Why R. C. Sproul is Baffled

Sproul wrote the preface to James White’s The Potter’s Freedom (which has the easy job of proving that Geisler is a fool, but also has some good exegetical stuff, especially in Hebrews and particular atonement).

Sproul begins his preface: “I often find myself baffled as I consider the state of the church in our day.” Sproul ends his preface: “It seems that while we are all born Pelagians, most of us are reborn as semi-Pelagians. That is, we come into the kingdom as Arminians.”

That of course explains Sproul’s bafflement. He has a wrong assumption, that Arminians are Christians. I am not saying that God cannot save an Arminian. I am saying that God saves His sheep from being Arminian. Their ceasing to be Arminians is not why they are saved. But those who have been saved have ceased to be Arminians, or else they are not saved.

One problem is the “us” here. Sproul thinks he’s an “evangelical”. Evangelicals are unsaved. I am not part of any “us” which is “reborn as semi-pelagians”. That “us” is headed to destruction unless they are converted to the true gospel and to the true Christ.

Sproul still tolerates Arminianism because he still believes the lie of Arminianism. If you know him, please talk to him about the gospel. In the meanwhile, what about YOU: how much do YOU still believe the lie of Arminianism?

Think about it. “Reborn”. Who does the birthing? God does. Does God birth us with a lie and keep us in that lie? When that lie denies the very righteousness of God?

No.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: arminians, election

Tags: ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

3 Comments on “Why R. C. Sproul is Baffled”

  1. wellthmaker Says:

    Ministers have to take a stand. They have sat back and let the false gospel get worse and worse to the extent it is today. They did not discipline the presbyteries to keep weak men out of the ministry, their ears were tickled by higher criticism,and they refused to defrock men who became hereticks. So the church has declined and now almost anything can be called christian if they quote a verse out of context.
    And rather than elders being judges, they feel they are not to judge, except those who call them to judge error.
    This leaven has to be purged out and no longer tolerated. Woe to these ministers who have failed to warn the flock. If God killed Uzzah, you think He will wink at Joseph Arminius or Billy Graham?
    I won’t bet my salvation on it.

  2. markmcculley Says:

    RC Sproul—
    A while back I had one of those moments of acute self-awareness that we have from time to time, and suddenly the question hit me: “R.C. what if you are not one of the redeemed? What if your destiny is not heaven after all, but hell?” Let me tell you that I was flooded in my body with a chill that went from my head to the bottom of my spine. I\ was terrified.

    I tried to grab hold of myself. I thought, “Well, it’s a good sign
    that I’m worried about this. Only true Christians really care about
    salvation.” But then I began to take stock of my life, and I looked at
    my performance. My sins came pouring into my mind, and the more I looked at myself, the worse I felt. I thought, “Maybe it’s really
    true. Maybe I’m not saved after all.”

    I went to my room and began to read the Bible. On my knees I said,
    “Well, here I am. I can’t point to my obedience. There’s nothing I can
    offer. I can only rely on Your atonement for my sins. I can only throw
    myself on Your mercy.” Even then I knew that some people only flee to the Cross to escape hell, not out of a real turning to God. I could
    not be sure about my own heart and motivation.

    Then I remembered John . Jesus had been giving out hard teaching, and many of His former followers had left Him. When He asked Peter if he was also going to leave, Peter said, “Where else can I go? Only You have the words of eternal life.” In other words, Peter was also uncomfortable, but he realized that being uncomfortable with Jesus was better than any other option!”

  3. markmcculley Says:

    Sproul seems utterly unaware that Finney lauded Edwards as his great model and indignantly identified himself as a Calvinist in the struggle of Calvinism with “low Arminianism,” and deployed precisely the argument Edwards had made on natural and moral ability throughout his great revival campaigns in upstate New York and New York City from 1826 to 1835 (and cited chapter and verse from Freedom of the Will to prove it).

    That Finney had a particularly coarse and brash way of using Edwards is true, but it is also beside the point. Even Finney’s notorious claim that revival was “a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means and not a miracle” was simply to say what Edwards had said about human choices being the right responses to motives. Some of Finney’s other unorthodoxies have similar Edwardsian roots, although there is no account of them here, either.

    Sproul takes no notice of how Edwards’s doctrine in Original Sin has no concept of immediate imputation, nor does he recall that in 1750 Edwards explicitly endorsed Joseph Bellamy’s teaching on unlimited atonement as “the proper Essence and distinguishing Nature of saving Religion. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1998/march2/8t3059.html


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: