As far as R.C. Sproul goes, he is not a Christian. He believes that Arminians are his brothers in Christ. Here's a quote from R.C. Sproul's Chosen By God:
<<When I teach the doctrine of predestination I am often frustrated by those who obstinately refuse to submit to it. I want to scream, "Don't you realize you are resisting the Word of God?" In these cases I am guilty of at least one of two possible sins. If my understanding of predestination is correct, then at best I am being impatient with people who are merely struggling as I once did, and at worst I am being arrogant and patronizing toward those who disagree with me.
If my understanding of predestination is not correct, then my sin is compounded, since I would be slandering the saints who by opposing my view are fighting for the angels. So the stakes are high for me in this matter.
The struggle about predestination is all the more confusing because the greatest minds in the history of the church have disagreed about it. Scholars and Christian leaders, past and present, have taken different stands. A brief glance at church history reveals that the debate over predestination is not between liberals and conservatives or between believers and unbelievers. It is a debate among believers, among godly and earnest Christians.
It may be helpful to see how the great teachers of the past line up on the question.
"Reformed view": St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards
Opposing views: Pelagius, Arminius, Philip Melancthon, John Wesley, Charles Finney>>
Chris H said:
<<ok Carpenter, now I am pissed! Firstly, this is a common fallacy of NON SEQUITUR; that is, it doesn't necessarily follow that the man isn't a believer because he speaks peace to Arminians. Here is what this looks like:
Mr.Sproul speaks peace to Arminians
Arminians are not believers (implied)
Therefore Mr.Sproul is not a believer
By speaking peace to non-believers doesn't necessarily make him a non-believer. Being a believer in something is determined by one's assent and trust in a propositional object not by how are whom one speaks to.>>
Okay -- let's see if this is a non sequitur. This has been discussed on the True Gospel List, but if you'd like to discuss it here, that's fine with me.
Let me give you a scenario:
Suppose Mr. X is a professing Christian who knows that Mr. Z is a Muslim. Also suppose that Mr. X knows what Islam is and what Muslims believe. Now suppose Mr. X says the following thing: "Mr. Z holds to a lot of error, but I know he believes in the same God and the same gospel I do, and I know he is accepted before God and will go to heaven." What does this tell you about Mr. X?
<<Likewise, friend, you have problems in dealing with the beloved Apostle Peter who withdrew himself from the Gentiles and associated himself with the false circumcision, the Jews, out of self-conscious fear. As Paul was saying, this false circumcision was introducing a false Gospel and Peter was associating himself with them- does it necessarily follow that he wasn't a believer?>>
This, too, has been discussed in great detail on the True Gospel List. I encourage you to look at the posts that pertain to this (see the threads related to Galatians 2). People always want to talk about Peter and the Galatians when defending the view that one can hold to a false gospel or speak peace to those who hold to a false gospel and be regenerate. First of all, Peter was not confessing or preaching a false gospel, and he was not speaking peace to those who brought a false gospel, in spite of your assertion that he was "associating himself with the false circumcision." Peter sinfully withdrew from the Gentile believers and ate with the Jewish believers, and by doing so, he sinfully implied that the Jewish believers were somehow better than the Gentile believers. This was a grievous sin, but it was not a sin that was indicative of lostness. You can also check out "What About the Galatians?" at http://www.outsidethecamp.org/galatians.htm.
<<Does Mr. Sproul assent to Arminian doctrines by speaking peace to them?>>
He believes that the Arminian gospel is a less consistent form of the true gospel. He believes that the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ is not an essential part of the true gospel. This shows that he does not know what the true gospel is.
E-mails, Forums, and Letters