What Love is this? By Dave Hunt

"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

"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 Russel55;

I believe that you interpret this the way you do because of your view of Limited Atonement. As I read it, It plainly doesn't say what you claim. I still don't believe it was Hunt's intention to deceive anyone even in his quote he acknlowledged that he was skipping over some of it by the 4 periods. right where he left out the parts you have told us about. I certainly understood that's what he was doing, I do it my self sometimes, So do Calvinist.

I have no reason to see things through a Calvinist eyes. I don't believe in Calvinism. Am I qualified to Deny it as truth? Yes I am. It's called discernment. No man should just accept something based on the testimony of man alone. Limited Atonement isn't even in scripture it isn't implied or even suggested. The thought is totally mans own idea of doctrine. The same is true of all the tulip.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

So Mike, will you admit your were wrong and admit that you falsely charged me with false statements? After all, I have done exactly what you asked ... I have proven to you from the book that Hunt was wreong, that he misrepresented and distorted people's positions.

Are you just going to bail out because you have no answer to the clearly demonstrated problems? Will you not be honest enough to admit your error and admit that I was right?

 

Hi Larry;
I will not lie for you. I don't care what you call me or accuse me of. God knows the truth and I'm at rest with that.
May Christ Shine His Light On us All;
Mike

 

Hmmm...I think it's because I've read lots of different explanations of the doctrine of limited atonement, so I recognize a classic one when I see it.

I didn't say that Hunt had to see things through Calvinist eyes, or believe Calvinism in order to write about it. Just that he ought to understand what it is well enough that he doesn't mistake a classic explanation of limited atonement as a denial of it.

 

Far to the contrary, I am begging you to be honest.

I haven't called you anything, I don't think. I have pointed out that you have not told the truth about the issue at hand. I have given specific references.

Yes indeed, but you should not be comfortable with that at all. You said things that weren't true.

1. You said no one has ever given page numbers and examples of Hunt's misrepresentations and distortions. Yet, I had done that, and had posted an article that had documented it very well.

2. You said that I was making false claims against Hunt's book. Yet I have documented everything I have said about it, showing clearly that they are not false.

3. You said I attributed a quote of Spurgeon to Vance. Yet I clearly did not. The quote of Spurgeon came from his autobiography. The issue of Vance dealt with a quote of Calvin.

I could list more problems, but here are three specific examples where you did not tell the truth. Are you comfortable to leave it that way? Will you be honest enough to admit that you were wrong? Which will it be?

He has, and he expects us to be honest about what people believe and say. I have been. Now, will you be? Will you live as one who walks in the light should live? Will you be honest enough to repent of your false statements and correct them?

 

Larry;

I am Honest Your the one with the honesty problem. You lost

 

If so, then explain your statement that I attributed a quote of Spurgeon to Vance. You could (if you were right) give a link and show the quote where I attributed a quote of Spurgeon to Vance. Will you provide the evidence? Or will you admit your were not telling the truth? Or you could take your present route of ignoring it and hoping it will go away. Which will you do?

If you are honest, then explain your statement that no Calvinist has ever shown the problems with page numbers in Hunts' book. The article I referenced was from the Fall of 2003, some two years before you made this statement. Other Calvinists, such as James White, have been providing errors with page numbers before that. The question here for you is not whether you agreee with the theology of these men. But it is simply a false statement to say that no Calvinist had given problems and page numbers. You were not telling the truth. Will you admit that you were wrong? Or will you ignore it?

If you are honest, then explain your assertion that I made false charges against Hunt's book. You have the book. You can sit down and see that everything I said was true. You in fact said that the issue of page 219 was't there. YOu had the book and had supposedly looked at it. Yet I pulled the book and opened to page 219 and low and behold, there it was. You denied (in some wierd convulted way) the Douty issue of p. 19. But I open the book to p. 19 and there, seven lines from the top, is the very quote that you said wasn't there. Now, what will your response be? Accuse me of dishonesty? I have proven everything I claimed. I have the book on my desk. I have seen the evidence (much to your dismay) and now you have been caught red-handed. What will you do? Admit your errors and apologize for them? Or will you just ignore them and hope they go away?

