Truth is ancient; it's grey hairs may make it venerable;
it comes from Him who is the ancient of days. --Thomas Watson

 

1 June, 2007   comments: (0) Anti-Calvinism   Rick Frueh: Cultish, Calvinist Blasphemers? Wow! What a statement that is, to suggest that the Puritans, Reformers, Huguenots, and so many others are blasphemers. It doesn't stop there however, Henry Frueh has a virtual smorgasbord of misunderstandings including "Calvinism is cultish" and "Calvinists believe the elect can not be deceived", and more. He's yet another example of a blogger who is lacking a thorough understanding of Calvinism and yet feels competent enough to speak out against it. So let's examine some of his public statements against biblical election and predestination. (Henry) Rick Frueh is a baptist pastor who runs a blog called Judahs Lion, and up until recently, has been a regular visitor here on Old Truth. Usually when he shows up here, it's in the form of comments letting us know that Calvinism or certain Calvinists are offbase according to his view. In one of his most recent comments on a post here, he protested RC Sproul calling a certain end-times view "goofy", saying "to label a legitimate view as 'goofy' smacks of pride." So it surprised me to hear Rick use that same word ("goofy") today in a discussion about Calvinism. Apparently, he does not think that historic Calvinism is a "legitimate view", certainly not as legitimate as his own end-times view. You can view all of the following remarks on this page, but let's take a look at some of his specific misunderstandings: A true Calvanist (in all the different forms) believes that the nonelect cannot be saved but will remain deceived because God has chosen not to enlighten him. Isn't everyone in that same condition to start with? As 2 Cor 4:4 says: "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ". The key question is, what enlightens them, and brings them out of deception? Rick Frueh believes that with a nudge from the Holy Spirit, people will become enlightened, via a decision of their own will. Calvinists believe that gives too much credit to fallen man; it is entirely the Holy Spirit that does all of the enlightening, and the fact that He does not do this for everyone is clearly evident. The elect will be enlightened because God will save them without their consent. This is a misleading oversimplification. An accurate depiction would instead be: The Holy Spirit makes us born again, and then we will WANT TO (willingly) believe and repent. Upon man's repentance and faith, God saves (justifies us). For it is by grace we are saved through faith. When Rick Frueh removes these intermediate steps of belief and repentance towards salvation, it either shows a misunderstanding on his part, or an attempt to misrepresent what Calvinists believe. So why does a Calvinist claim God has called him to expose deception, it is God's will these [non-elect] people are deceived. And in fact it is impossible to have them see their deception, God won't enlighten them. I responded to this objection in another post, so I won't do so again in depth here. But the important point is that, God uses "means" to save people. He uses our evangelism, our prayers, and even our apologetics efforts. An interesting question with a similar dilemma for Rick Frueh would be "why do you bother praying if God already knows what you are going to pray for". It's a question with a similar answer. Most Calvinists believe that the elect can not be deceived. Totally false. No Calvinist I have ever met believes that. I was deceived for many years before I became a Christian, but I've always been 'elect'. So what you have in Calvinist watchman is akin to mocking a blind person when he trips over a rock. ... The truth is that if your watchman ministry serves no eternal purpose than it exists to make you feel important. In the past Rick Frueh has been vocal against sites like Slice Of Laodicea. I would once again stress the importance of apologetics in general, and hope that Rick Frueh will reconsider his broad-brush statement against "Calvinist watchmen". Error correction blogs like Phil Johnson's Team Pyro (as one example) have been useful to a great many people. What is MacArthur's point about the Charismatics? He is a Calvinist and he cannot change anything and if God wants anything to change He doesn;t need us. Another interesting remark, considering how Rick Frueh had nothing but accolades for John MacArthur in the comments of an earlier post here. The idea that God can do anything He wants without us - is blatant erroneous Hyper-Calvinism. No Calvinist that I know of thinks that way; in fact we denounce it. Again, Rick is missing the fact that God uses "means". It is blatant fatalism that is non-biblical and intellectualism at its core. No it is not. Predestination and Fatalism are not the same thing at all. Calvinism is somewhat cultish also. When someone gets a Calvinist epiphany they are welcomed into the club. An irresponsible statement. I would suggest to Rick Frueh that he look up the term "cult". I'm sorry but Calvinism does not fit the definition. Can you imagine Rick saying that Thanksgiving is a cultish holiday, because it commemorates those cultish Calvinists that came over on the Mayflower? Perhaps he sings that cultish song "Amazing Grace" written by John Newton the Calvinist. Does pastor Frueh own a cultish set of Matthew Henry's commentaries? A bad choice of wording by Rick Frueh. It's also interesting that I so frequently see Rick Frueh being welcomed as a brother in the comments over on Mike Ratliff's blog. Though Rick is slanted against Mike Ratliff's Calvinism, he seems to still be welcomed over there as a "part of the club". If Rick Frueh has not been welcomed elsewhere by Calvinists, perhaps it may be because of his outspoken prejudice against their beliefs. Probably the worst of the five points of Calvin is the limited atonement. That says that Jesus did not die for everyone, that is blasphemy. I'll turn this one over to James White's response to that very accusation. He posted a video clip of the late Jerry Falwell making that exact same unfortunate claim. James White notes how men like Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon would then need to be regarded as blasphemers according to the strong language of this claim. It's also worth noting that Limited Atonement is a term that came after Calvin's death, so it's not accurate for Rick Frueh to call it one of Calvin's five points. In fact, all of the "five points" were defined at Dordt in the next century after Calvin. Frueh uses this terminology elsewhere when he refers to limited atonement as "a heretical teaching of Calvin [which has] no teaching in the NT". Apparently Rick Frueh believes that you can just pick up a book written by John Calvin and find everything organized under the 5 points of the TULIP. Many of us see through this as ignorance of church history. I was disappointed to see Rick (Henry) Frueh's misinformed claims being made publicly against Calvinism and various Calvinists. But honestly, I can not say that I was surprised, after his past commenting history here on Old Truth. UPDATE 6/15/07: Henry Frueh is back at it again. See Henry Frueh: "Reformed Theology is an Idol That is Worshipped". UPDATE 10/4/07: Here we go again. See "Jesus The Arminian Cry Baby" and Heartless Calvinists. Posted by: Jim B.   Link: http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.697   Be the first to post a comment about this article        Home  |   About  |  Videos   |  Calvinism