A Response to Dave Hunt’s Attack on the Doctrines of Grace

[Crusader]

No wonder some here are so hostile to Calvanism. According to his book "What Love Is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God" we are heretics! For those of you who read his book , I think you should read this response from Phil Johnson.

A Response to Dave Hunt’s Attack on the Doctrines of Grace (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1022CDNotes.htm)

Last year Dave Hunt released a thick (444-page) book titled, What Love Is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God. As the subtitle suggests, Mr. Hunt is strongly opposed to Calvinism. In effect, he says Calvinism is a different gospel. He also suggests that the teaching of Calvinism so misrepresents God that Calvinists are guilty of worshiping a god of their own making. He has such harsh words for Calvinists that many readers have concluded he is consigning Calvinism to the dung-heap of the cults—and in several places one might even get the impression he is not too sure about the salvation of anyone who is committed to Calvinism as a system of theology.

Dave Hunt, in typical fashion, writes with an authoritative tone and overbearing conviction. Banking on his reputation as a keen discerner of error and a bold exposer of heretics, he gives the impression of a man on a lonely, desperate crusade to rescue the evangelical movement from its most subtle and deadly enemy yet.

What is this latest threat to orthodoxy among evangelicals? Turns out it’s the theology of all the key Protestant Reformers. It’s the theology of the Puritans. It’s the theology of Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and Charles Spurgeon. It’s also the theology of James Montgomery Boice, R. C. Sproul, Al Mohler, and John MacArthur.

According to Dave Hunt, all of those men are guilty of seriously corrupting the gospel and slandering the character of God. And in his attack on their theology, Hunt pulls no punches. He charges them with turning God into a monster, making men into puppets, and replacing the concept of grace with an unjust notion of divine favoritism. He emphatically believes that God is obliged to love everyone the same. He denies that God has foreordained whatever comes to pass. And he is convinced that Calvinists worship a god who does violence to the human will.

Continued.... (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1022CDNotes.htm)

[Deb]

No wonder some here are so hostile to Calvanism. According to his book "What Love Is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God" we are heretics! For those of you who read his book , I think you should read this response from Phil Johnson.

A Response to Dave Hunt’s Attack on the Doctrines of Grace

yawn ...

I've seen it all --

No wonder nothing, I came to my conclusions long before he came out with the book.

Furthermore, Caiper had never even heard of him, and CountryPerson, who brought the name up in the first place, also had come to her conclusions before reading the book (after adhering to Calvinism for a time).

IMHO, he wrote a good book, but you can't blame the conclusions we came to (not hostility) concerning this doctrine on him, LOL.

[JIM]

Crusader,
Amen. As I tried to point out on another thread how can he write a book on calvinism and attack the reformers when he himself said he never read them. And then 2 months later submit a manuscript to a publisher??? Either he used second sources, and came up with nothing original to deal with the reformers wrote or he lied in the interview he did on the Marty Minto show and had read them. Either way it shows one of two things. Either a total disregard for scholorship or a lack of integrity. Any body, reformed or not, needs to be hels to a higher standard if they are to publish soemthing that attacks anothers position.
Jim

[Enlightenment]

Crusader,
Amen. As I tried to point out on another thread how can he write a book on calvinism and attack the reformers when he himself said he never read them. And then 2 months later submit a manuscript to a publisher???

Does it matter IF or how he wrote a book? Why not judge what is in the book? I don't know Dave Hunt but he must be a genius to be able to put together a 444 page book in two months on something he supposedly didn't know anything about and all you can attack is the timeframe.

Why not attack the contents of the book?


Either he used second sources, and came up with nothing original to deal with the reformers wrote or he lied in the interview he did on the Marty Minto show and had read them.

Wow, there really is an epidemic of "I know what free-willers believe and are thinking" going around with Calvinists on this board.


Either way it shows one of two things. Either a total disregard for scholorship or a lack of integrity.

There you go again...

Any body, reformed or not, needs to be hels to a higher standard if they are to publish soemthing that attacks anothers position.
Jim

WHAT ABOUT THE BOOK ITSELF??!!

[CanuckMedic]

Wow there's some inflamatory language.

I'm used to reading this kind of wording from liberal media outlets so I notice it right away. "Attack" on "Grace".

Very interesting choice. Do you really believe Dave Hunt is "anti-Grace?

[Crusader]

What he did was write the book using anti-Calvinist sources and didn't even study Calvinism from the reformers themselves. Not exactly good scholarship.

[JIM]

Enlightenment,
You wrote:Wow, there really is an epidemic of "I know what free-willers believe and are thinking" going around with Calvinists on this board

As there is by freewillers as to what Calvinism is. From what I have seen here the past few weeks is a lot of straw man arguments and caricatures of the calvinist position. That is why the thrust of the majority of my posts have been to state what the calvinist position is as well as argue from scripture what it is. So the first part of your statement goes BOTH ways. Both sides are guilty!!

You wrote:WHAT ABOUT THE BOOK ITSELF??!!
Read the link that crusader provided. Johnson does a very good job in describing the contents of the book and where he, Hunt, deviated. Especially in regard to Spurgeon and his position on limited/particular redemption Hunt was way off and showed that he did not know what he was talking about.

You wrote:all you can attack is the timeframe.

Again the time frame is important for reasons that I listed above and will list again.
1) He stated on an interview he did with James White, that he never read the reformers (you will find that statement on the link crusader provided)
2) Then 2 months later he comes up with a book that criticizes their positions and teaching
So that is why I feel the "timeframe is important. How can one adequately critique another persons ideas, whatever they may be, if they said they were not familiar with them nor have read anything that they wrote??
You mentioned in one of the statements I cut and pasted above that there is an "epidemic" of calvinists saying "I know what freewillers believe and are thinking" Is that not what Hunt is doing BUT trying to pass it off as a scholarly work.

For example lets say you hold a position on a topic and you have written copious materials on that topic. Now say I come along and disagree with your conclusions on that topic and I want to write a rebuttal or critique of your conclusions. But one thing is wrong. I admit that I have never read anything you wrote on the topic BUT I will still write my rebuttal anyway using secondhand sources or parroting back what others, who also disagree with you, have to say or have written. Would you not, rightly so, expect me to be at least familiar with what you wrote so that I can adequately rebut your position?? Would that not be the fair, scholarly honest thing to do??? That is why the timeframe is important in this. If I come out with my rebuttal against you a week after I said I never read your writings then I am being dishonest and lack integrity.
If I rely on second hand sources for my rebuttal I run the risk of making false accusations against your positions or even coming to a wrong conclusion about your true position. That is what happened to Hunt with regard to Spurgeon. He made a false assumption on his position regarding limited/particular redemption. There are others as well but that is the most obvious one.

You wrote:Why not judge what is in the book

What he wrote pertaining to calvinism is a lot of straw man ideas as well as caricatures of what calvinism truly teaches.

Jim

[BarbT]

No wonder some here are so hostile to CalvanismMore like Calvinism is hostile to biblical truth.
Not exactly good scholarshipWhen the Holy Spirit directs the writer it is. Dave Hunt's ministry is exposing heresy and he does his job well. :):

[JIM]

BarbT
You wrote:More like Calvinism is hostile to biblical truth.
Not in the least

Jim

[Enlightenment]

What he did was write the book using anti-Calvinist sources and didn't even study Calvinism from the reformers themselves. Not exactly good scholarship.

