For reasons too complex and trivial for me to bother going into, I was checking back through the pastor’s blog of a church I have attended for several years (and which I like very much, though currently I’m attending another church at the moment), and noticed he had posted up this excerpt from Warren Wiersbe’s 50 People Every Christian Should Know:
Because Dale stayed on at Carr’s Lane at 36 years.
When I see things like this, my Kath radar kicks in. We have a pastor in the mid-1800s (near the end of the heyday for orthodox universalist Protestants in Britain outside the Anglican church per se), who has Calv leanings but doesn’t like teaching Calv as a doctrinal system and goes out of his way to call into question some key Calv points. Which points are those?–the ones concerning the limited scope of God’s salvation. (“Total Depravity” may not seem like it has anything to do with the limited scope of God’s atonement; but once Calvs deploy the concept in the context that apart from the Holy Spirit human nature has no goodness in it at all, then they synch it up with God’s election and the inextricable fate of the chosen dis-elected. The more moderate view, that all our faculties have been at least a little corrupted by sin, would not be denied by most Arms, or most Kaths either; nor would most Arms or Kaths deny that apart from the action of the Holy Spirit we can have no goodness in ourselves.)
Which points don’t make the list of questioning?–notably, the persistence of God to save all those He intends to save! Which is one of the key major differences between Calvs and Arms. (Also, arguably, the biggest positive selling point for Calvinism per se.)
Keep that persistence and question the limited scope, and where do we arrive?
(Hint: at something that would horrify some “saints”. )
So, would anyone less lazy than I am like to do some research on this guy?