The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum R.C. Sproul and Psychoheresy

John,

Yes, our beloved brother Sproul cannot be said to be perfect in all knowledge. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> It is true that he has erred in some areas of thought. However, although these errors should be exposed and rejected, because of the enormous mass of sound teaching this man has given the Church, by God's grace, it would be silly if not outright stupid to reject the man himself as being totally unreliable or even saved. Many of us have been privy to his "peculiarities" for years. But we greatly enjoy the vast majority of his teachings on various subjects and have benefited from them immensely.

Let's consider, just for a moment, "Biblical Discernment Ministries" who has provided this accusation against Dr. Sproul. It should be evident that they are providing a valuable service in exposing error in many instances. However, they are not free from being accused of error either. For example, they claim to hold to "biblical Calvinism", yet their Statement of Faith contradicts some of the core tenets of Calvinism. I'll offer but one example and let others research this more for themselves. On the one hand they claim to hold to the doctrine of "Total Depravity", yet they clearly have a misunderstanding of what that doctrine teaches for they write:

What they hold to is not only a contradiction of the historic doctrine of "Total Depravity" but it is practically impossible. IF/SINCE man is dead in trespasses in sins, i.e., there is no spiritual life to the soul whatsoever, then pray tell how can a dead sinner believe on Christ, which their statement says PRECEDES regeneration? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> Classic biblical Calvinism clearly affirms that regeneration precedes, must precede and is the origin of faith.

Should I also mention that they hold to classic Dispensationalism as well? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

Okay, the point of all this is simply to show that discernment must be used when reading anyone. And, although some error can be found in everyone, even those who are "stalwarts of the faith", this does not necessarily mean that everything that they hold to be true or teach is to be rejected. There is a point, of course, that one is so fraught with error(s) or that a person's core beliefs so influence all other things that are held, that it isn't worth one's time to read them except for the purpose of providing an example of gross error or if in an academic situation for a class requirement (or for one's own study), in contrast to reading someone for personal edification.

In His grace,