OK, I'm beginning to see your point.

[Enlightenment]

Enlightenment,
You wrote:Wow, there really is an epidemic of "I know what free-willers believe and are thinking" going around with Calvinists on this board

As there is by freewillers as to what Calvinism is. From what I have seen here the past few weeks is a lot of straw man arguments and caricatures of the calvinist position. That is why the thrust of the majority of my posts have been to state what the calvinist position is as well as argue from scripture what it is. So the first part of your statement goes BOTH ways. Both sides are guilty!!

I suppose that is inevitable.


You wrote:WHAT ABOUT THE BOOK ITSELF??!!
Read the link that crusader provided. Johnson does a very good job in describing the contents of the book and where he, Hunt, deviated. Especially in regard to Spurgeon and his position on limited/particular redemption Hunt was way off and showed that he did not know what he was talking about.

Yes, that can be quite irritating when someone erroneously states what another one believes and then 'shows' that position to be wrong.


You wrote:all you can attack is the timeframe.

Again the time frame is important for reasons that I listed above and will list again.
1) He stated on an interview he did with James White, that he never read the reformers (you will find that statement on the link crusader provided)
2) Then 2 months later he comes up with a book that criticizes their positions and teaching
So that is why I feel the "timeframe is important. How can one adequately critique another persons ideas, whatever they may be, if they said they were not familiar with them nor have read anything that they wrote??
You mentioned in one of the statements I cut and pasted above that there is an "epidemic" of calvinists saying "I know what freewillers believe and are thinking" Is that not what Hunt is doing BUT trying to pass it off as a scholarly work.

Yes, that can be quite irritating when someone erroneously states what another one believes and then 'shows' that position to be wrong. <sigh>

For example lets say you hold a position on a topic and you have written copious materials on that topic. Now say I come along and disagree with your conclusions on that topic and I want to write a rebuttal or critique of your conclusions. But one thing is wrong. I admit that I have never read anything you wrote on the topic BUT I will still write my rebuttal anyway using secondhand sources or parroting back what others, who also disagree with you, have to say or have written. Would you not, rightly so, expect me to be at least familiar with what you wrote so that I can adequately rebut your position?? Would that not be the fair, scholarly honest thing to do??? That is why the timeframe is important in this. If I come out with my rebuttal against you a week after I said I never read your writings then I am being dishonest and lack integrity.

Yes, that would be a problem. Still, does he make a cogent argument?


You wrote:Why not judge what is in the book

What he wrote pertaining to calvinism is a lot of straw man ideas as well as caricatures of what calvinism truly teaches.
Jim

Yes, that can be quite irritating when someone erroneously states what another one believes and then 'shows' that position to be wrong. <sigh>

[Deb]

Enlightenment,
You wrote:Wow, there really is an epidemic of "I know what free-willers believe and are thinking" going around with Calvinists on this board

As there is by freewillers as to what Calvinism is. From what I have seen here the past few weeks is a lot of straw man arguments and caricatures of the calvinist position. That is why the thrust of the majority of my posts have been to state what the calvinist position is as well as argue from scripture what it is. So the first part of your statement goes BOTH ways. Both sides are guilty!!

You wrote:WHAT ABOUT THE BOOK ITSELF??!!
Read the link that crusader provided. Johnson does a very good job in describing the contents of the book and where he, Hunt, deviated. Especially in regard to Spurgeon and his position on limited/particular redemption Hunt was way off and showed that he did not know what he was talking about.

You wrote:all you can attack is the timeframe.

Again the time frame is important for reasons that I listed above and will list again.
1) He stated on an interview he did with James White, that he never read the reformers (you will find that statement on the link crusader provided)
2) Then 2 months later he comes up with a book that criticizes their positions and teaching
So that is why I feel the "timeframe is important. How can one adequately critique another persons ideas, whatever they may be, if they said they were not familiar with them nor have read anything that they wrote??
You mentioned in one of the statements I cut and pasted above that there is an "epidemic" of calvinists saying "I know what freewillers believe and are thinking" Is that not what Hunt is doing BUT trying to pass it off as a scholarly work.

For example lets say you hold a position on a topic and you have written copious materials on that topic. Now say I come along and disagree with your conclusions on that topic and I want to write a rebuttal or critique of your conclusions. But one thing is wrong. I admit that I have never read anything you wrote on the topic BUT I will still write my rebuttal anyway using secondhand sources or parroting back what others, who also disagree with you, have to say or have written. Would you not, rightly so, expect me to be at least familiar with what you wrote so that I can adequately rebut your position?? Would that not be the fair, scholarly honest thing to do??? That is why the timeframe is important in this. If I come out with my rebuttal against you a week after I said I never read your writings then I am being dishonest and lack integrity.
If I rely on second hand sources for my rebuttal I run the risk of making false accusations against your positions or even coming to a wrong conclusion about your true position. That is what happened to Hunt with regard to Spurgeon. He made a false assumption on his position regarding limited/particular redemption. There are others as well but that is the most obvious one.

You wrote:Why not judge what is in the book

What he wrote pertaining to calvinism is a lot of straw man ideas as well as caricatures of what calvinism truly teaches.

Jim

There's a lot that has been alleged, but not so much validated IMHO. Here, Dave Hunt answers to some. In my experience, Dave Hunt is not the only one who has been accused of poor scholarship, building straw men, ad hominem remarks, and so on. In my experience, there is a lot of that going on concerning this doctrine, whether it has merit or not.

I'm going to post after this, Dave Hunts response to some of the allegations. I think he does well. In another post, I will paste his response concerning Spurgeon. I understand what he is saying there too.

Furthermore, when I spoke with Dave Hunt in January of 2001, (at a church he was speaking at) he told me he was writing a book on Calvinism. The book was not published until 2002. That is a far cry from "2 months after" telling James White he had not read the reformers. In the bibliography in the back of the book he sites the Westminster Confession, Luther's writings, Calvin's writings on the New Testament. Again, I think he was being humble (downplaying himself) when he made that remark. He is one of the most studied men I've had the privilage reading and hearing. I do not believe he was telling all about himself in that statement. I think he was trying to make the point that the Word of God is the firstmost resource.

For cryin' out loud, just the work he's done concerning Catholicism would cause him to read reformed works. Furthermore, his detailed studies of Catholicism is part of what helped him recognize it's tenants that remain in Calvins teachings.

What Love is This has TONS of information, and is very good. It makes perfectly good sense to me that men whose doctrine is exposed, would want to ridicule it.

ADDED: His latest edition deals even further (more strongly) with the areas that Dave Hunt's critics attacked him on.

I suggest that people read it for themselves. Check the footnotes, bibliography, etc. And check out the allegations out there before believing everything you'll read. Many have been turned away from this book due to these attacks without even checking things out for themselves.