These are just three of many places I could question. In each case, you made a statement or assertion that is demonstrably not true.

Show a place where I was dishonest.

Lost what? There is nothing to lose here. You were wrong from the beginning. This was not even debatable.

 

Pastor Larry,

This comes from a different source and Mike is not the character originally associated with the text.... but it fits. Please forgive the CAPITALIZATION... that is the way it was copied....

"ARGUING WITH A MIKE IS LIKE WRESTLING WITH A PIG IN MUD, AFTER A FEW MINUTES YOU DISCOVER THE PIG ENJOYS IT"

 

Hi everyone;
The true character of a few Calvinist has shown through. If you can't convince someone by your explanation of your view then by all means insult them, revile them. Do your best to defame them. I haven't seen any where in scripture where is says to do so unto others when they disagree with you.Yet most of you do.
What a christian attitude to have. Very hateful indeed
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

Mike,

If you are talking about the pig in mud quote as being an insult..... you are rather thin skinned. Originally it was said of me, and I took it as a badge of honor.... All it is saying is that you love arguing.... and I think your posts already prove that. I have been a member for some time and have relatively few posts because for the most part I thought it pointless. Now, I am beginning to enjoy it. My turn to be the pig....

Now as far as this particular post I don't have a dog in the hunt. I have not read the book and probably won't ever. So I have not commented. I have read some of Hunts writings and don't hold him in high esteem. His proclamation that Alcoholics Anonimous is a demonic cult.... was enough to keep me from taking him too serious.

Anyway, your sensitivity to my remarks makes me think that you know your stand in this is shakey at best......

 

So Mike, how does this idea of beign a Christian fit into your distortions and false charges you have made against me and others? Here in this thread, you have not been honest. You have said things that aren't true, and have been proven clearly wrong. Are you honest enough to admit that you were wrong?

 

Larry;
Right back at you;
So Larry, how does this idea of being a Christian fit into your distortions and false charges you have made against me and others? Here in this thread, you have not been honest. You have said things that aren't true, and have been proven clearly wrong. Are you honest enough to admit that you were wrong?
Mike

 

I stand by my challenge for you to show a place where I have been wrong (besides the typo about Acts 13:36 that should have read 48). Show a place where I have misrepresented or distorted. Make sure it is clear (not just a difference in interpretation) and make sure you document it. If you show a place where I distorted or made false charges, or have not been honest, then I will certainly apologize for it. Be aware that you have tried this before and failed, and be aware that I won't hesitate to point it out. Remember Mike, in your history here, you have yet to win something like this. Everytime you fail because it turns out that I didn't actually do what you charge me with doing. I don't know that you really want to go after it now. After all, if you had proof of my false charges or distortions, you would have pointed them out by now, just like I have done with you.

As it stands, there are currently three false charges on the table that you are unwilling to deal with. Here they are from the last page. Deal with them.

1. You said no one has ever given page numbers and examples of Hunt's misrepresentations and distortions. Yet, I had done that, and had posted an article that had documented it very well.

2. You said that I was making false claims against Hunt's book. Yet I have documented everything I have said about it, showing clearly that they are not false.

3. You said I attributed a quote of Spurgeon to Vance. Yet I clearly did not. The quote of Spurgeon came from his autobiography. The issue of Vance dealt with a quote of Calvin.

In the end, your attempt to shift blame or play the "he did it too" game doesn't answer your problems. YOu made clearly wrong statements about me and others. Will you do the right thing and admit it, or will you keep stalling?

