I use these 4 points as pointers. If a person (1) doesn't believe man is tripartite, (2) argues dumbly between calvinism and arminian, (3) argues dumbly between pretrib and posttrib & historicalism, or (4) has no clue about Biblical locality, I can sense roughly where they are at.
You can do this on many other points, e.g. was Mary sinless?
One example. I read yesterday in Christianity Today magazine (this month's issue) this guy who is purported to be leading the way in Christianity. He was on the cover of the magazine (read the article and compare what I have said).
He said he can find fault with dispensationalism [he is actually referring to pretribulation onlyists], arminian, calvinism, and pentecostals. But his answers were wrong oddly enough. He said, which is true, the more you get into what they believe, the more error you realize. He proposes no solution.
For calvinism he says calvinists have no case for predestination. Yet God uses the Word "predestination". Ergo, predestination according to foreknowledge, not premaking. He was arguing incorrectly.
Same goes for arminian. He said they have no case for perfectionism. Apparently there is this idea arminians are claiming perfectionism or its attainability today. Though they are wrong about non-OSAS, again the Bible uses the word, perfecting and prefected, which simply means God is perfecting His children, here, now while in the body of flesh and blood, and also will do so in loss of rewards of outer darkness for those who are not overcomers. So he was wrong again in misunderstanding them.
He said dispensationalism is wrong too. What he means by this is pre and mid-trib; that's what he says. Yet he is wrong about this too, for to be raptured at first rapture is according to readiness as per Rev. 3.10, Luke 21.36. He is not giving the underly reason for anything. He is even given wrong reasons.
And lastly, he said pentecostals are wrong because there is no second movement of God coming before His return. Yet Pentecostals are not wrong because of various movements God uses, but because of their false tongues. He is wrong again about the underlying problem. He is wrong in everything he said.
Do you see how odd his reasoning is? It's all wrong. He is all wrong in everything he says, I can barely stand it!
Shouldn't we give the correct reason and cause of a problem? We shouldn't say predestination is not true, nor should we say dispensationalism is not true, nor should we say movements of God are not true, nor should we say arminians are wrong for any other reason than their not believing in OSAS.