Dan Corner and his refutation of "Once saved, always saved"


#1

evangelicaloutreach.org/cat1c.htm

He is an ex-catholic however his refutation seems to be in line somewhat with Catholic understanding (I’m new at this, so if I’m wrong, please correct me). Thoughts?

Now he is a Reformed Arminian. His website is Evangelical Outreach…I’m confused with how it seems that Baptists, Fundamentalists, Calvinists, or some other various groups term themselves as Evangelicals generically?


#2

I didn’t know Corner was a former Catholic. Poor fellow. The worst thing that could ever happen to me is not death, but to lose my Faith – spiritual death.

I have his book: The Believer’s Conditional Security, a study on perseverance and falling away, by Daniel D. Corner, published by Evangelical Outreach – 801 pages of why Corner’s biblical interpretation is right and the Baptists, Presbyterians, and other Once-Saved-Always-Saved or Perseverance-of-the-Saints believers are wrong. Too bad he rejects the authority of the Catholic Church to interpret doctrine and substitutes his own judgment. Every Protestant is his own Pope.:stuck_out_tongue:

JMJ Jay


#3

[quote=Catholic Tom]evangelicaloutreach.org/cat1c.htm

He is an ex-catholic however his refutation seems to be in line somewhat with Catholic understanding (I’m new at this, so if I’m wrong, please correct me). Thoughts?
[/quote]

The only thing he really has in common with contemporary Roman Catholicism is that RCC theology, as popularly expressed, is usually more akin to semi-Pelagianism than to orthodox theology, and therefore slightly friendly to what appears to be Corner’s own inadvertant semi-Pelagianism. It might well behoove you to note that Roman Catholicism ACCEPTS a variation of the doctrine of predestination as orthodox. (One which expressly rejects the concept of 'once saved-always-saved by the way). Lutheranism likewise accepts a variant of this doctrine. And the positions of John Calvin and Arminius are not NEARLY so far apart as popular understanding sometimes presumes them to be.

So far as Dan Corner is concerned: he has written a massive tome but if his website is any indication he has not bothered to think very deeply about the subject. He is right now approximately where I was at about five years ago: so emotionally committed to free-will theism that he can’t really properly analyse or reflect on his topic. One needs to thoroughly understand Calvinism and the development of this doctrine as expressed by John Newton, Robert Owens, etcetera, right down to current exponents of the topic to properly refute the doctrine. Corner makes some serious factual and logical errors in his website and I would assume that his book would be likewise a true waste of time for anyone seriously interested in this topic.


#4

Now he is a Reformed Arminian. His website is Evangelical Outreach…I’m confused with how it seems that Baptists, Fundamentalists, Calvinists, or some other various groups term themselves as Evangelicals generically?

You might note that you are confusing a lot of terms. ‘Baptist’ is a denomination, or more accurately a category of denominations. ‘Fundamentalism’ is a movement, and most Fundamentalists do not see themselves as ‘Evangelicals’. ‘Calvinism’ is a theological position.

‘Evangelicalism’ refers to a movement which started within Protestantism following WWII, especially in the late 1950’s, which blends highly conservative Protestant theology with conservative social and political activism. Most Evangelicals seek to minimalize ‘sectarian differences’ over what are deemed 'peripheral theology, as opposed to the ‘core doctrines’ usually assumed to be summarized in historic creeds and Reformational confessions and Articles of Faith. The debate between Lutheran predestarianism, Calvinism, and Arminanism would be demed a dispute over a ‘peripheral’ doctrine, because the positions, rightly understood, are not so far apart as they appear at casual glance. Arminians usually accept Calvinists as Christians, albeit misguided ones, and Calvinists likewise view Arminians. Rather than quarrel and divide over such matters, they look for ways to work together to proclaim the Gospel and to apply political pressure for select issues such as abortion, prayer in public schools, etcetera.

It is confusing but worthy of note that Lutheranism in Germany is known not by Luther’s name but as the ‘Evangelical’ Church’. Some American manifestations of Lutheranism adopt the word ‘Evangelical’ in their name (as in ‘Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’). BUT most Lutherans in the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods deny that Lutheranism is part of the modern movement known as ‘Evangelicalism’.

‘Fundamentalism’ is a much earlier movement which opposed the introduction of ‘modernist’ theology into historic Protestant theological seminaries and some Protestant denominations. It is inherently sectarian, not especially cohesive, and rejected social and political activism to focus exclusively on personal piety and holiness and the ‘preaching of the Gospel’.

Most Baptists adhere to some variant of Calvinism, and the Southern Baptist Convention tends to see itself as definitely part of the ‘Evangelical Movement’.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.