[Deb]

Dave Hunt's Response to James White (http://www.conservativeonline.org/articles/misc/Dave_Hunt_Response.htm)
by Dave Hunt


James, you and I have agreed on the phone today to put this debate in writing in the form of a book with a publisher agreeable to us both. That will allow the arguments to be studied more carefully by readers than is possible in oral debates. We will both do our best to complete it as quickly as possible (though I have a busy travel and speaking schedule as you do also). The publisher wants to go to press in September. That's fast, but we'll both do our best to complete our work as soon as possible. Therefore, I will not take time to refute the many misrepresentations in your "Open Letter" of my book, What Love Is This?- Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God. I'll mention only a few.

You say, "I simply could not believe that the source you used to come up with the identification of Augustine as 'the first real Roman Catholic' was none other than Peter Ruckman himself." The source? Those five words are all that I quote of Ruckman (whom I don't admire any more than you do) in the entire book, but the readers of your "open letter" would think that I had relied solely upon him – a gross misrepresentation. Nor did I use Ruckman to "come up with the identification of Augustine" as stated. I merely cited him as one of many who so labeled Augustine. In the very same sentence I quote Philip Schaff calling Augustine the "principal theological creator of the Latin-Catholic system...." I quote numerous others to the same effect – W.H.C. Frend calling him "the father of the inquisition" and Frederic W. Farrar saying "his writings became the Bible of the Inquisition."

I cite the fact that Augustine is one of the "doctors" of the Roman Catholic Church with a feast day dedicated to him by the Church on August 28, the day of his death. I quote from the Pope's special remembrance of Augustine on the 1600th anniversary of his conversion, praising his influence on the Church and calling him "the common father of our Christian [i.e., Roman Catholic] civilization." I quote others, from Sir Robert Anderson to Warfield, listing the major teachings and practices of Roman Catholicism that all came from Augustine. And you say that "the source" of my information is Ruckman?! You even bring up Gail Riplinger, whom I don't mention at all.

Having established Augustine's position vis-a-vis Roman Catholicism, I quote a number of leading Calvinists (including Spurgeon and Warfield) who declare that Calvinism is Augustinianism, and I provide many of the more than 400 quotes of Augustine contained in Calvin's Institutes, including the oft-repeated phrase "by the authority of Augustine." I quote John Calvin himself: "Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings." How could you ignore this heavy Catholic influence upon Calvin and the many resulting errors in Calvinism from that source?

Repeatedly you put words into my mouth, building a straw man easily knocked down, such as the following: "You conclude the section with a paragraph that basically says, 'Hey, I've already refuted this stuff. Don't sweat this. I know this passage sounds like Calvinism, but trust me, it isn't." Those are your words, James, not mine. Is that fair? Why don't you quote me and let readers come to their own conclusions?

You say that I "miscited" Mt. 23:37 in our newsletter and our radio discussion. But you make no reference to the lengthy discussion of that verse I provide in the book, which surely clarifies my position in a thoroughly biblical manner. You repeatedly charge me with avoiding exegesis when, in fact, my book is filled with exegesis. Of course you argue that, because I don't know the original languages, I'm incompetent to exegete the Bible (though I was studying it on my knees long before you were born). What a pity that Wycliffe Bible translators waste their time translating the Bible into native languages, when instead they ought to teach the tribe to speak Hebrew and Greek! You go so far as to imply that "seminary education, training in Greek and Hebrew, study of theology, etc. [are] necessary to the task of engaging such topics as soteriology, etc."

If that is not elitism, what is it? And it is all the more disturbing that you say this about soteriology, placing an understanding of salvation beyond the reach of anyone but scholars. I quote numerous Calvinists who boast that Calvinism is the gospel and is Christianity, leaving the clear impression that non-Calvinists have not grasped and surely don't preach the gospel and are thus not Christians.

In spite of my many decades of studying, teaching, preaching and writing from Scripture, you insist I'm not competent to deal with Calvinism. Then it could hardly be biblical, inasmuch as a common man (Deut 8:3; Ps 1:1-2), a young man (Ps 119:9) and even a child (2 Tim 3:15) taught at home by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5) can understand the Bible and the way of salvation. But this proud boast of Calvinism being understandable only to the specially trained mind is common among Calvinists. This system of theology is seemingly so complex and so esoteric that only after many years of study can one comprehend it. One can only conclude that the multitudes of ordinary Calvinists do not properly grasp Calvinism, because like me they lack the expertise in the original languages and the years of academic study which you say is essential. They must have simply taken the word of you Greek scholars. I wonder how the Bereans checked Paul out against the Bible without the seminary education you say is so necessary.

Your continual misrepresentation of my book in your "open letter" is disturbing but I can't take time to deal in detail with that now. More disturbing are the repeated false accusations you make, accusing me of ad hominem attacks upon you and Calvin and Calvinism, but without providing one example – not one – a grossly unfair and ad hominem tactic in itself, which you employ throughout. Let me give you a few quotes to show the intensity of your ad hominem attack.

In the space of one page you accuse me of all of the following: of appealing to those "who are susceptible to emotionalism," of "an obvious attempt to poison the well," of "wild rhetoric" and "simple misrepresentation," even of "anti-Calvin rhetoric...nigh unto 'screeching'...on the same level as Jimmy Swaggart...lacking in the first element of fairness (let alone charity)...so overboard, so without the first bit of honesty in its use of sources...tirade against Calvin...not pursuing the truth...without any fair consideration of the facts...reprehensible on any level...dishonest methodologies... unrestrained slander of John Calvin...blasting away at Calvin...etc."

James, do you consider it fair to engage in such a torrent of libelous accusations which are damaging to my character and reputation as a writer and Christian and to do so without providing even one example?! These irresponsible accusations betray your prejudicial unwillingness to give a fair hearing to those who disagree with Calvinism. And you complain of "the tone" of my book! Under the heading, "The Tone of the Work," you protest against my alleged "level of rhetoric [and] constant ad hominem argumentation..."! I challenge you to find anything in my book that justifies such a charge, much less even approaches the language you use which I have quoted above.

In your one example, you say, "This kind of rhetoric is simply reprehensible. You should apologize to every person who has plunked down the money to buy this book for this kind of statement." And what reprehensible "statement" was that? Here is your indictment: "...if you were the careful reader you claim to be, you would know that my presentation of John 6:44 is based upon the exegesis of the Greek text, not quotes from John Calvin."

Read it again, James. I did not say that you "based" your presentation of John 6:44 upon "quotes from John Calvin." I said, "To support his assertions, White quotes Calvin, to whom he refers with great admiration." Why do you accuse me of saying that you based your assertions upon Calvin? Is there not a huge difference between supported and based? There is no question that you supported your assertions with a quote from Calvin. And for that true statement I ought to "apologize to every person who has plunked down the money to buy this book..."?!

If you weren't supporting your interpretation of John 6:44, to what purpose is the lengthy quote of Calvin on p. 161 preceded by this statement, "Here are his [Calvin's] comments on John 6:44"? And what admiration did you express for Calvin in presenting this quote? Here it is: "John Calvin is admitted, even by his foes, to have been a tremendous exegete of Scripture. Fair and insightful, Calvin's commentaries continue to this day to have great usefulness and benefit to the student of Scripture." I won't recite again Calvin's many exegetical errors and false doctrine to which I refer in my book. I only wonder why you fail to warn your readers of these pitfalls in Calvin's writings?

