The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Hank Hanegraff on calvinism

In reply to:

---

It was reasoned from scripture,

---

This is hardly the case, brother! You assumed something which you concluded from nothing more than your own imagination, since you haven't talked to the man nor have you read his publicly printed reply to the question posed to him concerning his involvement with ECT, etc. Thus your basis for making your conclusions isn't based upon FACT, it is therefore unacceptable. And since I have talked to the man and read his answer, I can tell you, which I have already but will do so again, it is clearly NOT "pragmatism", nor most definitely because he has become "a friend to the world". Rather than me telling you what he said and/or wrote, which I doubt would hold much weight in your eyes, I will therefore suggest once again that you at least read his published answer [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/readit.gif" alt="readit" title="readit[/img]. Then, upon the man's own words, you will thereby be able to make a more informative judgment based upon FACTS, unless of course, you would judge what he wrote to be ingenuous?

In reply to:

---

and you have told us yourself that you don't understand them.

---

Sorry, but I have never said that I didn't "understand them", but rather I found his reason for his actions, "wanting". And so you don't misconstrue what I mean by "wanting", I will lay it out for you clearly. I fully understood his reasons, but I didn't think that they were justifiable. However, I am not the man's Judge. I found nothing spurious or wanting with his motives however, e.g., as being "worldly".

In reply to:

---

Are you suggesting that Mr. Packer is above misguided motives?

---

[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/nope.gif" alt="nope" title="nope[/img]

As far as directing you to Dr. Packer's written statement concerning his involvement with ECT, the best I can do for you at this particular time is to tell you that it appeared in one of the back issues of the Reformation and Revival Journal. You might consider contacting Reformation and Revival Online and ask if they still have copies of the back issue or even a printed copy of Dr. Packer's article. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]

In His Grace,

In reply to:

---

[color:"blue"]By the way, in what way, specifically, did you find his reasons not "justifiable"?.

---

Read his article and come to your own conclusions. I prefer to keep my assessment to myself as it is a personal matter and not one which care to be made public, especially since I know the man.

And what does this have to do with Hank Hanegraff, anyway?

In His Grace,

In reply to:

---

people like John Wesley were considered Christians. If I remember correctly, I think (correct me if I am wrong Pilgrim) Pilgrim has said that more than once on this forum.

---

You are so right, Tom! Each INDIVIDUAL must be judged on his/her on merits or demerits, both theologically and by one's practice. (by their fruits you shall know them) Another consideration which many today fail to take into account, is that the Arminianism of John and Charles Wesley was decidedly different than that being promoted today. Actually, there are few real "Arminians" around. The majority of those who are antagonists toward historic Protestantism; i.e., the doctrines which distinguished Protestants from Roman Catholics during the Reformation, are semi-Pelagian. All one need do is read some of Wesley's sermons where he describes the condition of man after the Fall and if you didn't know that he had written it, you would swear that perhaps it was Edwards, Owen, or even John Calvin.

Also, as I have in myriad places written, there is sometimes a wide gulf that separates the theology of a man and what he truly believes in his heart. I do believe, as did Whitefield, that John Wesley was one of them. Show a person graphically what his/her theology looks like, e.g., by using a technique such I have done here: Do You REALLY Believe That Salvation is by Grace, ALONE?, and you will find that some will be smitten when they realize that what they profess to believe is actually akin to the soteriology of Roman Catholicism; i.e., synergism and that it denies Sola Gratia (by grace alone). I have had wonderful followup meetings with some in which the Word of God pierced their hearts afterward.

In His Grace,

In reply to:

---

How can a false gospel be thought of as true by so-called Calvinists is utterly beyond me.

---

You won't find much disagreement here as to this statement. But please tell me, have you met many "so-called Calvinists" who believe that the Arminian gospel is "true"? Are there many who would, for example, give assent to the CCC's "Four Spiritual Laws"? I will unabashedly admit that I have met some who would profess to be Calvinists and consider Arminianism as simply a different perspective or focus and acceptable and have no qualms about using such things as the "Four Spiritual Laws". In fact, there are some members of this Board who once expressed this view. But I would hope that there would not be many who would be so naíve or inconsistent with their profession to holding to the doctrines of sovereign free grace.

In His Grace,