1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Books on Calvinism/Arminianism

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Hardsheller, Oct 22, 2003.

  1. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't want to backpeddle. I have no interest in that at all. I want Hunt to be accurate in his writing. And I want you to see through the charade that Hunt has put forth.

    Quoting people wordperfect is not the issue. Your retort to this issue in the above post shows that your are either being sarcastic or misunderstand the issue. I would like to assume the former. Of course, it is necessary to understand intent. All you need to do to understand that is see what James said about justification in James 2. Intent is everything in communication.


    As a Bible believer, I can assure you that I both understand and properly reflect a biblical position.

    YOu are wrong here as well. I well know the difference.

    Not sure what these questions mean. They don't make much sense. There is no condemning evidence against me. We do disagree on conclusions, but I am not the one who is wrong here.

    But in so doing, he has not been straightforward with them. He has not said about Calvinists what they would say about themselves.

    Doesn't gall me in the least. What galls me is that he is so loose with the truth under the guise of defending it.

    If only people will use them to see how grossly Hunt has twisted this issue.
     
  2. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    PappaBear said:

    You mean when I read a book, it is not the author's specific words, but the intent behind writing them that I have to know?

    You have to know what the author means by his words when he writes them, is the same thing Dave Hunt says he means by them, when Hunt copies them.

    You do this by reading the primary sources rather than believing Dave Hunt.
     
  3. Chet

    Chet New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dave Hunt could quote a Calvinist entire book, and it wouldn't make any difference with Calvinist. They will still claim that Hunt or any non-Calvinist will not understand Calvinism if they disagree with their view. The problem with Calvinist is that the consistently cry that non Calvinist don't understand or we somehow misrepresent their doctrines. This is simply NOT the case. Just because one might disagree with someone does not mean they are misunderstanding their view. Nor does it mean they can’t see the illogical or unbiblical result of such a view.

    If anything, Calvinist does not seem to understand the non-Calvinist view. This was illustrated already by Lorelei in her quote of White. Many times have I been called Arminian and I am not. Nor do I believe in universalism, yet this claim is made by Calvinist as well.
     
  4. PappaBear

    PappaBear New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is very true.

    And that is exactly what Dave Hunt has done. He did not present his book as a "debate" intended to convert Calvinists, but as a warning to non-Cals unfamiliar with Cal behavior.

    Right on the money. I have seen many times the same thing.
     
  5. PappaBear

    PappaBear New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have done much of that and find that Mr. Hunt is much more honest, reliable, and above-board than such as James White. That is why I would recommend his book, if for no other reason, the many, many reliable references and thoroughly researched documentation he supplies with it. It should be required reading and discussion in Bible colleges.
     
  6. PappaBear

    PappaBear New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    I remain unconvinced. I have read your words and you my conclusion is that you are far off-base in the biblical positions department. But perhaps I am merely misreading your intent, which so far has appeared to me a "I'm right because I'm *ME*, I don't need to read his book as long as I read after those who agree with *ME*, and you're wrong simply because you disagree with *ME*" approach.

    [​IMG] As Lorelei has shown, your own words condemn you.

    And I'm sure that Hitler's biographers have often departed from what Hitler would have said about himself, also. Communists were often irritated by "propaganda" that did not repeat what they said about themselves, either.

    Amen and Amen. It is my hope that many will get this book, look up these references and see for themselves just how he has this issue well in hand -- something you have yet to do, I might point out. You have contented yourself with only reading twisted propaganda arguments against Dave Hunt, and repeating false accusations because you have a hard time dealing with truth.
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You should change [​IMG]

    Your conclusion is invalid because it is not based on the facts.

    You are misreading my intent. On this issue, I am right because I am in line with Scripture. Remember, neither you nor I are the authorities. Scripture is. Truth is determined by Scripture. "Me" has nothing to do with it.

    I missed this post. I haven't seen Lorelei say anything that condemned me.

    Apples and oranges. You know better ...

    I haven't repeated anything because I have a hard time dealing with the truth. I had a hard time dealing with it about 10 years ago. In fact, my conversion to the truth about this issue is one of several factors that hastened my departure from the position I then had. While there, I in fact backed away from this position because I was not totally convinced and didn't want to lose my job. But time spent in the word of God left me no other option. Once I put aside my conclusions about what God must do to be fair, I could allow the text to stand on its own. Once I did, the hard times dealing with the truth were gone.

    But that is how I came to that conclusion. If others in good conscience, can come to another, that is between them and God.
     
  8. Lorelei

    Lorelei <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great idea ... Let's look at what it says ... Here is the blurb ...

    Can someone name a Calvinist who believes that free grace is withheld from someone who accepts Christ?? Can someone here name a Calvinist who believes that grace costs something????

    Of course not. Why? Because even this blurb is fighting an enemy that doesn't exist. The blurb itself says what we have all been saying all along. This book misrepresents what Calvinism believes. How can you believe something that cannot get something so simple right???

    Calvinists have alwasy believed that God's free grace is given to all who accept Christ. Why does something so simple have to be so twisted?? Why cannot Hunt (and those who right this blurb) simply address real issues. Say we believe that regeneration precedes faith. That would be an issue that is a real issue. Say we believe that true believers will persevere to the end and not fall away. That would be a real issue. Saying that we don't believe that God's free grace is given to all who accept Christ is simply not a real issue.

    But don't take it from me ... read the customer reviews at the bottom of the page.

    One guy says: "The biblical revelation of redemption leaves no one uninvited" as if we disagree with that. If he knew what he was talking about, he would know that Calvinism believes that all are not only invited, they are commanded to come.

    These types of arguments are simply wrong. When you read these reviews, you will see that what we have said all along is true. There is not one Calvinist who says "Hunt presented what we believe." Why?? Because he didn't. I think Lorelei has done us a great service by pointing out this website, which shows that these views of Hunt's book that I and others have given are not some small conspiracy. They are widespread. Why? Because people who know honestly what Calvinism believes repudiate the methods that Hunt has used.

    [ December 27, 2003, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  10. PappaBear

    PappaBear New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can someone name a Calvinist who believes that free grace is withheld from someone who accepts Christ?? ... Calvinists have alwasy believed that God's free grace is given to all who accept Christ. ... Saying that we don't believe that God's free grace is given to all who accept Christ is simply not a real issue. </font>[/QUOTE]You waste so many words setting up a straw man and then tilting at windmills against it. Can you name a Calvinist who believes that all may accept God's free grace? Or do you redefine "limited atonement"?
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are truly hilarious, Pappa ... I can't believe you actually wrote this. I set up the straw man??? I am not the one who made the comment above.

    Virtually all Calvinists believe that whoever wants to be saved can be. I stop short of saying "all" because I can't speak for every single one of them. But I do point out what most of Calvinism believes. Of course, those who do not want to be saved will not be saved. But whosoever will may certainly come. Calvinism does not deny that.

    As I have pointed out (and you seem so willing to miss), the difference between us and you is not this point of "whosoever will." We both believe that. The difference is, "What makes a person 'will' to come?" Why can you accept that simple difference? Why do you make up a straw man and then expect me to answer it??

    Nope, I believe what standard calvinism believes about the atonement. Primitive baptists (most of whom refuse to be called Calvinists) believe something different, as do hyper calvinists. But most calvinists believe that the atonement was sufficient for all, efficient for the elect. I know you don't agree with that position, and if I recall correctly, you don't understand it. That is fine. But that is standard Calvinist teaching on the atonement. And it is what I believe.

    As I said above, these issues have already been asnwered. You know good and well what the answer are. And if this misdirection is the best you can do to shift the focus away from these clearly wrong statements, than that is truly sad. As I have said many times, you don't have to agree with us. But at least do us and your readers the simple favor of talking about what we actually believe, rather than about what you would like for us to believe, or what you mistakenly think we believe. Is that too hard to expect??
     
  12. PappaBear

    PappaBear New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are one of the very first Calvinists (and so far only one) who has ever agreed that all can be saved, not just the elect. My, my .. will wonders never cease?
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are one of the very first Calvinists (and so far only one) who has ever agreed that all can be saved, not just the elect. My, my .. will wonders never cease? </font>[/QUOTE]Read what I said ... And then read what you said. You just have a hard time with this don't you??? I will put them side by side so you can compare.

    PL: Virtually all Calvinists believe that whoever wants to be saved can be.
    PD: You are one of the very first Calvinists ... who has ever agreed that all can be saved, not just the elect.

    Can you see a difference??? If not, then look again and keep looking until you do. There is a very clear difference, and I specifically reworded your queestion. If you are looking, you will notice that I made no attempt to give a direct answer to the question you asked. Why don't you question me on that? Did you not notice it?? I guarantee you, if I asked you a question and you didn't answer, I would have immediately caught it and pointed it out to you. Why did you miss something like that??

    You notice that I said nothing like what you said. Why can't you, even in this simple little exercise, be straightforward????

    I talk about the "will." You left that part out. I did not agree that a non-elect can be saved. That is simply wrong on your part, and you know it. A non-elect can't be saved. Why? Because he will not come. If you do not know the difference between what I said and what you said, then you certainly know a lot less than what you claim to. I rather think you simply miss these points because you are so intent on your position.

    You will accuse me of a personal attack and you will be wrong. I am tired of your tactics. That is not a personal attack. It is an encouragement to you to reform these ways. You need to do some serious looking at your methods. They are wrong.

    In my very post above, I tell you what some of the real differences between us and you are. Why not deal with those? Why not get over your pride and admit that you are being unethical here in dealing with arguments this way? Do you really think that we are not smart enough to see through your methods?? That type of stuff works on people like Hunt's book is targeted at. Unfortunately, they have not been taught to think through things. And so these little inuendoes and slight changing of words skips them right by.
     