Your most devastating charge – and I'm sure the one that has impressed the readers of your "Open Letter" the most – is my alleged "grossly errant assertion concerning Spurgeon," an "error" which you say "is the norm" of my work. Here is my statement to which you refer with such outrage: "Spurgeon himself...rejected Limited Atonement...in unequivocal language: 'I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds...bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice.'" Clearly, the "some" to whom Spurgeon refers are some Calvinists. The doctrine of "Limited Atonement" does indeed set "bound and measure," which Spurgeon declared was "inapplicable to the divine sacrifice."

You then quote Spurgeon where he teaches that this boundless atonement has been limited by God's choice and accuse me of being dishonest in stating that he rejected limited atonement. In fact, the error is not mine but something which is endemic to Calvinism: contradictory statements. In the quote I give, Spurgeon clearly rejects the thought of any "limit" to "the merit of the blood of Jesus." But in the same breath he also just as clearly denies that the unlimited merit of Christ's blood is available to all mankind. I am as much justified in quoting him on the one side as you are on the other – though you will deny any contradiction, while I insist upon it by the very nature of Christ's sacrifice. Perhaps Limited Atonement and what it means is a good topic for our book. Spurgeon's argument that Christ (the lamb slain from the foundation of the world - Rev 13:8) could not have died for those already in hell is simply wrong, and something we can discuss in our book as well if need be.

Such contradictions are innate to Calvinism because it is not a coherent system of theology based upon Scripture but arises from human theories which men have forced upon certain biblical texts. In Sermon 442 Spurgeon both affirms and denies free will – another clear contradiction. Piper, in his attempt to make Calvinism say that God loves those whom He has predestined to eternal damnation (a proposition which Clark insisted was clearly contradictory, bringing a division within the Calvinist camp), is driven to pursue convoluted arguments to support the delusion that God has "two wills" which are contrary to one another. Such contradictions are "the norm" in Calvinism – and to explain them away it does indeed take much expertise.

Exegesis is a key concept which you insist must hinge upon learned analysis of the original languages – an analysis that the average person who grew up with either Hebrew or Greek as his native tongue could not engage in without a seminary education. This puts the Bible beyond the reach of the ordinary person and leaves most people at the mercy of supposed "experts." But as anyone knows, a few years of Greek and Hebrew in seminary do not make one an expert in either language. Presumably the Bible translators had more than a seminary acquaintance with the languages, though they still make mistakes.

You fault my use of what you call "the kind of 'Strong's Exhaustive Concordance' interpretation'" that the average Christian would use. Isn't that elitism again? The implication seems to be that "scholars" are more adept at giving the "true meaning" than were the translators of the Bible. Apparently, without special training readers of the Bible are left to wallow in ignorance and error. If the gospel is that complicated, then very few could comprehend it and ever be saved, and the study of Scripture would have to be reserved for an elite evangelical leadership (similar to the Roman Catholic magisterium) upon whose interpretation the rest of us would have to rely.

Of course, whether the sinner understands the gospel or not hardly matters with Irresistible Grace in operation. Furthermore, according to Calvinism's most bizarre and clearly unbiblical doctrine, without believing the gospel the sinner is sovereignly regenerated and given spiritual life and only then given the faith to believe. The fact that the new birth and salvation follow faith as a result thereof is so clearly and so often stated in Scripture that a child couldn't miss it – yet the Calvinist must cling to this reverse order to make TULIP work.

One of your major points in discrediting my simple understanding of "whosoever" in John 3:16 is that if people could, by their free choice, believe in or reject Christ, it would follow that "some people are better than others." That argument is so clearly false (believing a promise has nothing to do with whether one is good or bad) that I won't waste time refuting it. You go to great lengths to explain John 3:16 as no child could ever understand it. What a tragedy that millions of children are taught by godly mothers and fathers and earnest Sunday-school teachers what you call the "traditional" misunderstanding of John 3:16. By your standard, not until they become "scholars" expert in Greek (or take some Calvinist's word for it) will they recognize that Christ didn't die for the whole world, but that salvation is offered only to an exclusive elect to which, by overwhelming odds, they most likely do not belong, being part of the vast multitude of the damned on the "broad road to destruction." Eternal doom awaits them simply because the God who "is love," from eternity past before they were born was "pleased" to predestine them to everlasting suffering with no hope of escape even though the merit of Christ's shed blood is infinite.

You fault me for referring to Calvinism's elect as a "select few" and cite Spurgeon and others to the effect that millions will be in heaven. Indeed, there will be a company that "no man can number." You must know, however, that "few" is a comparative term, and the redeemed indeed are few in relation to the far greater number who, according to Calvinism, have been predestined to eternal doom. Perhaps you would like to take up your complaint with our Lord who Himself declared that few indeed would enter the "strait gate" and be saved.

As a critic of Roman Catholicism, would you not agree that the vast majority of the world's one billion Catholics are not saved, that the vast majority of the 1.2 billion Muslims, the vast majority of the 400 million Eastern Orthodox, the hundreds of millions of Buddhists, communists, Shintoists, etc., etc., are not saved – a condition to which they were predestined by God who simply didn't want them in heaven? Indeed, all of your erudition and careful exegesis using the original languages and grammatical rules is calculated to prove one thing: that God who "is love" does not love everyone, does not want everyone in heaven, has predestined to eternal suffering the unsaved who clearly number in the billions – and even takes pleasure in damning them. I do not believe that is the God of the Bible – and that is the major difference between our two positions.

In the book, we will have the opportunity to lay out our opposing views clearly and concisely from the scriptures so that readers can weigh them carefully. I look forward to that joint effort praying that the Lord will give us both clarity of expression, and hope that in the meantime, as the publisher desires, we can restrain ourselves from further exchanges which would only take time and delay the book's publication.

We have agreed today that The Berean Call will carry your "Open Letter to Dave Hunt" and that you in turn will carry "Dave Hunt's Response to James White." I am content to let my much shorter response be sufficient and to reserve further discussion for the book, which I hope and pray will be a blessing to the body of Christ, driving all of us to a more careful and prayerful study of God's Holy Word.

[Deb]

(Note: Even Spurgeon's contemporaries questioned where he was coming from. I agree with Dave Hunt -- it's a contradictory doctrine in and of itself.)

Dave Hunt answers to the "Spurgeon accusation" (http://www.thebereancall.org/Newsletter/questionanswer/2002/aug02a.php)

Question: James White has caught you red-handed misrepresenting Spurgeon in your book. You claim that Spurgeon "rejected Limited Atonement." You support that assertion with a quote of rejection of any "limit to the merit of the blood of Jesus...." Yet you omitted clear statements in the very section from which you quote that "the intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering...we do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned." Anyone who knows anything about Spurgeon knows that he taught Limited Atonement. How much longer do we have to wait to see in print your admission of your inexcusable misrepresentation of Spurgeon?

Answer: Spurgeon was torn between what he called "hyper-Calvinism" and the Word of God. In the quote I give he very clearly says, "In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore....Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question." He then goes on to deny "that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ, according to some men's account, died to save them....The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work."

