How can a free grace advocate be a five point Calvinist? I just can’t grasp that.
They can be four point but my problem is can a four point be a Calvinist?

Sproul is a five point Calvinist.

The truth we are searching for is hidden deep in the wilderness. The tentacles (kudzu) of men’s interpretation have overgrown it and it will be difficult to find. Literally, James, we have lost this piece of information and everyone thinks THEY have found it

He uses John 6:44 where the word ‘draw’ is interchanged with drag rather than ‘woo’
Arminians and free grace believers think that the sinner is wooed and entreated to come, consistent with free choice. The word drag is consistent with limited atonement and irrestible grace.

Besides that God has had to drag me to where I am now, otherwise I would not be where I am now! wink! wink! I am a sinner dragged to grace.

“The question is, however, when does this miracle take place?According to Hodges it occurs when the Word is received in faith. Faith precedes regeneration and is the necessary condition for it. This places Hodges squarely in the semi-Pelagian camp.”

R.C. Sproul, Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology, (GrandRapids: Baker Books, 2000), 194

I agree, there are no major spokesmen for hyper-Calvinism in the SBC. I only know of one guy in the SBC I consider a hyper- (a very well known pastor who is doctrinally a hyper-Calvinist), but he and the church he pastors are strong supporters of missions and evangelism.

You must know, Charles, that Murray and I share the same bias – we both believe Spurgeon is definitely a “Calvinist.” Did you check out the link I provided in a previous comment? Read Spurgeon on particular redemption, not to mention his other sermons. Check out A Defense of Calvinism by Spurgeon, my friend. If you read Spurgeon, you’ll agree with Bro. Iain and myself.

The fact that you don’t know who the hypers are in the SBC is an indicator that there are no hypers in the SBC, at least any who are major spokesmen for hyper-Calvinism.

Unlike your opinion of Ross, Murray has a subjective bias that Spurgeon is deffinitely Calvinist and A.C. Underwood questions that premise. Murray’s footnote for Underwood is that “on all matters affecting biblical doctrine Underwood is unreliable” p. 49 This is blatantly ‘argumentum ad hominem’. “Underwood is unreliable in this because he is wrong on all matters doctrinally!” What Underwood says undercuts the thesis of Murray’s book.

This has to be a serious challenge to anyone taking seriously the discussion of hyper-Calvinism. Has Spurgeon adulterated Calvinism? Underwood seemed to think so.

So if the SBC is so scared of their own straw man then shouldn’t we be equally scared of their evangelism? Afterall evangelism seems to be the only criteria for whatever a hyper is. Maybe we should begin attacking all aspects of “mega” “mass” “finney- esque” efferts to spread the message of Christ?

Sproul is right about hyper being anti-Calvinism (non-Calvinism) and the samething may be said of hypo-Calvinism. Where is unadulterated Calvinism in the SBC?

I don’t believe Murray’s comment touches upon Spurgeon. Spurgeon had some strong comments regarding the atonement. See this, for example (Underwood is wrong about Spurgeon rejecting particular redemption). Is he right about “Fullerism”? Perhaps to some extent.

As to Bob Ross – I wouldn’t say he is unnecessarily unreliable on all matters affecting biblical doctrine, but his bombastic style is troubling and faulty logic is disturbing. If I were writing a research paper, Ross would not be one of my resources. He hates a host of Reformed folk and defends Joel Osteen (despite the fact Osteen has made such outlandish comments to the effect, “Mormons are Christians”).

Back to Bob Ross. Apart from his republishing Spurgeon’s work would you say on all matters affecting biblical doctrines Ross is unreliable? ie. his blog

If you can’t say that, elaborate why?

respectfully
Charles