  14. PappaBear

    PappaBear New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    And if you do not know the difference between what "the blurb" said and what you attacked then you are certainly less knowledgable than you think yourself to be. I tend to think you set up these strawmen purposely in order to deflect the argument into your own unethical strategy. IOW, you should "do unto others." Or, in a more colloquial phrasing, "don't dish it out if you can't take it."
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, notice how you did not answer the problem you created by your misrepresentation. You simply deflect the attention by trying to blame me for it.

    Second, look at what the blurb said and what I said. I answered directly what the blurb said. The blurb clearly implied that Calvinism does not believe that free grace is given to all who accept Christ. I specifically and directly answered that charge. If you think the blurb said something else, then please explain what I missed, and use the words of the blurb to show it.

    I can take it. But I don't dish it out. I have made a careful practice of properly representing my opponents. On occasion where one has pointed out an incorrect assumption or a straw man, I have apologized and set it straight. I don't need those types of arguments. I reject them and so should you.

    This little exchange, including your dodging of clear problems in your method, shows that you are so intent on supporting a position that you will do anything at all to support it. You should reject that method. I believe my position is strong enough to be supported without that, and so I refuse to use it. You should make the same refusal.
     
  16. PappaBear

    PappaBear New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    At first you set up a straw man against this statement, indicating that Calvinists do indeed believe that God's grace is free to all who accept Christ. But your emphasis is free grace AFTER acceptance. It took my prodding for you to come up with the following:

    Game/Set/Match. Good night.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, the free grace starts before acceptance. It is indeed what brings acceptance. It continues throughout life. It is free because it does not depend on anything man does to receive it. There is no straw man here that I set up. The straw man was set up by the writer of the blurb who implied that Calvinists do not believe that free grace is given to all who accept Christ. In fact, we do.

    Game/Set/Match. Good night. </font>[/QUOTE]I was saying that long before you came here. You are just a "young pup" on this board. If you took time to look back at all my posts in this forum, you would see a consistent theme and you would see that it took no prodding from you in the least. You know exactly what I believe. You knew it when you asked the question and saw my answer. And in spite of that, you tried to make it look like I believed something else.
     
  18. PappaBear

    PappaBear New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    But you do not believe it as the writer of the "blurb" intended it. That you do not recognize the difference between the blurb statement and your next statement is demonstration of your wholesale lack of ethics.

    No, I drew you out to demonstrate that the "blurb" is perfectly right about you and other Calvinists. You believe God's free grace is only for the elect. You responded as I knew you would. And you are playing like you don't see the difference now.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only thing you or I know about the author's intention is the words that he used. There are very few of them, unlike Hunt's quotes where there are many words that clarify the context. The author of that blurb intended to say that Calvinist's do not believe that God's grace is free to all who accept Jesus. That is patently false. We most certainly do.

    But that fails to demonstrate anything unethical on my part. Nice try at shifting the blame away from you towards someone wholly undeserving of it.

    No, I drew you out to demonstrate that the "blurb" is perfectly right about you and other Calvinists. </font>[/QUOTE]So then demonstrate it. Quit beating around the bush and making accusations. So far, you have in no way shown that a Calvinst does not believe that grace is given to those who accept Christ. You have said that we believe that grace is not given to those who are not elect. We agree with you on that. But that is not what that author said. Had the author said that "Calvinists believe that free grace is given only to the elect," he would have been right. But let me remind you again: That is not what he said.

    His statement is something that Calvinists agree with. Our disagreements lie in areas that he did not address.

    Why not deal with those issues?? Are they not worthy of your time?? Why not focus on the question of why some accept and some do not? That would be much better fodder for discussion and it would be a legitimate point of disagreement.

    And you are right. And that is not incompatible with what the author said. The elect are those who accept Christ. Or to say it another way, those who accept Christ are the elect. Everyone who accepts Christ is part of the elect and they all receive God's free grace. Those who do not accept do not receive God's free grace in salvation. They are not a part of the elect. Now unless you are saying that God's free grace is given to those who don't accept, we don't disagree on that statement. There are people who believe that God's grace is given to those who do not accept. Primitive Baptists typically believe that, and we Calvinists disagree with them about it.

    So the statement is wrong as to its intent. To say that God's free grace is given to the elect is the same thing as saying that God's free grace is given to all who accept. You can look at it this way:

    God's free grace -&gt; elect.
    God's free grace -&gt; those who accept.

    Ergo: Those who accept are the elect.

    You may disagree with our position, but that is what it is, and that is where the author of the blurb was mistaken.

    Please point it out. I am not playing. What difference do you want me to see?? So far, I have given answers to everything you have thrown out here. You have given no answers as to why you twisted my words and claimed that I believed something I do not believe. That was something you did; not me.

    [ December 28, 2003, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  20. PappaBear

    PappaBear New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2002
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
Loading...