Spurgeon seems to be contradicting himself. How could the "merit" of the atonement be unlimited unless Christ died for all? If He paid the penalty only for the sins of the elect, then the merit of His death is finite, being confined to a definite number. What did he really mean? I think I have good reason to believe that this is just another case of what one historian explained as "The...old Calvinistic phrases were often on Spurgeon's lips but the genuine Calvinistic meaning had gone out of them." 1

I think we find the key to Spurgeon's real beliefs in his opposition to what he called "hyper-Calvinism." His preaching sparked the "duty-faith" controversy in which he was accused of holding Arminianism. The controversy raged in England for some years and took its name from Spurgeon's teaching that it was the "duty" of every person to have faith in Christ.

If Spurgeon believed in "particular redemption," as the quote above seemed to indicate, it was a peculiar kind. He pressed upon all his hearers the duty of believing the gospel: "Read, write, print, shout 'Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.' Great Saviour, I thank Thee for this text; help Thou me so to preach from it that many may come to Thee, and find eternal life!" 2

Spurgeon claimed, "I have all the Puritans with me...without a single exception."3 Even the Synod of Dort had declared, "As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called....[God] seriously promises eternal life and rest to as many as shall come to him and believe on him." That hardly sounds like the Particular Redemption elsewhere taught by Dort. Such are the contradictions inherent within Calvinism, which tries to maintain that God offers salvation to all, even to those whom He has predestined to eternal doom.

But the contradictions were more apparent in Spurgeon's preaching, contradictions which were "regarded among many of the Particular Baptists as symptoms of defection from Calvinism."4 His chief opponent was James Wells (referred to privately by Spurgeon as "King James") who for 30 years had been the most popular and powerful Particular Baptist pastor south of the Thames until the arrival of Spurgeon at New Park Street. He pressed his attack to prove that Spurgeon was an Arminian with such damning quotes as this from the sermon "Future Bliss": "Oh! Dear souls...if you believe in your Christ you are elect; whosoever puts himself on the mercy of Jesus...shall have mercy if he come for it." Wells argued that "such words quietly set election aside, and rest the whole matter with the creature...." 5

Am I caught red-handed misrepresenting Spurgeon? I don't think so.

[Forgiven_1]

I was given a bunch of CDs and DVDs by a friend of mine who didn't think Reformed Theology was Biblical. The CDs were by Dave Hunt. As God as my witness, I watched two DVDs and was so surprised. Dave Hunt didn't at all seem caring, or educated on the subject matter. In fact, he admits on the vids that he is not very learned on the subjects. Yet, that didnt stop him from making erroneous and hateful statements. I was very surprised to see a Christian act that way towards brothers and sisters of the faith. I would think that if he wants brothers and sister in Christ to come out of the Reformed View, he should be praying, weeping, and pleading with God to do a work. What I saw on those vids were so horrible, I had to be in prayer for him.

[JIM]

Deb,
You wrote:I spoke with Dave Hunt in January of 2001, (at a church he was speaking at) he told me he was writing a book on Calvinism. The book was not published until 2002. That is a far cry from "2 months after" telling James White he had not read the reformers.

If you remember on another thread, Post ordained I gave you the cut and paste pportion of the inetrview he did where I specifically highlighted that 2 months after his interview with White that he submitted the manuscript andf then had it published 18 months late. Hiw can you submit a work for preliminary review when you said you didn't read whjom you were critiquing, thats my point. Yes the book came out in early 2002, and the interview was august 2000 but the manuscript was already in 2 months after he spoke with white, the timeline still speaks for itself. How can you become versed in what others wrote in 2 months time.

I will respond to the other posts when my family and I get back dfrom a weekend away.

Take care,

Jim

Interview
In a radio interview on August 11, 2000, Dave Hunt told James White, “I’m very ignorant of the Reformers. I have not had time to read them. Uh, there are truckloads, I guess, of their writings. And I like to just kind of pretend that we’re back there in the days of the apostles before all of these things were written. And I like to go to the Bible. So whether a Reformer said this or that, I don’t know.”
Within two months after making that statement, however, Dave Hunt was offering his manuscript debunking the Reformers’ theology for preliminary reviews. Within eighteen months, the book was published, filled with copious quotations about Calvin and the Reformers, but with almost no quotations from any leading Calvinists or Calvinist creeds that would allow them to explain what they believe in their own words.
It therefore seems fair to ask: How, precisely, did Dave Hunt gain so much expertise about the Reformers after his radio interview with James White in August 2000 (when he boasted of his own ignorance) and before he finished writing his book a few scant months later (where he lectures Calvinists regarding their supposed ignorance of the “real” facts about Calvin and the Reformation)?

[Deb]

Deb,
You wrote:I spoke with Dave Hunt in January of 2001, (at a church he was speaking at) he told me he was writing a book on Calvinism. The book was not published until 2002. That is a far cry from "2 months after" telling James White he had not read the reformers.

If you remember on another thread, Post ordained I gave you the cut and paste pportion of the inetrview he did where I specifically highlighted that 2 months after his interview with White that he submitted the manuscript andf then had it published 18 months late. Hiw can you submit a work for preliminary review when you said you didn't read whjom you were critiquing, thats my point. Yes the book came out in early 2002, and the interview was august 2000 but the manuscript was already in 2 months after he spoke with white, the timeline still speaks for itself. How can you become versed in what others wrote in 2 months time.

I will respond to the other posts when my family and I get back dfrom a weekend away.

Take care,

Jim

Interview
In a radio interview on August 11, 2000, Dave Hunt told James White, “I’m very ignorant of the Reformers. I have not had time to read them. Uh, there are truckloads, I guess, of their writings. And I like to just kind of pretend that we’re back there in the days of the apostles before all of these things were written. And I like to go to the Bible. So whether a Reformer said this or that, I don’t know.”
Within two months after making that statement, however, Dave Hunt was offering his manuscript debunking the Reformers’ theology for preliminary reviews. Within eighteen months, the book was published, filled with copious quotations about Calvin and the Reformers, but with almost no quotations from any leading Calvinists or Calvinist creeds that would allow them to explain what they believe in their own words.
It therefore seems fair to ask: How, precisely, did Dave Hunt gain so much expertise about the Reformers after his radio interview with James White in August 2000 (when he boasted of his own ignorance) and before he finished writing his book a few scant months later (where he lectures Calvinists regarding their supposed ignorance of the “real” facts about Calvin and the Reformation)?


I know what you said, I strongly question your claim that it was handed in 2 months later since he told me personally in Jan. 2001 that he was in the midst of writing it!

[Schumacher]

I cite the fact that Augustine is one of the "doctors" of the Roman Catholic Church with a feast day dedicated to him by the Church on August 28, the day of his death. I quote from the Pope's special remembrance of Augustine on the 1600th anniversary of his conversion, praising his influence on the Church and calling him "the common father of our Christian [i.e., Roman Catholic] civilization." I quote others, from Sir Robert Anderson to Warfield, listing the major teachings and practices of Roman Catholicism that all came from Augustine... How could you ignore this heavy Catholic influence upon Calvin and the many resulting errors in Calvinism from that source?

