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

 

13 June, 2007   comments: (0) Anti-Calvinism   Henry Frueh: "Reformed Theology is an Idol That is Worshipped" - Is That True? Well, Henry (Rick Frueh) is back at it again with a whole new line of misrepresentation about Reformed believers. You may remember my previous post in which I addressed Henry Frueh's claims of "blasphemy". In this post I'll also try to clear up what happened in an email conversation between Henry and I several months ago, which he now seems to be recollecting with an all new spin. We'll take a look at those emails, while examining Henry's latest charges against Reformed Christians. Let's start off by posting Henry's entire comment, recently posted on an Emerging Church blog that often seems to make sport of bashing Calvinism. Henry writes in the comments of the post (highlighting is mine): Uh oh, what do the reformed conclave do with Piper who also had Driscoll speak at his DESIRING GOD conference? And what do they do with all the other major league reformed group who gave him a great reception? Where is their discernment now? I will tell you what they will do (excepting some like Camp), they will soft peddle his major league compromising while they pick Rick Warren's bones clean. And the reason Driscoll was invited to SPEAK to their conference? Because he is reformed and that is their idol. They worship their theology and a reformed compromiser is treated with kid gloves compared to the savage and unchristian terminology used for other compromisers without reformed credentials. When I brought up Piper's compromise on a reformed blog many months ago I was asked not to comment again because I made mention that he was reformed. It is perplexing that those of the reformed (or whatever) perspective can be so caustic and even petty in their watchman towers but they believe the people who they castigate cannot change because God has not illuminated them. You talk about spinning your wheels, I believe that anyone can be saved therefore deception has eternal consequences while a Calvinist is preaching to the choir, period. Piper, if he is consistent, should publicly denounce Driscoll and repent of having him spread his compromising into the very reformed henhouse. I e-mailed him months ago with no reply and I don't hold that against him, I want to make clear I attempted to contact him. I applaud brother Camp for his consistency. Let us see if the very same merciless verbal assault will come down on Driscoll and Piper as has been rained down upon everyone else. Where to start. . . . First of all, the use of terms like "Reformed Conclave" give you a sense of the axe that Henry Frueh has to grind with (Reformed) Calvinism. Actually, his axe is really with Calvinism or Calvinists, as neither Driscoll nor Piper is Reformed. Now, I fully agree with Henry on the mistakes that he notes about John Piper, and that's a fact that I've mentioned several times on this blog, and you will see again below. But what bothers me is the falsehoods that Henry Frueh continues to spread on the Internet, about Calvinism. So we'll look at that first. Calvinists "worship their theology" and "Reformed" is their idol. Well, I wholeheartedly believe that Henry Frueh has this perception because he has outright rejected or neglected a major doctrine of the bible. Plain and simple, Calvinists see God's sovereignty as real and actual, where as non-Calvinists often either don't think about his sovereignty at all, or they don't think it applies to how man becomes saved. So for example, if I didn't believe in the Trinity and thought it was an unnecessary doctrine, then you might also find me saying "Those Trinitarians are always talking about the Trinity" or "they have a 3 headed monster as their idol", as I've heard Muslims say. Likewise with Henry, he essentially discounts the doctrine of God's Sovereign Election, and I believe this is why he recoils when other people mention it. That is the experience that I had with his many visits here on Old Truth, as we would often find him visiting here to make disparaging comments against this historic and biblical belief. Henry then talks about how Calvinists are preaching to the choir, and in other words are not making a sincere offer of the Gospel. I covered this line of thinking which he is spreading online, in my previous post. So I won't beat a dead horse. Lastly, I believe Henry Frueh is speaking about me, when he says above: "When I brought up Piper's compromise on a reformed blog many months ago I was asked not to comment again...". Now I admit that I could be wrong about that statement relating to my blog, as there's always the chance that Henry is having these same repetitive conflicts with other Calvinists on their blogs, and has been banned elsewhere. But assuming that's not the case, allow me to demonstrate how Henry is being misleading in that statement. I have a long history with Henry visiting Old Truth to speak his onions and let everyone know how he thinks we have a wrong attitude. So far as I can recollect, I have never commented on his blog at all. After (what I felt were) some cheap shots that he posted in the comments here, I sent him this email earlier this year: Henry: Last week you visited to tell us that you were suspicious that Reformed people give other Reformed people (like Piper) a free pass. This week you are back telling us that Reformed people put leaders on idol pedestals. It's funny you should say that about a post in which I was voicing disagreement with one of those Reformed people that everybody says we have on a pedestal (John MacArthur). My advice to you would