I respectively disagree with Drs. Ascol and White

Full Disclosure: I am a Calvinist, and I hold to the traditional reformed doctrine of limited atonement.

(emphasis mine in all quotes)

We don't believe that Jesus Christ died for a select few, sometimes called the "elect". We believe that "whosoever will" may come and that no one is left out. We are not into particular love or limited atonement. As a matter of fact, we consider it heresy.
~Jerry Falwell

And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer?
~C.H. Spurgeon

Why did men like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards and a host of evangelists deny the Arminian definition of free will and label it heresy?
~aomin.org

With all due respect to Dr. Ascol and Dr. White, I think they were too hard on Jerry Falwell for his "limited atonement is heresy" remark.

As quoted above, C.H. Spurgeon identified Arminianism as heresy, and Dr. White seems to agree with that remark (he emphasized it in this article about Dave Hunt without stating any disagreement - the reason for the emphasis was not to show agreement, but to show Hunt that Spurgeon did in fact believe in limited atonement). Also, on Dr. White's website on a promo for a DVD (I don't know if he himself wrote this) we find that "Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards and a host of evangelists [denied] the Arminian definition of free will and [labeled] it heresy."

But against Falwell, White accuses of hypocrisy. He says that Falwell's remarks were made at "an institution that is constantly attacking Reformed theologians as 'hyper-Calvinists,' while he himself is the one illustrating the nature of what it means to be 'hyper' by identifying the views of men like Edwards or Hodge or Spurgeon as 'heresy'!"

Dr. White is alright with the notion that Calvinists like Edwards and Spurgeon labeled Arminianism heresy without referring to these men as "illustrating the nature of what it means to be 'hyper'". But to the Arminian, Jerry Falwell, he gives no such benefit.

When I asked Dr. Ascol about the Spurgeon quote, the worst thing he said was "I would be hesitant to Amen Spurgeon's language here." This is after Dr. Ascol called Falwell's very similar quote "vitriolic," "dismissive," "historically invalid," "inaccurate," "offensive," "inflammatory rhertoric," and "not helpful to the cause of Christ in either fellowship or evangelism," and more. (I should point out that Ascol's words here are in reference, in part, to Egrun Caner's quote that "Calvinists are worse than Muslims." But the context of Ascol's remarks, including the use of the plural "these kinds of vitriolic...", show that his words are in reference to Falwell's quote as well.)

It seems very clear to me that both men (whom I respect greatly) have given the Arminian Falwell great castigation on the very same thing that they have quietly dismissed from the Calvinist Spurgeon. Dr. Ascol pointed out that "Spurgeon was commenting on a complete system of theology. Falwell was commenting on a specific doctrine." This is true, but I fail to see the relevance. I doubt that Ascol would have simply ignored Falwell if he'd said that Calvinism (the entire system) is heresy. Nor does it make sense that Ascol would speak of Spurgeon as delivering "inflammatory rhertoric" if Spurgeon's words had merely been against one particular of Arminianism and not against the entire system.


For the record, I believe both men, Falwell and Spurgeon, misspoke when they referred to the opposing view as heresy. But I give both of them the benefit of the doubt and understand that while I myself would not use the h-word to describe any errant belief except those which contradict some essential doctrine (i.e. if you believe heresy, you are not a Christian), some people use the term loosely to describe any doctrine with which they disagree.