Hmmm, that's interesting reasoning from Hunt, but it seems to me to be based on an erroneous assumption - Augustine is highly valued as the "first doctor" of the Catholic Church ergo any Augustinian thought is Catholic. The problem with using this evidence, is that Catholics claim exactly the same sort of influence for the Apostle Paul. He is venerated with his own feast day, used in naming churches, credited as the originator of Catholic doctrine etc... In the Catholic view it is our misreading of Paul (as Protestants) that is responsible for our "heresy". Just because two movements claim similar roots, does not mean that the roots are actually the same. It's the equivalent of throwing out the bible because of the fact that the Seventh Day Adventists use it as the "inspiration" for their movement.

The second point the rebuttal ignores the importance of progressive revelation, or "greater light" in Calvin and the reformation. The Fathers were often excused with errors as it was held that they lived in a different age when the "light was not so clear", when the Pope and the Catholic church had not been so openly corrupted and visibly evil; when the Spirit had yet to openly reveal the corruption of Catholic doctrine. I haven't read Hunt's book, so maybe he goes into it there?

[Schumacher]

I know what you said, I strongly question your claim that it was handed in 2 months later since he told me personally in Jan. 2001 that he was in the midst of writing it!

I think Jim was saying that he stated that he hadn't read the reformers two months before publication, rather than stating that he was writing the book. It's possible that he was writing in 2001 and yet simply hadn't read the reformers. Though why he wouldn't have is beyond me!

[Deb]

I think Jim was saying that he stated that he hadn't read the reformers two months before publication, rather than stating that he was writing the book. It's possible that he was writing in 2001 and yet simply hadn't read the reformers. Though why he wouldn't have is beyond me!


No, the date quoted was August 2000, and it was said he handed in a transcript 2 mo. after that. But when I talked to him in Jan. 2001, he was in fact, in the midst of writing the book.

He quotes the reformers in the book, and they are in the bibliography.

[Deb]

Hmmm, that's interesting reasoning from Hunt, but it seems to me to be based on an erroneous assumption - Augustine is highly valued as the "first doctor" of the Catholic Church ergo any Augustinian thought is Catholic. The problem with using this evidence, is that Catholics claim exactly the same sort of influence for the Apostle Paul. He is venerated with his own feast day, used in naming churches, credited as the originator of Catholic doctrine etc... In the Catholic view it is our misreading of Paul (as Protestants) that is responsible for our "heresy". Just because two movements claim similar roots, does not mean that the roots are actually the same. It's the equivalent of throwing out the bible because of the fact that the Seventh Day Adventists use it as the "inspiration" for their movement.

The second point the rebuttal ignores the importance of progressive revelation, or "greater light" in Calvin and the reformation. The Fathers were often excused with errors as it was held that they lived in a different age when the "light was not so clear", when the Pope and the Catholic church had not been so openly corrupted and visibly evil; when the Spirit had yet to openly reveal the corruption of Catholic doctrine. I haven't read Hunt's book, so maybe he goes into it there?

When he goes into it in the book, he sites many areas where Catholic doctrine remains in Calvin (and Luther's) writings.

For example, infant baptism is only one example. Honestly, you might find the book very interesting even if you don't wind up agreeing with it. He brings out many, many thought provoking points.

[Iblvnjc]

Dave Hunt was formerly a Catholic.

To say or imply that Dave Hunt's [I]What Love Is This?[I] is not a scholarly work is blatently dishonest and misleading. His research and documentation is extensive if you will examine this book honestly.

As Enlightenment says, read the book.

[Forgiven_1]

Dave Hunt was formerly a Catholic.

To say or imply that Dave Hunt's [I]What Love Is This?[I] is not a scholarly work is blatently dishonest and misleading. His research and documentation is extensive if you will examine this book honestly.

As Enlightenment says, read the book.

I find it hard to take a scholar serious when he doesn't know anything about the subject that he is aiming to debunk. I'm sure that he is sincere in what he is doing, but it doesnt change the fact that he is still sincerely wrong. Personally, I think Hunt has a lot of zeal, but a lot zeal without knowledge (as he himself admits). I think Dave Hunt should read up on the history he writes about, Im sure he'll be surprise.

[Deb]

I find it hard to take a scholar serious when he doesn't know anything about the subject that he is aiming to debunk. I'm sure that he is sincere in what he is doing, but it doesnt change the fact that he is still sincerely wrong. Personally, I think Hunt has a lot of zeal, but a lot zeal without knowledge (as he himself admits). I think Dave Hunt should read up on the history he writes about, Im sure he'll be surprise.

Ad hominiem.

False accusation.

He did read up. There are allegations that he did not. Read the bibliography at the end of the book. What Dave Hunt admits, he seriously downplays himself.

[Forgiven_1]

Ad hominiem.

False accusation.

He did read up. There are allegations that he did not. Read the bibliography at the end of the book. What Dave Hunt admits, he seriously downplays himself.

I have Mr. Hunt's dvd series on the History and theology of Calvinism where he admits that he knows nothing of the subject, as he never studied the issue. He claims not to be a scholar, but a Bible believing Christian. You can email me your address and I'll send you a copy of the DVDs.

[Deb]

I have Mr. Hunt's dvd series on the History and theology of Calvinism where he admits that he knows nothing of the subject, as he never studied the issue. He claims not to be a scholar, but a Bible believing Christian. You can email me your address and I'll send you a copy of the DVDs.

I have the DVDs.

As I said, he is way too humble and totally downplays what he does know. As I said read the bibliography and see if he included the reformers in his book. Read up on his past newsletters going way back, and see if he refers to the reformers and gives information on them. In downplaying himself, he has given opportinity to his critics to disqualify him, and he is hardly disqualifiable. The book itself is quite a work, and that alone speaks his credentials, even if he downplays himself.

Anyhow, I wrote to The Berean Call today, and just heard back from them. I'll be posting their statements concerning these accusations on both this thread and the Post Ordained one. But first, I must go and make dinner for a couple in our church.

[Forgiven_1]

I have the DVDs.

As I said, he is way too humble and totally downplays what he does know. As I said read the bibliography and see if he included the reformers in his book. Read up on his past newsletters going way back, and see if he refers to the reformers and gives information on them. In downplaying himself, he has given opportinity to his critics to disqualify him, and he is hardly disqualifiable. The book itself is quite a work, and that alone speaks his credentials, even if he downplays himself.

Anyhow, I wrote to The Berean Call today, and just heard back from them. I'll be posting their statements concerning these accusations on both this thread and the Post Ordained one. But first, I must go and make dinner for a couple in our church.

You have the DVDs and didnt once hear him mention anything about "not knowing reformed theology or the history?" Also, you mentioned that he was humble. What DVDs do you have? I have his "What love is this" series, as well as his history and theology of Calvinism and some others that I have not looked at yet. To be quite honest though, I have yet to see the man speak in humility. I saw him make jokes about Calvinist, make erroneous claims about Calvinism, make bad remarks to Calvinist, and not once offered up serious prayers for the brothers and sisters of whom he believes is following a false and demonic theology. That hardly seems "humble" to me, Deb. In fact, it seems mean. C.H. Spurgeon once wrote, "If you are do not have a desire to see others saved, then you yourself arent saved. Be sure of that!" I am not saying that Mr. Hunt isnt saved (I believe he is), I just find it amazingly sad that he is not weeping and pleading to God to bring the people out of what he believes to be a demonic cult. All that said, how do you guys understand scriptures where Jesus mentions "I chose you, you didn't choose me" or when he said, "no man can know the father unless I reveal him to them?" I never understand that when I held to the free willed idea of scripture.