 

Here is a quote from Mr. Hunt. Is it right or wrong? Let's forget the other players 'Biblical interpreters/theologians and focus on the Word of God. Here is Hunt's statement:

'Paul proclaimed to audiences, "We declare unto you [all of you] glad tidings . . . ." (Acts 13:32). The "glad tidings" of the gospel which Paul preached echoed what the angel of the Lord had said to the shepherds at the time of Christ's birth: "I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people . . . " (Luke 2:10). These tidings of great joy concerned the fact that "the Savior of the world" (Luke 2:11; John 4:42) had been born.' Taken from page 30 on the book, "What Love Is This?"

No Biblical interpreter has the right to add to the Word of God as Christ seals to our minds and hearts in Revelation 22:18-19.

It is wrong to say 'all kinds of people' like in various nations, because this is adding to the Word of God. Unfortunately, as we spread the Gospel we have people who place limitations on what Jesus has told us in His Word.

The grace of Jesus is able to reach any lost soul in this old, sinful world, contrary to what other people say. To me, and believers like me, only want to know what the Lord has to say to us and toward other people who are not yet in the new life in Christ.

Oh, by the way, Mr. Hunt is standing on the promises of the Bible, a real good place to stand!

Berrian, Th.D.

 

Several problems here, Ray. The fact that you want to ignore Hunt's unethical behavior in writing this book doesn ot avoid the issue. And the fact that Hunt may have said something correct does not absolve for all of his problems. As I and others have clearly demonstrated, Hunt was unethical in his book, and it is disturbing to me that you, claiming to be a Christian, want to defend that. Why would you? Why would you not take the side of integrity and truth?

I am not aware of many who disagree with that. I certainly know none who disagree with that. That is not the issue at hand.

Absolutely correct, which brings out a major problem with Hunt's book, illusrated on page 112 and 113 of the review article. Why don't you deal with Hunt's addition to Scripture there and give us an explanation of it.

No it's not. This type of statement shows the low level of through going on here. It is only "adding" if it was not what was intended to begin with. You have started with your conclusion and assume that it must be right. However, we have shown places where you are wrong, or where the position you hold is wrong. You cannot confuse assertion with argumentation or proof.

Who says differently? To my knowledge, I have seen no one say that the grace of Jesus is unable to reach any lost soul. I think we all agree that grace can reach anyone. That is not the question. You guys keep avoiding the issue, and I don't blame you ... it doesn't look good for you.

In a few places he is, but certainly not in others. Hunt's book is clearly a bad book, and only the most naive could be taken in by it after the amount of exposure it has received. No person who has studied the issues honestly can take Hunt's book seriously.

I can't help but notice that Mike still refuses to right his wrongs. He simply wants to ignore it. That is shameful.

 

Though Hunt's book, like any polemical book (including Sproul's, Piper's etc,) has flaws, and we cannot take it seriously, could the Calvinists on this board recommend a "good" non-Calvinist book that refutes Calvinism? Or adequately defends "Arminianism?"

I have never seen a Calvinist recommend any non-Calvinist book that they think both accurately represents and, at the same time, rejects Calvinism.

If Hunt's no good, who can folks read for a fair and balanced refutation of Calvinism? What about Shank? Lightner? Fisk? Geisler? Bryson? Wesley? Olson? Pinnock? Arminius himself?

Does "Arminianism" have no adequate defenders?
It's pretty hard to debate Calvinists with any level of intellectual honesty who will not concede that there are any adequately versed opponents.

 

I have never met a full-fledged Calvinist or Arminianist. Not one of them live such a life. I have met plenty of Calvinists who wonder if they are going to heaven. I have met a number of other who believe you can lose your salvation.

Both Calvin and Arminius were wrong. So why should we waste time following them when we have a Bible and can read what God inspired.

Even Calvin in his Institues prclaims that if he is taken to far it leads to problems. It seems to me that many so called Calvinists stretch the points much further than Calvin did.

 

Larry;

Well I hope your wore good shoes, I wouldn't want your corns to hurt you.
I have proved you wrong. It isn't my problem if you can't comprehend it. Maybe it's because you just flat refuse to see it. Your wrong and dishonest in saying you didn't see it. The fact is you just hate loosing. You lost! oh no just what are you going to do now?
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike