As in all matters theological, the ultimate weapon against anything called or actually heresy is adherence and appeal to the whole of Christian Scripture. In that light there is no more important comment in your review than when you say:

“Spurgeon responds to this heretical twisting of Calvinism by turning to the Scriptures.”

Continuing this:
“He argues that gospel invitations are universal in their scope, that faith is demanded of all, that man is wholly responsible for his own sin, and that the character of God is love.”
Sounds like good doctrine to me.

Moving on: I realize this is a review of a book about looking to Spurgeon for help in debates against hyper Calvinism, but what would you suggest for help (if it is needed) against open theism (since you mentioned it)? Who are the preachers and/or authors that you feel most powerfully provide “weapons” against what you call “the heresy of open theism”? Who are the apostles with authority to bring such charges? Exegetically, which scriptures do you think most forcefully argue for God knowing absolutely everything that will ever happen from the eternal past or from outside of time? I’ve looked and haven’t found any of God’s Word that makes that point. So, how is it a heresy to argue from Scripture toward the conclusions of open theism? The assumption that “historic Christianity” defines the truths of Scripture seems to be basis for most opposition to “re-conceiving” our understanding of what God knows. Even the definition of “heresy” implies that assumption. Appeals to Calvinist theology tend to rely on the same assumptions.

Personally, Christologically, Spiritually, and ecclesially, I’d suggest all of us would do well by being very reticent to cast the charge of heresy as broadly as Trevin does. Arguments are fine, but anathemas and charges of HERESY are either prophetic or demonic. The presumption is always that the one making the charge has grasped the essence of true biblical doctrine and those who disagree are in spiritually mortal error. It is all too easy to assume “I am right and you are wrong,” but I doubt Christ will be impressed with our performance if we do. Who among us claims to have the mind of Christ without error?

All the best to those in Christ our Lord and Savior,
Richard W. Wilson

Seriously, Murray is reformed but he’s got maturity and perspective, something that has apparently run low at the home office.

Murray has also done a lot of good audio that can be found at Sound Word Associates.

The man is a gift.

My teacher stated (and I quote), “they (meaning Calvinists) secretly enter churches of many faiths, not just Baptists, and begin to slowly try to change the doctrine of faith. They are very sly.” She also said, “I wish they would just get their own church and leave the Baptists alone.” She taught that if your hold Calvinist beliefs you do not believe in missions and they don’t believe in evangelism, I disagree.

If since God predetermined what happens there is no need to evangelize, she said. But I think if we hold that assumption then we place ourself in knowing what God knows. For example: My father in law is not a Christian, I will still witness to him (even at his old age) until my last breath. I do not know if he will accept or reject Christ, that is not for me to know.

I have considered my self a Baptist all my life, but I do hold the view of elections. My personal belief is that we have free will. But God KNEW even before we were made if we would accept him or not.
God is all-knowing. My teacher stated you don’t become the ‘elect’ until you accept Christ. I agree to the extent that you are not a Christian until you accept Christ, but God foreknew your decision.
This is why I believe in election then faith.

I STRONGLY agree that there are subjects within the Christian faith that we can “agree to disagree” on (ex. election, rapture, etc..) But to stand up and say that people who hold the view of election is eroding the Baptist faith and comes mighty close to calling it a “false religion.” SHOCKS ME.

Sorry for this length. I do not agree with the quotes you mentioned on “Hyper-Calvinism” and I agree things can go spinning off track easily. And I do embrace the antipathy of “hyper-Calvinism.”

But as a Baptist born and raised I was shocked to hear such strong teaching against some Calvinism beliefs.

Thank you for letting me babble, my head is spinning trying to come to grips with everything that was taught last night.

Have a great day.

Specifically, I am referring to the Young, Restless, Reformed movement documented by journalist Collin Hansen – a movement that transcends denominational lines.

It is not “classically Reformed” – in that this movement focuses primarily upon soteriology. The neo-Reformed are united by 5 points of Calvinism, not by ecclesiological convictions and other matters important to the “old” Reformed.

I am not using the term in a perjorative sense, as I would probably be considered (in some ways) loosely affiliated with this movement, even if I am not a 5-point Calvinist.