeping at least a remnant of His Church true to His principles. This reader would give you a new appreciation of the relationship between seemingly random events with the Church and the over overarching plan of God in the formation of Christian movements.

Steve
In talking to a Calvinist I try to avoid using incendiary words. I sometimes find this difficult because it can seem that, as is true increasingly within our society, sometimes the truth itself is considered incendiary just because it bothers someone. I don't consider Calvin's questionable character necessarily a reason to reject Calvinism, even though I disagree with it's tenents. But to even question his character can bring a harsh response. I love the people in the church we attend and for the most part the pastor officially avoids being dogmatic over some of these conflicting views. He is a Calvinist and largely a Futurist but doesn't get aggressive about them. However, a few of the other leaders there have stopped just short of calling me heretical because of some of our differences, sometimes very aggressively.