What Love is this? By Dave Hunt

You hardly won. You have yet to answer the clear evidence that refutes you. Interstingly enough, I looked at the book again today. Your citation of Hunt on page 2, post 4 is not even a quotation of Hunt is it? Tell us the truth Mike. Who said what quoted there?

If you don't respond to the examples above, we will all know it becuase you can't. You know you can't. You know this review article is dead on. You just don't want to admit it.

 

Hi Larry;

Your friend or professor has misformed you. Actually he doesn't know what he is talking about. Hunt did not include Mr. Douty in the discussion about Augustine and Calvin. Thats where you made the mistake of taking someone else's word for it.
If you had the book you could look at it for your self. So far there has only been one edition and where I buy books they can't keep it on the shelf. What was said about Augustine and Calvin very clearly shows there inconsistantcies in there own beliefs.
By your own admission you learned Calvinism from the Bible and not from Calvin or Augustine. So just how is it you know so much about what they said when you don't believe in the same things they did?
You say this is what Spurgeon said;

But this is what is said in in his autobiography.
"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. " by Charles Spurgeon.
Just because he wrote something else in some other book doesn't mean Dave Hunt is a Liar. Calvin and Augustine both have written and done things that contradict Calvinism.

Vance didn't write Spurgeon's autobiography Spurgeon did. That is where the quote came from.

It's not in my book at the page you described neither was the rest of you false claims. Before you try to claim it's in another edition there is only one.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

Hi Larry;

That's right clear as mud. You have nothing at all Larry you just hate loosing but at least you don't give up like your little friend Whetstone.

Purely laughable accusation as if I care what you and the rest of the Calvinism thinks. It rolls off me, like water off a ducks back. You lost!
May Christ Shine His Light On Us all;
Mike

 

Hi Mike,

Would you care to defend Hunt's assertion that Spurgeon denied Limited Atonement? I say that on this point Hunt is either ignorant or a liar. What do you say?

 

Spurgeon did deny limited atonement

 

Many Calvinists have and do

 

Tis a pang of conscience many of them have that shows the whole system is wrong

 

Would you care to give us a quote from Spurgeon that supports this statement? And this one doesn't count:

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 a limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not allow the thought to find a lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discovers no shore. There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question. Having a Divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the Divine sacrifice. The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering, but does not change it into a finite work.

That's simply a classic statement of the doctrine of limited atonement: unlimited merit, limited (or definite) intent.

 

Pro 10:18 He that hideth hatred [with] lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, [is] a fool.

Pro 12:15 The way of a fool [is] right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel [is] wise.

Pro 13:16 Every prudent [man] dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open [his] folly.

Pro 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

And folks I give you Mike's life verse:

Pro 20:3 [It is] an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling.

Daniel Allen
www.spurgeon.us </font>[/QUOTE]"When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things."

 

Hi Whatever.

This is the quote from Hunt's book "What Love Is This";
"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. I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy. In Christ's finished work I see an ocean of merit; my plummet finds no bottom, my eye discerns no shore. . . . Having a divine Person for an offering, it is not consistent to conceive of limited value; bound and measure are terms inapplicable to the divine sacrifice." 12

If you'll notice the little number at the end of the quote. This is a refference number that at the end of each chapter tells where the quote came from.

Larry claims that Vance wrote this comentary. That is not so. Charles Haddon Spurgeon wrote it in his autobiography. Heres that refference.Spurgeon op.cit. 1:174.

Larry says Spurgeon believed in limited atonement I'd say from the appearance of what I read he preached one thing and believed another.

I've already stated that Dave Hunt could be mistaken. Although being mistaken and being a liar are two different things. Then Larry tries to tell me that Vance wrote that comentary which Spurgeons quote is taken from. I'm sorry but Larry is mistaken. I have the book right here in my hands and because Larry is mistaken he calls Hunt a liar. I will not take the word of Larry because, he has jumped to a false conclusion. Calling a man a liar based upon a mistake is why we should be careful about rushing to judgement and taking someone else word for a truth. It is slander to assault someones character so viciously.
In answer to you question do I feel Dave Hunt is a liar. I do not. The evidence that Larry has provided wouldn't stand up in court. Simply because he has no evidence.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

Yep, that's how Hunt quotes it.