[allforHim]

:doh Not another Calvin thread! Where is all this coming from? There are many other threads debating this very subject, why do we need yet another one? Its not that important.All the free willers that answer these posts have more patience than I do.After years of discussing the subject, I've came to the conclusion that they dont want to know the truth. One day soon, Jesus will tell them. Every blessing. :wave

[Forgiven_1]

:doh Not another Calvin thread! Where is all this coming from? There are many other threads debating this very subject, why do we need yet another one? Its not that important.All the free willers that answer these posts have more patience than I do.After years of discussing the subject, I've came to the conclusion that they dont want to know the truth. One day soon, Jesus will tell them. Every blessing. :wave

I think that was a bit condescending and very presumptuous on your part. Could it be that it is the other way around or is it that Calvinist are wrong? There have been men and women of God on both sides for years, but for the most part and for most of history, most of the church held to the Augustin view of scripture. It is your free-will choice to not speak on the issue, but I think its mean and wrong and disrespectful to suggest that a side is wrong just because you do not agree. I do not believe the reformed view is wrong, but I am not arrogant enough to say that they cannot be wrong. In any case, how do you understand free-will in light of Jesus saying "No man can come to me unless the Father draw him?" Knowing that we have offended God by our sins, we should run to him! But, we dont, unless and until we are drawn. Why?

[Deb]

You have the DVDs and didnt once hear him mention anything about "not knowing reformed theology or the history?" Also, you mentioned that he was humble. What DVDs do you have? I have his "What love is this" series, as well as his history and theology of Calvinism and some others that I have not looked at yet. To be quite honest though, I have yet to see the man speak in humility. I saw him make jokes about Calvinist, make erroneous claims about Calvinism, make bad remarks to Calvinist, and not once offered up serious prayers for the brothers and sisters of whom he believes is following a false and demonic theology. That hardly seems "humble" to me, Deb. In fact, it seems mean. C.H. Spurgeon once wrote, "If you are do not have a desire to see others saved, then you yourself arent saved. Be sure of that!" I am not saying that Mr. Hunt isnt saved (I believe he is), I just find it amazingly sad that he is not weeping and pleading to God to bring the people out of what he believes to be a demonic cult. All that said, how do you guys understand scriptures where Jesus mentions "I chose you, you didn't choose me" or when he said, "no man can know the father unless I reveal him to them?" I never understand that when I held to the free willed idea of scripture.

To save myself repeating myself over and over and over again, just reread what I've already said. Oh forget it. I said he is downplaying himself. Read the bibliography in his book. See who he quotes. Read the old newsletters at thebereancall.org.

I've seen him speak many times, and I do not see the same man you see.

Do you spend 24 hours a day with the man? How dare you presume who he does and does not pray for! They spend the first part of the morning at Berean Call praying! All the staff. Very presumptious.

I'm sorry you can't reconcile those scriptures. I can, and as you saw in the many other threads you posted on, many have answered to them.

[Forgiven_1]

To save myself repeating myself over and over and over again, just reread what I've already said. Oh forget it. I said he is downplaying himself. Read the bibliography in his book. See who he quotes. Read the old newsletters at thebereancall.org.

I've seen him speak many times, and I do not see the same man you see.

Do you spend 24 hours a day with the man? How dare you presume who he does and does not pray for! They spend the first part of the morning at Berean Call praying! All the staff. Very presumptious.

I'm sorry you can't reconcile those scriptures. I can, and as you saw in the many other threads you posted on, many have answered to them.

I don't think I gave the impression from what I said that he never prays for Calvinist? I think I said that in the vids I saw, he didn't do it. If I thought Calvinist were believing a doctrine of demons that should be accursed, I would pray for them with blood earnestness!! If I were to give a presentation of scripture, I would start first by asking the Holy Spirit to assist me and cause me to speak the truth for His sake and for the body's edification. I saw none of this on Mr. Hunt's dvds. Sorry, but its true. Lastly, I dont think he was "down playing" himself when he said on the dvds that he is not very learned on the subject of Calvinism and reformed theology. Either, he does know (which makes him a liar for saying he does not know), or he does not know, as he said, and is still teaching against it. In which case I find amazing, to say the least. Lastly, though Hunt is a popular speaker against the history and theology of Calvinism, he is not in anyway considered a scholar on the matter. There are so many others that present a much better case for their school of thought, how come you guys dont mention them? I always hear about Hunt, but he is hardly respected in the academic and theological world for being apt to teach on the matter.

[Deb]

I don't think I gave the impression from what I said that he never prays for Calvinist? I think I said that in the vids I saw, he didn't do it. If I thought Calvinist were believing a doctrine of demons that should be accursed, I would pray for them with blood earnestness!! If I were to give a presentation of scripture, I would start first by asking the Holy Spirit to assist me and cause me to speak the truth for His sake and for the body's edification. I saw none of this on Mr. Hunt's dvds. Sorry, but its true. Lastly, I dont think he was "down playing" himself when he said on the dvds that he is not very learned on the subject of Calvinism and reformed theology. Either, he does know (which makes him a liar for saying he does not know), or he does not know, as he said, and is still teaching against it. In which case I find amazing, to say the least. Lastly, though Hunt is a popular speaker against the history and theology of Calvinism, he is not in anyway considered a scholar on the matter. There are so many others that present a much better case for their school of thought, how come you guys dont mention them? I always hear about Hunt, but he is hardly respected in the academic and theological world for being apt to teach on the matter.

It could almost be tempting to send along these accusations to him as well, and get his statement. But that would be ridiculous, to make him answer to every silly notion someone has.

I've been wanting to rewatch the DVDs anyhow, so I'll answer these accusations myself.


He is not considered a scholar by YOU and other Calvinists. That just does not speak very much to me.

Edited to add: I see what you're saying -- he didn't pray in the videos. The videos were for information. Most informative videos are not a time of prayer.

[Forgiven_1]

It could almost be tempting to send along these accusations to him as well, and get his statement. But that would be ridiculous, to make him answer to every silly notion someone has.

I've been wanting to rewatch the DVDs anyhow, so I'll answer these accusations myself.


He is not considered a scholar by YOU and other Calvinists. That just does not speak very much to me.

Edited to add: I see what you're saying -- he didn't pray in the videos. The videos were for information. Most informative videos are not a time of prayer.

Sorry, I think we should pray before opening the Bible everything. It is only by God's permitting will we ever understand his truth anyway and we should ask for help every time. As for him not being a scholar by me and Calvinist. That isnt true either. He is not considered a scholar by anyone with academic credentials, no matter what school of though you adhere to. He perhaps is the most "out spoken" person on the subject, but unfortunately for him, he is also the most "not apt to teach person" as well. You should look up men like Geisler, Bruce Reichenbach, and Clark Pinnock, etc., if you want to listen to someone who is a noted Arminian scholar.

[Deb]

Sorry, I think we should pray before opening the Bible everything. It is only by God's permitting will we ever understand his truth anyway and we should ask for help every time. As for him not being a scholar by me and Calvinist. That isnt true either. He is not considered a scholar by anyone with academic credentials, no matter what school of though you adhere to. He perhaps is the most "out spoken" person on the subject, but unfortunately for him, he is also the most "not apt to teach person" as well. You should look up men like Geisler, Bruce Reichenbach, and Clark Pinnock, etc., if you want to listen to someone who is a noted Arminian scholar.