be that, if you have so many cautions about Reformed believers, then stay off their blogs rather than using them as a trolling platform to voice your anti-reformed biases. I let this comment go through, but this will be the last one. Also, no, it doesn't matter that you mix words like "pride" and "idolatry" with a few compliments here and there, along the way. The slanted bias comes through loud and clear, and I disagree with your conclusions entirely. Your blog would be the ideal place for you to voice them, if that's what you feel you must do. Believe me, there's plenty that I could say in the comments of your blog related to the areas that I feel you are wrong; but as a courtesy to you, I have not done that. --Jim To this Henry responds with this: I apologize because I have obviously offended you. I did not mean to, my point was that it seemed that Sproul comes across as prideful and MacArthur does not. A trolling platform for my anti-reformed bias? Did you not read my assessment of most of the reformed camp in my comment and have you not read my assessment of most of the Arminian camp in my other comments? I will not bother you again and I apologize for coming across unclearly. In Christ, Rick Now Henry comes across as polite at times, and it's true that both of the above emails came after (but not directly after) his protest of hypocrisy towards Piper in the comments of this post. But what's NOT true is Henry's implication that I asked him not to comment anymore BECAUSE OF something related to Piper. In fact, the opposite is much the case. You'll notice in my comment of that post that I agreed with Henry Frueh, saying "Piper really blundered on that one". What Henry was asked to leave Old Truth over was his repetitive jabs and cheap shots at Reformed theology or Calvinists; you'll see in my email above that I mentioned one of them, along with his mention of how some in the Reformed camp "put men on pedestals" (I presume he feels there are few/no Arminians who do this). But it doesn't stop there. Here are some of the other things Henry Frueh has posted in the comments of Old Truth in the past: 8/19/06: The problem I have with Calvinists is not primarily their theology, they might be right. It is their condescention and devaluing of the Arminian perspective as if we were not students of the Word complete with original language credentials. And finally, many Calvinists boldly proclaim that they hold a much higher view of God than any Arminian. That is the ultimate self righteousness. ... We all have a long way to go to completely hold a complete view of [God]. 8/21/06: a non elect person can never know he is lost, he can never understand salvation, and he will never receive any warning, and conversely an elect person will embrace the truth because the Lord has brought him involuntarily to regeneration and he will not embrace heresy. And there is where I cannot see the enormous amount of time and effort some reformed brothers spend correcting, for instance, Rick Warren. He cannot change and all who have embraced his theology cannot change either if they are non elect. Additionally, if they are on their way to hell with no chance of salvation why not let them have some false joy while they are going? The elect will one day come out and the non elect will at least enjoy some fleshly happiness but wind up in hell. ... 9/16/06: ...there are Calvinists and Arminians that even claim the other isn't saved. It was probably done in jest, but obviously over the top. The personal references and pictures of Spurgeon and MacArthur were out of bounds and probably deserve an apology. ... That last one is interesting, considering the ramifications involved with Henry Frueh saying that 5 point Calvinists are guilty of blasphemy. Does he really believe that they are "saved blasphemers" somehow? And yet he speaks as though it's wrong to make such claims. Those are just a few examples (there are numerous other examples just like those that I could cite). Other times his comments (on other unrelated subjects) were cordial, and still other times they were a mix of kindness with abrasive anti-Calvinist slams often referring to some Calvinists who are prideful etc. Henry is often quick to call on Calvinists to apologize or repent for their attitude, but it's hard for me to imagine a Calvinist with a more abrasive attitude and disposition than Henry Frueh himself has exhibited, in his speaking out against Calvinists. Again, I could be wrong, and by some coincidence Henry was not talking about my blog, but some other Calvinist blog that he was asked to leave. But assuming that he was talking about my interaction with him, it brings up some further questions. Is Henry Frueh being truthful when he implies that he was asked to leave this blog because of his supposed exposing of hypocrisy related to John Piper? Well, I've been rather open about having the same concerns about John Piper as Henry Frueh. Could it perhaps be more accurate that Henry simply wore out his welcome here, with prejudiced jabs and cheap shots aimed at the beliefs that I hold to be biblically true? I believe that I have demonstrated this. I do however invite Henry to make any rebuttals that he might want, on my series of posts related directly to him. He can feel free to speak his mind below, within the normal commenting rules of this blog. UPDATE 10/4/07: See our latest post entitled: Rick Frueh on "Jesus The Arminian Cry Baby" and Heartless Calvinists Posted by: Jim B.   Link: http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.709   Be the first to post a comment about this article        Home  |   About  |  Videos   |  Calvinism