It comes from A Defense of Calvinism, a piece in which Spurgeon is arguing FOR Calvinism--all five points. That quote is taken from Spurgeon's argument FOR limited atonement. Hunt conveniently uses ellipses and cuts his quote short in order to avoid using the parts of the quote that show Spurgeon was arguing that intent of the atonement was limited. Here's the whole quote:

See. He conveniently leave out the part about "if God had so willed" and "The intent of the Divine purpose fixes the application of the infinite offering..."

The very next paragraph in "A Defense of Calvinism" is a thorough fisking of "unlimited atonement". Here's how it starts--it's long, so I'll just quote the first bit, but click on the link to read the whole thing.

It seems Hunt was "quote skimming" instead of reading his sources, which is very poor research technique. Even if the paragraph he quoted from confused him, the very next one leaves no doubt whatsoever.

But don't you find it at least a little suspicious that the two sentences Hunt leaves out of that quote are the ones that define the intent of the atonement?

You'd be hard pressed to find anything at all that suggested Spurgeon believed anything other than that the atonement was limited in intent. Spurgeon is nothing if not consistent.

BTW, Hunt leaves the comments about Spurgeon not believing in limited atonement out of the later editions of the book (and yes, there are at least three)--an admission, I think, that he knows he was wrong.

 

Sorry, that should be two. Two editions of the book. The second leaves out the bit about Spurgeon.

 

The Spurgeon/Limited Atonement issue has gone round and round.

However, what Calvinists have not addressed is Spurgeon's rejection of a central tenet of real Calvinism - that regeneration must precede faith.
Under true Calvinism, faith and belief are an evidence of regeneration, not the cause of regeneration. (see his sermon "Warrant of Faith." )

However, I have no doubt that Spurgeon sincerely believed that he held to some form of Calvinism.
But, in reading his sermons, it is easy to see why he was attacked by the consistent Calvinists of his day.

 

Hi Russel 55;
I suppose it is possible that there are more than one edition although the one they had at the book store this morning must be a first edition. It still has the same quote in it. I haven't seen one with out it so I can't say.
However I read what you claim is the correct quote of Spurgeon and It is that first two sentences that would convince me that he didn't hold to Limited Atonement.
After what you say Dave left out then Spurgeon says this from your own quote;
"to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question."
As I read it, it simply doesn't say he is for Limited Atonement but Against it.
The part "As God wills it" doesn't change what is said. For one thing Spurgeon, (no matter how great you think he is), still doesn't know what God's will is. Not to mention no where in Scripture is the Atonement limited.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

The new edition came out in December of 2004 or thereabouts.

The first two sentences say that the atonement isn't limited in merit. That it is sufficient for all, or even ten worlds worth of "all". Infinite merit sufficient for all is part of the doctrine of limited atonement.

Spurgeon is actually slamming unlimited atonement in this quote, BTW. He believed that universal atonement limited the value of the atonement, because he saw it as saying that the atonement itself was not enough to save. He saw unlimited atonement as a wide bridge partway across the river (Indefinite intent, finite value); whereas limited atonement was a narrower bridge all the way across the river (Definite intent, infinite value.)

Dave Hunt should have known this stuff if he thought he was qualified enough to write a book on the subject.

 

Gee how nice Whetstone, calling another poster a fool--something forbidden by the Lord Jesus. Calvinists cannot long hide their contempt for those who refuse to bow to their warped doctrines of blasphemy.

 

In the book (2002 edition), on page 19, on the seventh line from the top, Hunt says, "Normon F. Douty lists more than seventy Christian leaders who opposed Calvinism, among them such men as Richard Baxter, John Newton, John and Charles Wesldy, John Bunyan, HCG Moule, and others." Look it up. In Douty's list are the names Augustine and Calvin, though Hunt doesn't mention them, or 64 others on the list. Look up the original source and you will find it. Hunt would have you believe that Calvin and Augustine opposed Calvinism. Do you really believe that?