Well, Sincere, when you begin making videos and DVDs you can open in prayer. I'm sure plenty of prayer went into this beforehand, and hopefully anyone wanting to seek God will pray before watching.

You are nitpicking.

I'm not going to respond to your ad homineum statements. They hold no credentials for me.

[Deb]

From the Berean Call (Dave Hunt's ministry) concerning prior accusations:

... it was back in 1996 that the following statement was written by Dave and the person handling his correspondence: "Dave has asked me to tell you it is not true that he hasn't given Calvinism the biblical research it deserves. He has studied the subject in depth and discussed it in depth with leading Calvinists, so he feels you aren't being fair when you say he hasn't taken it seriously or treated it fairly."

And concerning a manuscript being turned in 2 months after making a statement about not reading the reformers:

Finally, when they speak of handing in the manuscript in October 2000 they are referring to a few chapters which were envisioned to be a new booklet. It was in 2002 that the first edition of What Love is This? was published by Loyal.

I remember now, him saying that he was working on a pamphlet, then it turned into a booklet, finally a 400+ page book. And no, that manuscript was not turned in after 2 months. As stated, that was published in 2002.

Now personally, I'm done with this discussion. Anybody interested can google and find plenty back and forth to weigh. But don't just listen to allegations. There are always 2 sides to every story.

[Forgiven_1]

Well, Sincere, when you begin making videos and DVDs you can open in prayer. I'm sure plenty of prayer went into this beforehand, and hopefully anyone wanting to seek God will pray before watching.

You are nitpicking.

I'm not going to respond to your ad homineum statements. They hold no credentials for me.

I noticed someone before called me "sincere." I don't know why? Also, if there is anything that I said that effected you, I pray it is the fact that Mr. Hunt is considered by none (except lazy people) worthy to teach for or against any weighty theological topic. To be honest with you, I'm truly amazed you defend him so vehemently!

[Deb]

I noticed someone before called me "sincere." I don't know why? Also, if there is anything that I said that effected you, I pray it is the fact that Mr. Hunt is considered by none (except lazy people) worthy to teach for or against any weighty theological topic. To be honest with you, I'm truly amazed you defend him so vehemently!

I think it was precisely this kind of attitude that got you banned less than a week ago?

If the mods were'nt caught up in their own issues today ...

[Forgiven_1]

I think it was precisely this kind of attitude that got you banned less than a week ago?

If the mods were'nt caught up in their own issues today ...

I am in awe reading your comments! First, you continue to suggest that I am someone else and then you suggest that my attitude is rude. I am truly amazed!! Consider Matthew 7:3.

[Deb]

I am in awe reading your comments! First, you continue to suggest that I am someone else and then you suggest that my attitude is rude. I am truly amazed!! Consider Matthew 7:3.


"Mr. Hunt is considered by none (except lazy people) worthy to teach for or against any weighty theological topic."

The fact that you don't get that this is rude makes discussing anything else further entirely useless.

If I'm going to discuss this with anyone, it at least needs to be worth while. And this kind of ad homineum accusation is not worthwhile.

[Forgiven_1]

"Mr. Hunt is considered by none (except lazy people) worthy to teach for or against any weighty theological topic."

The fact that you don't get that this is rude makes discussing anything else further entirely useless.

If I'm going to discuss this with anyone, it at least needs to be worth while. And this kind of ad homineum accusation is not worthwhile.

I don't believe that was disrespectful, but true. I'm sure if this were any other topic, you would agree. There are way too many lazy people who would rather hear someone else' thoughts on scripture than read it from themselves. That is what I meant by "lazy people." I don't feel we give enough attention to the gift that God left for us, which is his word. Also, I'm sorry that you feel my accusations arent warranted. I can show you were no scholar, arminians included, would not consider Mr. Hunt apt to teach on this subject, but that perhaps, would do no good. Maybe it wouldnt be right for me to do so anyway? I just feel that the man has a lot of zeal, but not a lot of knowledge to compensate. He however, may prove to be right?

[B A N E]

Forgiven_1, aka Sincere,

Deception (aka Liars) is not within our list of acceptable tools as Christians.
You were banned due to the fact you couldn't abide our rules.
You are once again banned.

[Deb]

I don't believe that was disrespectful, but true. I'm sure if this were any other topic, you would agree. There are way too many lazy people who would rather hear someone else' thoughts on scripture than read it from themselves. That is what I meant by "lazy people." I don't feel we give enough attention to the gift that God left for us, which is his word. Also, I'm sorry that you feel my accusations arent warranted. I can show you were no scholar, arminians included, would not consider Mr. Hunt apt to teach on this subject, but that perhaps, would do no good. Maybe it wouldnt be right for me to do so anyway? I just feel that the man has a lot of zeal, but not a lot of knowledge to compensate. He however, may prove to be right?


Thing is, that's just your opinion. And yes, it is condescending and rude. It was the type of attitude the mods were keeping their eye on before. I don't think you can help yourself.

But I see the mods are able to tend to things here today, which I am very thankful for, even though I did not report you. I didn't want to put anything extra on them today. Yet they did their job anyhow.

God bless the mods ...

[JoelH]

Forgiven_1, aka Sincere,

Deception (aka Liars) is not within our list of acceptable tools as Christians.
You were banned due to the fact you couldn't abide our rules.
You are once again banned.

Well mods, watch out for new registration under names like Forgiven_2, Forgiven_2A, Real_Sincere etc. :D: HK Chinese call such people "hard plastic" aka HP in slang.

[Deb]

Well mods, watch out for new registration under names like Forgiven_2, Forgiven_2A, Real_Sincere etc. :D: HK Chinese call such people "hard plastic" aka HP in slang.



:laugh :lol :spit :pound

Especially liking "Real Sincere"

since he lied ...

[rmarchy]

In any case, how do you understand free-will in light of Jesus saying "No man can come to me unless the Father draw him?" Knowing that we have offended God by our sins, we should run to him! But, we dont, unless and until we are drawn. Why?

In John 17 Christ talks about what was given to Him from the Father, and it was US!

How?

Joh 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me should draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

People think that this verse is talking about God in eternity past picking flower petals saying “I think I’ll save Bob, and I’ll send Jim to hell”. No we have FREE WILL!

Don’t stop reading, read the next verse!

Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' Therefore everyone who hears from the Father, and has learned, comes to Me.

What does that mean? Everyone who hears from the Father (studies the scriptures) and has learned, COMES TO ME (Christ)! HOW?

Heb 10:7 Then I said, 'Behold, I have come--In the volume of the book it is written of Me-- To do Your will, O God.' "

The entire Bible is an AUTOBIOGRAPHY of JESUS CHRIST! What happens when you study it? You find out that He (Christ) is your SAVIOR, and you then come to Him to get saved!

Back to John 17. Then guess what He does, He gives it back to the Father, and He says that He HAS NOT lost one, except for him who was prophesied against, who was also unsaved, Judas.

Therefore anyone that has come to Christ has NEVER been lost.