Hunt was wrong. Douty's list was not of "Christian leaders who opposed Calvinism." It was of Christian leaders who believed in unlimited atonement. There is a difference. Hunt was wrong. You can look it up for yourself.

I have the book on my lap right now.

Incorrect. There are two editions. The original was 2002 and the second was 2004. The place where you buy books should have been able to tell you that.

I don't know that much about what they said. I never claimed that I did. The focus here is not on what Augustine and Calvin said, but what on Hunt said. Why do you want to change the subject?

But this is what is said in in his autobiography.
"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. " by Charles Spurgeon.
Just because he wrote something else in some other book doesn't mean Dave Hunt is a Liar.</font>[/QUOTE]Several problems. First, you are incomplete in what you said. Second, the part you left out is not "in some other book." It is in his autobiography. The part you left out is what I quoted above, where he says that To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. You will find that in Spurgeon's Autobiography, Banner of Truth edition, on page 172. The truth is that Hunt misrepresented Spurgeon's belief. You lose on this one.

Perhaps so, but you should inform Lloyd of this. Lloyd (and some others) keep telling us that Calvinism is based on waht Calvin taught. He will be interested to find out that Calvin didn't really teach Calvinism.

Vance didn't write Spurgeon's autobiography Spurgeon did. That is where the quote came from. </font>[/QUOTE]You are confused. It is patently obvious that VAnce didn't write Spurgeon's autobiography. He couldn't have. An autobiography is written by the person it is about. Vance could only write an autobiography about himself, not someone else.

But you are even more confused. The autobiography issue of Spurgeon and the Vance issue are two different issues. Did you really not read very close? Go back and read the initial post I made on this on page one where I demonstrated some erros. The Vance issue is where Hunt cites Vance in support of something that Vance actually denies (the limited atonement quote from Calvin). Go back and read the issue so you don't embarrass yourself further on this. Don't get confused.

It's not in my book at the page you described </font>[/QUOTE]Yes it is. Look at page 1 of this thread, where I cited part of the article from page 111 that says First, in a block quote on p. 211, Hunt inserts an ellipsis to remove words that seem to overturn a portion of his argument. Now, if you will open your book to page 211, you will see the block quote from Robertson at the very top of the page. It is the first thing there. Again, Mike, you have embarrassed yourself by not reading closely. You say you have the book. Look it up.

So far, I have shown every one of my claims to be true, and demonstrated yours are false. Anyone with the book can look it up.

Again, you are wrong. There are two editions. The edition I am referring to is the first one, published in 2002. It is the edition used to write the article I have cited from.

Mike, you just will not win this. If you read the article, and compare the version of hte book that you claim to have, you will see that the article is absolutely right. The question is, Will you be honest enough to admit it?

He has. And he didn't do it through Hunt's book. We have demonstrated loads of problems with teh book that can all be verified very easily if you are willing. Are you?

 

Where did Larry claim this? Please quote the part where Larry claimed that this commentary came form Vance.

So when he said, To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice, he didn't believe that? I am confused with what you are saying here, Mike.

No, you are mistaken, and saying this twice didn't help. I didn't say Vance was the source of that quote. The Vance issue was another issue. You are confused.

I have not asked you to take my word for anything. I gave you the resources, including page numbers precisely so you wouldn't have to take my word for it. You can look it up yourself.

If you study the issue you will find that I have not assaulted anyone's character. Hunt published a book which he knew, or had every reason to know, was inaccurate. That is unethical and dishonest by any standard.

To the contrary. This evidence is rock solid. You can look up what Hunt said, and then look up the original source and find that the two are different. Hunt misrepresented and distorted the original authors. That is unethical and dishonest. He may not have intended to, but he did it. And he was told beforehand that he was doing it, and he did it anyway.

Now, Mike, will you be honest? Will you look up the book and the resources? Or will you continue down this road you are going?